Maximum Muscular Bodyweight

[Kalle]

[quote]Scotacus wrote:
KO421 wrote:
ok so if a powerlifter or whatever with measurments exceding these maximum genetic muscule potn, (with lets say 10% bf)

it is becuase he didn’t train for symetry and didn’t focus on hypertrophy, I am confused.

not trying to put words in your mouth just not sure what you meant by the last part of your last reply.

I think what I am suggesting is that a powerlifter or linebacker is not going to have the same build as a champion bber. Your hypothetical is Im sure possible (in the way that anything is) but highly unlikely. To suggest that a powerlifter etc is likely to “accidentally” build a champion-caliber bber build is I think disingenuous.

Therefore, the study focuses on the sport of natural bbing, specifically champions. I dont see anything wrong with that. If you are a powerlifter, linebacker etc you wont care about this study because you have different objectives anyway.

All these respondents with massive legs etc are not bbing champions, and seem to assume that because they have great quads going that naturally the rest of their body would follow. This is not a given. At this point Im not sure if the study is remiss in clarifying the importance of quality (symmetry) along with quantity, as everyone seems to be focusing on its limiting of development.

Also, the study included current day champions with 50s era champs, so I dont understand why people are parking on the idea that development was limited by aesthetic appeal peculiar to the 50s era.

Finally, Im getting the sense that the real “meat” of discussion perhaps concerns more the studies that this study draws from, which I admit I know nothing about. How controversial or established are these studies and how well do they relate to the premise? The author is drawing from I assume broader scientific research to support his own.[/quote]

A linebacker or powerlifter will probaly not accidently attain a champion BB phsyique, but to say a liner or powerlifter dosn’t train for hypertrophy is absurd, just as to say a bodybuilder dosn’t train for strength its just the opposite, a bodybuilder gets strong to get bigger a powerlifter gets bigger to get stronger.

Its not like they run away from hypertrophy

It might not be conductive training to win shows in a speedo but the possibilty to have more overall muscle mass than these said limits suggest.

Most experinced powerlifters or strongman (in lighter weight classes with low bf% I don’t want to hear how about they are all fat and weigh 350lbs)

probaly excedd these limitations easily, in the legs and neck, etc, and overall

[Kalle]

[quote]Mad Titan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mad Titan wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
IronWarrior24 wrote:
I say fuck what this statistical analysis says. Don’t let this shit crush your hopes or dreams. Use this as fuel for the fire. Go lift. Get bigger than anyone thinks you can. Prove the people who doubt you wrong. After all, your only limits are self-imposed.

You wish. I issue a challenge to all those who say this analysis is BS. Prove it. Get yourself into bodybuilding contest shape, take the pics to prove it, take a pic of yourself on the scales weighing more than this formula predicts.

I predict there will be exactly zero people who succeed. What is more, I doubt if there are any of you out there who have the guts to take up the challenge. After all, you might be proved wrong.

Tempting challenge…is there a prize when I win?

Since you already look better than most old timers it does not seem like a fair challenge.

well he did issue the challenge to all who thought it was bs [/quote]

Titan, if I where you I wouldn’t even bother even if you did exceed said measurments, (which I think you would) they will just question the use of drugs or some other stupid crap.

Instead of trying to find proof people like this try to discredit proof.

[sharetrader]

[quote]KO421 wrote:
Mad Titan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mad Titan wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
IronWarrior24 wrote:
I say fuck what this statistical analysis says. Don’t let this shit crush your hopes or dreams. Use this as fuel for the fire. Go lift. Get bigger than anyone thinks you can. Prove the people who doubt you wrong. After all, your only limits are self-imposed.

You wish. I issue a challenge to all those who say this analysis is BS. Prove it. Get yourself into bodybuilding contest shape, take the pics to prove it, take a pic of yourself on the scales weighing more than this formula predicts.

I predict there will be exactly zero people who succeed. What is more, I doubt if there are any of you out there who have the guts to take up the challenge. After all, you might be proved wrong.

Tempting challenge…is there a prize when I win?

