Old 10-12-06, 11:06 AM
  #40  
krazygluon
Mad scientist w/a wrench
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chucktown
Posts: 760

Bikes: none working atm

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think I'll wind up permaclyde, lets see if we can compute it from my latest measurement:

233lbs, 27% bodyfat (electronic scale)

.27*233 = ~63lbs of fat or 170lbs of the rest of me...now since 27% is almost 30%, and 1/3 of 30% is 10% we could say I'd have about 20lbs of fat at 10%, making me 190. (approximately)

otherwise we say that X is my fat mass at 10%, X/170+X = 0.1 and solve for x. this yields 18.8 lbs.
so either way I'd be 10lbs shy of being a clyde if I JUST lost fat. (sadly I did the algebraic part before the approximation because I just don't trust my ability to approximate)


but knowing that my arms look like spaghetti and I can only bench about 90. (meanwhile I leg-press something ridiculously high, like enough to max out most of those multipurpose weight machines without much strain) I know I've got some muscle mass to gain before I'll be happy.

The catch is if I gain say, 5lbs of muscle that increases my body mass, subsequently increasing the mass of bodyfat that's considered within 10%. somewhere around 8lbs the calculations say I'm both extremely fit and clyde. since I probably won't break 12-15% unless I start eating steam for 2/3 of my meals, I think I can still safely say I'm able to be a fit clyde.
krazygluon is offline