How Big Can You Get Naturally?

Training Bodybuilding
301

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I misunderstood your point then. My apologies.

There is a systematic problem that many have of assuming things such as that they can add 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.[/quote]

I agree with all of this, good post. This has been my main point all along. For those that think that Butt’s calculators are too low, they are based on guys who are lean condition.

I finally found the article I was looking for. An actual weigh in at the Mr. Olympia in 88.

Here is the article…

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_5_26/ai_n27503397/

Some of the guys weight?

Rich Gaspari 209 1/2
Lee Haney 243 1/4
Al Beckles 200
Ralf Moeller 288
Shawn Ray 201 1/2
Peter Hensel 240 1/2
Mike Ashley 189 1/2
Gary Strydom (with hat) 229
Phil Hill 222 1/2
Ron Love 222 1/2
Luiz Freitas 219 1/2
Bob Paris 226
Mike Quinn 204
Berry DeMey 227
Brian Buchanan 210
Lee Labrada 176
Robby Robinson 216 1/2
Ed Kawak 215
Samir Bannout 205

Gary Strydom was GIGANTIC. And he weighed 229 pounds! Shawn Ray was 201. These guys were all on heavy doses and yet we have guys here talking about how they are going to exceed some of these guys and they will do it NATURALLY. No freakin way. People can talk about “don’t tell people what they can’t accomplish” bit all day, but the fact is, Mike Ashley was about as generically gifted as a natural guy can be and he was 189 pounds. I believe Mike was 5’7" or so. Which again I believe falls right in line with what Casey wrote.

I just find it amusing when people talk about shattering standards that have existed for decades without having enough time in this game to really understand what they are talking about.

302

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I misunderstood your point then. My apologies.

There is a systematic problem that many have of assuming things such as that they can add 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.[/quote]

I agree with all of this, good post. This has been my main point all along. For those that think that Butt’s calculators are too low, they are based on guys who are lean condition.

I finally found the article I was looking for. An actual weigh in at the Mr. Olympia in 88.

Here is the article…

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_5_26/ai_n27503397/

Some of the guys weight?

Rich Gaspari 209 1/2
Lee Haney 243 1/4
Al Beckles 200
Ralf Moeller 288
Shawn Ray 201 1/2
Peter Hensel 240 1/2
Mike Ashley 189 1/2
Gary Strydom (with hat) 229
Phil Hill 222 1/2
Ron Love 222 1/2
Luiz Freitas 219 1/2
Bob Paris 226
Mike Quinn 204
Berry DeMey 227
Brian Buchanan 210
Lee Labrada 176
Robby Robinson 216 1/2
Ed Kawak 215
Samir Bannout 205

Gary Strydom was GIGANTIC. And he weighed 229 pounds! Shawn Ray was 201. These guys were all on heavy doses and yet we have guys here talking about how they are going to exceed some of these guys and they will do it NATURALLY. No freakin way. People can talk about “don’t tell people what they can’t accomplish” bit all day, but the fact is, Mike Ashley was about as generically gifted as a natural guy can be and he was 189 pounds. I believe Mike was 5’7" or so. Which again I believe falls right in line with what Casey wrote.

I just find it amusing when people talk about shattering standards that have existed for decades without having enough time in this game to really understand what they are talking about.

303

Damn this shit is getting beat to a bloody pulp. Can’t we all just go back to the days of every one lifting for themselves and not turning it into some freakin’ science project. I don’t hear no one on this forum saying they’re going to exceed so and so naturally. Load of crock.

We got the jest of it. The majority will not achieve it. Yet you have those part of the 5-10% who can.

All this talk about this and that is enough to induce some of us into a cortisol fueled comatose state.

304

[quote]Guardian58 wrote:
I agree with all of this, good post. This has been my main point all along. For those that think that Butt’s calculators are too low, they are based on guys who are lean condition.

I finally found the article I was looking for. An actual weigh in at the Mr. Olympia in 88.

Here is the article…

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_5_26/ai_n27503397/

Some of the guys weight?

