Maximum Muscular Bodyweight

derek · May 22, 2007, 6:19pm

[quote]Eric22 wrote:
Yeah we saw the photo . Was that the burger and fries diet or the all you can eat chinese buffet. Maybe just too much fish oil.
[/quote]

We ARE talking about the deadlift picture again, right? Because that was MY contribution. That was when I weighed about 260 at 6’ 2" and had a visable 8-pack (as I already stated) and was caliper tested at 10-12% (as I already stated. You should read more).

I have a sneaking suspicion that the picture that Sharetrader put up (which was, like I said earlier, waaaay off my prime) in which I am sporting “extra baggage” is still far removed from any sort of development you’ve attained thus far.

Oh, and at that time or just before, I was still deadlifting 585 with a 500lb parallel box squat (bench kinda sucked at 360) and was training for a strongman contest but jumped into a Highland Games instead.

So if you can come close to any of that, feel free to put up a picture and end the discussion. Or at the very least, put in some information. Either that or stay out of it.

derek · May 22, 2007, 6:36pm

[quote]Eric22 wrote:
Post your picture Clark Kent

Or better yet actual lose some of that fat and get lean and lets see how close you get to the formula. My guess is you would prove the articles point.
[/quote]

Just another jackass too lazy to read the thread yet feels comfortable to jump right in and look like a dope.

Current stats can be plugged in to see the results as was stated here many times. I don’t need to lose any fat to make the formula fit or not fit. So your guess is wrong, Bob.

And like I stated, in my previous post, I was tested at 10-12% in the picture I posted. Yes, I put up other pictures in my profile where I am NOT in the same condition but doesn’t that say more about me and my ego than not having any info of pics AT ALL like yourself?

I’m not always perfect and there are times when I let myself slide backward but at least I’m not afraid to show it, right?

derek · May 22, 2007, 6:48pm

You sure make a lot of sense, Sentoguy. I’m here trying to defend myself the whole time and you come in here and clear up the whole thing for us. Thanks.

Magnate · May 22, 2007, 6:56pm

[quote]Sliver wrote:

If you honestly think that the validity Casey’s statistics hinge on what my physique looks like then you really must be as dumb as you look.

[/quote]

but they do hinge on the way derek looks?

Kalle · May 22, 2007, 7:11pm

bodybuilders of the “golden era” went after a v shape it’s what won shows, bodybuilders of today go for an x shape it is what wins shows today. If old school bb’s needed bigger legs and super slim waists wasn’t as important I bet there legs would have been bbigger

Sentoguy · May 22, 2007, 8:21pm

[quote]KO421 wrote:
bodybuilders of the “golden era” went after a v shape it’s what won shows, bodybuilders of today go for an x shape it is what wins shows today. If old school bb’s needed bigger legs and super slim waists wasn’t as important I bet there legs would have been bbigger[/quote]

Precisely. This also of course could bring into question their upper body development as well. Perhaps the HYOOGE look wasn’t considered aesthetically appealing back then, so therefore, once they had reached a certain level of development, they stopped trying to put on size.

Therefore, perhaps the look they exhibited wasn’t their maximal muscular potential at all, but instead their attempt to emulate the “ideal” physique. Therefore, the stats gained from their measurements isn’t an accurate indicator of their potential muscle mass.

Honestly, I think that, judging from Casey’s comments, this article should have been named something like “ideal muscular bodyweight”, or “What proportions one should strive for to emulate the Golden Era champions”. Both of those titles would have probably caused less turmoil (although clearly the “ideal” title would have been the more controversial of the two).

Good training,

Sentoguy

dez6485 · May 22, 2007, 8:47pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sliver wrote:
Ok. Let me try and use smaller words.

You said that these statistics do not apply to the genetic elite. I asked if you think they apply to people who are not genetic freaks.

You may need to start learning larger words if you think that is all that has been stated in this thread or as if that was even the main point being discussed.

These “statistics” only apply to the sample of people they were attained from. That is all it applies to. It gives you an idea of what those particular individuals measured up to. It does not by any means give cross sectional view of the human population as a whole or even the genetic ability of potential bodybuilders.

Why? Because it is a HUGE assumption to begin with to assume that people with the absolute greatest genetic potential when it comes to bodybuilding are even interested in bodybuilding. That means that while we may hold the specific population used up as the bodybuilding “elite” it doesn’t mean there aren’t or weren’t people out there who would have been able to achieve much more than they could but who

a) Were not interested in bodybuilding

b) Gravitated towards higher paying jobs or activities

c) Could even afford to eat enough to see the most progress.
or even

d) Lived in areas with the equipment necessary to take their bodies to the limit of their potential.

