[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
I think a physique like Arnolds or some of the other 70s and 80s bodybuilders is definetly attainable drug free. The problem is 99 percent of people don’t have the drive, patience, or willingness to do what it takes. Instead they sit around and debate who’s drug free or not and go onto claim everyone bigger than them must be on steroids and that is pathetic. [/quote]
I think you’re crazy. Maybe for a few genetic elites (as in, less than .001% in the world, with Lockett possibly being one of them) it’s possible, but the guys in the 70s and 80s still represent the top tier of genetics, balls to the wall dedication, hard as nails traing ALONG with drug use to top it off.
I’m not one on putting barriers but to think the average joe can attain a Lee Haney or Arnold physique, drug free, I think you’re crazy.
[quote]Killer7 wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Adren wrote:
Rocky2 wrote:
Well isn’t CT at like 240 all natural now?
Pretty much, barring the brief steroid use he talked about in his teen years.
CT would win quite a few top natural comps me thinks.
I’m not sure about that. While I can build muscle fairly easily and can get very lean; I tend to lose size and fullness when dieting, even when doing everything right. Furthermore I do not have pleasing bodybuilding structure (long torso, short legs, narrow clavicle) so while I can build an impressive physique, when put under the judging microscope I am not built to be a competitive bodybuilder.
Furthermore I have discovered that I have a heart malformation from birth (only diagnosed this year) which is why I always felt really bad when preparing for a contest.
Because of that I’m not taking any chances and stopped actually pursuing gaining mass. In fact, after the I, BB experiment I had to starve myself for 6 weeks (eating only once a day) to downsize. I went back down to a much more manageable 215-217. At 240 I had serious health problems.
Which is also why those who think I’m using steroids are really dumb. First I DON’T want to get bigger and second I really want to grow into old age!
Pardon my ignorance, but why would you force youself to lose the added muscle, isn’t it beneficial in the long run?
Thanks in advance.[/quote]
Wait, you missed the part where he said he had health problems? What did you think that meant?
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
I think a physique like Arnolds or some of the other 70s and 80s bodybuilders is definetly attainable drug free. The problem is 99 percent of people don’t have the drive, patience, or willingness to do what it takes. Instead they sit around and debate who’s drug free or not and go onto claim everyone bigger than them must be on steroids and that is pathetic.
I think you’re crazy. Maybe for a few genetic elites (as in, less than .001% in the world, with Lockett possibly being one of them) it’s possible, but the guys in the 70s and 80s still represent the top tier of genetics, balls to the wall dedication, hard as nails traing ALONG with drug use to top it off.
I’m not one on putting barriers but to think the average joe can attain a Lee Haney or Arnold physique, drug free, I think you’re crazy.[/quote]
This is true. The average person does NOT have the genetics to build arms much bigger than 17". It is generally held that you do have decent genetics if you can reach sizes bigger than that in a relatively short time frame.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
I think a physique like Arnolds or some of the other 70s and 80s bodybuilders is definetly attainable drug free. The problem is 99 percent of people don’t have the drive, patience, or willingness to do what it takes. Instead they sit around and debate who’s drug free or not and go onto claim everyone bigger than them must be on steroids and that is pathetic.
I think you’re crazy. Maybe for a few genetic elites (as in, less than .001% in the world, with Lockett possibly being one of them) it’s possible, but the guys in the 70s and 80s still represent the top tier of genetics, balls to the wall dedication, hard as nails traing ALONG with drug use to top it off.
I’m not one on putting barriers but to think the average joe can attain a Lee Haney or Arnold physique, drug free, I think you’re crazy.
This is true. The average person does NOT have the genetics to build arms much bigger than 17". It is generally held that you do have decent genetics if you can reach sizes bigger than that in a relatively short time frame.[/quote]
I didn’t realize I needed to clarify that I’m not talking about your “average Joe.” I guess I was talking about what I thought that I could accomplish. Genetics obviously are going to be a determining factor but hard work and motivation have taken some people with not such great potential pretty far places.
[quote]Killer7 wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Adren wrote:
Rocky2 wrote:
Well isn’t CT at like 240 all natural now?
Pretty much, barring the brief steroid use he talked about in his teen years.
CT would win quite a few top natural comps me thinks.