Rich Gaspari 209 1/2
Lee Haney 243 1/4
Al Beckles 200
Ralf Moeller 288
Shawn Ray 201 1/2
Peter Hensel 240 1/2
Mike Ashley 189 1/2
Gary Strydom (with hat) 229
Phil Hill 222 1/2
Ron Love 222 1/2
Luiz Freitas 219 1/2
Bob Paris 226
Mike Quinn 204
Berry DeMey 227
Brian Buchanan 210
Lee Labrada 176
Robby Robinson 216 1/2
Ed Kawak 215
Samir Bannout 205

Gary Strydom was GIGANTIC. And he weighed 229 pounds! Shawn Ray was 201. These guys were all on heavy doses and yet we have guys here talking about how they are going to exceed some of these guys and they will do it NATURALLY. No freakin way. People can talk about “don’t tell people what they can’t accomplish” bit all day, but the fact is, Mike Ashley was about as generically gifted as a natural guy can be and he was 189 pounds. I believe Mike was 5’7" or so. Which again I believe falls right in line with what Casey wrote.

I just find it amusing when people talk about shattering standards that have existed for decades without having enough time in this game to really understand what they are talking about. [/quote]

If one person in a conversation is talking about dried-out, extremely lean weights and the other person is talking about normally hydrated, impressively lean walking-around condition, there can be no accurate communication.

The average guy who is serious about lifting weights, but who has never competed in a bb’ing contest, while he wouldn’t use this comparison may think of say Bowflex-ad condition as being what he imagines realistic for himself. (Actually he may never attain it but that’s another story.)

There is I would guess about a 25 lb difference between Bowflex-ad condition and the condition the above bodybuilders were in when those weights were measured.

And in terms of the mental process going on, the guy may not be really thinking even in terms of Bowflex-ad condition, but of being only pretty well-cut.

305

Yeah, this thread got pretty retarded pretty quick and Guardian seems to be changing the facts to meet the moment.

To summarize:

Guardian: NO ONE can be 250 and ripped or surpass Butt’s Ceiling.
Board: Butt had a small sample size. To think a hypertrophy gifted athlete (football, hockey, fuck even wrestling and OL’s) couldn’t have changed stripes and starting BBing in high school and become MUCH larger than Butt’s Ceiling is ignoring the same genetic foundation Butt is staking his claim to. If Steve Reeves could fucking tackle he wouldn’t have become a BBer.
Board: Look at CT!!! He passes the Butt Limit.
Guardian: Look at these ripped BBers on 'roids they’re not 5’10 250!!!
Board: Duh, water weight jackass!

I think now the thread has gotten to the point where one party is talking about apples and the other is talking about a fucking kiwi! A fucking kiwi!

Something to ponder…take all of the greatest physical beasts in the NFL of all-time. Train them from teens to be bodybuilders. Juice them up like any elite BBer and they would make the current crop look like children. Why? Because those who have genetic potential to be big and strong don’t typically get into bbing unless they have to. Typically genetic potential isn’t one-sided. If you’re big and strong chances are you’re playing football and if you can learn the skill, get bigger, get stronger, chances are you’re going D1 and if you keep progressig chances are you’re going NFL. So like 1% of all HS footballers go NFL, well the % that go BBing is probably like .001% and that’s only because they failed in other sports.

This thread is an epic fail and was pwned months ago…

306

[quote]BantamRunner wrote:
Yeah, this thread got pretty retarded pretty quick and Guardian seems to be changing the facts to meet the moment.

To summarize:

Guardian: NO ONE can be 250 and ripped or surpass Butt’s Ceiling.
Board: Butt had a small sample size. To think a hypertrophy gifted athlete (football, hockey, fuck even wrestling and OL’s) couldn’t have changed stripes and starting BBing in high school and become MUCH larger than Butt’s Ceiling is ignoring the same genetic foundation Butt is staking his claim to. If Steve Reeves could fucking tackle he wouldn’t have become a BBer.
Board: Look at CT!!! He passes the Butt Limit.
Guardian: Look at these ripped BBers on 'roids they’re not 5’10 250!!!
Board: Duh, water weight jackass!

I think now the thread has gotten to the point where one party is talking about apples and the other is talking about a fucking kiwi! A fucking kiwi!

Something to ponder…take all of the greatest physical beasts in the NFL of all-time. Train them from teens to be bodybuilders. Juice them up like any elite BBer and they would make the current crop look like children. Why? Because those who have genetic potential to be big and strong don’t typically get into bbing unless they have to. Typically genetic potential isn’t one-sided. If you’re big and strong chances are you’re playing football and if you can learn the skill, get bigger, get stronger, chances are you’re going D1 and if you keep progressig chances are you’re going NFL. So like 1% of all HS footballers go NFL, well the % that go BBing is probably like .001% and that’s only because they failed in other sports.

This thread is an epic fail and was pwned months ago…[/quote]

Actually it wasn’t “pwned” if it were someone would have come forward and proved Casey wrong.