Since you already look better than most old timers it does not seem like a fair challenge.

well he did issue the challenge to all who thought it was bs

Titan, if I where you I wouldn’t even bother even if you did exceed said measurments, (which I think you would) they will just question the use of drugs or some other stupid crap.

Instead of trying to find proof people like this try to discredit proof. [/quote]

No, I will be happy to stump up for the aforementioned 6-pack if he can do it. I’m happy to take his word for it being all natural.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]Scotacus wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:

That and the author is making the assumption that the primary focus of all of the men in the study was for maximal potential size, when this may not have been the case at all.

Good training,

Sentoguy

Sentoguy, you make an interesting point re symmetry, which Im still getting my head around. However, are not bodybuilders the only ones who train for proportional size? Everyone else in the weight-game are trying for functional mass, as it pertains to the objective. So the powerlifters arent the ones this study’s claims pertain to. The best sample to draw from would be those who are attempting to build muscle all-round, as they would be the most developed.
[/quote]

Well, I’m not sure as I’d go that far. Being extremely out of proportion would probably not make one as efficient an athlete as being more in proportion. You mentioned powerlifters, so let me ask you, when was the last time that you saw a powerlifter with a huge lower body and a tiny upper body. I personally can’t say as I’ve seen any.

Remember that powerlifting involves both upper body and lower body intensive skill sets. Also, these days most powerlifters are aware of the dangers/downfalls of developing muscular imbalances and as a result tend to train even the muscles that they don’t directly utilize in the power lifts.

If anyone in the general human population trains for size, in any era, it is the bodybuilder. Powerlifters, Olympic lifters, linebackers etc all do not train for hypertrophy, so these would not likely make for all-round (symmetrical) lean mass potential.

Interesting that you bring that up. I would agree with you that bodybuilders are the only athletes who train for hypertrophy for the sake of hypertrophy.

However, this actually brings the conclusions of the study into even further scrutiny. Because, this means that individuals who aren’t necessarily even training for hypertrophy as their main goal are surpassing these statistics.

Which, once again gives fuel to the argument that the natural bodybuilders of today (and possibly even the Golden era guys) are not the pinnacle of human muscular potential.

The only thing that remains a question for me is whether the potential gains of the pre-steroid bbers were limited by aesthetic choice. However, as pointed out, current nat bbers also fit within predicted findings.

True, and once again I agree that this is an interesting phenomenon. However, it’s just too difficult to say exactly why this correlation has occurred in the study without further inclusion of individuals from a larger cross section of the population (including athletes from other sports).

Good training,

Sentoguy

[Professor_X]

Did Mad Titan really kill this thread with just 3 small posts?

[98V]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Did Mad Titan really kill this thread with just 3 small posts?[/quote]

I’m curious as well…

Wonder if he’ll be sharing how the calculations worked out?

5’-9" @ 181 lbs w/ 5%bf (from MT’s posts)
http://www.T-Nation.com/forum_images/cd7da-452f1-Madtitan.jpg

http://www.T-Nation.com/forum_images/mytphotos/fullSize/e7afe-118sculpt_pt2.jpg

[Professor_X]

[quote]98V wrote:

I’m curious as well…
[/quote]

I didn’t say I was curious. I would hope MT doesn’t give two shits about his “calculated potential”.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
98V wrote:

I’m curious as well…

I didn’t say I was curious. I would hope MT doesn’t give two shits about his “calculated potential”.[/quote]

Agreed

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Scotacus wrote:
<<< How do you know “where we are in history”?? [/quote]

Unavoidable conclusion drawn from observation. For all of our cosmic advances in the last hundred or so years we are still eons away from being able to safely make a lot of the assumptions we see all the time in the various fields of medicine.

I guaran-frickin-tee you in no uncertain terms that lotsa shit we “know” today will have long vanished into the shadows of the embarrassing and even mortally erroneous in my children’s lifetime.

[BF_Bullpup]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Did Mad Titan really kill this thread with just 3 small posts?[/quote]

Admit it, it’s wonderful when somebody kills a train-wreck thread like that.

[Kalle]

DIE THREAD DIE!!!