I’m not sure about that. While I can build muscle fairly easily and can get very lean; I tend to lose size and fullness when dieting, even when doing everything right. Furthermore I do not have pleasing bodybuilding structure (long torso, short legs, narrow clavicle) so while I can build an impressive physique, when put under the judging microscope I am not built to be a competitive bodybuilder.
Furthermore I have discovered that I have a heart malformation from birth (only diagnosed this year) which is why I always felt really bad when preparing for a contest.
Because of that I’m not taking any chances and stopped actually pursuing gaining mass. In fact, after the I, BB experiment I had to starve myself for 6 weeks (eating only once a day) to downsize. I went back down to a much more manageable 215-217. At 240 I had serious health problems.
Which is also why those who think I’m using steroids are really dumb. First I DON’T want to get bigger and second I really want to grow into old age!
Pardon my ignorance, but why would you force youself to lose the added muscle, isn’t it beneficial in the long run?
Thanks in advance.[/quote]
More mass, especially muscle mass requires a greater supply of blood which is supplied by the heart i.e. placing greater strain on his heart.
haha, i love this argument… i get accused of doing steroids all the time. i’m around 280lbs at 18% bodyfat standing at 5’9… i’ve never used anything. i agree its only a small percentage of people who can attain that size, but it is possible, and for some reason when you’re able to do it, you run into a lot more people who are also able to do it. hell, most of the guys i know that use AAS are usually way smaller than me and most of my natural friends.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
I think a physique like Arnolds or some of the other 70s and 80s bodybuilders is definetly attainable drug free. The problem is 99 percent of people don’t have the drive, patience, or willingness to do what it takes. Instead they sit around and debate who’s drug free or not and go onto claim everyone bigger than them must be on steroids and that is pathetic.
I think you’re crazy. Maybe for a few genetic elites (as in, less than .001% in the world, with Lockett possibly being one of them) it’s possible, but the guys in the 70s and 80s still represent the top tier of genetics, balls to the wall dedication, hard as nails traing ALONG with drug use to top it off.
I’m not one on putting barriers but to think the average joe can attain a Lee Haney or Arnold physique, drug free, I think you’re crazy.
This is true. The average person does NOT have the genetics to build arms much bigger than 17". It is generally held that you do have decent genetics if you can reach sizes bigger than that in a relatively short time frame.
I didn’t realize I needed to clarify that I’m not talking about your “average Joe.” I guess I was talking about what I thought that I could accomplish. Genetics obviously are going to be a determining factor but hard work and motivation have taken some people with not such great potential pretty far places.
[/quote]
I agree with that as well…but guess what, from the posts on this site about arm measurements and those who don’t even lift, it has become apparent that the average person here IS one of the average weekend warriors. They just talk too much and try to respond to every question as if they are actually serious.
I am betting there are less than 20 guys on this entire site that actually LOOK like serious weight lifters and train hard regularly.
Yeah, it sucks that on a website where everyone claims they are an expert that so few actually stand out.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
I think a physique like Arnolds or some of the other 70s and 80s bodybuilders is definetly attainable drug free. The problem is 99 percent of people don’t have the drive, patience, or willingness to do what it takes. Instead they sit around and debate who’s drug free or not and go onto claim everyone bigger than them must be on steroids and that is pathetic.
I think you’re crazy. Maybe for a few genetic elites (as in, less than .001% in the world, with Lockett possibly being one of them) it’s possible, but the guys in the 70s and 80s still represent the top tier of genetics, balls to the wall dedication, hard as nails traing ALONG with drug use to top it off.
I’m not one on putting barriers but to think the average joe can attain a Lee Haney or Arnold physique, drug free, I think you’re crazy.
This is true. The average person does NOT have the genetics to build arms much bigger than 17". It is generally held that you do have decent genetics if you can reach sizes bigger than that in a relatively short time frame.[/quote]
I have to go against that and say while it might take a little longer the average person can build 17 inch arms.
Unfortuneatly X anytime you are on the net there will be countless frauds, at least we have the intelligence to decipher who knows there shit and who doesn’t. I just feel bad when confused individuals take advice from sme of these clowns but I guess that’s when you or CC put them in check.
[quote]crod266 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
I think a physique like Arnolds or some of the other 70s and 80s bodybuilders is definetly attainable drug free. The problem is 99 percent of people don’t have the drive, patience, or willingness to do what it takes. Instead they sit around and debate who’s drug free or not and go onto claim everyone bigger than them must be on steroids and that is pathetic.
