How Big Can You Get Naturally?

Training Bodybuilding
281

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Guardian58 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Before Leroy Colbert did it, everyone was convinced that NO ONE on the planet could build muscular arms over 18" without drugs. This was considered fact before the 1960’s. Until records are broken at Olympic events, everyone is always convinced that no one can do better. I imagine the ones who actually end up doing better are not a part of that group.

[/thread]

That’s a poor example. We’re going on 60+ years of bodybuilding now and as Butt notes, the best natural guys today aren’t any bigger than the guys of then.

I agree that once some barriers are broken that some think they can’t. However they tend to get broken once more people are involved in a particular sport, thus increasing the genetic pool of those involved and generally increasing the bar. But in this case, we’ve seen the bar. Might there be a genetic anomaly now and then? Sure. But that wasn’t Casey’s point. He was talking about the AVERAGE genetic trainer. And people who think they are going to be pro bodybuilder size naturally in lean condition are living in fantasy land.

I’m sorry, but who gives a shit about Casey Butt’s point on anything?

Regardless of how much time has passed, guys who are genetically above average in terms of muscle mass and strength tend to go for career choices that are more lucrative than bodybuilding…making whatever point you thought was the basis of your argument irrelevant.

If you exclude football players, hockey players or any other sport that actually PAYS from your concern about muscular limits, you are not a scientist. You are simply some guy whp is pissed because there are people bigger than him.[/quote]

Don’t forget dentists. I understand there are some huge mo-fos that go to dental school…

I can’t believe this thread has been revived and that almost half the posts are from today. Really, what is the point of trying to prove an upper limit to natural size. Sure I may not reach or surpass it where I am in life, but what good does it do me to tell other people they’re limited in what they can achieve? Why piss on someone else’s ambitions?

If you tell yourself you can only reach a certain point, then that’s all you’ll accomplish.

282

[quote]Guardian58 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Let’s have a clarification here on what you mean by “7-8%” bodyfat.

Do you mean, same as in Thibaudeau’s picture above?

I am aware that he had a calculation done that gave a figure of 7.5%, but myself I call that condition about 5.5%. And a lot of people have been measured quite a bit smoother than that at your value of 7-8%.

If Thib says it’s 7.5 then you can’t call it 5 and it’s 5. Second, water retention can make a guy that is 5% look like he’s closer to 10% and a really dry 8% guy can look like he’s 5%. But the point is, you should be able to look at a guy and tell if he’s at 10% or below.

Makes a substantial difference.

It needs to be kept in mind that in most cases people do NOT have actual measurements of bodyfat itself. Neither underwater weighing nor any skinfold method is greatly accurate.

It’s a lot harder to be 215 in the above condition at that height than it is to be, in fact, a measured 8% at 215 where that happens to be a lot smoother.

I have met plenty of guys that were around 215 at about that height at what I call about 8%, and which likely actually could be measured as such.

(What is my basis for calling things such and such? Because in the past I’ve measured a lot of people and so am not terrible at guessing from appearance what skinfold measurement would calculate to.)

I don’t think you have met “plenty” of 5’9" natural guys that are 215 @ 8%. I’ve been in this game 20 years and I’m telling you that you flat out haven’t. I asked for 1 guy on this whole site that meets that criteria NATURALLY and I don’t think anyone is coming forward.

The only other guy I can think of that claims to be natural right off the bat that fits that criteria is Skip LaCour who is 5’10" and weighs around 215 in contest condition now. So you’ve met a bunch of natural guys that rival Skip LaCour? Sorry. Bullshit.[/quote]

Jiminy Fuckin’ Christmas. Are you kidding me? You ask for anyone who has met the criteria of surpassing the butthead ceiling, and Bill Roberts provides some people he knows. what do you do? you call him a liar. Why the fuck would anyone want to answer your call out if all your gonna do is call them a liar? That’s the stupidest shit I’ve seen.

283

With this whole genetic ceiling thing, why not just keep pushing and striving til you stop improving (unlikely), that way even if you never reach your max potential then you can look back and say “I worked like a maniac in the time I had”.