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Scotacus wrote:
<<< How do you know “where we are in history”??

Unavoidable conclusion drawn from observation. For all of our cosmic advances in the last hundred or so years we are still eons away from being able to safely make a lot of the assumptions we see all the time in the various fields of medicine.

I guaran-frickin-tee you in no uncertain terms that lotsa shit we “know” today will have long vanished into the shadows of the embarrassing and even mortally erroneous in my children’s lifetime.[/quote]

This is so true in so many fields.

[Scotacus]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Scotacus wrote:
<<< How do you know “where we are in history”??

Unavoidable conclusion drawn from observation. For all of our cosmic advances in the last hundred or so years we are still eons away from being able to safely make a lot of the assumptions we see all the time in the various fields of medicine.

I guaran-frickin-tee you in no uncertain terms that lotsa shit we “know” today will have long vanished into the shadows of the embarrassing and even mortally erroneous in my children’s lifetime.[/quote]

Well i appreciate that you are wholly underwhelmed or bored with the humna pursuit of knowledge. however, as my first question stated (which was rhetorical) how do you know what history will prove? in the pursuit of knowledge even the destruction of fallacies give way to better truths, that this, errorneous assumptions are proven wrong, which makes even errorneous assumption valuable.

such may be the fate of this study, but in making hte attempt this study has contributed already more to human knowledge, whether it stands forever or not. You see, its a dialogue, not an MMA contest, something that some people in this forum have yet to distinguish between.

The scientific process is not about beating the shit out of the other with ideas or attempt to humiliate the the other, again a distinction not understood by some in this thread.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Scotacus wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Scotacus wrote:
<<< How do you know “where we are in history”??

Unavoidable conclusion drawn from observation. For all of our cosmic advances in the last hundred or so years we are still eons away from being able to safely make a lot of the assumptions we see all the time in the various fields of medicine.

I guaran-frickin-tee you in no uncertain terms that lotsa shit we “know” today will have long vanished into the shadows of the embarrassing and even mortally erroneous in my children’s lifetime.

Well i appreciate that you are wholly underwhelmed or bored with the humna pursuit of knowledge. however, as my first question stated (which was rhetorical) how do you know what history will prove? in the pursuit of knowledge even the destruction of fallacies give way to better truths, that this, errorneous assumptions are proven wrong, which makes even errorneous assumption valuable.

such may be the fate of this study, but in making hte attempt this study has contributed already more to human knowledge, whether it stands forever or not. You see, its a dialogue, not an MMA contest, something that some people in this forum have yet to distinguish between.

The scientific process is not about beating the shit out of the other with ideas or attempt to humiliate the the other, again a distinction not understood by some in this thread.[/quote]

This study was not science, more like interesting trivia.

The data set is garbage because no one really knows who is natural, who is not. Many natural lifters have been discounted.

The goals of the old timers are not the same as the goals of lifters today. The point about lower body development was made by others.

If some of those old lifters wanted bigger legs, they would have had bigger legs.

And on and on.

[Airtruth]

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
…
No, because proportion is once again a subjective term. Most bodybuilders (and aspiring bodybuilders) of today would look at someone like Steve Reeves and say, “Wow, he had some great genetics, but his lower body needs more work”.
[/quote]

It is highly subjective, its also the goal of the sport, as well as the person used guys from 50 years ago to guys now and got the same numbers. So until judges come out and say they only want to see people with legs, and no upperbody his formula will hold true.

I personally would say that his lower body was proportionally small compared to his upper body. Disagree with me if you want, but, all either of us has to stand on is our opinion, which is, all the concept of proportion is.

Yes you will say this and despite this he got the same numbers, so what are you saying?

…
But, once again, you are making the mistake of thinking that there is something physiologically different between a drug free bodybuilder and a recreational weightlifter or athlete in another sport. If the calculator applies to a drug free bodybuilder, then it should apply to anyone reading the article.

I slowly see myself leaving this argument. If you think recreational athletes train the same way as bodybuilders, then arguing with you is pointless.

The premise of the article is that the author has found a correlation between bone structure size and maximal muscular bodyweight potential. The fact that someone is or isn’t an aspiring bodybuilder (a profession, not a subset of the species) is irrelevant.