I think you’re crazy. Maybe for a few genetic elites (as in, less than .001% in the world, with Lockett possibly being one of them) it’s possible, but the guys in the 70s and 80s still represent the top tier of genetics, balls to the wall dedication, hard as nails traing ALONG with drug use to top it off.
I’m not one on putting barriers but to think the average joe can attain a Lee Haney or Arnold physique, drug free, I think you’re crazy.
This is true. The average person does NOT have the genetics to build arms much bigger than 17". It is generally held that you do have decent genetics if you can reach sizes bigger than that in a relatively short time frame.
I have to go against that and say while it might take a little longer the average person can build 17 inch arms. [/quote]
[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
I know wikipedia is not that accurate but Reg supposedly competed a full 13 years before Larry Scott.[/quote]
Park was featured briefly in Strength and Health magazine in 1946, but he didn’t win his first official physique contest until 1949 (the Mr. North East Britain - several months before the 1949 Mr. Britain). Wikipedia is a little off the mark with claiming he won “Mr. Britain” in 1946.
Reeves stopped competing in 1950, and Grimek, Jim Park and Yaz Kuzahara didn’t serve as Ziegler’s initial Guinea pigs until sometime in late 1954 or early 1955 after Ziegler is alleged to have learned about the Soviet use of testosterone at the World Weightlifting Championships in Vienna. (A statistical analysis of Weightlifting totals published in the Journal of Sport History in the 1980s supported this by concluding that the Soviets most likely started between 1952 to 1954). That is thought to be the first instance of testosterone tried as an ergogenic aid in the U.S. Grimek gave up after a few injections because he said it did nothing for his performance, Jim Park is said to have taken only one shot (which made him horny) and I can’t recall what came of Kuzahara other than none of them reported significant results enough to continue ‘experimentation’ with it (they probably took doses small enough to have been compensated for by their own HTPA axes, though unbeknownst to them). After that Ziegler started working with CIBA to develop something more anabolic and less androgenic (Dianabol). Allegedly, Ziegler started testing that on a few York lifters in late 1959 ((Tony Garcy, Bill March and later Lou Reicke, with Grimek being the go-between to recruit the lifters). After that, Bill Starr and Tommy Suggs started spreading the word within the training community and the secret got out.
Bill Pearl claimed to first become aware of, and using, steroids (Nilevar) in 1956 - three years after his first Mr. America and Mr. Universe wins. Rheo Blair (Irvin Johnson) was also said to have access to Dianabol/Nilevar in the late 1950s as well, but isn’t believed to have supplied it to others until the 1960s.
Considering the Soviets are generally accepted to have been the first users of testosterone for ergogenic purposes (starting somewhere between 1952 and 1954) and even Grimek (who was in a position of knowledge with regards to top bodybuilders and athletes) didn’t try until late 1954/1955 being supplied by a physician with access to it, it’s very unlikely that any bodybuilder before 1954/1955 was using anything and most likely that it wasn’t until 1956 that regular use began. Reeves was almost certainly ‘clean’ during his competitive years. He did say on several occasions that he used to take vitamin B-12 injections (which wasn’t uncommon then) - perhaps that lead to the rumor.
I am a nerd, so during my lunch break I measured my wrists and ankles. I am 6’2.5" with 7.5" wrists and 9.75" ankles. Using Mr. Butt’s formula I get a maximum lbm of 204 lbs. This is good news as I am currently about 17% bf at 246, which puts me at my maximum lbm ( at 23 years old!). Now I guess I can quit lifting and pursue numerous professional/graduate degrees.
[quote]deat wrote:
I am a nerd, so during my lunch break I measured my wrists and ankles. I am 6’2.5" with 7.5" wrists and 9.75" ankles. Using Mr. Butt’s formula I get a maximum lbm of 204 lbs. This is good news as I am currently about 17% bf at 246, which puts me at my maximum lbm ( at 23 years old!). Now I guess I can quit lifting and pursue numerous professional/graduate degrees.[/quote]
Well regardless of AAS usage or non-usage, I would be very happy with either Reg Park or Steve Reeves level of development for myself. I know others with better work ethics AND genetics would consider them too small, but I think for a “average joe” gym goer like myself, it is a goal to strive for.
One thing I always wonder now that I am chunky, but not obese anymore, why do people ignore body fat when considering body weight. People said I looked like shit who maybe at best lifted pink weights when I was 247lbs at 40% body fat (Tanita scale). Even Stu competed at 170lbs and he is way stronger and have more LBM than I do.
