[quote]Eric22 wrote:
I missed the balls but I did see that stunning 8 pak hanging from this shirt
[/quote]
No idea why I’m doing this AGAIN but here goes…
My deadlift picture was a few years ago. I weighed 260 or so, and was BF tested at 10-12% with calipers by a trained nutritionist. Those are FACTS. I was working my ASS off then and not as much at the time of the other picture, obviously. I admit that readily (again).
The reason you cannot see any ab definition is one, because I was wearing what’s known as a shirt. Two, I believe it was also Fall in New England. Three is that I don’t often take my shirt off to show whatever ab definition I might have to strangers, let alone friends with a camera, let alone outdoors in the Fall in New England. Four, I never imagined then that I would’ve had the need to show off my abs to some jack-off on an internet forum. That pretty much answers at least one of your stupid points.
Another fact is that in the picture from last year, I had lost about 20 total lbs and gained that damned fat around my waist that you can’t seem to let go of. I have reasons for that but I’m not one for excuses from others so I wont give any myself.
I am confident enough about my past, future and current development to put pictures in my profile. You obviously are not.
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.
[/quote]
Well, that may be what you got from the article, and if it in some way helped you then great.
But, the title of the article is “Your Maximal Muscular Bodyweight”. That title says nothing about proportion. Also, the very first sentence says “For a drug-free bodybuilder trying to develop maximum muscle mass, the knowledge of how much muscle can be developed without the use of anabolic drugs would be a very valuable asset.”
Notice that what is being suggested is that this paper will tell you how big it is possible to get without the use of anabolic steroids. It does not say that the article outlines the correct amount of muscle mass to remain proportional, or to look like the golden era bodybuilders.
Right you are, and the calculations in this study are indeed specific to the individuals cited in the study. It’s the fact that the article attempts to tell the reader that it can predict THEIR maximal muscular bodyweight potential that is the matter at hand.
No, this would just mean that you’ll far exceed the article’s predictions for your muscular potential. Honestly, if your legs are 90% larger than the average person’s do you really think that this will automatically have a negative affect on your upper body musculature?
Your upper body would be just as muscular as the average guy’s (if not bigger) and therefore you would exceed the “maximal” predicted weight by 90 lbs (which would be huge from a statistical standpoint).
But judges views have changed over the years, they’re subjective. This article is claiming objective statistical predictions of maximal muscular bodyweight. The guys in the article won their championships because they most closely fit the judges “ideal” of what a muscular man should look like. That is all.
However, aesthetic preferences change with time. Today, none of those physiques would win them a Mr. Olympia title. Why? Because the aesthetic ideal has changed. Yes, steroids have been introduced into the equation, but the reason why you see guys with bodies like Ronnie winning the Olympia isn’t because steroids are now available. The reason is because that’s what the judges want to see.
Man this thread touched some peoples’ sore spots. Casey I applaud your research, perhaps you might have explained some statistics to those who seem to think you are saying that it is impossible for anyone to exceed the limits you set forth in your article.
I am assuming that you used some type of multivariate regression analysis for your study? What was your margin of error and your confidence level?
A typical margin of error in a study of this type might be between 5 and 10% with a confidence level of 90 to 95%. For those of you not familiar with statistics this would mean that the author is predicting that based on his sample between 90 and 95% of the total population will have results that do not exceed his predictions by more that 5 to 10%. That leaves quite a few people who will in fact be able to achieve results greater than his model predicts.
For example my measurements were 72 inches tall 7 inch wrists and 9 and 3/4 inch ankles. At 13% bf the model predicts I would weigh in at approximately 223lbs. Lets assume that I am one of those who are at the high end of the range and exceed the baseline model by 10%. That would mean that at 6 ft tall and 13% bf I would weigh a whopping 245 pounds.
I do not have a large frame, note the 7 inch wrists, at 245 I would be a freaking monster (don’t I wish) and would still be within his models projections.
I understand people not wanting to accept limitations and rejecting them.
However, as coach, and strength and fitness coordinator, I don’t tell 5 foot 6 inch high school seniors that if they work hard enough they can be a starting center in the NBA, nor do I encourage someone who is 6 foot 8 and as close to a pure ectomorph as is possible that being a NFL running back is a good choice for him.
As Dirty Harry said, ‘A man’s got to know his limitations.’
We all have them, there is nothing wrong with trying to push the limits, but refusing to admit there are limits makes no sense.
It just like Prof X who will shoot down the anything that goes against what he believes in. Here are all topics he will pick an arguement with
Full body workouts
Anything that has anything to do with someone who is lean , will only bulk up to a certain BF% and stop and even clean bulks which he doesnt believe in
Any photo of someone who wants to compete who hasnt put in what he considers the proper time. If they are lean and dont weight 200lbs , forget about it he will rip them and then stay on and post 3-4 more times about HIS beliefs about how they didnt earn the right to compete.
