[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
200 on 5’9’’ - 5’10’’ with single digit bodyfat is a great physique. The thing is that most peoples underestimate what 8% looks like. Some peoples begin to see some abs and some veins and immediately think that they are 10%!
A TRUE 8% is VERY close to a bodybuilding competition shape. On the picture attached I am 208 (I’m 5’8’') at 7.5% body fat (one of the rare times I had my BF calculated).
[/quote]
CT - When you say you had your bodyfat tested how did you have it done? I must say to eyeball you in that pic I would put you significantly less than 7.5%, more like 5%. I would say your regular avatar is closer to 8. Either way you look pretty ripped.
Tim
CT - When you say you had your bodyfat tested how did you have it done? I must say to eyeball you in that pic I would put you significantly less than 7.5%, more like 5%. I would say your regular avatar is closer to 8. Either way you look pretty ripped.
Tim[/quote]
The pic from my Avatar is from 2001 and was after 16 weeks of dieting BUT very little upper body training. I started to diet down because a biceps injury prevented me to train on the olympic lifts. So I only did upper body work for those 16 weeks of dieting. Prior to that, the previous 4 years were spent only on olympic lifting exercises and their assistance movements.
The triceps pics is from 2006, after 5 years of regular bodybuilding training.
The reason why I’m at 7.5% and look to be 5% is because I store much of my fat in my back. So my legs looked to be around 4%, my arms and front torso looked to be around 5-6% and my back looked like 10-12%.
Group statistics (e.g. using equations based off of measurements based on large numbers of subjects) do not apply to a particular individual. This is something simple that people tend to forget or ignore.
Anyway, sorry for the rant but does anyone have a damn clue why this is happening?..!
Because we often see more people in pictures, on TV and online than we do in real life.
Our perceptions of beauty are all messed up.
[/quote]
If you want proof of what real life people look like all you have to do is spend a hour or two in Wal-Mart on a hot Aug. day, you will see 2-3 really lean built guys but mostly, fatties and emaciated people who both think they are stacked and ripped. And they will all be wearing beaters.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
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.
[/quote]
[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Casey Butt wrote:
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.
Since you are here, I’m curious to your thoughts on that article and accompanying “calculator.”
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Tim Henriques wrote:
CT - When you say you had your bodyfat tested how did you have it done? I must say to eyeball you in that pic I would put you significantly less than 7.5%, more like 5%. I would say your regular avatar is closer to 8. Either way you look pretty ripped.
Tim
The pic from my Avatar is from 2001 and was after 16 weeks of dieting BUT very little upper body training. I started to diet down because a biceps injury prevented me to train on the olympic lifts. So I only did upper body work for those 16 weeks of dieting. Prior to that, the previous 4 years were spent only on olympic lifting exercises and their assistance movements.
The triceps pics is from 2006, after 5 years of regular bodybuilding training.
The reason why I’m at 7.5% and look to be 5% is because I store much of my fat in my back. So my legs looked to be around 4%, my arms and front torso looked to be around 5-6% and my back looked like 10-12%.[/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.
[/quote]
I know that he is often mocked as much as revered for some of his BBing advice, but I do recall that Arnold said that the guys who gained or lost the most weight early on were the ones that weighed themselves every day. I know that goes against most conventional wisdom, but i wonder if it had to do with keeping the goal simple and in sight.
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 know that he is often mocked as much as revered for some of his BBing advice, but I do recall that Arnold said that the guys who gained or lost the most weight early on were the ones that weighed themselves every day. I know that goes against most conventional wisdom, but i wonder if it had to do with keeping the goal simple and in sight.[/quote]
I tend to weigh myself everyday when gaining. I avoid it when dieting. I think it is very important when gaining to make sure you are actually eating enough. That doesn’t mean I am expecting a daily weight increase. But I am also trying to avoid a daily decrease in body weight as well.
What’s interesting is that when Dave Tate said, [quote]“I can, however, tell someone’s potential for powerlifting by looking at their wrists, elbows, and knees.”[/quote] - no one bat an eye.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
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.