Also from the article “In closing, I want to stress that although these formulae present lofty, but realistic, goals for most drug-free trainees, they are not meant to represent “limitations”.”
I read that statement as saying that natural, above average genetic lifters CAN go beyond the “limitations” that the author stated in his article. What is the problem with that, when even many on this site claim there are only a few (maybe count them on your fingers) serious lifters WITH better than average genetics and dedication.
i think most people don’t really ever tap into their true potential… most guys go to the gym and just go through the motions… very rarely do people go balls to the wall in the gym… and the guys that do, well, they’re large and full of muscle. its like busting through plateaus… when i was 19, a 600lb deadlift seemed impossible… now its just a part of my workout…
people never push themselves past discomfort, but when they finally pull their head out of their ass and realize how much more they can do, their gains become far greater… that’s one of the reasons i’m so happy that i started training strongman, i have guys that are strong as fuck setting the bar for me, and now that i’m catching up, the competition just keeps going up… and i don’t know many strongman competitors who aren’t barrel chested and who’s arms aren’t at LEAST 17 inches
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am betting there are less than 20 guys on this entire site that actually LOOK like serious weight lifters and train hard regularly.
[/quote]
If that’s true, then that is pitiful. I would at least hope for ~ 100.
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I am betting there are less than 20 guys on this entire site that actually LOOK like serious weight lifters and train hard regularly.
If that’s true, then that is pitiful. I would at least hope for ~ 100.[/quote]
Doubtful. Too many people act amazed when they see anyone with any size on them for most to be coming close to that. Most of these people seem to be the “I can only train 2 times a week” crowd who thinks guys who take this seriously don’t have lives and only live to lift weights with absolutely no other responsibilities or life goals.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
deat wrote:
I am a nerd, so during my lunch break I measured my wrists and ankles. I am 6’2.5" with 7.5" wrists and 9.75" ankles. Using Mr. Butt’s formula I get a maximum lbm of 204 lbs. This is good news as I am currently about 17% bf at 246, which puts me at my maximum lbm ( at 23 years old!). Now I guess I can quit lifting and pursue numerous professional/graduate degrees.
you have small wrists.[/quote]
I guess that helps make my upper arms look bigger! Not to mention how I shouldn’t be able to bench over 365. Shoot I should start a “small wrist” having PLing fed where an Elite total is 900 lb for a 242, oh yeah and you have to be above 6’2" and have long femurs.
[quote]Killer7 wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Adren wrote:
Rocky2 wrote:
Well isn’t CT at like 240 all natural now?
Pretty much, barring the brief steroid use he talked about in his teen years.
CT would win quite a few top natural comps me thinks.
I’m not sure about that. While I can build muscle fairly easily and can get very lean; I tend to lose size and fullness when dieting, even when doing everything right. Furthermore I do not have pleasing bodybuilding structure (long torso, short legs, narrow clavicle) so while I can build an impressive physique, when put under the judging microscope I am not built to be a competitive bodybuilder.
Furthermore I have discovered that I have a heart malformation from birth (only diagnosed this year) which is why I always felt really bad when preparing for a contest.
Because of that I’m not taking any chances and stopped actually pursuing gaining mass. In fact, after the I, BB experiment I had to starve myself for 6 weeks (eating only once a day) to downsize. I went back down to a much more manageable 215-217. At 240 I had serious health problems.
Which is also why those who think I’m using steroids are really dumb. First I DON’T want to get bigger and second I really want to grow into old age!
Pardon my ignorance, but why would you force youself to lose the added muscle, isn’t it beneficial in the long run?
Thanks in advance.[/quote]
Read my post… I have a heart malformation. Because of it I suffered a congestive heart failure (basically my heart could pump enough blood to supply my muscles with oxygen). Because of my malformation my heart will always have to work extra hard to pump blood through my body. Adding more muscle increases the demands on the heart by 1) increasing the demand for oxygen (bigger muscles need more oxygen) and 2) by causing vascular constriction.
When I ear about there limits I always end up thinking of one of my old friends from high school. He was a soccer player and never ever trained with weights in all his life.
In high school he was 5’6" and 177lbs and was in what I would call ‘nearly bodybuilding national level condition’ year round. I don’t know what his wrists measured but he had a small bone structure. So he probably exceeded his natural limit before he even started lifting weights.