How Big Can You Get Naturally?

For the record, one of my patients today is 19 years old, studying for his SAT’s (as it is raining today) and weighs over 265lbs at maybe an inch taller than me. Is he ripped? No, but he isn’t walking around with a gut either and if some kid from the rough side of town is walking around with that kind of size at the age of fucking 19, does anyone here truly believe he simply can’t do better than some BUTT CEILING? I mean, really?

Also (because I asked), he is not the biggest person on his football team.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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?
[/quote]

Basically you are saying the same thing I’m saying - most people will probably come in at or around Butt’s figures, but there are plenty of people out there who absolutely will surpass that, and then some, naturally.

So, what’s your point? I was just making some observations, no need to shout me down like I’m some kind of asshole. I pay attention, have been in this game a very long time, I’m pretty knowledgeable on most matters pertaining to bodybuilding, and I can quite clearly see that you get insulted by Butt’s supporters - so what? Does that somehow preclude me from being allowed to state an opinion on the matter?

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

Basically you are saying the same thing I’m saying - most people will probably come in at or around Butt’s figures, but there are plenty of people out there who absolutely will surpass that, and then some, naturally.[/quote]

That isn’t the same thing you are saying because you all keep crying for “proof” and other dumb shit like case studies…as if people who lift weights are being tracked down by universities left and right to have studies conducted on them.

Yes, YOU asked for that and NO, that does not make much logical sense.

Also, what we have seen in this thread is people basically writing off any gains made by others unless they are down to 8% body fat…which again is ridiculous for many reasons (many of which Bill pointed out).

[quote]
So, what’s your point? I was just making some observations, no need to shout me down like I’m some kind of asshole. I pay attention, have been in this game a very long time, I’m pretty knowledgeable on most matters pertaining to bodybuilding, and I can quite clearly see that you get insulted by Butt’s supporters - so what? Does that somehow preclude me from being allowed to state an opinion on the matter? [/quote]

You weren’t just making observations if your first post is “I don’t understand why the guy is catching so much heat for what he asked” as if you didn’t see the insults or his clearly uneducated view point as far as studies in general. This guy had an agenda to push and he basically called Bill a liar for even discussing people he had known…yet you defend him???

There is no 100% sure-fire way for anyone to PROVE to you who has ever used anabolics and there are no fucking case studies of people who lift weights for bodybuilding outside of very rare studies done usually on general “resistance training” that have nothing at all to do with trying to gain as much muscle as humanly possible. That means asking for such information is about as juvenile or ridiculous as you can get.

Yea thanks, I’m well aware of how difficult this is to quantify.

So I guess you win - I’m ridiculous and juvenile for stating an opinion. I’m certainly not “defending the guy”, just trying to point out an unbiased, unemotional look at what everyone in this thread has been arguing about.

So revoke my T-cell membership and I’ll be off to sign up at the Men’s Fitness forum ASAP…

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Yea thanks, I’m well aware of how difficult this is to quantify.

So I guess you win - I’m ridiculous and juvenile for stating an opinion. I’m certainly not “defending the guy”, just trying to point out an unbiased, unemotional look at what everyone in this thread has been arguing about.

So revoke my T-cell membership and I’ll be off to sign up at the Men’s Fitness forum ASAP… [/quote]

Hey, as long as you understand that what you came into this thread asking for made zero sense, then we can move on.

The best you or anyone else who actually thinks like that can hope for is “I know one guy” or “I am that guy”…both of which will not be accepted by any of these BUTT SNIFFERS who keep popping up on this board who understand the material studied far less than BUTT.

I would say that if someone gets to the range of having arms over 18" within 5 years or less of training, then they probably have the genetics to surpass BUTT’S CEILING.

Take it or leave it.

As long as we both understand that reasonable people will approach this (or any other topic) from a reasonable point of view, and then there are a bunch of douchebags who will only see this from a one-sided, myopic and unreasonable point of view, then we can move on…

And I wasn’t actually asking for - or expecting someone to - put up a huge cross-section of real case studies - I was just trying to make a point through the use of exaggerated hyperbole.