Second, your assumption that if NFL players transferred over to BB’ing they would rule is laughable at best. Lots of guys in the NFL have been juiced to the gills and aren’t walking around at 5’9" 245 ripped. The rest of your garbage is such stupid drivel I won’t even address it. You’re a clown.

307

[quote]Guardian58 wrote:
BantamRunner wrote:
Yeah, this thread got pretty retarded pretty quick and Guardian seems to be changing the facts to meet the moment.

To summarize:

Guardian: NO ONE can be 250 and ripped or surpass Butt’s Ceiling.
Board: Butt had a small sample size. To think a hypertrophy gifted athlete (football, hockey, fuck even wrestling and OL’s) couldn’t have changed stripes and starting BBing in high school and become MUCH larger than Butt’s Ceiling is ignoring the same genetic foundation Butt is staking his claim to. If Steve Reeves could fucking tackle he wouldn’t have become a BBer.
Board: Look at CT!!! He passes the Butt Limit.
Guardian: Look at these ripped BBers on 'roids they’re not 5’10 250!!!
Board: Duh, water weight jackass!

I think now the thread has gotten to the point where one party is talking about apples and the other is talking about a fucking kiwi! A fucking kiwi!

Something to ponder…take all of the greatest physical beasts in the NFL of all-time. Train them from teens to be bodybuilders. Juice them up like any elite BBer and they would make the current crop look like children. Why? Because those who have genetic potential to be big and strong don’t typically get into bbing unless they have to. Typically genetic potential isn’t one-sided. If you’re big and strong chances are you’re playing football and if you can learn the skill, get bigger, get stronger, chances are you’re going D1 and if you keep progressig chances are you’re going NFL. So like 1% of all HS footballers go NFL, well the % that go BBing is probably like .001% and that’s only because they failed in other sports.

This thread is an epic fail and was pwned months ago…

Actually it wasn’t “pwned” if it were someone would have come forward and proved Casey wrong.

Second, your assumption that if NFL players transferred over to BB’ing they would rule is laughable at best. Lots of guys in the NFL have been juiced to the gills and aren’t walking around at 5’9" 245 ripped. The rest of your garbage is such stupid drivel I won’t even address it. You’re a clown.
[/quote]

Name a few please. When you say “juiced to the gills”, what are we talking about exactly? That’s ignorant “drivel” as far as I’m concerned.

308

[quote]martyh wrote:
Guardian58 wrote:
BantamRunner wrote:
Yeah, this thread got pretty retarded pretty quick and Guardian seems to be changing the facts to meet the moment.

To summarize:

Guardian: NO ONE can be 250 and ripped or surpass Butt’s Ceiling.
Board: Butt had a small sample size. To think a hypertrophy gifted athlete (football, hockey, fuck even wrestling and OL’s) couldn’t have changed stripes and starting BBing in high school and become MUCH larger than Butt’s Ceiling is ignoring the same genetic foundation Butt is staking his claim to. If Steve Reeves could fucking tackle he wouldn’t have become a BBer.
Board: Look at CT!!! He passes the Butt Limit.
Guardian: Look at these ripped BBers on 'roids they’re not 5’10 250!!!
Board: Duh, water weight jackass!

I think now the thread has gotten to the point where one party is talking about apples and the other is talking about a fucking kiwi! A fucking kiwi!

Something to ponder…take all of the greatest physical beasts in the NFL of all-time. Train them from teens to be bodybuilders. Juice them up like any elite BBer and they would make the current crop look like children. Why? Because those who have genetic potential to be big and strong don’t typically get into bbing unless they have to. Typically genetic potential isn’t one-sided. If you’re big and strong chances are you’re playing football and if you can learn the skill, get bigger, get stronger, chances are you’re going D1 and if you keep progressig chances are you’re going NFL. So like 1% of all HS footballers go NFL, well the % that go BBing is probably like .001% and that’s only because they failed in other sports.

This thread is an epic fail and was pwned months ago…

Actually it wasn’t “pwned” if it were someone would have come forward and proved Casey wrong.

Second, your assumption that if NFL players transferred over to BB’ing they would rule is laughable at best. Lots of guys in the NFL have been juiced to the gills and aren’t walking around at 5’9" 245 ripped. The rest of your garbage is such stupid drivel I won’t even address it. You’re a clown.

Name a few please. When you say “juiced to the gills”, what are we talking about exactly? That’s ignorant “drivel” as far as I’m concerned. [/quote]

That’s because you don’t know shit.

