A pretty interesting article about what a natural bodybuilder can attain in lean body mass and measurements based on wrist and ankle size.
Any thoughts that would disprove this would be interesting to hear.
I guess everyone should stop lifting right away.
Anyone even that interested in “predicting their potential” or “predicting their own limitations” is that much closer to making sure they never reach their own potential.
Very interesting article. I doubt it will be possible to “disprove” what the author says, given that he indicates in his conclusion that it would be possible to exceed some of the indicated measurements, or the indicated bodyweight, at the possible cost of having an unbalanced physique.
Also note that he says that it is possible to exceed the lean mass numbers simply by being fatter (sumo wrestlers being an example).
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
Very interesting article. I doubt it will be possible to “disprove” what the author says, given that he indicates in his conclusion that it would be possible to exceed some of the indicated measurements, or the indicated bodyweight, at the possible cost of having an unbalanced physique.
Also note that he says that it is possible to exceed the lean mass numbers simply by being fatter (sumo wrestlers being an example).[/quote]
I hope what you just wrote doesn’t make sense to even you.
According to this guys equation at 5’11 10% bodyfat I’m going to top out at a “monstrous” 170 pounds.
I hope to christ this guy’s a quack.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
Very interesting article. I doubt it will be possible to “disprove” what the author says, given that he indicates in his conclusion that it would be possible to exceed some of the indicated measurements, or the indicated bodyweight, at the possible cost of having an unbalanced physique.
Also note that he says that it is possible to exceed the lean mass numbers simply by being fatter (sumo wrestlers being an example).
I hope what you just wrote doesn’t make sense to even you.[/quote]
Why?
[quote]Sliver wrote:
According to this guys equation at 5’11 10% bodyfat I’m going to top out at a “monstrous” 170 pounds.
I hope to christ this guy’s a quack.[/quote]
In order for you to top out at 170 lbs at 5’10" you must have an extremely thin bone structure.
As for the validity of the equations, the statistics and methodology speak for themselves. I didn’t invent the statistics, I merely did the analysis on what already exists. Those are the accurate measurements of verified drug-free athletes (at least at a time during which they were drug-free) and the equations are an accurate fit to that data (plus many more bodybuilders not listed in the article).
I anticipated people not wanting to accept such things when I wrote the article, but, nevertheless, reality is what it is. I’ve trained with many drug-free athletes over the past 16 years and none have surpassed those predictions.
The reality is that drug-built physiques have skewed people’s perceptions of what a big/strong physique really is.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Anyone even that interested in “predicting their potential” or “predicting their own limitations” is that much closer to making sure they never reach their own potential.[/quote]
I totally agree with this statement. Articles like this are very self-defeating.
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
Professor X wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
Very interesting article. I doubt it will be possible to “disprove” what the author says, given that he indicates in his conclusion that it would be possible to exceed some of the indicated measurements, or the indicated bodyweight, at the possible cost of having an unbalanced physique.
Also note that he says that it is possible to exceed the lean mass numbers simply by being fatter (sumo wrestlers being an example).
I hope what you just wrote doesn’t make sense to even you.
Why?[/quote]
Because if his “lean body mass” predictions can be skewed by simply not being lean, then that means his predictions don’t hold much weight at all. Most bodybuilders also bulk up in the off season, at least when they are initially gaining most of their size. That would mean his predictions can be exceeded by simply bulking up?
I am just emphasizing that I disagree not only with his assumption, but also his idea of “ideal” or that anyone needs to be concerned about their limits before they ever reach them.
He states:[quote]One caveat is in order: People with uncharacteristically small joints for their frames (notably some people of African descent) may be able to exceed these predictions by 5-7%.[/quote]
Just 5-7%? Are these adjusted for 2007 advancements in nutrition and the fact that what was considered “huge” in 1957 would be largely considered “average” (for weight lifters who are serious) 50 years later? If these predictions can be skewed by nearly 10% based on race, what good are they? Who else has tested these predictions since?
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Sliver wrote:
According to this guys equation at 5’11 10% bodyfat I’m going to top out at a “monstrous” 170 pounds.
I hope to christ this guy’s a quack.
In order for you to top out at 170 lbs at 5’10" you must have an extremely thin bone structure.
As for the validity of the equations, the statistics and methodology speak for themselves. I didn’t invent the statistics, I merely did the analysis on what already exists. Those are the accurate measurements of verified drug-free athletes (at least at a time during which they were drug-free) and the equations are an accurate fit to that data (plus many more bodybuilders not listed in the article).
I anticipated people not wanting to accept such things when I wrote the article, but, nevertheless, reality is what it is. I’ve trained with many drug-free athletes over the past 16 years and none have surpassed those predictions.
The reality is that drug-built physiques have skewed people’s perceptions of what a big/strong physique really is.[/quote]
Genetics distributed across a large population would be a Bell curve. Obviously, there would be some individuals who fall outside of the majority regardless of statistics.
If someone with the potential to reach beyond what the majority could begins to doubt this based on “predictions” what good has this information done? In fact, what is the potential good…at all? To get people to accept less?
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Sliver wrote:
According to this guys equation at 5’11 10% bodyfat I’m going to top out at a “monstrous” 170 pounds.
I hope to christ this guy’s a quack.
In order for you to top out at 170 lbs at 5’10" you must have an extremely thin bone structure.
[/quote]
Ankle= 8.5 inches
wrist= 6.25
On another note. wtf? Someone links to a study and suddenly the guy who wrote it drops in.
Seems the equation provided predicts what a person ought to want rather than what may be possible…
There is no mention that I saw of when and what condition the sample population was in when the measurements were taken.
The coefficients were then derived by fairing a curve across each measurement/dimension for the sample population. But it is still a snapshot of the condition they were in at that time.