Bottom line - Butts has some valid points, however, one can never account for every single variable that exists, so quantifiable “proof” is pretty much an impossibility. If you look at the exchange between me and Bill, I think you’ll see that we agree that with less emphasis on “absolute values” Butts isn’t completely outside the realm of possibility. That said, I think we all agree that this is a highly individualized endeavor, and different people will obtain different results due to a myriad of factors…

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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.

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 thinks 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 isn’t really thinking in terms of Bowflex-ad condition, but of being only pretty well-cut.[/quote]

Great point, and what looks to be completely overlooked. Comparing a competition weigh-in Shawn Ray To even a week before Shawn Ray can result in nearly the same body percentage, with a 10+lb weight difference. Shit, a glass of water and some spaghetti would probably add 5lbs right after stepping off stage.

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
As long as we both understand that reasonable people will approach this (or any other topic) from a reasonable point of view, and then there are a bunch of douchebags who will only see this from a one-sided, myopic and unreasonable point of view, then we can move on…

And I wasn’t actually asking for - or expecting someone to - put up a huge cross-section of real case studies - I was just trying to make a point through the use of exaggerated hyperbole.

Bottom line - Butts has some valid points, however, one can never account for every single variable that exists, so quantifiable “proof” is pretty much an impossibility. If you look at the exchange between me and Bill, I think you’ll see that we agree that with less emphasis on “absolute values” Butts isn’t completely outside the realm of possibility. That said, I think we all agree that this is a highly individualized endeavor, and different people will obtain different results due to a myriad of factors… [/quote]

…which in and of itself discredits Butt’s Ceiling as anything more than some data written down about ankles and wrists that has no bearing on what all humans can achieve.

So tell me, why are the BUTT SNIFFERS so in the dark about this and why do they believe that Mr. Butt has defined some absolute limit?

The truth is that we will never know what someone with the greatest genetics can achieve in bodybuilding. Why? Because that idea alone implies that everyone with great genetics actually gives a shit about bodybuilding.

I have known two guys in my life fairly closely who had genetics that I would rate as damn near off the charts. Neither of them cared about getting as big as possible. In fact, both of them seemed to see their ability to gain more muscle than average as more of a curse than a blessing because it made them stand out. The first is a guy I had known since junior high who in the 6th grade had arms over 15 RIPPED. While that may not seem that big for an adult, for someone who is all of 12 years old, it is phenomenal. We didn’t go to high school together but I saw him around that age and he was playing football. He avoided trying to get bigger than the what must have been 18" arms around that time because of the position he was playing.

The other guy I knew in college as a roommate and the guy didn’t even lift seriously but was a ripped 235lbs ALL THE TIME. I don’t mean “in good shape”. I mean full abs showing no matter how many hamburgers he threw down in the cafeteria.

Guys like the douche who was in this thread for the last few pages believe this is impossible. They will forever wait on a case study that won’t come when getting out of their little bubble would do them much better.

I’ll just end with this…I have seen people in the poorer inner city neighborhoods around Houston that would out just about every guy on this board to shame in terms of muscular development. Many of them will simply end up in jail though or dead.

Anyone who thinks NO ONE CAN BE 250LBS AT 10% BODY FAT NATURALLY simply because they haven’t seen it is a dumbass or at the very least very low on life experience. Those people are out there. they just usually aren’t in expensive gyms or members of University sponsored case studies.

Those big dudes in jail didn’t all get that way because of steroids.

Nice post X, the truth right there y’all.

Anyone familiar with bell curves or normal distribution…

I know people outside of Butts limits, doesn’t make what he saying completely stupid or an ok starting point. I dont think he is asking anyone to stop training the moment they reach his limits or anything.

Very few theory’s or equations are completely irrefutable, ESPECIALLY when dealing with the human body.

I cant see how anyone could be either SO pro this argument or SO against it on unless people are doing it simply because you like arguing a point one way or another.

[quote]stevo_ wrote:
Anyone familiar with bell curves or normal distribution…

I know people outside of Butts limits, doesn’t make what he saying completely stupid or an ok starting point. I dont think he is asking anyone to stop training the moment they reach his limits or anything.

Very few theory’s or equations are completely irrefutable, ESPECIALLY when dealing with the human body.