Not everyone wants to look like he does. A lot of men and women think that look is just not attractive and wouldnt look that way if they didnt have to lift weights to get there. A lot of other folks on this site worship the guy. He thinks people are intimidated by him (his words) because of his size. I think he is a clown and a know it all!
I could go on and on.
So when I see someone again putting down an article because it doesnt fit what they believe in and I see someone bragging about how they are so much better than everybody else because they have added 70lbs with abs and they get served with an old photo, yep I think its funny as hell.
To me its the Prof X camp rearing its ugly heads !
[quote]shawninjapan wrote:
Sure, tough guy. Where’re your pics?
Eric22 wrote:
I missed the balls but I did see that stunning 8 pak hanging from this shirt
Golden Champions:
forearms less than 14.5"
neck less than 18"
quads less than 26" NOW COM’MON
how the hell did they shrink down that much?
I mean your forearms bones are 13" by themselves
Are we talking diameter here?
I appreciate they went for a different look back then but,
THESE ARE VERY ORDINARY MEASUREMENTS.
Forget the forumula. Forget the lean mass predictions and assumptions and speculation. LOOK AT THE ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS. They are terrible. What the heck?
Another thing, some people store fat in their gut area and others have it more evenly distributed around their body - these people can be a bit fatter but instead of looking fat, look bigger, more muscular and a bit smooth. Not just subcutaneous fat, but intramuscular as well.
My guess is most of the old school bodybuilders had good fat distribution helping them along. Methods of measuring fat were not as precise back then, and such a person would tend to look bigger, but not around the waist, carry more fat than you’d realise, and be a bit smooth. And in my opinion, they were nowhere near as cut back then (of course they didn’t dehydrate themselves as much).
I have no idea how they kept their legs small because from all accounts they were squat maniacs.
[quote]Wyzz Kydd wrote:
Lets assume that I am one of those who are at the high end of the range and exceed the baseline model by 10%. That would mean that at 6 ft tall and 13% bf I would weigh a whopping 245 pounds.
I do not have a large frame, note the 7 inch wrists, at 245 I would be a freaking monster (don’t I wish) and would still be within his models projections.
[/quote]
Are you being serious or sarcastic about the “freakin monster” at 245lbs and 6’ comment?
That 13% BF you mentioned is very close to what I was in my first picture (it was tested by a pro). I also weighed 260 at the time and I was FAR from looking like a “freakin monster” in any way.
If your comment was in fact serious, I can see why the study is so controversial. If 6’ and 245lbs at a relatively high 13% bf is “monsterous” to anyone, it’s clear why so many are so adamant about sticking by this study. I would NEVER have considered myself huge at my all-time best of 6’ 2", 260lbs, let alone now.
[quote]Eric22 wrote:
I am not the one bragging about an 8 pak.
So when I see someone again putting down an article because it doesnt fit what they believe in and I see someone bragging about how they are so much better than everybody else because they have added 70lbs with abs and they get served with an old photo, yep I think its funny as hell.
[/quote]
Look you scrawny little fuck, it wasn’t bragging. If you knew enough to read the f-ing thread you’d have seen where that was just proof that I could indeed see my abs. How else would I know that it was an 8pack, not the usual 6? Do you think I skinned myself to check?
(did you even look at the car deadlift picture or just my crappy one?)
How can I get “schooled” by an old photo when I already admitted it was of me far from my peak condition? And I put the fucking picture in MY OWN PROFILE! Did you think Sharetrader went through my trash and dug it up? I put the goddamn thing in there myself! I never envisioned a total stud like yourself picking it apart due to some “overhang” I was sporting.
You are such an uneducated idiot. And you still hide.
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.[/quote]
I admit I dont understand all the parameters stated by the study. Im not sure why this study’s findings ought to be applicable to competitive bber’s only. The ability to meaningfully predict lean mass potential is the issue no?
But are you saying that lean mass potential is not predictable, at all? Or that it is not predictable according to this method but may be predictable by another method, as of yet unknown? Seemed to me you were leaning towards the former. Or that this method may be useful but the sample is too small (did he not include non-bber’s eg armed forces etc?)
If it is option two mentioned above have you seen any indicators in your experience - physiological, not attitudinal - that might suggest potential for predictability?
[quote]derek wrote:
Are you being serious or sarcastic about the “freakin monster” at 245lbs and 6’ comment?
That 13% BF you mentioned is very close to what I was in my first picture (it was tested by a pro). I also weighed 260 at the time and I was FAR from looking like a “freakin monster” in any way.
If your comment was in fact serious, I can see why the study is so controversial. If 6’ and 245lbs at a relatively high 13% bf is “monsterous” to anyone, it’s clear why so many are so adamant about sticking by this study. I would NEVER have considered myself huge at my all-time best of 6’ 2", 260lbs, let alone now.
