[quote]Professor X wrote:
crod266 wrote:
im not so sure about that article
I am. It’s bullshit. [/quote]
I couldn’t really bother with it. Too annoying as Thib said. But if that’s the one that said I was ‘perfect’ and should’ve stopped gaining mass when my arms reached 15 inches [basically within the first month or so of traiing] based on wrist size…then yeah, total bullshit
[quote]UkpairehMombooto wrote:
These days the focus seems to have shifted from actually BEING big and strong to just LOOKING big in a standalone photograph (with no one else in the background) with strategic lighting and carefully placed cameras. Half the “studs” who look amazing on the RMP forum would look emaciated (and usually on the short side) standing next to day to day people.
Some of the kids I coach want to walk around at 7-8% body fat without carrying SUFFICIENT muscle mass and just yakking about how much bigger they would look in a semi-contest condition (usually stabding alone) and very few of these kids would look bigger than average (or like thhey lift weights) in everyay clothes standing near everyday people.
If youre 5’4" and 120 with amazing (usually genetically determined) proportions and low body fat, WHOPPPEEEE for you but you’ll look like a starved midget walking around with other people and you DEFINITELY don;t LOOK strong. On the other hand Lee Priest may look stumpy at 5’3" but he physically overshadows people a foot taller even in everyday attire. There’s something to be said about bulding enough REAL size beyond the “illusion”.
Frank Zane wasn’t massive but he looked bigger than the average guy in regular clothes as you can see from some of the pictures of him walking around before he got older.
IF anyone remembers caveman, he mentioned his goal was to be BOTH BIG as well as ripped, not just “look big”.
Anyway, sorry for the rant but does anyone have a damn clue why this is happening? probably because people are unable to build up appreciable muscle mass and once they’re happy with their general proportions (as evidenced by a photograph like I mentioned) thy consider themselves at the peak of human perfection and stop trying to build SIZE. AND if someone actually tries to go past his limits (with whatever he needs for that) and ends up with over-hypertrophied obliques and a distended gut (due to the massive food intake) he automatically gets labelled by some as a “bloated fetish object” (like an author labeled Ruhl a few months back)
Iit seems that a lot of natural-for-life bodybuilders are UNABLE to put on mass (and/or maintain it while dieting) and instead are content with the “illusion of looking big standing alone in the buff” - and are then releagetd to the status of “card carrying” natural heroes for life who vehemently expect thers to worship their choice to not do assistance.
The whole point of that article I bumped is: “There is a limit to how much muscle you carry (as we knew already) and this is it! BOOOSH!
And to the disappointed small-jointed readers, he says - Don;t worry, you may not actually BE BIG but you will look big if you have these proportions.” Thats all. Someone who focusses on actually building size and strength and worrying about proportions and definition after building enough mass, chances are he won’t be limited by statistics generated by looking at golden age drug free bodybulders from a less-informed era.
end rant![/quote]
most people dont dedicate themselves to getting bigger for a long enough time so they dont get the really good results they look for
[quote]Professor X wrote:
OK, I’m back from shopping and they had all PhD’s on sale. I got one for EVERYBODY!!! Yeah!!![/quote]
lmao
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I believe many natural trainees can hold 240 and relatively lean. I believe many more natural trainees can hold 225 and lean. 200 lbs is nothing.
It does depend on how tall you are and other factors. You can’t just throw a number out and say that’s what people can do. CT, for instance centered his comments around somebody close to his height.
Yes, we normally add 5-7lbs per inch.
So 200lbs for someone who is 5’9’’ would be 225-235 for someone who is 6’2’'.
PLUS I was not talking about ‘‘relatively lean’’ but on shredded, near contest condition. Most guys competing at 200lbs are around 230 in their off-season and ‘‘relatively lean’’.[/quote]
True, and good points. When the discussion turns to “how big is possible naturally” I tend to think that the prerequisite is to be ‘relatively lean’, as in you show a good v-taper, maybe a 6 pack, so bf % varies somewhat. But not contest–that’s a whole different animal.
Sure you can’t just throw a number out there, but let me just say that unless you’re a midget (j/k) 200 lbs as a ‘natural limit’ is retarded. I have no doubt most people could get at least 30 lbs more than they think is naturally possible if they just ate more and were patient.
And no, Stu, it’s not all about the weight for me. I love the aesthetics too. But I figured the OP was asking about the natural limit so I pretty well ignored aesthetics for now.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
OK, I’m back from shopping and they had all PhD’s on sale. I got one for EVERYBODY!!! Yeah!!![/quote]
So are you now Dr. Professor X? Or Dr. Doc or Dr. Doctor? Or XPhD?
Anyway mine did not come with a gold embossed seal? FTW!
Damn Wal-Mart…
WOW!
I’m gone for a little while and we have Halloween PHD’s from Professor X and summary executions from CT.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
OK, I’m back from shopping and they had all PhD’s on sale. I got one for EVERYBODY!!! Yeah!!![/quote]
Did you get some college degrees too?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
WOW!
