[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Given how passionate some clearly get over these calculations and conclusions, this leads me to suspect that the appeal “Butt’s Ceiling” clearly has for many is not from dispassionate scientific analysis, but from satisfying some emotional need.
Hey Bill. After reading your thoughts on the differences in bf% calculations wouldn’t it be ok to assume that there could be a few holes to punch in this “max limit calculator” thing?
Absolutely.
Take for example the pic above of Thibaudeau at a measured (by some method) 7.5%, at 208 and 5’8".
Now the point you’re raising brings us to ask, Is the above condition always going to be called or measured as “7.5”? Clearly not.
If it was DEXA, then that value is the best measurement we now know how to make. If it was skinfold, then it may be quite a bit off from reality, and it may be quite a bit different than what would be obtained by using even a different calculator program that is supposedly using the same equation (see other thread.)
For sure, the individuals Mr Butts used in his analysis were not measured by DEXA, and were not measured by skinfold either let alone calculated by the Jackson-Pollock equation or any equation that was used for Coach Thibaudeau.
It is an interesting exercise to plug CT’s numbers into Butt’s calculator: http://www.weightrainer.net/bodypred.html
Now, I don’t have Thibs’ measurements for wrist or ankle. So as a first guess I plugged in my own: 7.25" and 8.5".
With this, the calculator says that Thibaudeau’s natural limit is, supposedly:
Chest 46.4" (note, this will refer to normal not expanded, and with no lat flare)
Neck: 16.7"
Biceps: 17.1"
Forearms: 13.7"
Thighs: 24.1"
Calves: 16.1"
and hold on now (as if the above didn’t already get you):
Weight at -7.5% bodyfat: 182 lb.
Now, it is true that I might have hexed Thibs by putting in my measurements for wrist and ankle, as I am a small-framed guy (wrists were only either 6.25" before training, don’t know about ankle, rib cage is small, etc.) So let’s try a more rugged 8" wrist and, I dunno, 9.25" ankle:
Chest: 48.7
Neck: 17.5
Biceps: 18
Forearms: 14.4
Forearms: 13.7
Thighs: 25.1
Calves: 16.8
Weight at -7.5% bodyfat: 190
Well this is at least more reasonable.
I had a discussion on one of these threads with Casey Butt in which I said that if, as he says, he is deriving his weight prediction from individuals such as Steve Reeves, then the waist and hips are unusually small relative to all the other proportions, and this would reduce weight considerably. An individual with the same chest, arm, and leg measurements but with a less extremely small waist and hip structure would weigh more than his calculator says.
He agreed.
On the leg measurements, there is a different aesthetic and a different goal today. I expect that if Reeves were training naturally today, rather than being satisfied with his thigh measurement, for example, he’d be feeling that it sucked and would be aiming for more. And who is to say that he, or the other Golden Agers, wouldn’t have gotten it.
Add in the fact that not many men were competing in bb’ing in those days, thus giving a small sample size, and the fact as Professor X points out that the naturally biggest and strongest guys even today are not particularly likely to go into bodybuilding but will gravitate towards more profitable sports, and what you have here is a general guide for what is likely – not factually, but likely – to represent what would be very good or excellent accomplishment for most individuals.
But as a limit period, that is ridiculous. And Mr Butt himself acknowledged that there would be outliers.
It really is those that cite him that are all screwed up with this, so far as I can tell, not Casey Butt himself.
And as you say above, the interpretation of “percent bodyfat” is relevant as well. If someone calls the above “7.5%,” then yeah, it is rare for someone of Thib’s height – and not having a big hip structure and relatively thick waist – to be over say 190 in that condition.
But if you interpret 7.5% as meaning moderately cut, and it is very possible to have measurements calculating to 7.5% when no sharper than that, then it’s quite common.
[/quote]
Is there another poster on this entire board that rivals Thib’s stats natural tho? 5’9" and 210-215 @ 7.5% bodyfat??? I think I know the answer.