284

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Guardian58 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Before Leroy Colbert did it, everyone was convinced that NO ONE on the planet could build muscular arms over 18" without drugs. This was considered fact before the 1960’s. Until records are broken at Olympic events, everyone is always convinced that no one can do better. I imagine the ones who actually end up doing better are not a part of that group.

[/thread]

That’s a poor example. We’re going on 60+ years of bodybuilding now and as Butt notes, the best natural guys today aren’t any bigger than the guys of then.

I agree that once some barriers are broken that some think they can’t. However they tend to get broken once more people are involved in a particular sport, thus increasing the genetic pool of those involved and generally increasing the bar. But in this case, we’ve seen the bar. Might there be a genetic anomaly now and then? Sure. But that wasn’t Casey’s point. He was talking about the AVERAGE genetic trainer. And people who think they are going to be pro bodybuilder size naturally in lean condition are living in fantasy land.

I’m sorry, but who gives a shit about Casey Butt’s point on anything?

Regardless of how much time has passed, guys who are genetically above average in terms of muscle mass and strength tend to go for career choices that are more lucrative than bodybuilding…making whatever point you thought was the basis of your argument irrelevant.

If you exclude football players, hockey players or any other sport that actually PAYS from your concern about muscular limits, you are not a scientist. You are simply some guy whp is pissed because there are people bigger than him.

Don’t forget dentists. I understand there are some huge mo-fos that go to dental school…

I can’t believe this thread has been revived and that almost half the posts are from today. Really, what is the point of trying to prove an upper limit to natural size. Sure I may not reach or surpass it where I am in life, but what good does it do me to tell other people they’re limited in what they can achieve? Why piss on someone else’s ambitions?

If you tell yourself you can only reach a certain point, then that’s all you’ll accomplish.[/quote]

And if you constantly tell yourself you can do shit you can’t you’ll grind away unproductive years doing unproductive shit.

Anyone who thinks they can be 250 ripped at 5’10" is going to do some really stupid shit. Like bulk up to 300 pounds possibly, then figure out after a year of dieting that he barely gained any real muscle mass and could have made the same gains in lean mass had he stayed relatively lean.

I know this from experience. Ceilings exist. The fact is, when you understand your ceiling you will make better gains and then a lot of times exceed that barrier because you pursue a real goal. A “real” goal being something that is attainable. I think I can possibly hit a 700 deadlift in the next 5 years but for now, I am chasing 650. I can’t deadlift 700 without being strong enough to hit 650 FIRST. You aren’t going to be 250 ripped if you can’t even hit 200 ripped. And then 210, and then 215 and 220. It’s like some guy talking about how he’s going to climb everest when he’s been rock climbing in Colorado. He has no reference point as to how hard that is, so he thinks it’s easy.

285

[quote]donovanbrambila wrote:
Guardian58 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Let’s have a clarification here on what you mean by “7-8%” bodyfat.

Do you mean, same as in Thibaudeau’s picture above?

I am aware that he had a calculation done that gave a figure of 7.5%, but myself I call that condition about 5.5%. And a lot of people have been measured quite a bit smoother than that at your value of 7-8%.

If Thib says it’s 7.5 then you can’t call it 5 and it’s 5. Second, water retention can make a guy that is 5% look like he’s closer to 10% and a really dry 8% guy can look like he’s 5%. But the point is, you should be able to look at a guy and tell if he’s at 10% or below.

Makes a substantial difference.

It needs to be kept in mind that in most cases people do NOT have actual measurements of bodyfat itself. Neither underwater weighing nor any skinfold method is greatly accurate.

It’s a lot harder to be 215 in the above condition at that height than it is to be, in fact, a measured 8% at 215 where that happens to be a lot smoother.

I have met plenty of guys that were around 215 at about that height at what I call about 8%, and which likely actually could be measured as such.

(What is my basis for calling things such and such? Because in the past I’ve measured a lot of people and so am not terrible at guessing from appearance what skinfold measurement would calculate to.)

I don’t think you have met “plenty” of 5’9" natural guys that are 215 @ 8%. I’ve been in this game 20 years and I’m telling you that you flat out haven’t. I asked for 1 guy on this whole site that meets that criteria NATURALLY and I don’t think anyone is coming forward.

