Okay, now on to a new subject: the bringing up of Casey Butt to supposedly prove that CT is on steroids.
Which aside from his word, I have independent reason to know that drug use does not fit with a fact that I know to be true, but that is simply valid to my own perspective.
First thing to consider on the general question of those going on and on with this supposed limit would be this conversation on the forum:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Perhaps this explains or partially explains the apparent internal discrepancy I noted, where in my own case (not natural, but some naturals can certainly exceed what I have attained) the Casey Butt method correctly predicts my actual weight for given percent bodyfat, but says chest, arm, and calf sizes would be much better than actual.
So in other words the weight and those given girths don’t agree, as I’d have to be much heavier at same bodyfat to have those girths.
The reason may be, or part of the reason, that if the equation set is based on physiques such as Reeves, there’s an assumption of truly unusually small waist and hip size for overall body size.
E.g., while my hip size in fact matches the Grecian Ideal (within half an inch anyway) for my other girths, if Reeves had a waist/hip ratio of 0.85 to 0.90 (just throwing those out there, I don’t know what it was) then his hips may have been as small as 33-35 inches or so, given the 30" waist. Versus 38" for me in pretty lean condition, and versus 32.5" for the waist size. Or versus the 42" hips he would have had his hip size been in the “Grecian Ideal” proportion to his chest.
That’s a fair bit of weight he saved in the hips and waist, and thus a fair bit of extra mass available for the chest, arms, and calves for a given bodyweight.
So perhaps if my waist and hips were as proportionally small as Reeves’ – well under the “Grecian Ideal” rather than just about at it – then I would be enough lighter that acquiring the Casey Butt method chest, arm, and calf size (if possible) might only get me back to the calculated weight.
Similarly, it seems to me that gifted naturals matching Reeves for chest, arms, calves etc would typically easily outweigh what the method figures as maximum, for given bodyfat, if their waist and hip structures are heavier than Reeves’, which actually ordinarily will be the case. It seems to me the difference could easily be 20 lb or more from this cause alone.
The article, though, doesn’t bring out that the calculated supposed maximum weight for given percent bodyfat is assuming a physical structure with unusually small, for the other girths, waist and hips. [/quote]
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
You are, of course, correct in many of your assumptions. The data used in that article was largely from elite-level competitors having favorable genetics for bodybuilding, and so the results were skewed in favor of them. The online article was excerpted from the section in the e-book dealing specifically with bodybuilding elite, so the results are skewed towards a bodybuilding “ideal” (small waist, big chest, etc). Most people, particularly those of smaller than average bone structures and shorter than typical muscle belly lengths, will not be able to achieve the development outlined in that article.
The first three sub-sections of the e-book actually contain more appropriate equations for the general training population (including large-structured powerlifters and strength athletes) than does the online article, and also include error terms to give a range for “outliers”. I made the decision to base the online excerpt on the elite bodybuilder section because I thought the majority of readers would find that more interesting and more useful from a goal-setting perspective.[/quote]
So are you “Butt’s Ceiling” folk using his equations that allow for large-structured powerlifters and strength athletes – the latter which CT is – and which allow for the existence of outliers, which Butt does recognize exist? I bet not. Nice “science.” Or if you say you are, then what, using the equation Butt says is appropriate, is the typical limit and then how much when accounting for outliers, at CT’s height? Surely you know since you claim he is above it. If you don’t, then again, nice attempt at playing scientist.
Secondly, we need to consider the condition of the individuals measured. What a surprise, you measure Grimek in then-contest condition and then figure CT’s weight in NON-contest condition at the point in time cited and CT is heavier for his height. What a surprise. On the other hand, if you take CT’s contest weight then there’s probably not much difference. Huh.
Lastly, has everyone not noticed that it is easy to find bigger athletes today just about everywhere you look, and not necessarily because of drugs? Hmmm, isn’t average height bigger, and not because of drugs? Doesn’t that suggest that the most recent generations are enjoying developmental advantages over previous generations? And secondly, that the pool of naturally large people who seriously go into sports today may be larger than in the past because of, back in the 50s, there being quite little financial reward to sports, or bb’ing, vs quite considerable reward today? And perhaps an effect in the past where it tended to be the naturally littler man who was drawn to weight training – e.g. back in Arnold’s day most competitors came in under or not much over 200 lb regardless of drugs – and the naturally huge guy may usually have seen little point, but these days, naturally huge guys do see a point to getting bigger yet? Just maybe the pool of entrants into weight training may have changed over time?
Aw no, no way, anyone heavier than Grimek for his height HAS to be on drugs. That is SCIENCE.
Yeah, to people who like pretending they are armchair scientists.