I see hand waving and appeals to authority but no evidence that would lead me to believe this equation is predictive. The author even admitted fudging the coefficients to make them match the end result he was looking for.
Shades of global warming, Batman!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
Professor X wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
Very interesting article. I doubt it will be possible to “disprove” what the author says, given that he indicates in his conclusion that it would be possible to exceed some of the indicated measurements, or the indicated bodyweight, at the possible cost of having an unbalanced physique.
Also note that he says that it is possible to exceed the lean mass numbers simply by being fatter (sumo wrestlers being an example).
I hope what you just wrote doesn’t make sense to even you.
Why?
Because if his “lean body mass” predictions can be skewed by simply not being lean, then that means his predictions don’t hold much weight at all. Most bodybuilders also bulk up in the off season, at least when they are initially gaining most of their size. That would mean his predictions can be exceeded by simply bulking up?
I am just emphasizing that I disagree not only with his assumption, but also his idea of “ideal” or that anyone needs to be concerned about their limits before they ever reach them.
He states:One caveat is in order: People with uncharacteristically small joints for their frames (notably some people of African descent) may be able to exceed these predictions by 5-7%.
Just 5-7%? Are these adjusted for 2007 advancements in nutrition and the fact that what was concerned “huge” in 1957 would be largely considered “average” 50 years later? If these predictions can be skewed by nearly 10% based on race, what good are they? Who else has tested these predictions since?[/quote]
Ok. I think all of your points are covered in the article, though. Re bulking up: yes, you could exceed the maximum lean mass amounts he quotes, but what happens when (natural) bodybuilders lean out? Invariably they lose some muscle mass along with the fat.
I didn’t think the article was based on assumptions but on statistical analysis of measurements of actual natural bodybuilders. Also his model seems to have been tested against modern day natural bodybuilders who presumably have the advantages of 2007 nutrional advances.
It seems to me that there are any number of people around who exceed the bodyweights he is talking about and who are obviously very muscular (yourself included). However, it is much harder to be at those bodyweights while remaining very lean.
Current successful natural bodybuilders in contest trim rarely exceed 200lbs by much. Stan Mcquay weighed in at 187 when he won his pro card. Pics on this thread (http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1332563&pageNo=0)
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Casey Butt wrote:
Sliver wrote:
According to this guys equation at 5’11 10% bodyfat I’m going to top out at a “monstrous” 170 pounds.
I hope to christ this guy’s a quack.
In order for you to top out at 170 lbs at 5’10" you must have an extremely thin bone structure.
Ankle= 8.5 inches
wrist= 6.25[/quote]
Check your calculation. With your height, ankle and wrist measurements at 10%bf I got a result of 189.7lbs.
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
Sliver wrote:
Casey Butt wrote:
Sliver wrote:
According to this guys equation at 5’11 10% bodyfat I’m going to top out at a “monstrous” 170 pounds.
I hope to christ this guy’s a quack.
In order for you to top out at 170 lbs at 5’10" you must have an extremely thin bone structure.
Ankle= 8.5 inches
wrist= 6.25
Check your calculation. With your height, ankle and wrist measurements at 10%bf I got a result of 189.7lbs.[/quote]
crap. I must have screwed up the math somewhere.
How wonderful. At 5’7" my absolute maximum lean body mass is 163lbs, so I can only hope to add another 23lbs of LBM before I collapse into a black hole. Whew! I’m sure to be in contest condition this time next year, at my genetic peak.
Seriously though, statistics doesn’t lie, but you can definitely lie using stats.
I used to place a lot of faith in fat free mass until I saw lots (and I mean lots) of people in my gym who completely violate this condition.
Do sumo wrestlers (many with small frames I suppose) have a lot more LBM than former Mr America’s of the same height? most people would agree. Maybe this indicator applies only in the dieted down condition.
Part of training is not knowing your limits…part of living is not knowing if you’re gonna pop when your 63 years and 3 months.
Or maybe we should just give in and accept our fate. If thats not the intent of this article, what is?
[quote]rbpowerhouse wrote:
Part of training is not knowing your limits…part of living is not knowing if you’re gonna pop when your 63 years and 3 months.
Or maybe we should just give in and accept our fate. If thats not the intent of this article, what is?[/quote]
I honestly believe the appeal is only for those who consider themselves to be lacking genetically…so they can make sure no one else ever thinks they are too much better than they are.
[quote]rbpowerhouse wrote:
…
I used to place a lot of faith in fat free mass until I saw lots (and I mean lots) of people in my gym who completely violate this condition.
[/quote]
Two points: one, how do you know what the fat free mass of anyone in your gym is? Two, assuming there are indeed lots of people in your gym who have more than the suggested level of fat free mass, how do you know they are not juicing?[quote]
Or maybe we should just give in and accept our fate. If thats not the intent of this article, what is?[/quote]
I thought it was more an attempt to bring some realism to the expectations of people who might think they can achieve the sort of physique that today’s pro bodybuilders have.
I suspect that too many get disappointed with what they can achieve drug free (because they are comparing themselves with the juice monsters) and turn to drugs themselves. Why else would steroids be so popular these days?
These formulas are quite close to me. Chest, thigh, and neck are right on, I exceed the biceps by .75 inches and forearms by .5 inches, and I am down 1 inch on the calf (stupid calves). I have been around those numbers for quite some time, but as a side note I still feel like I can squeeze some more size out of all of my measurements. I was 5’10, 198 lbs, 6.625 wrist and 9.5 ankle, about 10% bodyfat.
I thought it was an interesting article. Part of me likes the idea that years of hard training has brought me close to my genetic potential, part of me hates the idea and hopes to prove it wrong. I just wish I saw the calculator at the end of the article first, I figured all of the stuff out by hand - LOL.