Now, if those words were too large, let me know.[/quote]

a.k.a., this “study” blows in the external validity department.

sharetrader is a fat old man.

casey butt did not reply, as far as i have seen, to my observation that based on his pics, maybe he too, like sharetrader, has used these statistics to help with his frustrations that he had simply hit a plateau.

not that his pics didnt show that he spent time in the gym, but i do not feel that they showed someone that had maxed out their muscular potential. i suppose Casey Butt did not reply to my comment because i do not have a Ph.D. Yes, i loved it when Prof X came along and said ‘actually, im DMD…bam!’

Airtruth · May 22, 2007, 9:02pm

[quote]derek wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Why are people giving stats on themselves if they are not champion natural bodybuilders, for which this article and its formulas was based?
If you believe thats this formula is wrong or the stats are wrong then? you can either get the actual weights and measurements of the people in the article, or you can win a competition. Other than that your battling facts with opinions.

I was under the impression that one could take one’s own measurments to see where you’ll be predicted to top out muscle mass-wise.

And in so doing, many of us have exceded our pre-determined limits which makes some of us question the validity of the article.

It was also stated that in order to gain anything greater than 50lbs of muscle, one would need to take “massive” amounts of steroids.

Again… Huh?
[/quote]

What I got from the article was a formula to calculate maximum muscle in equal proportion to a bodybuilder, NOT Maximum muscle. For that you would need another formula.

Scientific studies and calculations tend to be very specific in their variables. If you want to apply a formula to yourself, you must include all the variables or build a different formula.

If by this articles hypothesis the body has the ability to hold 200 lbs of muscle but your a genetic freak whose legs can hold 190 lbs of muscle compared to the average person who can hold 100lb, you still would be disproportionate because your upperbody will hold 10 lbs. This formula would not apply to your thigh circumference because you are disproportiate.

This is not saying don’t use the formula just that in order to dispute the claims of the formula you would have to be viewed by judges to be proportionately correct, which the champions tend to be, which is why the won.

Scotacus · May 22, 2007, 9:03pm

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Honestly, I believe that a lot of the Golden era guys were going after a specific look. An “ideal”. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that their physique measurements are similar in proportion to their frames. Notice that they all had fairly low development in their lower bodies as opposed to bodybuilders of today.

Doesn’t it seem interesting to you that none of these champs had really outstanding leg development, while just about every pro now-a-days has great leg development? And before you attribute this to steroid use, take a look at Arnold and the other top bodybuilders in the 70’s.

Now, Arnold has publicly stated that he used steroids, yet his legs were nowhere near as developed as just about any of today’s pros. Yet, he is held by many to be one of the greatest bodybuilders (if not the greatest) of all time.

Once again, how do you attribute these differences?

Could it be that the training methods and nutrition/supplement methods of today are simply superior to those in the 70’s/Golden era? Possibly.

Could it be that all of today’s pros have superior genetics for leg development? Not likely, but possibly.

Or, could it be that the champs of the 70’s/Golden era were not trying to develop their legs to the proportions of the current pros because the aesthetic “ideal” in those days was simply different? That would be my guess as the most likely reason.

As far as the modern day “natural” champs, it may be that these individuals either only have the genetic ability to attain the size of the Golden era guys, they too are attempting to mimic the look of the Golden era guys, or perhaps there is some correlation and the stats in this study aren’t that far off.

Unfortunately, it’s really difficult to say unless we take a look at a larger cross section of the population, and include in it athletes from other sports who may have superior genetic abilities for building lean mass.

For myself, to your hypothesis that a wider sample would make or break the findings of the original, one can only add: obviously (right?) and maybe. However, what is most interesting statistically is the obivous nature of the relationship. Statistics dont always behave as such ie have apparent relations, even though they might. But for stats to have an obvious relation is highly significant, and may reflect a shortage of essential variables or flaw in methodology, or suggest something profound, approaching a fact.

I agree. The stats are interesting, and I believe that if further studied and individuals from other sports/walks of life were taken into account then they might be used as a gauge of how genetically predisposed one was to gaining muscle.

However, once again it’s going to be extremely difficult to know whether the people who you are studying are in fact the genetic elite as far as muscular potential.

Once again, my objection is that Casey seems to be hell bent on refusing to take into account the muscular development of athletes in other sports who seem don’t seem to fit the statistics of the study.

Every time someone cites a counter example, either from personal experience or an individual in another sport, Casey claims that they don’t apply because they’re not a bodybuilder. Casey went so far as to saying in his most recent post:

"Although, statistical outliers are addressed in the article.

Football players, Rugby players, ballerinas, etc all attain physiques conducive to success in their respective sports. It is not logical to apply the information in this article to groups other than drug-free bodybuilders, nor was it the intent of the article to be interpreted that way."