Tony Mandarich, Lyle Alzado, Mark Gastineau, David Boston, on and on and on. The drug of choice is now GH because they can’t test for it. But anyone who thinks we haven’t had TONS of players come through the NFL that were using in high doses is either incredible ignorant or naive.

We’ve also seen baseball players who were using designer steroids and while they got “big” none of them come close to the size we see in pro bodybuilders. Pro bodybuilders are in a select class of rare guys genetic wise, that can get that big and respond to anabolics. Just because a guy is some great professional athlete has nothing to do with being a pro bodybuilder. Anyone trying to say that because a guy is a great pro football means he could also be a pro bodybuilder is a moron. One has nothing to do with the other. It’s stupid beyond belief.

309

[quote]Guardian58 wrote:
martyh wrote:
Guardian58 wrote:
BantamRunner wrote:
Yeah, this thread got pretty retarded pretty quick and Guardian seems to be changing the facts to meet the moment.

To summarize:

Guardian: NO ONE can be 250 and ripped or surpass Butt’s Ceiling.
Board: Butt had a small sample size. To think a hypertrophy gifted athlete (football, hockey, fuck even wrestling and OL’s) couldn’t have changed stripes and starting BBing in high school and become MUCH larger than Butt’s Ceiling is ignoring the same genetic foundation Butt is staking his claim to. If Steve Reeves could fucking tackle he wouldn’t have become a BBer.
Board: Look at CT!!! He passes the Butt Limit.
Guardian: Look at these ripped BBers on 'roids they’re not 5’10 250!!!
Board: Duh, water weight jackass!

I think now the thread has gotten to the point where one party is talking about apples and the other is talking about a fucking kiwi! A fucking kiwi!

Something to ponder…take all of the greatest physical beasts in the NFL of all-time. Train them from teens to be bodybuilders. Juice them up like any elite BBer and they would make the current crop look like children. Why? Because those who have genetic potential to be big and strong don’t typically get into bbing unless they have to. Typically genetic potential isn’t one-sided. If you’re big and strong chances are you’re playing football and if you can learn the skill, get bigger, get stronger, chances are you’re going D1 and if you keep progressig chances are you’re going NFL. So like 1% of all HS footballers go NFL, well the % that go BBing is probably like .001% and that’s only because they failed in other sports.

This thread is an epic fail and was pwned months ago…

Actually it wasn’t “pwned” if it were someone would have come forward and proved Casey wrong.

Second, your assumption that if NFL players transferred over to BB’ing they would rule is laughable at best. Lots of guys in the NFL have been juiced to the gills and aren’t walking around at 5’9" 245 ripped. The rest of your garbage is such stupid drivel I won’t even address it. You’re a clown.

Name a few please. When you say “juiced to the gills”, what are we talking about exactly? That’s ignorant “drivel” as far as I’m concerned.

That’s because you don’t know shit.

Tony Mandarich, Lyle Alzado, Mark Gastineau, David Boston, on and on and on. The drug of choice is now GH because they can’t test for it. But anyone who thinks we haven’t had TONS of players come through the NFL that were using in high doses is either incredible ignorant or naive.

We’ve also seen baseball players who were using designer steroids and while they got “big” none of them come close to the size we see in pro bodybuilders. Pro bodybuilders are in a select class of rare guys genetic wise, that can get that big and respond to anabolics. Just because a guy is some great professional athlete has nothing to do with being a pro bodybuilder. Anyone trying to say that because a guy is a great pro football means he could also be a pro bodybuilder is a moron. One has nothing to do with the other. It’s stupid beyond belief. [/quote]

You are so dense it’s unbelieveable.

There is no doubt in any sane person’s mind that there are pro football players that are CAPABLE of excelling in bodybuilding. Adrian Peterson’s ability to run over people has nothing to do with the fact that the guy has elite genetics when it comes to muscle mass. Obviously, as a running back, he has no reason to get as big as possible. The point people are trying to make to you is that if you took football away from someone like AP and told him he had to be a competative bodybuilder you’d be looking at a different physique than he currently possesses.

But… but… but… but…

Just shut the fuck up.

Dont expect a reply either. You are too stupid to understand this shit. That much is clear at this point. It’s pretty sad actually.

310

I really don’t get why people are freaking out and giving this dude such a raft of shit.

