I recently bought your book to find out more information about the old time bodybuilders - like Reg Park. I am not in 100 % agreement about limits and all that, but besides very exceptional people/freaky genetic elite, I think many people working out at local gyms can aspire to and maybe even get to levels set by good examples like Reg. I read a little article about Usain Bolt today that proves there will always be genetic elites/freaks that will be amazing and defy most preconceived “limits” or what have you.
if anyones interested, there is a great book, The Adonis Complex, by Harrison Pope, Katharine Phillips, and Roberto Olividaria… a lot of you have probably heard of it
anyway, after concluding a lot of studies, they have a theory relating to the Fat Free Mass Index (FFMI). The formula is:
FFMI= (LBM/H^2) plus 6.1(1.8-H).
LBM is lean body mass in kilograms and H is height in meters. lean body mass is your weight minus your bodyfat percentage. (ie 200lb guy who is 8% bodyfat = 200 x .92 = 184
This is what they say: " A man with an FFMI of 16-17 has a low level of muscle. An FFMI of 19-20, by contrast, would be typical of an average American or European college student. When we get up to an FFMI of 22 or 23, we’re describing a man who would be noticeably muscular. We believe that an FFMI of 25 or 26 represents the upper limit of muscularity attainable without steroids. IN our research, dozens of drug free weightlifters scored in the high 24s or even the low 25s, but above that there was a sharp cutoff: of the unequivocally drug free men we’ve measured, none has scored beyond 26…
By contrast, we’ve measured countless steroid users who scored well above 26, with many going even into the low 30s…
We should add one precaution: all of the above numbers apply to men who have low or moderate bodyfat. If a man becomes quite fat, then he can get his FFMI above 26 without drugs, because when you add fat to the body, you increase the amount of muscle that can be added as well.
(ie: sumo wrestler). "
The diet and training principles of today are so much more advanced than those of forty and fifty years ago that I think it’s much easier to attain the physique of some of the old time bodybuilders than it used to be.
Interesting, I’ll probably pick up a copy now that you mentioned it, thanks mjuron.
[quote]mjuron wrote:
because when you add fat to the body, you increase the amount of muscle that can be added as well.
[/quote]
ya don’t say?
[quote]mjuron wrote:
if anyones interested, there is a great book, The Adonis Complex, by Harrison Pope, Katharine Phillips, and Roberto Olividaria… a lot of you have probably heard of it
anyway, after concluding a lot of studies, they have a theory relating to the Fat Free Mass Index (FFMI). The formula is:
FFMI= (LBM/H^2) plus 6.1(1.8-H).
LBM is lean body mass in kilograms and H is height in meters. lean body mass is your weight minus your bodyfat percentage. (ie 200lb guy who is 8% bodyfat = 200 x .92 = 184
This is what they say: " A man with an FFMI of 16-17 has a low level of muscle. An FFMI of 19-20, by contrast, would be typical of an average American or European college student. When we get up to an FFMI of 22 or 23, we’re describing a man who would be noticeably muscular. We believe that an FFMI of 25 or 26 represents the upper limit of muscularity attainable without steroids. IN our research, dozens of drug free weightlifters scored in the high 24s or even the low 25s, but above that there was a sharp cutoff: of the unequivocally drug free men we’ve measured, none has scored beyond 26…
By contrast, we’ve measured countless steroid users who scored well above 26, with many going even into the low 30s…
We should add one precaution: all of the above numbers apply to men who have low or moderate bodyfat. If a man becomes quite fat, then he can get his FFMI above 26 without drugs, because when you add fat to the body, you increase the amount of muscle that can be added as well.
(ie: sumo wrestler). "
[/quote]
So what is to stop a muscular guy who is already at this supposed upper limit from gaining a lot of bodyfat, thereby surpassing this limit of LBM, then dieting down and holding on to all of his muscle?
[quote]evo2008 wrote:
Hi Guys.
I’ve been having a debate elsewhere (ok an argument) about natural and ‘pharmaceutical’ bodybuilding. This guy (who claims to be an ex pro) says it’s impossible for a genetically average guy standing 5ft 10 (@180cm) to weight over 200 lbs at 8% body fat. Would appreciate your thoughts on what he says…
5’11 205 ~ 5’10 198 (~7lb/inch for male) = NOT possible 100% completely natural with no supp while remaining at 8% no clothes on. (in the morning after 8 hour sleep no food in system with one single glass of water drank before weighin, no clothes/shoes/pump which =3-8lb)
thus you were 5’11 ~198~7% which is parallel and will look very much alike as 5’10~190~8% = POSSIBLE COMPLETELY NATURALLY as i said before if ones have extra ordinary response to training which i assume you have if you were at those numbers at this body fat. 5’11 198lb 7% bf is SUPERB physiqe and only minority of trainees will be able to achieve it naturally.
guys you need to pay attention to the way i write and to the small details i put in. they are exteremly important. when you see the 5’7 guys in the bronx weighin 220 they are not 8% they are sitting at a good 18-20% bodyfat and in most cases been working out in the past with the intake of supplements and in many cases trial periods with hormones.
