Excess skin removal is a major surgery. And no respectable doctor would perform that surgery so soon after the weight loss. I don't know how long he would need to maintain the weight loss before someone would do it, but I would be surprised he could get it done within a year.

haha wanna bet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5yPVUF2bzQ

No way he looks 5.8% but there ya go. I'd have the Gibbler's at pretty big dogs but still an interesting prop bet.

Endboss Perkins with the broscience trap. #soseeeek

After hearing about the new prop bet I thought it was cool and surely doable. Then I started googling dexa scan results and now I think it's "impossible" It's gonna be interesting one, definitely rooting for the guys.

I wonder how likely you are to angle after posting a 12 year old picture

Stipulation said "no steroids" but mentioned nothing about prescription drugs which are known to decrease bodyfat. Asthma inhalers and injections have been very popular for cutting fat while preserving muscle. Ritalin would be good to cut the weight off but tends to be catabolic.

Here's a vid with a guy going through the DEXA scan results of a dozen different guys with pics / videos / commentary. Really highlights the variability of the dexa machines, some of which make hardly any sense when compared to each other. Some guys look positively shredded with DEXA results in the 12% range. I mean, look at the Jamie guy at 4:44 of the video; about as lean as you'd think is even possible and he scanned at 10.8%, and even the video host guy was like 'that makes no sense, he looks way leaner'. And the dude at 5:20 is nowhere near as lean and measured 8.4%. No idea whether it's individual genetics, different machine types or what...but DEXAs can still be all over the map it seems.

Great video actually, and it's especially relevant since all the guys in the video are natural competitors (no I won't get into that ****ing ****storm of a discussion, for all purposes here they are drug free). Those results are wildly all over the place

The first propbet was very fun to folllow because it really was something VERY hard to do and nobody knew if they could do it but this one? piece of cake, it wont be fun at all.

Why do i say pece of cake and wont be fun to sweat? Because Matt staples is risking 25k.
That kid is the biggest nit in the entire world, and thats not an insult, i like him. Im just saying 25k means the world to him, and he wouldnt risk it unless he wasnt 100% sure
this could be done.

Yes it'd be hard work for the both of them but they will do it, not a doubt in my mind

lol +1, thread did not disappoint

gl jamie and good on bill for giving people these opportunities and extra incentive to change their lives in a positive way.

based on the previous video posted this bet should be void, results changing a lot depending on the manufacturer of the machine and stuff like that, this is ******ed

also wtf Loctus saying that everyone presented was a natural competitor, I am guessing you were being sarcastic

McGregor=Obviously natty
Alberto Nunez=Natty competitor
Mischa Janiec=Natty competitor
Rob Lipsett=Not a competitor, claims natty, no reason to think he isn't
Steve Cook=Used to compete as a natty bber, now does MP, could be a drug user but who knows
Ripped model guy=No clue
Jeff Nippard=Natty competitor
Greg Oghallager/Kinobody=Same as Lipsett
Dude making the video=No clue

..Problem? I added the text in the paranthesis because I know this stuff causes a ****storm from people but the fact remains that the majority of the people in the video are natty competitors. If you choose to think they all still use a bunch of drugs and just cheat every drug test they've taken then that's up to you, they are still natty competitors.

yeah well I guess if they say they're natural there is 0% chance they're lying, people don't lie on the internet

It has been confirmed that MMA and Indoor Chinese Checkers are the only ‘roid free sports in the world.

For competitors it's not just about what they say, it's about actual drug tests that they pass. Which is why I jotted down competitor for those it applies to. I'm not even making a judgement, I'm simply stating the ones who are drug-test-passing competitors (Janiec, Nunez, Nippard, McGregor, Cook), thus making them NATURAL COMPETITORS. What you or anyone else, or the actual reality of potential drug use is, doesn't change that.

In case you didn't notice and want me to make it really ****ing easy: I didn't write "natural", I wrote "natural competitor"

Stop taking the bait, Loctus

The natty debate is moot here anyway -- all the video serves to do really is match pics of actual dudes to what their DEXA scans said so that ppl can get a sense of what sub-10% DEXA actually means / looks like (moreover highlights the machine variance.) Let's leave natty debate for some other time.

If I were the Staples bros, in addition to obviously putting in the work to get lean, I'd:

• Get a DEXA scan now to know where I'm at
• A handful of times between now and the wager end date book DEXA scans at like 5 different facilities, and go to them all back to back to ascertain whether one machine consistently measures lower than the rest, since bet terms say wager must be settled with results of 1 DEXA scan on (not before) a specific date of 3/25/19. At a cost of about $75 / scan, that's $750 for both of them to do this 5-scan comparison -- I'd probably do it 5 times over the year, a more than worthwhile $3,750 investment imo.
• Use at least 1 or 2 of those 5-scan comparison days to field-test how my scan results change if I manipulate food/water prior to the scan (based on what my dexa tech friend tells me, it should allow you to bring your scan result down 0.5% - 1.0% if the machine registers it as LBM.)
• Get / pay for expert input on which way the skin-fold issue cuts...it's a true wild card.

IMO kinda crazy for both parties to lock in this bet without an initial DEXA scan to see where they're at (moreover they should have done the initial scan, and then written into terms of bet that end-scan must be done on same machine).

Some info on the skin fold therapy (panniculectomy?) from brief googling:

• Every site I've read said that you shouldn't get the surgery until your new weight has stabilized for a while, some sites saying months but many say a year or more. IOW, Jamie may not even be a candidate for the surgery.
• Procedure takes a few hours under general anesthesia; exercise a no-go for at least 6 weeks afterwards. (If there are complications, much longer than that obv.) May eat into the wager time significantly.
• Usually costs $8K - $10K.
• Googling for 'Dexa' + 'loose skin', i found (1, 2, 3) several posts from people who were curious about the same thing: what excess skin after big weight loss did to their BF%, so they got DEXA, and all of them seemed to be of the opinion that DEXA for whatever reason didn't register the loose skin as fat / i.e. their scanned bf% was more or less in line with what you'd expect if the sagging skin simply weren't there. Seems to work in Jamie's favor.

nice posts @monorail

There is zero chance he will do this. He may as well dip the 50k in Chocolate and eat it now..

Maybe they could show up with 10 kilos of jewellery

Or in a suit of armour

Is there a big health advantage to being <10% dexa as opposed to, say, 17% or so? I tried to Google a graph of body fat vs mortality and this was surprisingly tough to find. I'm currently in the 20s and need to cut, but wondering if going all the way to 10 is good for health in a substantial way, or mostly just vanity.

Sub-10% is where you're likely starting to increase mortality. A couple percentage points higher (for a man) is where you're going to want to be for optimal over-all health really. Or rather, it's not that 14% bodyfat is super healthy, but rather that extremes in either direction going from there is unhealthy.

Pokershares has:

Brothers will fail at 4.2
Brothers will succeed at 1.21

From what I understand Fedor always fought in a league with no testing. Fedor and most likely the other fighter never had to go thru USADA testing so that's not relevant at all.