The only other guy I can think of that claims to be natural right off the bat that fits that criteria is Skip LaCour who is 5’10" and weighs around 215 in contest condition now. So you’ve met a bunch of natural guys that rival Skip LaCour? Sorry. Bullshit.

Jiminy Fuckin’ Christmas. Are you kidding me? You ask for anyone who has met the criteria of surpassing the butthead ceiling, and Bill Roberts provides some people he knows. what do you do? you call him a liar. Why the fuck would anyone want to answer your call out if all your gonna do is call them a liar? That’s the stupidest shit I’ve seen.

[/quote]

Who has he fucking met? He said “PLENTY”. Wow! PLENTY! So he knows LOTS of guys walking around that look like Thibs. When you walk into your gym, how many guys do you see that are natural that look like Thibs.

Do tell.

286

[quote]Guardian58 wrote:
donovanbrambila wrote:
Guardian58 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Let’s have a clarification here on what you mean by “7-8%” bodyfat.

Do you mean, same as in Thibaudeau’s picture above?

I am aware that he had a calculation done that gave a figure of 7.5%, but myself I call that condition about 5.5%. And a lot of people have been measured quite a bit smoother than that at your value of 7-8%.

If Thib says it’s 7.5 then you can’t call it 5 and it’s 5. Second, water retention can make a guy that is 5% look like he’s closer to 10% and a really dry 8% guy can look like he’s 5%. But the point is, you should be able to look at a guy and tell if he’s at 10% or below.

Makes a substantial difference.

It needs to be kept in mind that in most cases people do NOT have actual measurements of bodyfat itself. Neither underwater weighing nor any skinfold method is greatly accurate.

It’s a lot harder to be 215 in the above condition at that height than it is to be, in fact, a measured 8% at 215 where that happens to be a lot smoother.

I have met plenty of guys that were around 215 at about that height at what I call about 8%, and which likely actually could be measured as such.

(What is my basis for calling things such and such? Because in the past I’ve measured a lot of people and so am not terrible at guessing from appearance what skinfold measurement would calculate to.)

I don’t think you have met “plenty” of 5’9" natural guys that are 215 @ 8%. I’ve been in this game 20 years and I’m telling you that you flat out haven’t. I asked for 1 guy on this whole site that meets that criteria NATURALLY and I don’t think anyone is coming forward.

The only other guy I can think of that claims to be natural right off the bat that fits that criteria is Skip LaCour who is 5’10" and weighs around 215 in contest condition now. So you’ve met a bunch of natural guys that rival Skip LaCour? Sorry. Bullshit.

Jiminy Fuckin’ Christmas. Are you kidding me? You ask for anyone who has met the criteria of surpassing the butthead ceiling, and Bill Roberts provides some people he knows. what do you do? you call him a liar. Why the fuck would anyone want to answer your call out if all your gonna do is call them a liar? That’s the stupidest shit I’ve seen.

Who has he fucking met? He said “PLENTY”. Wow! PLENTY! So he knows LOTS of guys walking around that look like Thibs. When you walk into your gym, how many guys do you see that are natural that look like Thibs.

Do tell. [/quote]

I forgot. Everyone who walks into a gym actually wants to look like Thibs.

287

[quote]donovanbrambila wrote:
Guardian58 wrote:
donovanbrambila wrote:
Guardian58 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Let’s have a clarification here on what you mean by “7-8%” bodyfat.

Do you mean, same as in Thibaudeau’s picture above?

I am aware that he had a calculation done that gave a figure of 7.5%, but myself I call that condition about 5.5%. And a lot of people have been measured quite a bit smoother than that at your value of 7-8%.

If Thib says it’s 7.5 then you can’t call it 5 and it’s 5. Second, water retention can make a guy that is 5% look like he’s closer to 10% and a really dry 8% guy can look like he’s 5%. But the point is, you should be able to look at a guy and tell if he’s at 10% or below.

Makes a substantial difference.

It needs to be kept in mind that in most cases people do NOT have actual measurements of bodyfat itself. Neither underwater weighing nor any skinfold method is greatly accurate.

It’s a lot harder to be 215 in the above condition at that height than it is to be, in fact, a measured 8% at 215 where that happens to be a lot smoother.

I have met plenty of guys that were around 215 at about that height at what I call about 8%, and which likely actually could be measured as such.