I’m gone for a little while and we have Halloween PHD’s from Professor X and summary executions from CT.[/quote]
It’s like they switched.
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Professor X wrote:
OK, I’m back from shopping and they had all PhD’s on sale. I got one for EVERYBODY!!! Yeah!!!
Did you get some college degrees too?
[/quote]
You can get those at good will.
[quote]will to power wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
WOW!
I’m gone for a little while and we have Halloween PHD’s from Professor X and summary executions from CT.
It’s like they switched.[/quote]
I bet they’re the same person and it’s a slip up =]
Aragorn, I know for most it’s not about weight, but I myself was all caught up in ‘chasing numbers’, in regards to what the scale said, and what was on the bar. AFter a long while, I learned to focus more on the mirror, and quality muscle growth.
These were MY goals, so I know they don’t apply to everyone. When I cared more about how strong I was, I managed to get my weight up to 220 lbs. Now, I thought I looked damn huge, and for a guy who started training weighing 150 lbs at 20 years old, I thought I was the shit.
However, my goals changed, my joints started hurting from continually banging the big weights, and I realized that I was more interested in the physique aspects of weight training. Again, this is my own situation, and it doesn’t apply to anyone else.
Still, I think it’s always helpful to hear someone else’s situation, and while I’m no authority on here, I do realize that after training for almost 15 years, I may indeed be one of the more ‘expereinced’ guys on here, no matter how much I am reluctant to admit it -lol.
S
There’s code in that article that lead me to this page. I don’t post on this board, but I did feel the need to reply to a thread about “me”.
I have 5 degrees: B.Sc. in physics, applied math minor. B.Sc. in pure math, chemistry minor. B.Eng, M.Eng and Ph.D …all from legitimate universities. It took 16 years in total, but I went through on several scholarships as well as teaching undergraduate courses in physics/engineering during the last few years of my Ph.D.
The formulation of those equations are legitimate, and quite easy to comprehend - based simply on weight to bone structure relationships (which are verifiable by reference to any large population database) and setting the largest verifiable drug-tested bodybuilding competitors as maximums.
It apples to the weights and measurements of current drug-free competitors as well - which can be quickly and easily verified by assuming average bone-structures for most current top naturals (which will throw the results off by a few pounds at most).
If any legitimate natural bodybuilders are reading this, please post your real name, contest stats, along with proof of your drug-free status (such as participation in a drug-tested event) and I’ll gladly include your info in an ongoing statistical analysis of drug-free bodybuilders.
If you wish your name withheld, please PM me personally and I’ll respect your privacy completely and not divulge your name at any time.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Aragorn, I know for most it’s not about weight, but I myself was all caught up in ‘chasing numbers’, in regards to what the scale said, and what was on the bar. AFter a long while, I learned to focus more on the mirror, and quality muscle growth. These were MY goals, so I know they don’t apply to everyone. When I cared more about how strong I was, I managed to get my weight up to 220 lbs. Now, I thought I looked damn huge, and for a guy who started training weighing 150 lbs at 20 years old, I thought I was the shit. However, my goals changed, my joints started hurting from continually banging the big weights, and I realized that I was more interested in the physique aspects of weight training. Again, this is my own situation, and it doesn’t apply to anyone else. Still, I think it’s always helpful to hear someone else’s situation, and while I’m no authority on here, I do realize that after training for almost 15 years, I may indeed be one of the more ‘expereinced’ guys on here, no matter how much I am reluctant to admit it -lol.
[/quote]
It requires “chasing numbers” as a beginner. Beginners have no sense of how their bodies respond. Without pushing for the scale weight to move, there is no way they could assess progress.
I agree that there comes a point where you stop looking at the scale so much, but that is generally after you have already built enough mass in the first place to warrant some extreme attempt at definition. I think I may weigh myself currently about once a week or less.
When I am gaining, it tends to be more regularly so I can see if my weight is moving in the right direction. When dieting I try to avoid it, focusing on strength levels and the mirror.
I don’t know according to those calculations I have already reached my potential arm size of 16.7. I can’t let a calculator determine that my arms will never get to my goal of 18 inches. I mean look at how small framed some gymnasts are and their arms and shoulders are monsterous
I weigh 190 at 5’8" and I dont look very big, yet I am at 10% bf. So is this more a question of size or the weight of lean body mass. These questions are totally different in my opinion.
For those of us who do more of a powerlifting workout as opposed to a bodybuilding style workout are not going to look as big, but can have the same amount of lean mass. So what is the actual question in this thread? More lean mass or more size?
[quote]legacyfighter wrote:
I weigh 190 at 5’8" and I dont look very big, yet I am at 10% bf. So is this more a question of size or the weight of lean body mass. These questions are totally different in my opinion. For those of us who do more of a powerlifting workout as opposed to a bodybuilding style workout are not going to look as big, but can have the same amount of lean mass. So what is the actual question in this thread? More lean mass or more size?[/quote]
You are confused.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
There’s code in that article that lead me to this page. I don’t post on this board, but I did feel the need to reply to a thread about “me”.