[/quote]
I wasn’t saying ‘freakin monster’ as in too big, I was saying it as in one seriously big dude. Please note the “I wish” parenthetical. I would not mind at all weighing 245 at 13% bf. I am not ‘adamant’ about sticking to this study. Based on my reading the study simply makes some general predictions about what is achievable by natural means to the average person based on their genetic potential.
I didn’t notice any comments about what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in terms of size. I don’t buy into crap about ‘this big and no bigger’ is just right. Other than maybe that idiot Valentino I would say whatever floats your boat.
Personally a really lean 250 pounds sounds great, but realistically, a moderately lean 225 is probably where I will eventually top out given my motivation level, genetics, available time and aversion to sticking needles in my ass.
I wouldn’t classify you as a ‘freakin monster’, but you seem pretty damn big to me, and more power to you for getting there.
[quote]derek wrote:
I would NEVER have considered myself huge at my all-time best of 6’ 2", 260lbs, let alone now.
[/quote]
Compared to who? This is an honest question, not a challenge. Ive been ignoring the flame tossing funsters in this thread but I think this question is interesting. Obviously, compared to the general population, you were not a small man at those measurements.
i just plugged myself into the calculator, and im still not buying it.
height: 69"
wrist: 7"
ankle: 9.5"
i put in 10% bf and it has me topping out at 200lbs.
47" chest…i think this could be larger.
16.6" arms, i think they could be larger for sure.
16.2" neck…please…
thighs 25.6"…hahahahaha
im currently 206lbs, admittedly not 10%, but my thighs are barely 26" and definitely a weak point.
im not buying this. whether or not those measurements are accurate for being 5’9", with my wrist and ankle measurements, at 200lbs, i dont know. but i do believe that i could exceed a bodyweight of 200lbs at 10% bf, with my measurements.
side note: how do my wrist and ankle measurements compare for others that are 5’9" (7"/9.5")?
In regards to erica22, I cannot possibly be “schooled” by a picture that I myself put up in my public profile for everyone in the world to see. Like I said, it’s not as if someone snooped around my bedroom and stumbled on it. I downloaded the stupid thing!
Am I particularly proud of my condition in that picture? No. Am I going to remove it because I’m embarassed by it? Hell no, I put it up for good or ill who the fuck cares?
And If I’m not mistaken, you are 6’ and 185 lbs? Those were my exact measurements when I was in 8th grade.
And in that picture (you know, the OBESE one) or just after it was taken I believe I did a one-hand deadlift with a 3" handle of just under 200lbs. By my calculations, I could do the same with your entire body. Get liftin, boy.
[quote]Scotacus wrote:
derek wrote:
I would NEVER have considered myself huge at my all-time best of 6’ 2", 260lbs, let alone now.
Compared to who? This is an honest question, not a challenge. Ive been ignoring the flame tossing funsters in this thread but I think this question is interesting. Obviously, compared to the general population, you were not a small man at those measurements.[/quote]
Well, I know I was bigger than “average” but if you’ve ever been to a Boston College weekend party, you’d see I was DWARFED by half the guys there. I see at least a few guys my age (or younger) that match my size every time I go to the mall.
Not to mention the Dave Tate powerlifting seminar I attended. I’m not suggesting all the attendees were natural but just saying that THEY were "monsterous, not me.
[quote]Wyzz Kydd wrote:
I wasn’t saying ‘freakin monster’ as in too big, I was saying it as in one seriously big dude. Please note the “I wish” parenthetical. I would not mind at all weighing 245 at 13% bf. I am not ‘adamant’ about sticking to this study. Based on my reading the study simply makes some general predictions about what is achievable by natural means to the average person based on their genetic potential.
I didn’t notice any comments about what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in terms of size. I don’t buy into crap about ‘this big and no bigger’ is just right. Other than maybe that idiot Valentino I would say whatever floats your boat.
Personally a really lean 250 pounds sounds great, but realistically, a moderately lean 225 is probably where I will eventually top out given my motivation level, genetics, available time and aversion to sticking needles in my ass.
I wouldn’t classify you as a ‘freakin monster’, but you seem pretty damn big to me, and more power to you for getting there.[/quote]
Thanks for the reply. And I’m glad you didn’t take my post as an insult. I realize it may have come off that way after I re-read it.
[quote]derek wrote:
Scotacus wrote:
derek wrote:
I would NEVER have considered myself huge at my all-time best of 6’ 2", 260lbs, let alone now.
Compared to who? This is an honest question, not a challenge. Ive been ignoring the flame tossing funsters in this thread but I think this question is interesting. Obviously, compared to the general population, you were not a small man at those measurements.