(What is my basis for calling things such and such? Because in the past I’ve measured a lot of people and so am not terrible at guessing from appearance what skinfold measurement would calculate to.)

I don’t think you have met “plenty” of 5’9" natural guys that are 215 @ 8%. I’ve been in this game 20 years and I’m telling you that you flat out haven’t. I asked for 1 guy on this whole site that meets that criteria NATURALLY and I don’t think anyone is coming forward.

The only other guy I can think of that claims to be natural right off the bat that fits that criteria is Skip LaCour who is 5’10" and weighs around 215 in contest condition now. So you’ve met a bunch of natural guys that rival Skip LaCour? Sorry. Bullshit.

Jiminy Fuckin’ Christmas. Are you kidding me? You ask for anyone who has met the criteria of surpassing the butthead ceiling, and Bill Roberts provides some people he knows. what do you do? you call him a liar. Why the fuck would anyone want to answer your call out if all your gonna do is call them a liar? That’s the stupidest shit I’ve seen.

Who has he fucking met? He said “PLENTY”. Wow! PLENTY! So he knows LOTS of guys walking around that look like Thibs. When you walk into your gym, how many guys do you see that are natural that look like Thibs.

Do tell.

I forgot. Everyone who walks into a gym actually wants to look like Thibs. [/quote]

What a cop out. Never said they did. But people at this board said attaining 215 @ 8% bodyfat was easy.

Basically you guys are all bitches. You talk big shit but it’s all hot air. Not a single person accepted Casey’s challenge to beat down what his calculator predicts. Typical blow hards.

288

[quote]Guardian58 wrote:

Why? Because I say shit you don’t like?[/quote]

Um no, because all you do is tear other people down, but don’t have the nut to put yourself out there to be judged…

It’s the same argument all over again. How the fuck don’t you understand this?

Nope, only when it is as obvious as you are.

Typically people that truly have worked hard at this, aren’t going to resort to tearing down others. Especially when they feel their argument is legit.

This happens in all things people have to work for. Most times, unless your are a complete and total knobpolisher, as you are showing yourself to be, when you work for something, and see someone that is where you were, you don’t put them down for it.

So I guess your right, if one is a total cocksucking douchebag, years of hard work and humbling plateaus won’t add character. Thanks for clearing up what kind of person you are.

Nope, I just typically surround myself with a high caliber person than you. So while that belief may sound naive to you, your inability to evolve and mature as a person make you the real fool.

Feel free to call me stupid and tear me down, further proving your shortcomings in life, I honestly hope it makes you feel better.

BTW you lied when you said you were leaving. But I’ll actually leave so you can get the last word. I wouldn’t want you to lose sleep tonight, because you didn’t get the chance to put someone else down. We know it makes you feel better.

(And reading your other post, now I know why you are on my nuts for pulling 505 in a year, hitched or not. lol.)

289

Cop out, my ass, Susan. NO ONE at my gym wants to look like Thibs (excluding myself). If that’s the case, then why would there be people walking around looking like him?
No one said it was easy. Learn how to read, numb nuts. They said it was possible. Big difference.
Maybe no one is answering his challenge because they just don’t think his calculator is that important.

290

[quote]Edward wrote:
With this whole genetic ceiling thing, why not just keep pushing and striving til you stop improving (unlikely), that way even if you never reach your max potential then you can look back and say “I worked like a maniac in the time I had”.[/quote]

I have certainly done that. I think it’s something that comes in time. After 10-15-20 years of lifting you start to understand you do in fact have a ceiling naturally.

I train as hard as ever. It’s one reason I beat myself up a lot. I still train as hard as ever but the more years you put in the harder it becomes to recover and the easier it becomes to injure yourself.

I think these young guys think they are going to gain forever. Newsflash. aint happening.

291

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Guardian58 wrote:

Why? Because I say shit you don’t like?

Um no, because all you do is tear other people down, but don’t have the nut to put yourself out there to be judged…
[/quote]

Who have I judged? I asked you this before. The answer is, no one. And again, as noted, Casey is out here to be “judged” and got the same treatment. So what good would it do??? Answer? Nothing.

This logic has more holes than swiss cheese in it.