He asked a simple question, and really, no one has stepped up and proved him wrong. I mean, where are these natural guys at 250 & ripped at 8 %? I mean, I certainly don’t believe anyone should try and pigeon-hole people into neat sets of statistics, but realistically, the whole Butt’s calculation isn’t that far off. Again, I’m not saying it’s ironclad by any stretch of the imagination, but for the most part (note that I said “for the most part”) natural BB’s generally don’t achieve that kind of bodyweight at extremely low BF percentages…

Does that mean it’s impossible? Of course not - in any sample, you’ll always have statistical outliers. But if you look at the top natural BB’s competing, I don’t think you’ll find any at 250 lbs/single digit BF. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

And in the end, all this guy is asking for is to be shown a decent sized sample of natural lifters who are way beyond what Butt’s calculations suggest - and honestly, I don’t see any kind of proof in this thread at all. I mean, show me even 10 natural BB’s (who are truly natural) at 250 8% (or less) bf. So far, I haven’t seen any. Does that mean they don’t exist? No, but it does reinforce the fact that the average natural trainee will not surpass these numbers (or if they do, it will be by a statistically insignificant amount) 99 % of the time.

And honestly, not to take away from anyone’s dreams, but if I had a nickle for every 18 year old who told me he was going to someday be Mr. O - well, let’s just say I’d have a shitload of nickels. I mean, I have to laugh at dudes who are clearly never going to be in that elite category swearing up and down that their indomitable spirit will make up for genetic shortcomings that will never get them into even a national qiualifier, much less an IFBB stage.

Anyway, I think this guy has been attacked pretty mercilessly for asking a simple question that no one seems able to answer…

311

SkyNett, you also are changing the equation.

The Butt’s calculator does not come up with numbers such as 250 in contest condition, but numbers like 180-190 at 7.5% bf for someone who is 5’8", or 190-200 at 10% bf.

Not as dried-out figures, but stated simply as maximum weight at that percent bf.

And perhaps not Guardian, but many others claim anyone past that has to be on steroids, and that there is no one exceeding THESE sorts of figures.

Not, no one reaching 250 ripped on stage at that height. The “Butt’s Ceiling” is way, way below that.

You’re moving the goalpost by about 50-70 yards to make his fans right.

312

Well, I’m certainly not trying to “make anyone right”, but again - show me the proof.

Meaning, can you show me 10 case studies of guys who have exceeded Butt’s calculations to a statistically significant degree? That’s great - then let’s see them.

I see a lot of talk about athletes in other sports, the occasional total genetic freak, but what I haven’t seen is a large group of case studies where natural trainees have exceeded these numbers by a statistically significant amount. I mean, someone at 5’8" at 208 lbs has obviously gone past that, but not by very much…

313

No, you know what, I don’t have pics to give you, complete with notarized copies of bodycomp measurements, or whatever it is you want, to “prove” to you that there are guys who, for example at 5’8", are more than 190-200 lb (depending on wrist and ankle size) at 10% bf without using drugs.

And if you believe there are none or they are incredibly rare, you just keep on believing that.

314

Well, if you read my posts you’ll clearly see that I never said that there were “none of these” or that it’s “incredibly rare”.

But, as a man of science Bill, don’t you expect to see a large sample population of natural trainees that have far exceeded those Butt’s imposed limits? I mean, we can sit here all day debating “ifs” and other possibilities, but I would think that you of all people would agree that a solid, statistically accurate sample would be required to actually “prove” this one way of the other.

For the record - I never said it was impossible or even incredibly rare, just that as an average, most guys won’t exceed those numbers, or if they do, not by very much. Anyone who knows me around here knows damn well that I don’t shout “STEROIDS” at every guy over 200 lbs, but this whole issue is suspect at best - on both sides of the argument.

But, this is also a highly emotional issue for a lot of people, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the polarization threads like this create…

315

Why in the world would I expect to see a large sample population of trainees that have far exceeded Butt’s imposed limits, if we are supporing the Butt’s Ceiling position?

You’re saying above that I should.

But if his followers are right, I should not.

Or if they’re wrong, why would I necessarily expect the difference to necessarily be one of “far exceeding,” with no definition of how much that means?

I’ve seen plenty of individuals in ordinary, everyday condition beating the weight limit his calculator gives when plugging in reasonable figures for wrist and ankle size (as opposed to whatever the figures may actually have been, since I don’t go around measuring those.)

And I get called a liar by the Butt’s Ceiling bunch for saying so, as does every person who points out that they have seen this.

