Comparing pictures in which people aren't flexing to ones
by tdiddy07 (2017-04-12 11:10:11)
Edited on 2017-04-12 11:27:15
[ cannot delete ]   [ Edit ]   [ Return to Rock's House ]   [ Show All Thread ]   [ Ignore Poster ]   [ Report Post ]   [ Highlight Poster ]   [ Reply ]

  In reply to: Has anyone seen the before/after photos on twitter? If so,  posted by nedryerson

in which they are, especially when the after photos have noticeably more contrast in the background of the images. Of those, Coney is the only one that seems to me to be clearly bigger even adjusting for flexing. Of course his after photo is extremely zoomed in compared to the others. But he didn't post his after weight numbers to compare.

So we're left with numbers to compare for two of the four. One had body fat go up, one had it go down. In both, they effectively put on muscle. That's obviously one positive thing that can translate to football performance. But without 40 and 10 numbers, it's premature to see if it actually means better football.

And yeah, there's no way the vertical improvement numbers are legit. I would put no stock in purported 11 inch improvements (totally bogus) or even a 5 inch improvement over that span. Could there actually be a small improvement there? Sure. But given that these were clearly gamed, how could we tell? And I'm not seeing any calf muscle growth on those two guys. (Edit: Of course, for McKinley, if he's recovering from a broken leg, that seems a good reason why his vertical is considerably greater from 3 months after the injury to 7.)


The contents of this post represent the views of the author. is not responsible for its contents.