[quote]
This happens in all things people have to work for. Most times, unless your are a complete and total knobpolisher, as you are showing yourself to be, when you work for something, and see someone that is where you were, you don’t put them down for it.

So I guess your right, if one is a total cocksucking douchebag, years of hard work and humbling plateaus won’t add character. Thanks for clearing up what kind of person you are.

you really are naive and stupid aren’t you?

Nope, I just typically surround myself with a high caliber person than you. So while that belief may sound naive to you, your inability to evolve and mature as a person make you the real fool.

Feel free to call me stupid and tear me down, further proving your shortcomings in life, I honestly hope it makes you feel better.

BTW you lied when you said you were leaving. But I’ll actually leave so you can get the last word. I wouldn’t want you to lose sleep tonight, because you didn’t get the chance to put someone else down. We know it makes you feel better.

(And reading your other post, now I know why you are on my nuts for pulling 505 in a year, hitched or not. lol.)[/quote]

I pulled 500 within my first year of deadlifting seriously as well. Going from 500 to 600? Let me know when you pull 600 mkay. Thanks.

292

[quote]donovanbrambila wrote:
Cop out, my ass, Susan. NO ONE at my gym wants to look like Thibs (excluding myself). If that’s the case, then why would there be people walking around looking like him?
No one said it was easy. Learn how to read, numb nuts. They said it was possible. Big difference.
Maybe no one is answering his challenge because they just don’t think his calculator is that important.[/quote]

Possible? Yeah. Probable? No. thats the point.

293

It’s a stupid point. It’s improbable that anyone who trains will put on any sort of decent mass or have a respectable physique. Most people just dont have the consistancy or determination to do so. But we see more than PLENTY of people with decent mass and respectable physiques. Is it probable that most businessmen will become millionaires? No. But there are PLENTY of millionaires.

Is it probable that most soldiers will receive a distinguished medal of some kind? No. But PLENTY have. In the same vein, it may not be probable that most people who lifts weights will surpass the ceiling. But as Bill Roberts pointed out (and we have no positive reason for thinking him a liar) PLENTY of people have.

294

[quote]donovanbrambila wrote:
It’s a stupid point. It’s improbable that anyone who trains will put on any sort of decent mass or have a respectable physique. Most people just dont have the consistancy or determination to do so. But we see more than PLENTY of people with decent mass and respectable physiques. Is it probable that most businessmen will become millionaires? No. But there are PLENTY of millionaires.

Is it probable that most soldiers will receive a distinguished medal of some kind? No. But PLENTY have. In the same vein, it may not be probable that most people who lifts weights will surpass the ceiling. But as Bill Roberts pointed out (and we have no positive reason for thinking him a liar) PLENTY of people have.[/quote]

Uh plenty of people here have NOT surpassed the ceiling the calculator gives you staying lifetime natty. Sorry.

295

Not for the person arguing oppositely, but for everyone else, let me in a perhaps different way make a couple of points:

  1. In the vast majority of cases – everywhere except where DEXA is used – a given bodyfat percentage is NOT a fact. While ordinarily Thibaudeau saying a thing related to bodybuilding would correspond to a thing being a fact, or let’s say the Pope making a statement on Catholic doctrine would correspond with being a fact, this is NOT the case with “bodyfat percentage” statements when measured by anything but DEXA.

So it does make a substantial difference whether a person’s, for example Butt’s, “7.5%” bf means as in Thibaudeau’s picture, or as is often calculated by for example the Jackson-Pollock equation and 7-point skinfold measurement on an individual who is only moderately ripped or even only well-cut (or what I mean by those terms anyway).

Since DEXA is NOT used for either the subjects of Mr Butt’s analysis, or for pretty much anyone involved in the discussion (unless Coach Thibaudeau used it) we are not talking about facts with regard to bodyfat percentage, but very fallible and variable estimations.

Why do I give credit to my estimations? Well aside from having measured a lot of people in the past (using Jackson-Pollock), I had extensive discussion on this with the University of Florida professor who, in the Exercise Science department, was the go-to person in that regard. As well as having measured me (6% by hydrostatic, 8% by skinfold in quite ordinary walking around condition, moderately ripped at best, with her judgment being that the 8% value is what most likely would have correlated with DEXA) she had measured very many UF athletes and 6% values by skinfold were very ordinary among for example the sprinters, and it was not unknown for their hydrostatic values to be negative thus illustrating how very fallible these methods are.