See above.

Nonsense, the mistake you are making is putting a genetic ceiling on the example. Sorry, but I’ve never seen someone who has legs that are 90% larger than the average persons who’s upper body was then somehow retarded in it’s ability to grow muscle. Have you?

No not 90%, but that was an example. It’s a known fact that people have different limb ratio’s. In this case someone with a higher femur length ratio can pack more muscle on their leg than the rest of there body.

However, they may look on bodybuilder like to the judges and would not apply to this equation. Which you continue to not see he specificly stated bodybuilder, not me. Forget that you said bodybuilders and rec athletes train the same.

Well, yes you have to eventually reach 100% of bodyweight, but my point is, that 100% does not have to equal 200 lbs.

According to his formula for a drug free bodybuilder it does have to equal 200 lbs, and this applied 50 years ago or today.

[quote]
The reason I used Coleman as an example is that his physique is not due to the presence of steroids. [/quote]

You won, I refuse to debate with anybody who says this. IMO This voids everything else you’ve ever stated to me.

[quote]…

[Professor_X]

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

According to his formula for a drug free bodybuilder it does have to equal 200 lbs, and this applied 50 years ago or today.[/quote]

You can’t be serious. How old are you?

[Professor_X]

[quote]Scotacus wrote:
Well i appreciate that you are wholly underwhelmed or bored with the humna pursuit of knowledge. however, as my first question stated (which was rhetorical) how do you know what history will prove? in the pursuit of knowledge even the destruction of fallacies give way to better truths, that this, errorneous assumptions are proven wrong, which makes even errorneous assumption valuable.

such may be the fate of this study, but in making hte attempt this study has contributed already more to human knowledge, whether it stands forever or not. You see, its a dialogue, not an MMA contest, something that some people in this forum have yet to distinguish between.

The scientific process is not about beating the shit out of the other with ideas or attempt to humiliate the the other, again a distinction not understood by some in this thread.[/quote]

This was a look at the measurements of some bodybuilders. It in no way should be used to determine the outcome of years of training or predict the “potential” of anyone.

Studies are used to come to conclusions or to bring us closer to reaching facts or truths in relation to the rest of us or at least the majority. That can’t be done here.

The reasons why have been listed SEVERAL times in this thread. Quit trying so hard to give so much credit to what is little more than a list of body part measurements of some guys who competed once.

People in the shallow end of the gene pool sure are interested in making sure no one else gets into the deep end.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Airtruth wrote:

It is highly subjective, its also the goal of the sport, as well as the person used guys from 50 years ago to guys now and got the same numbers. So until judges come out and say they only want to see people with legs, and no upperbody his formula will hold true.
[/quote]

Unfortunately as was addressed by thib in the “Biggest Natural Bodybuilder” thread the only people who can be considered to be unequivocally considered “Natural” are those who built their physiques prior to the creation of steriods. Therefore, it’s impossible to even include today’s “natural” champs as examples.

Even if you could, as I and many stated before, how do you account for the increased leg development of todays top bodybuilders? Today’s top bodybuilders can’t all have larger ankles.

Yes you will say this and despite this he got the same numbers, so what are you saying?

I am saying that proportion is in the eye of the beholder. How that is difficult to comprehend is beyond me. If you asked olympia judges of today (or most bodybuilders for that matter) they would most likely say that they think his lower body needs more work.

I slowly see myself leaving this argument. If you think recreational athletes train the same way as bodybuilders, then arguing with you is pointless.

LOL. Way to put words into my mouth. Please show me where I stated that recreational athletes train the same way as bodybuilders. Arguing with me is pointless because you have no argument.

Besides, what do you think is so exceptional about the way a bodybuilder trains? The splits they use? So, let’s say that a recreational trainer gets his hands on a professional bodybuilder’s training routine (which by the way are pretty easy to find), then starts following the routine. Now, guess what? The recreational athlete is training like the professional bodybuilder. Now would you say that the article now magically applies to them?