[/quote]
You’ve never met any wrestler have you?
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
The diet and training principles of today are so much more advanced than those of forty and fifty years ago that I think it’s much easier to attain the physique of some of the old time bodybuilders than it used to be. [/quote]
Not sure I agree with that one, broseph.
What amazing new innovation in training have been discovered since the days of arnold?
Bosu balls? Total body training? Chad Waterbury???
[quote]Stuntman Mike wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
The diet and training principles of today are so much more advanced than those of forty and fifty years ago that I think it’s much easier to attain the physique of some of the old time bodybuilders than it used to be.
Not sure I agree with that one, broseph.
What amazing new innovation in training have been discovered since the days of arnold?
Bosu balls? Total body training? Chad Waterbury???[/quote]
I think he is talking about the fifties before Arnold
[quote]namor wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
The diet and training principles of today are so much more advanced than those of forty and fifty years ago that I think it’s much easier to attain the physique of some of the old time bodybuilders than it used to be.
Not sure I agree with that one, broseph.
What amazing new innovation in training have been discovered since the days of arnold?
Bosu balls? Total body training? Chad Waterbury???
I think he is talking about the fifties before Arnold
[/quote]
Well thats pushing 60+ years ago, still I disagree.
[quote]Stuntman Mike wrote:
namor wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
The diet and training principles of today are so much more advanced than those of forty and fifty years ago that I think it’s much easier to attain the physique of some of the old time bodybuilders than it used to be.
Not sure I agree with that one, broseph.
What amazing new innovation in training have been discovered since the days of arnold?
Bosu balls? Total body training? Chad Waterbury???
I think he is talking about the fifties before Arnold
Well thats pushing 60+ years ago, still I disagree. [/quote]
What pro bodybuilder trains each body part every other day like Arnold and his boys did?
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
namor wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
The diet and training principles of today are so much more advanced than those of forty and fifty years ago that I think it’s much easier to attain the physique of some of the old time bodybuilders than it used to be.
Not sure I agree with that one, broseph.
What amazing new innovation in training have been discovered since the days of arnold?
Bosu balls? Total body training? Chad Waterbury???
I think he is talking about the fifties before Arnold
Well thats pushing 60+ years ago, still I disagree.
What pro bodybuilder trains each body part every other day like Arnold and his boys did?[/quote]
So your saying Arnold could have won his first olympia before the ripe old age of 23 if he trained like the pro’s today?
I’m not saying people may have gotten a few thing right over the past few years, but there has been no huge tidal shift in training principles. The average guy will still look great doing the shit they did back then.
To get from super fucking freaky huge to super duper fucking freaky huge might be a different story, though. But then again, if we are talking about this group of people, I don’t think they are doing things naturally.
[quote]Stuntman Mike wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
namor wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
The diet and training principles of today are so much more advanced than those of forty and fifty years ago that I think it’s much easier to attain the physique of some of the old time bodybuilders than it used to be.
Not sure I agree with that one, broseph.
What amazing new innovation in training have been discovered since the days of arnold?
Bosu balls? Total body training? Chad Waterbury???
I think he is talking about the fifties before Arnold
Well thats pushing 60+ years ago, still I disagree.
What pro bodybuilder trains each body part every other day like Arnold and his boys did?
So your saying Arnold could have won his first olympia before the ripe old age of 23 if he trained like the pro’s today?
I’m not saying people may have gotten a few thing right over the past few years, but there has been no huge tidal shift in training principles. The average guy will still look great doing the shit they did back then.
To get from super fucking freaky huge to super duper fucking freaky huge might be a different story, though. But then again, if we are talking about this group of people, I don’t think they are doing things naturally.[/quote]
While I do agree with more drug usage today, I think a better question is why are todays bodybuilders not training like Arnold?