So, the first comment I take to basically mean that there are individuals whom these stats don’t apply. And the second comment is basically stating that the study only applies to drug free bodybuilders.

But, if this study only applies to drug free bodybuilders, and that is all Casey is/was trying to show in the study, then why put a calculator function in the article so that individuals who may not be drug free bodybuilders could find out their maximal muscular potential?

That’s really what makes me question the validity of the stats. If they only apply to drug free bodybuilders, then they don’t necessarily apply to any other group of individuals and therefore can’t be used as a method of predicting maximal muscular development in the general public.

Therefore, they are interesting, but not necessarily as valid a method as the article would have you believe.

Good training,

Sentoguy

[/quote]

Good points - the study must assume that maximum development in the pre-steroid era was the highest priority for bber’s in order to claim that same development was limited only by potential rather than say aesthetic choices, training science etc.

IronWarrior24 · May 22, 2007, 9:15pm

[quote]Eric22 wrote:
Yeah we saw the photo . Was that the burger and fries diet or the all you can eat chinese buffet. Maybe just too much fish oil.

[/quote]

Eric22, I don’t really see the need to post shit like this other than to be an ass. I think I speak for most when I say, "Post something constructive that actually contributes to the discussion or don’t post anything at all.

Eric22 · May 22, 2007, 9:28pm

I missed the balls but I did see that stunning 8 pak hanging from this shirt

[quote]shawninjapan wrote:
At least he has the balls to put his photos up in the first place.

Eric22 wrote:
Yeah we saw the photo . Was that the burger and fries diet or the all you can eat chinese buffet. Maybe just too much fish oil.

I know how to diet without sacrificing much in the way of mass and strength. Perhaps you do NOT know how to achieve such things and you are projecting your lack of knowledge and/or discipline on those that do?

You know the old saying… “Those that can, do. While those that cannot, tell everyone else they are full of shit”.

[/quote]

Eric22 · May 22, 2007, 9:34pm

I think its funny a guy comes on here bragging about putting on all this size with an EIGHT pak and picks his favorite picture which you still cant see his abs and he gets called out with another one of his photos.

[quote]IronWarrior24 wrote:
Eric22 wrote:
Yeah we saw the photo . Was that the burger and fries diet or the all you can eat chinese buffet. Maybe just too much fish oil.

Eric22, I don’t really see the need to post shit like this other than to be an ass. I think I speak for most when I say, "Post something constructive that actually contributes to the discussion or don’t post anything at all.
[/quote]

Casey_Butt · May 22, 2007, 9:50pm

[quote]dez6485 wrote:
i suppose Casey Butt did not reply to my comment because i do not have a Ph.D. Yes, i loved it when Prof X came along and said ‘actually, im DMD…bam!’
[/quote]
Actually, I didn’t respond to you because the answer to your accusation is obvious from both the article and what I’ve said here. But it is true that you’ve said nothing to indicate to me that your opinion is worth noting.

As to my physique, it is irrelevant. To me you look like just another fat drug-user, but that has little bearing on the discussion at hand here.

For what it’s worth, I made the “assumption” about the “Ph.D.” with Prof X to elicit his response. I deliberately used the term “Ph.D.” because I wanted to distinguish a legitimate doctorate degree from the multitude of schools that are now calling their graduates “doctors”.

It is quite obvious from the paper that my personal physique had absolutely nothing to do with the formulation of the equations.

Sentoguy · May 22, 2007, 9:57pm

[quote]Eric22 wrote:
I think its funny a guy comes on here bragging about putting on all this size with an EIGHT pak and picks his favorite picture which you still cant see his abs and he gets called out with another one of his photos.
[/quote]

Eric,

Seriously man, why all of the negativity and call outs? Why not add something constructive to the discussion? What do you think about the study? What do you think about the counter examples that people have cited?

Honestly, even if you disagree with myself and the others who question the validity of the stats in the article, I’d rather hear your thoughts on why you disagree than just hear you yell out random insults at people.

Also, I think the topic of derek’s body fat in the two pictures were posted has been pretty much resolved. You’re right that in the picture he posted you can’t see his abs. However, he was tested for body fat using the same method of body fat analysis used by the guys cited in the article and it told him he was 10-12%.

The picture that was posted later of him has already been said to have not been during the same time frame, and he admitted to having a higher body fat percentage at that time.

Body fat percentages do change with time, training, and diet as I’m sure you already know.

Good training,

Sentoguy

Professor_X · May 22, 2007, 10:04pm

[quote]Eric22 wrote:
I think its funny a guy comes on here bragging about putting on all this size with an EIGHT pak and picks his favorite picture which you still cant see his abs and he gets called out with another one of his photos.