Not to mention the fact that there are huge variations between how bodybuilders train. Ronnie has a completely different training style than Jay, who has a completely different training style from Labrada, etc…etc…etc…

The fact that athletes who are training in other sports are equalling (if not surpassing) these numbers without even specifically training for hypertrophy gives even more fuel to the argument that these numbers aren’t accurate gauges of “maximal” muscular bodyweight.

No not 90%, but that was an example. It’s a known fact that people have different limb ratio’s. In this case someone with a higher femur length ratio can pack more muscle on their leg than the rest of there body.

Well, you were the one who suggested that scenario, I was just working with what you had given me. Yes, you are correct about people having different limb lengths. However, limb lengths aren’t necessarily the only predictors of lean mass potential.

However, they may look on bodybuilder like to the judges and would not apply to this equation. Which you continue to not see he specificly stated bodybuilder, not me. Forget that you said bodybuilders and rec athletes train the same.

First, I never said that you were limiting this article’s content to bodybuilders, you didn’t write this article. But, like I said, you cannot say that you have found a way of predicting maximal muscular bodyweight in humans (as I stated before, bodybuilding is a profession, that is all) and then say that it only applies to some humans.

I realize that after reading through the article numerous times and debating over it’s weaknesses that the author’s intent may have been simply to help people find out what their measurements would be if they were trying to emulate the Golden era bodybuilder’s proportions.

But, in my opinion he did a poor job of making that purpose clear in the article. And that he should definitely have changed the title of the article, while also never using the word “maximal” at any point in the article.

According to his formula for a drug free bodybuilder it does have to equal 200 lbs, and this applied 50 years ago or today.

Once again, as I stated above, let’s just forget the term “drug free” as it’s kind of a misnomer. Drugs never had anything to do with the content of this article (I’ve just come to this conclusion).

The bodyweight only has to equal 200 lbs if one wants the formula in this article to apply to them. If one wants to surpass the measurements in this formula (and of course has the genetics to do so) then it doesn’t.

[quote]
You won, I refuse to debate with anybody who says this. IMO This voids everything else you’ve ever stated to me.
…[/quote]

Great, once again take something I said totally out of context and completely overlook the point I was trying to make with that statement.

If you can’t even see the correlation I was trying to make between Coleman’s body and the Olympia judges aesthetic “ideals” then your opinion doesn’t really matter that much to me anyways.

Just in case you really didn’t understand what I was trying to say, I’ll try to explain it a little more clearly.

Ronnie Coleman has used steroids to achieve the body he has developed, this much is pretty much a given. However, the reason why he built the body he has is because that is what the olympia judges want to see on the Olympia stage. Therefore, one can’t really blame steroids for his physique, but instead must realize that the blame must fall on the Olympia judges aesthetic “ideals”.

Good training,

Sentoguy

[supercowboi]

does anyone know if there is any such measurement/weight prediction formula for women?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Scotacus wrote:
<<< Well i appreciate that you are wholly underwhelmed or bored with the humna pursuit of knowledge. >>>[/quote]

I don’t recall having said anything that could be even vaguely construed as the above. The pursuit is noble and necessary. We are simply waaaaay too quick to declare conclusions. If there is anything the quantum advances of the last century should have taught us it’s how relatively little we still know for certain about how living organisms work.

If you begin at 1 on a scale of a hundred and progress to 10 that’s a 1000% increase in understanding which is real impressive until you realize that there’s still 90% left to learn. We act like next week all the mysteries will be solved and we still aren’t even sure what hiccups are.

[quote]Scotacus wrote:
<<< how do you know what history will prove? >>>[/quote]

Write it down, you heard it here first.

[quote]Scotacus wrote:
<<< in the pursuit of knowledge even the destruction of fallacies give way to better truths, that this, errorneous assumptions are proven wrong, which makes even errorneous assumption valuable. >>>[/quote]

That’s fabulous and even true on it’s face, but in the pursuit of my goals formulas are useless at best and a hinderance at worst until they approach something like mathematical certainty. Until then any decisions based on them instead of thoughtful self analysis will unavoidably lead one astray and, again, if no decisions are based on them then who cares?