This is my last post in this thread: Those using the Butt’s Limit calculator the way that they do – to accuse individuals of using steroids, and actually thinking that those weight figures are, as described, a “ceiling” or “limit” for natural trainers at the bodyfat levels plugged in, are completely f’ed up and incorrect.

Why you choose to stand up for it, I have no idea, but it’s certainly your prerogative.

316

Like I said, a highly emotional issue. You’re obviously going to be affected by the fact that you’ve had some run-ins with the Butt’s supporters who gave you a lot of shit for your position.

My point was not to “stand up” for calling anyone who exceeds those limits a liar or steroid user, but to simply point out that it may not be all that far off when we’re talking about the genetically average without the use of AAS.

Again, I’ve repeatedly said that it can be looked at as an average, not as an ironclad rule that will never, ever be surpassed by anyone.

I’m not saying Butts is right, just that there are valid points on both sides of the argument.

317

Well, I should have said above that the last post was going to be the last disagreeng/arguing post I’d make on this (which it is.)

As your post above is reasonable enough and I generally agree, it’s only fair to acknowledge that.

Actually, if Mr Butt would change just a little – get rid of the bodyfat percentage entry, limit the context of his weight value to being only in reference to contest condition and thus representing a value when quite ripped or possibly even shredded and very dry, specify that the weight value is for persons with relatively small hip and waist structure, and acknowledge on that page (he has acknowledged these last two points elsewhere) that this is only in general and some individuals will exceed the value – then the thing would not be a bad exercise at all in generally describing the top end of what most competitive natural bb’ers will in practice achieve.

I’ve said all along the real problem is not with Mr Butt’s work, but with what his followers extrapolate it to.

318

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, I should have said above that the last post was going to be the last disagreeng/arguing post I’d make on this (which it is.)

As your post above is reasonable enough and I generally agree, it’s only fair to acknowledge that.

Actually, if Mr Butt would change just a little – get rid of the bodyfat percentage entry, limit the context of his weight value to being only in reference to contest condition weight and thus representing a value when quite ripped and very dry, specify that the weight value is for persons with relatively small hip and waist structure, and acknowledge on that page (he has acknowledged these last two points elsewhere) that this is only in general and some individuals will exceed the value – then the thing would not be a bad exercise at all in generally describing the most that most competitive natural bb’ers will in practice achieve.

I’ve said all along the real problem is not with Mr Butt’s work, but with what his followers extrapolate it to.[/quote]

And that’s really all I’ve been trying to say all along.

So we’re pretty much in agreement then Bill.

Good day to you sir.

I said GOOD DAY!! ; )

319

:slight_smile:

320

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Like I said, a highly emotional issue. You’re obviously going to be affected by the fact that you’ve had some run-ins with the Butt’s supporters who gave you a lot of shit for your position.

My point was not to “stand up” for calling anyone who exceeds those limits a liar or steroid user, but to simply point out that it may not be all that far off when we’re talking about the genetically average without the use of AAS.

Again, I’ve repeatedly said that it can be looked at as an average, not as an ironclad rule that will never, ever be surpassed by anyone.

I’m not saying Butts is right, just that there are valid points on both sides of the argument. [/quote]

Valid points on both sides? I know a guy at my gym and have seen him there for about two years now. He is currently dieting for a natural comp and weighs in at 240lbs at 5’10" LEAN ENOUGH TO SEE ABS. I do not know his exact body fat percentage nor is there a fucking case study of him. I know for a fact though that few here have genetics like him and it is doubtful he will have to drop below 200 to be stage ready considering his current condition.

I also knew quite a number of truly huge guys in the military, one I wrote about before who had been tested many times but weighed in at 270lbs at about one inch taller than me (so about 5’11"). Guess what? Nope, no case study on him either and while not as lean as the first guy I wrote about, he isn’t fat either. He worked as a bouncer at a club as well.

If anyone talks about people like this we get called liars or asked for ridiculous shit like case studies that no one is going to have simply for working out. We also get insulted and called obese unless we are down to 8% body fat.

You guys don’t want to accept that people surpass BUTT’s CEILING making any further attempt to discuss those who have done better a waste of time.

We will either get called liars, accused of steroid use or insulted. If you can’t see that happening here then something is wrong with your eyes.

In fact, if you truly lift weights seriously and don’t see ANYONE walking around beating his figures then you either train at one suck ass gym or you aren’t paying attention.

No one has said most people can beat these measurements. Hell, on this board alone, how many even have 18" arms? I had those after just over 2 years of serious training. Is that impossible as well?