I appreciate that Coach Thibaudeau has used and has had used on him methods giving higher numbers. Without DEXA there is no way to know what’s what.

However, by methods that most certainly are as credible as any other, numbers such as 8% by those methods are very ordinary and indeed can be walking-around condition. Coach Thibaudeau’s picture however is not an ordinary walking-around condition.

Nowhere does Mr Butt specify that what he means is bodyfat as determined by DEXA, which is really the only method by which anything is any more than a quite unreliable estimation.

  1. Again the hip and waist structure factor has to be considered. For same arms, chest, and legs, having a waist in the same proportion to these as was the case for Mr Butt’s subjects (Steve Reeves, etc) will generate a lighter weight value. Someone with a more normal hip and waist structured – not as suited to bodybuilding — will weigh considerably more for the same chest, hip, and waist measurements.

  2. Yes, referring to what I consider to be about 8% bodyfat, which is in line with what the UF professor in question considered to be most likely an actual (meaning, corresponding with DEXA) 8% bodyfat, I have met quite a few lifters that were natural and were such weights at such heights as mentioned. It really is not vastly unusual.

To be at the same leanness as Coach Thibaudeau in the picture I posted above and with a bodybuilder-type hip and waist structure and that weight and height as naturals, those I have not met.

Nowhere in the “Butt’s Ceiling” diatribes do I see consideration of these points, or even consideration of the fact that they take weights of dried-out, contest condition bodybuilders and don’t seem to recognize that non-dried out and at let’s say “Bowflex ad” level of bodyfat, which is still impressively lean and really I think about as lean as many Golden Age bodybuilders, they weigh quite a bit more.

A sad part is that the Butt fans are so ignorant as to not even pay attention to what Mr Butt says. He has written plainly, on this board, that there can be outliers (or may have said “there are outliers,” but I can’t recall which) exceeding his equation, and also has written plainly on this board that the reason the particular equation that is used on his Internet calculator was chosen is because he thought it would be the most interesting, being based on the past natural bodybuilders that it is, but he has equations for other types of builds – e.g. with more typical waist and hip structure – that in fact allow considerably more weight in lean condition.

So if they knew what the man wrote himself, they wouldn’t be saying what they do. Casey Butt himself says that athletes can be bigger, for given height and percent bodyfat, than what the “Butt’s Ceiling” boys say.

Sad really.

296

Why is “here” important? This is but a small sampling of the weightlifting community. No one said “here”.

297

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Not for the person arguing oppositely, but for everyone else, let me in a perhaps different way make a couple of points:

  1. In the vast majority of cases – everywhere except where DEXA is used – a given bodyfat percentage is NOT a fact. While ordinarily Thibaudeau saying a thing related to bodybuilding would correspond to a thing being a fact, or let’s say the Pope making a statement on Catholic doctrine would correspond with being a fact, this is NOT the case with “bodyfat percentage” statements when measured by anything but DEXA.

So it does make a substantial difference whether a person’s, for example Butt’s, “7.5%” bf means as in Thibaudeau’s picture, or as is often calculated by for example the Jackson-Pollock equation and 7-point skinfold measurement on an individual who is only moderately ripped or even only well-cut (or what I mean by those terms anyway).

Since DEXA is NOT used for either the subjects of Mr Butt’s analysis, or for pretty much anyone involved in the discussion (unless Coach Thibaudeau used it) we are not talking about facts with regard to bodyfat percentage, but very fallible and variable estimations.

Why do I give credit to my estimations? Well aside from having measured a lot of people in the past (using Jackson-Pollock), I had extensive discussion on this with the University of Florida professor who, in the Exercise Science department, was the go-to person in that regard. As well as having measured me (6% by hydrostatic, 8% by skinfold in quite ordinary walking around condition, moderately ripped at best, with her judgment being that the 8% value is what most likely would have correlated with DEXA) she had measured very many UF athletes and 6% values by skinfold were very ordinary among for example the sprinters, and it was not unknown for their hydrostatic values to be negative thus illustrating how very fallible these methods are.