I cant see how anyone could be either SO pro this argument or SO against it on unless people are doing it simply because you like arguing a point one way or another.

[/quote]

I see what you’re saying, but from Butt’s dogmatic approach on the subject it seems that he feels one will likely never reach that potential, and if/when they do they’d be better off on training with other goals in mind. There’s been multiple people here who’ve proved him wrong and he just shut down logic and wouldn’t listen.

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
stevo_ wrote:
Anyone familiar with bell curves or normal distribution…

I know people outside of Butts limits, doesn’t make what he saying completely stupid or an ok starting point. I dont think he is asking anyone to stop training the moment they reach his limits or anything.

Very few theory’s or equations are completely irrefutable, ESPECIALLY when dealing with the human body.

I cant see how anyone could be either SO pro this argument or SO against it on unless people are doing it simply because you like arguing a point one way or another.

I see what you’re saying, but from Butt’s dogmatic approach on the subject it seems that he feels one will likely never reach that potential, and if/when they do they’d be better off on training with other goals in mind. There’s been multiple people here who’ve proved him wrong and he just shut down logic and wouldn’t listen.[/quote]

I had never heard of the guy until this thread so i cant speak for what he does or doesn’t do to any real degree. I just think the zealots on both sides of the equation are fighting for the sake of fighting at this point.

Most bball players wont make the NBA, i’m not saying give up, not saying never try. But most wont make it.

But hang on Kobe plays in the NBA you retard

yeah, but buddy who’ pretty good that i play with on weekends cant make it so you’re full of shit.

Not a perfect analogy but i’m tired and its all i can come up with right now.

**edited spelling mistake.

I am not personally familiar with Mr Butt and have only communicated with him via two threads that he has participated in – and this thread is not one of those – but at no time did I gather that he had any such approach, conclusions, or recommendations. He in fact stated plainly that there would be outliers and did not claim that no one could, without drugs, surpass the values given by his calculator.

The problem is not with Butt or his work: it is with what some high fructose corn syrup clowns are doing with it.

They indeed do shoot their mouths off with assertions that exceptions do not exist, which they “prove” by endless challenges for those who say there are exceptions to provide “studies,” etc, and as for receiving testimonies from persons generally considerable credible of having personally known exceptions, they call the person a liar, thus insulating themselves from reality.

My expectation is that even if the documentation they demand were provided to them, they would simply insist that the person was a steroid user, just as they implied that Christian Thibaudeau was a steroid user based off of his weight, height, and muscularity.

But Mr Butt, so far as I know, not only has done no such thing but does not agree with it.

For those people who want proof of people excedeing the calculations:

Did you know that at the NFL scouting combine they test body fat percentage? They do it for OL, DL, and RB.

So all you have to do is look up the results for DE and RB and you’ll find people who are drug tested that beat the calculator at age 20-22.

Example:
Brian Orakpo DE 6-3 263 8 percent bf

Well, although this crowd likes to fancy themselves as “scientific,” they are the exact opposite in that they adopt positions and set up methods for themslves which do not permit falsfication.

It’s generally recognized that something put forth as a theory but which, if untrue, cannot possibly be shown to be untrue is not a scientific theory.

These folk will reject the above by asserting that Mr Orakpo used steroids and was simply clean for the particular test. (Which could be so, but that’s not my point: my point is that they will do this in ANY situation. Thus their theory is non-falsifiable.)

I pointed out in another thread one of the two examples, this one recent, that I’ve personally seen and have excellent basis for certainty that there was no steroid use. (There are a number of others on which I am personally convinced on lesser but still I think good basis.) The reason I am sure the kid – actually, early 20s – was a non-user is because over time he became interested in using them in a slow progression and was very excited to learn that I knew something about it, and things went exactly as they do with someone who has not used.

This was actually a rather drawn out process because on his finally deciding to go ahead and ordering some stuff, his stuff never did come in. I had tons of opportunities to see his reactions.

It was no act.

Nor does male psychology work that way. Someone who has even a trace of experience – just took a few Dianabol a few years back – when wanting to get advice about using from an experienced steroid user just is not going to present himself as being a virgin. It doesn’t happen.