[/quote]

You are one irritating piece of shit, so in honor of your expertise when it comes to bodybuilding, let’s take a trip through memory lane at one of your posts:

[quote]Here is the issue and know I will take some heat with this as well but I am hoping to get some advice

At 6 ft 185lbs I know I need to put on more size to look bigger, better but the size I get normally makes me look worse and I cant seem to get any width no matter what exercises I choose.

The fat goes right to the waist so I immediately look worse but the real problem is a good amount of the size goes to my chest. I have narrow shoulders that point down at almost a 45 degree angle and my chest is already bigger than I would like it.

So I know I need to squat, bench press, row, etc and eat big and I am doing that now (slow bulk)and I have no problem gaining weight but I have never happy with the results. So what do I do and can you actually change the shape of your body?[/quote]

Wow, 185lbs yet doesn’t know how to gain muscle mass. Why would someone like that be posting in this thread to this degree with nothing but insults towards guys who have gained much more muscle than he ever has or probably ever will?

Several people have said the same thing to you yet you keep posting. I think I still have that ridiculous private message you sent to me a long time ago. Perhaps you are just a tad obsessed.

Professor_X · May 22, 2007, 10:11pm

[quote]Scotacus wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Once again, Sentoguy, you did a good job of bringing it all together.

Yea, except that the main point - the possible use of steroids in the sample - was wrong, apparently (like yourself, I dont know for sure, and just go by what I read on the internet. Though I go by what someone has published and is willing to discuss rather than by a random opinion that simply happens to reflect my own).

To be sure the original study likely has weaknesses, as Sentoguy has suggested concerning the accuracy of fat measurements in the 50s. But again, like yourself, I dont have the data or information as to how exactly that would factor in. So for me it must remain an “item of interest” - a suspect. For yourself, it’s irrefutable and damaging “proof”.
[/quote]

Proof? What are you talking about? What we are saying is that this “study” does only one thing…list measurements of top physique pros who we THINK are natural. That is all it does.

What we are saying is that excluding every other athlete regardless of their extreme development simply because they aren’t specifically “bodybuilders who compete” should mean to anyone paying attention that these calculations shouldn’t apply to anyone but “bodybuilders who compete”. That means it can’t in any way be some oracle as to who has the genetics for that type of development. Why? Because it ONLY applies to “bodybuilders who compete” and obviously not “bodybuilders who don’t compete”.

Now, since that makes no fucking sense and it makes even less sense to attach a calculator to it to see where you stand IF IT DOESN’T APPLY TO ANYONE BUT BODYBUILDERS WHO ALREADY COMPETE and not anyone who has ever performed in any other sport as that apparently disqualifies you from these measurements, none of this shit applies to potential bodybuilders.

It disqualifies itself by insisting on such a limited and specific field of individuals.

Eric22 · May 22, 2007, 10:48pm

Professor X calling someone out, man thats a first.

I challenge you to find 10 posts in a row by Prof Big head (literally and figuratively) where he doesnt try and pick a fight with someone . Surely this is the pot calling the kettle black

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Eric22 wrote:
I think its funny a guy comes on here bragging about putting on all this size with an EIGHT pak and picks his favorite picture which you still cant see his abs and he gets called out with another one of his photos.

You are one irritating piece of shit, so in honor of your expertise when it comes to bodybuilding, let’s take a trip through memory lane at one of your posts:

Here is the issue and know I will take some heat with this as well but I am hoping to get some advice

At 6 ft 185lbs I know I need to put on more size to look bigger, better but the size I get normally makes me look worse and I cant seem to get any width no matter what exercises I choose.

The fat goes right to the waist so I immediately look worse but the real problem is a good amount of the size goes to my chest. I have narrow shoulders that point down at almost a 45 degree angle and my chest is already bigger than I would like it.

So I know I need to squat, bench press, row, etc and eat big and I am doing that now (slow bulk)and I have no problem gaining weight but I have never happy with the results. So what do I do and can you actually change the shape of your body?

Wow, 185lbs yet doesn’t know how to gain muscle mass. Why would someone like that be posting in this thread to this degree with nothing but insults towards guys who have gained much more muscle than he ever has or probably ever will?

Several people have said the same thing to you yet you keep posting. I think I still have that ridiculous private message you sent to me a long time ago. Perhaps you are just a tad obsessed.[/quote]

Eric22 · May 22, 2007, 10:55pm

I think it makes a lot of sense but I dont think you can put a cap on people.

So as a general rule I do think people can only get some big while being lean based on their genetic bone structure.

I also think old time bb like Larry Scott look better than anyone today. So being proportional matters a lot IMO and again looks better.

However you cant just you that to gauge how big someone can get, too many other factors come into play.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Scotacus wrote:

If I may, Sentoguy, you seem intent on underlining what the study did not represent or include. Let me ask you this: what do you think the survey sample does represent, specifically?