I appreciate that Coach Thibaudeau has used and has had used on him methods giving higher numbers. Without DEXA there is no way to know what’s what.

However, by methods that most certainly are as credible as any other, numbers such as 8% by those methods are very ordinary and indeed can be walking-around condition. Coach Thibaudeau’s picture however is not an ordinary walking-around condition.

Nowhere does Mr Butt specify that what he means is bodyfat as determined by DEXA, which is really the only method by which anything is any more than a quite unreliable estimation.

  1. Again the hip and waist structure factor has to be considered. For same arms, chest, and legs, having a waist in the same proportion to these as was the case for Mr Butt’s subjects (Steve Reeves, etc) will generate a lighter weight value. Someone with a more normal hip and waist structured – not as suited to bodybuilding — will weigh considerably more for the same chest, hip, and waist measurements.

  2. Yes, referring to what I consider to be about 8% bodyfat, which is in line with what the UF professor in question considered to be most likely an actual (meaning, corresponding with DEXA) 8% bodyfat, I have met quite a few lifters that were natural and were such weights at such heights as mentioned. It really is not vastly unusual.

To be at the same leanness as Coach Thibaudeau in the picture I posted above and with a bodybuilder-type hip and waist structure and that weight and height as naturals, those I have not met.

Nowhere in the “Butt’s Ceiling” diatribes do I see consideration of these points, or even consideration of the fact that they take weights of dried-out, contest condition bodybuilders and don’t seem to recognize that non-dried out and at let’s say “Bowflex ad” level of bodyfat, which is still impressively lean and really I think about as lean as many Golden Age bodybuilders, they weigh quite a bit more.

A sad part is that the Butt fans are so ignorant as to not even pay attention to what Mr Butt says. He has written plainly, on this board, that there can be outliers (or may have said “there are outliers,” but I can’t recall which) exceeding his equation, and also has written plainly on this board that the reason the particular equation that is used on his Internet calculator was chosen is because he thought it would be the most interesting, being based on the past natural bodybuilders that it is, but he has equations for other types of builds – e.g. with more typical waist and hip structure – that in fact allow considerably more weight in lean condition.

So if they knew what the man wrote himself, they wouldn’t be saying what they do. Casey Butt himself says that athletes can be bigger, for given height and percent bodyfat, than what the “Butt’s Ceiling” boys say.

Sad really.[/quote]

Sad is that I agree that some people will exceed the ceiling. Most will not however. The majority will not.

298

Well no one EVER SAID that the majority would – very obviously not – only that some will.

299

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well no one EVER SAID that the majority would – very obviously not – only that some will.[/quote]

I agree with that. I’ve never argued that. I’ve only argued that most will not, which both Thib and Butt state, and the stuff like “I’m going to be 250 ripped at 5’10"” is ridiculously stupid.

300

I misunderstood your point then. My apologies.

There is a systematic problem that many have of assuming things such as that they can add weight or a rep every week and do this throughout their training careers, and furthermore in some cases scoff at ideas of ever adding less than say a 5 lb plate per side per time.

Never, in my experience, do those arguing this “get” that in fact this is impossible over any extended time, else we would have for example multi-ton raw benchers.

One also runs into impossible beliefs regarding the power of anabolic steroids, and believe for example that “any decent cycle” should always yield another 20 lb of muscle mass or whatever or certainly 10 lb anyway.

Those espousing this sort of thing never “get” that, for example, Lee Haney knew what he was doing both in training and, I would surely expect, in using anabolic steroids, and by his own account averaged 3 lb per year muscle mass gain over his Mr Olympia reign.

So yes, some people have a problem with recognizing diminishing returns with asymptotic approach, as well as in recognizing (if they did not) that they may not have received the genetic winning lottery ticket.

Unfortunately, one of the best ways of, in terms of practical effect, ruining a point that has merit to it is having people arguing extrapolations of it that go too far and are not true, which winds up having the overshooting effect of discrediting, in people’s minds, the whole thing. I feel that this is what has happened with Mr Butt’s work.

An example of this was the high-fructose corn syrup clowns coming on here and insinuating that Christian Thibaudeau was lying regarding his being natural, citing Butt’s work as their basis. It is this sort of thing that results in the negative attitude that so many have towards the entire matter.