/cut
[/quote]
Agree, I remember I used to do obscene things with pasta and other carbs, doing damage do my body (fat) composition. Just eating. Though weights in the gym skyrocketed and on the scale (!), I didn’t realize or care about the whole concept of insulin (in)sensitivity/carb tolerance. But I had the results which motivated me further.
[quote]Protoculture wrote:
What’s interesting is that when Dave Tate said, “I can, however, tell someone’s potential for powerlifting by looking at their wrists, elbows, and knees.” - no one bat an eye.
You make no sense. There is a huge difference between seeing someone who already has signs of above average development and body structure and saying, “that person has good genetics” and trying to claim exactly what limit someone can reach by looking at their wrists.
One identifies those with above average ability. The other tries to limit how much progress can be made.
You can see in most gyms who has above average genetic ability based on body structure and how quickly they adapt to training. That doesn’t mean the guy in the corner who expresses no early signs has no chance of reaching an above average degree of development. That same guy just might gain another 80lbs faster than most.
Identifying those who are gifted is not the same as limiting everyone else. Maybe you should spend some time on that.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
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.
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]
Didn’t we already beat this horse into oblivion? Why, dear God why, would someone resurrect it?
I think we pretty much already brought up all of the holes in the theory and pretty much just about every argument that could be made for or against the article was also addressed.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Protoculture wrote:
What’s interesting is that when Dave Tate said, “I can, however, tell someone’s potential for powerlifting by looking at their wrists, elbows, and knees.” - no one bat an eye.
You make no sense. There is a huge difference between seeing someone who already has signs of above average development and body structure and saying, “that person has good genetics” and trying to claim exactly what limit someone can reach by looking at their wrists.
One identifies those with above average ability. The other tries to limit how much progress can be made.
You can see in most gyms who has above average genetic ability based on body structure and how quickly they adapt to training. That doesn’t mean the guy in the corner who expresses no early signs has no chance of reaching an above average degree of development. That same guy just might gain another 80lbs faster than most.
Identifying those who are gifted is not the same as limiting everyone else. Maybe you should spend some time on that.[/quote]
What I got from Casey Butt’s article is that potential for size can be seen by looking at the wrist and ankle diameter.
That’s what I got out of it. That’s why I tied Tate’s comment into this conversation in my previous post.
For the record (if it actually needs being explicitly stated) I don’t believe his formula can predict the maximum limits he claims it can. It may have been accurate in estimating previous bodybuilding champions, but a lot has changed since then.
Specifically the modern approach to bulking up that didn’t exist back then. As far as I know none of those Golden Age bodybuilders ate themselves up to the upper 200s or 300 lbs. I think this severely limited their size, so therefore they don’t represent any maximum potential.
[quote]drummerofgod89 wrote:
What about a 6’2" person? I’m 245 lbs, 18% bf as of now, and I have never touched a weight in my life until 7 months ago. According to this 5-lbs-per-inch rule, an arguable genetic limit for a 6’2" person would be 220. I highly doubt that after I reach my genetic limit that I will be of 220 lbs with 8% bf.[/quote]
I am 6’3" and I have a hard time getting past 215-220 right now I have been holding this weight for a couple years. If I managed to add 10lbs of muscle to my frame during the course of a few years I would be very satisfied.
[quote]chainsaw1 wrote:
drummerofgod89 wrote:
What about a 6’2" person? I’m 245 lbs, 18% bf as of now, and I have never touched a weight in my life until 7 months ago. According to this 5-lbs-per-inch rule, an arguable genetic limit for a 6’2" person would be 220. I highly doubt that after I reach my genetic limit that I will be of 220 lbs with 8% bf.
I am 6’3" and I have a hard time getting past 215-220 right now I have been holding this weight for a couple years. If I managed to add 10lbs of muscle to my frame during the course of a few years I would be very satisfied.
[/quote]
That’s ridiculous. You need to check your diet. There is no reason on Earth you should be stuck at 215lbs when you are that tall unless you simply refuse to eat enough to gain more weight.