Why are there guys at my gym bigger than a lot of 70s bodybuilders, maybe more steroids but I belivw diet and training principles to be the bigger cause.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
namor wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
The diet and training principles of today are so much more advanced than those of forty and fifty years ago that I think it’s much easier to attain the physique of some of the old time bodybuilders than it used to be.
Not sure I agree with that one, broseph.
What amazing new innovation in training have been discovered since the days of arnold?
Bosu balls? Total body training? Chad Waterbury???
I think he is talking about the fifties before Arnold
Well thats pushing 60+ years ago, still I disagree.
What pro bodybuilder trains each body part every other day like Arnold and his boys did?
So your saying Arnold could have won his first olympia before the ripe old age of 23 if he trained like the pro’s today?
I’m not saying people may have gotten a few thing right over the past few years, but there has been no huge tidal shift in training principles. The average guy will still look great doing the shit they did back then.
To get from super fucking freaky huge to super duper fucking freaky huge might be a different story, though. But then again, if we are talking about this group of people, I don’t think they are doing things naturally.
While I do agree with more drug usage today, I think a better question is why are todays bodybuilders not training like Arnold?
Why are there guys at my gym bigger than a lot of 70s bodybuilders, maybe more steroids but I belivw diet and training principles to be the bigger cause. [/quote]
We’re always going to improve on what we did back then, but what they did back then still is holds true.
Can we just kiss and make up already?
[quote]Stuntman Mike wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
namor wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
The diet and training principles of today are so much more advanced than those of forty and fifty years ago that I think it’s much easier to attain the physique of some of the old time bodybuilders than it used to be.
Not sure I agree with that one, broseph.
What amazing new innovation in training have been discovered since the days of arnold?
Bosu balls? Total body training? Chad Waterbury???
I think he is talking about the fifties before Arnold
Well thats pushing 60+ years ago, still I disagree.
What pro bodybuilder trains each body part every other day like Arnold and his boys did?
So your saying Arnold could have won his first olympia before the ripe old age of 23 if he trained like the pro’s today?
I’m not saying people may have gotten a few thing right over the past few years, but there has been no huge tidal shift in training principles. The average guy will still look great doing the shit they did back then.
To get from super fucking freaky huge to super duper fucking freaky huge might be a different story, though. But then again, if we are talking about this group of people, I don’t think they are doing things naturally.
While I do agree with more drug usage today, I think a better question is why are todays bodybuilders not training like Arnold?
Why are there guys at my gym bigger than a lot of 70s bodybuilders, maybe more steroids but I belivw diet and training principles to be the bigger cause.
We’re always going to improve on what we did back then, but what they did back then still is holds true.
Can we just kiss and make up already?
[/quote]
Of course
[quote]Stuntman Mike wrote:
namor wrote:
Stuntman Mike wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
The diet and training principles of today are so much more advanced than those of forty and fifty years ago that I think it’s much easier to attain the physique of some of the old time bodybuilders than it used to be.
Not sure I agree with that one, broseph.
What amazing new innovation in training have been discovered since the days of arnold?
Bosu balls? Total body training? Chad Waterbury???
I think he is talking about the fifties before Arnold
Well thats pushing 60+ years ago, still I disagree. [/quote]
2009 minus fifty years = 1959 =P
Arnold was twelve then
I don’t how I ended up here, but has anyone come forward yet with their photos and measurements and bodyfat stats that put the calculator to shame that is natural? Certainly, I am impressed that we have a board full of people who are bigger than Reg Park was in his prime.
[quote]Guardian58 wrote:
I don’t how I ended up here, but has anyone come forward yet with their photos and measurements and bodyfat stats that put the calculator to shame that is natural? Certainly, I am impressed that we have a board full of people who are bigger than Reg Park was in his prime. [/quote]
Call outs should be reserved for those with public progress.
You sir, have none.
Please go back under the rock from which you crawled.
I had my body fat taken in June,via a “Bod Pod.” It was fairly accurate, since I estimated I was around 8% and the Pod calculated the following figures. Based on what I see in the mirror, I estimated the high singe digits for body fat. I’ve competed before, so I good knowledge of how lean I can be.
Height: 72’
Weight: 203.4
Percent fat: 6.6%
Percent lean: 93.4%
Yes, it’s possible to be over 6 feet and have single digits in body fat. Is it hard- yes! I don’t eat junk food, eating a clean diet nearly all the time.
My caloric range is about 2800-3000 calories daily.
Bod Pod eh? where the hell do you go to jump into one of those. Congrats on your stats though. 3000 calories a day on a clean diet must be hard as hell. Every time I start eating really clean I lose a lot of weight and my lifts all go down.