So I have this very good basis, of lots of face-to-face interactions and discussions which are utterly inconsistent with already being a user and totally consistent with never having used. And I know his weight, because we compared weights one day at the scale, and happened to weigh exactly the same (which was 215.) This was on account of my observing that he probably weighed the same at the same height, and explaining to him the fact that he had the gift of looking much bigger for the same actual weight, which is a useful thing for someone interested in competing, which he was. And in the “looking bigger for given weight” conversation, happening to be standing only a few feet from the scale.

So I describe this to these folk. Does it change their belief that there are no exceptions?

No. Nothing will.

They have set up a non-falsifiable system. While pretending to be “scientific.”

The only way any of them would change his position on this would be if he himself achieved it, knowing that he had not used drugs. But given that crowd, the chances of that are zero.

Well, then we actually are all in agreement.

Thing is, as Bill pointed out, it’s not so much Butt’s theory - as he himself has stated that it’s a guideline, not a bible - but the doofuses that read into his concept and apply their own retarded spin to it.

And while I felt the guy who was arguing with you was attacked pretty vehemently right out of the gate, my intention was no so much to defend his position, but point out that some of what he was saying had some merit.

But I do have to apologize to X if it seemed like I was defending him, because I see that once again he trots out the obnoxious fat jokes, which in and of itself is so idiotic, rude and generally dismissive of someone’s hard work that it becomes reprehensible…

Maybe we could petition Casey Butt to change the name of his formula from “Butt’s Ceiling” to “Butt’s upper limit for those whose genetic potential lies within two to three standard deviations of mean.” It is a little cumbersome, but it could clear up alot of confusion and eliminate alot of arguments.

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Well, then we actually are all in agreement.

Thing is, as Bill pointed out, it’s not so much Butt’s theory - as he himself has stated that it’s a guideline, not a bible - but the doofuses that read into his concept and apply their own retarded spin to it.

And while I felt the guy who was arguing with you was attacked pretty vehemently right out of the gate, my intention was no so much to defend his position, but point out that some of what he was saying had some merit.

But I do have to apologize to X if it seemed like I was defending him, because I see that once again he trots out the obnoxious fat jokes, which in and of itself is so idiotic, rude and generally dismissive of someone’s hard work that it becomes reprehensible… [/quote]

While Bill may not personally remember it, when Butt first came onto this site, he very much held to his findings as meaning that there was a limit even though he also stated that blacks may exceed those limits. If you search for them, I am sure you can find the 154 plus threads where we go back and forth about this.

[quote]ctschneider wrote:
Maybe we could petition Casey Butt to change the name of his formula from “Butt’s Ceiling” to “Butt’s upper limit for those whose genetic potential lies within two to three standard deviations of mean.” It is a little cumbersome, but it could clear up alot of confusion and eliminate alot of arguments.[/quote]

I think I am the only one using “Butt’s Ceiling” as the title.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
Well, then we actually are all in agreement.

Thing is, as Bill pointed out, it’s not so much Butt’s theory - as he himself has stated that it’s a guideline, not a bible - but the doofuses that read into his concept and apply their own retarded spin to it.

And while I felt the guy who was arguing with you was attacked pretty vehemently right out of the gate, my intention was no so much to defend his position, but point out that some of what he was saying had some merit.

But I do have to apologize to X if it seemed like I was defending him, because I see that once again he trots out the obnoxious fat jokes, which in and of itself is so idiotic, rude and generally dismissive of someone’s hard work that it becomes reprehensible…

While Bill may not personally remember it, when Butt first came onto this site, he very much held to his findings as meaning that there was a limit even though he also stated that blacks may exceed those limits. If you search for them, I am sure you can find the 154 plus threads where we go back and forth about this.[/quote]

I did not know that.

Mr Butt has since moderated his views then, from some rather specific statements he recently made in response to me on this forum.

My take is he is a sincere individual that is capable of accepting where facts require a change in what he had previously thought, unlike his followers.

On the “Butt’s Ceiling,” at least some of his followers have taken it up, incidentally. They themselves used the expression in a recent thread. I guess they forgot that you invented it, Professor!