I have 5 degrees: B.Sc. in physics, applied math minor. B.Sc. in pure math, chemistry minor. B.Eng, M.Eng and Ph.D …all from legitimate universities. It took 16 years in total, but I went through on several scholarships as well as teaching undergraduate courses in physics/engineering during the last few years of my Ph.D.
The formulation of those equations are legitimate, and quite easy to comprehend - based simply on weight to bone structure relationships (which are verifiable by reference to any large population database) and setting the largest verifiable drug-tested bodybuilding competitors as maximums. It apples to the weights and measurements of current drug-free competitors as well - which can be quickly and easily verified by assuming average bone-structures for most current top naturals (which will throw the results off by a few pounds at most).
If any legitimate natural bodybuilders are reading this, please post your real name, contest stats, along with proof of your drug-free status (such as participation in a drug-tested event) and I’ll gladly include your info in an ongoing statistical analysis of drug-free bodybuilders.
If you wish your name withheld, please PM me personally and I’ll respect your privacy completely and not divulge your name at any time. [/quote]
I have no degrees from any universities with about 5 total years of training experience and I know that attempting prognostic biology from mathematics will yield statistical probability at best and that assuming an enormous sample base with practically spotless accuracy.
Nobody doubts your intelligence or credentials, but in this instance I believe you’ve allowed your education to get the best of you.
I mean no disrespect by this, but I cannot get myself to believe that there exists an equation by which someone can foresee their growth potential. I wouldn’t want to even if I could. I can even understand your interest in doing the research, but you are defending this as if your career or reputation were contingent upon T-Nation forum members accepting it as divine revelation. Which reminds me, are you psychic? How the hell did you know this had come up again =]
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
There’s code in that article that lead me to this page. I don’t post on this board, but I did feel the need to reply to a thread about “me”.
I have 5 degrees: B.Sc. in physics, applied math minor. B.Sc. in pure math, chemistry minor. B.Eng, M.Eng and Ph.D …all from legitimate universities. It took 16 years in total, but I went through on several scholarships as well as teaching undergraduate courses in physics/engineering during the last few years of my Ph.D.
The formulation of those equations are legitimate, and quite easy to comprehend - based simply on weight to bone structure relationships (which are verifiable by reference to any large population database) and setting the largest verifiable drug-tested bodybuilding competitors as maximums. It apples to the weights and measurements of current drug-free competitors as well - which can be quickly and easily verified by assuming average bone-structures for most current top naturals (which will throw the results off by a few pounds at most).
If any legitimate natural bodybuilders are reading this, please post your real name, contest stats, along with proof of your drug-free status (such as participation in a drug-tested event) and I’ll gladly include your info in an ongoing statistical analysis of drug-free bodybuilders. If you wish your name withheld, please contact me personally via my website: http://www.weightrainer.net and, as I’ve done with several top drug-free naturals who’ve contributed, I’ll respect your privacy completely and not divulge your name at any time.[/quote]
They are still crap. The fact that someone happens to have small wrists does NOT mean they will also look better with small arms.
[quote]legacyfighter wrote:
I weigh 190 at 5’8" and I dont look very big, yet I am at 10% bf. So is this more a question of size or the weight of lean body mass. These questions are totally different in my opinion. For those of us who do more of a powerlifting workout as opposed to a bodybuilding style workout are not going to look as big, but can have the same amount of lean mass. So what is the actual question in this thread? More lean mass or more size?[/quote]
The answer is either more size with less lean mass [to allow for an increase in sexy, blubbery flab] or the physiologically impossible more lean mass with less size. Take your pick.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
There’s code in that article that lead me to this page. I don’t post on this board, but I did feel the need to reply to a thread about “me”.
I have 5 degrees: B.Sc. in physics, applied math minor. B.Sc. in pure math, chemistry minor. B.Eng, M.Eng and Ph.D …all from legitimate universities. It took 16 years in total, but I went through on several scholarships as well as teaching undergraduate courses in physics/engineering during the last few years of my Ph.D.
The formulation of those equations are legitimate, and quite easy to comprehend - based simply on weight to bone structure relationships (which are verifiable by reference to any large population database) and setting the largest verifiable drug-tested bodybuilding competitors as maximums. It apples to the weights and measurements of current drug-free competitors as well - which can be quickly and easily verified by assuming average bone-structures for most current top naturals (which will throw the results off by a few pounds at most).
If any legitimate natural bodybuilders are reading this, please post your real name, contest stats, along with proof of your drug-free status (such as participation in a drug-tested event) and I’ll gladly include your info in an ongoing statistical analysis of drug-free bodybuilders.
If you wish your name withheld, please PM me personally and I’ll respect your privacy completely and not divulge your name at any time.[/quote]
What ever happened to just busting your hump in the gym?