Well, I know I was bigger than “average” but if you’ve ever been to a Boston College weekend party, you’d see I was DWARFED by half the guys there. I see at least a few guys my age (or younger) that match my size every time I go to the mall.
Not to mention the Dave Tate powerlifting seminar I attended. I’m not suggesting all the attendees were natural but just saying that THEY were "monsterous, not me.
[/quote]
But basically you are comparing yourself to those of whom you dont know the pharmaceutical history - theyre big, bigger than you even. Seems like youve picked some rare ground on which to place your benchmark. In an entire mall you see a few that are your size?? And no doubt hundreds that are not…
Your response goes towards supporting the claims of the study, which is why I asked. You know you arent small, you can tell by who you compare yourself to. Nothing wrong with it, it keeps you humble and reaching for more.
Is anyone here training to get the physique they want and then as soon as they do they are going to quit, or do we train because we love to train?
Are we going to stop training, ever?
If we love to train we will train, period. If we hit a plateau, we will try and break it. If we do this for ten or twenty years and we cannot break plateaus anymore, are we going to stop trying?
Some might stop, they might lose interest. The point of diminishing returns may set in and they may find that they wish to maintain, but for those of us who love to train, at what point will that be?
I started skinnier than most and have had more non-weight room injuries than anyone I have met and love training like I’m a hormone driven teenager trying to get a body that will get me laid. It doesn’t matter where I am, all that matters is where I’m going.
I think we all need to re-read Tiribulus’s posts, limits may or may not be real, but who the fuck cares.
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Is anyone here training to get the physique they want and then as soon as they do they are going to quit, or do we train because we love to train?
Are we going to stop training, ever?
If we love to train we will train, period. If we hit a plateau, we will try and break it. If we do this for ten or twenty years and we cannot break plateaus anymore, are we going to stop trying?
Some might stop, they might lose interest. The point of diminishing returns may set in and they may find that they wish to maintain, but for those of us who love to train, at what point will that be?
I started skinnier than most and have had more non-weight room injuries than anyone I have met and love training like I’m a hormone driven teenager trying to get a body that will get me laid. It doesn’t matter where I am, all that matters is where I’m going.
I think we all need to re-read Tiribulus’s posts, limits may or may not be real, but who the fuck cares.
Roland[/quote]
An excellent point and one I made earlier. Those that focus only on the results fade, not those that simply love the process.
[quote]Scotacus wrote:
I admit I dont understand all the parameters stated by the study. Im not sure why this study’s findings ought to be applicable to competitive bber’s only. The ability to meaningfully predict lean mass potential is the issue no?[/quote]
Actually, that isn’t the issue. One of the issues was why anyone would attempt to do so as a beginner when all it will do is cause people to work less hard if they believe their potential is stunted long before they ever reach it.
[quote]
But are you saying that lean mass potential is not predictable, at all? Or that it is not predictable according to this method but may be predictable by another method, as of yet unknown? Seemed to me you were leaning towards the former. Or that this method may be useful but the sample is too small (did he not include non-bber’s eg armed forces etc?)[/quote]
I am saying statistics, while helpful in providing information, should never be used as a specific guide for who can achieve what. I think I have made that pretty damn clear in this thread and even used the example of telling a group of high school kids that they should drop out. How much more clear could I be on the subject? STATISTICALLY, I am sure that most men couldn’t build arms bigger than a muscular 18" no matter how hard they tried. Does that mean we start spreading the word that since most can’t, they shouldn’t try?
Obviously, some guy lacking any type of proportion with gigantic hips weighing all of 125lbs at 6 feet tall won’t be the next Olympia. However, we aren’t talking about those at the fringes of genetic potential so lacking that they probably won’t ever reach any type of development considered “extreme”. We are talking about the fact that there are bound to be individuals who STATISTICALLY may seem to not have the potential but who will ABSOLUTELY have the ability once they get serious about training.
Since when are statistics used like a scientific ouija board? Stats are the new crystal ball? WTF? People can exceed statistics.
There are individuals who have posted their pictures in the picture forum who I have stated appear to have great genetics for bodybuilding even though they may just be starting. Obviously, I couldn’t tell how large they could specifically get in the future, but that opinion is based on musculature, bone structure and the gains they have made in whatever time period. You can get an idea for how someone can perform based on how they have already performed once they have been training for some period of time. If some guy jumps in the gym and gains 20lbs in two months, it may be a safe bet that he isn’t “below average” in terms of genetic ability.
trying to take it beyond that and act like you can tell them specifically how large they can get is retarded. Some people will always fall outside that mark.
If anyone thinks that society has even publicly known the individuals on this planet with the greatest potential (as if they all even lived in major cities), they are deluded and misguided about human potential. No matter how good you are at something, there will always be someone better…unless your name was Jesus.