Maximum Muscular Bodyweight

Training Bodybuilding
261

[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< People in the shallow end of the gene pool sure are interested in making sure no one else gets into the deep end.[/quote]

The thing that drives me nuts about this is that most people probably aren’t as near the shallow end as they think. They hold themselves back by concentrating on everything in the world other than hard work and enough food and then comfort themselves with theories about how they were doomed from start thus exonerating themselves from culpability in their own failure.

262

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< People in the shallow end of the gene pool sure are interested in making sure no one else gets into the deep end.

The thing that drives me nuts about this is that most people probably aren’t as near the shallow end as they think. They hold themselves back by concentrating on everything in the world other than hard work and enough food and then comfort themselves with theories about how they were doomed from start thus exonerating themselves from culpability in their own failure.[/quote]

exactly… I was never big docotors said I was going to be 5’2 when I was a kid but I don’t give a fuck what some author, doctor, article, etc says I will one day be 230-240lbs and 8-12%bf at my height of 5’7"

Limitations be damned no one is going to tell me what my body is capable of!

263

[quote]KO421 wrote:
DIE THREAD DIE!!![/quote]

Someone needs to mention the Nazis for this to happen.

Oops, I just did.

264

When i was about 19-20 my wrist was about 6.25 inches. my grip/wrist strength was weak so i decided to bring that up and now my wrist is about 7.5. My left wrist is slightly under 7.2 inches. left hand is also significantly weaker that right, coincidence? ← how do you spell that? My forearm measurement is also about 1/2 inch above the predicted value(thats relaxed forearm right?) So anyways i dont think that stuff holds water very well.

265

[quote]rander wrote:
When i was about 19-20 my wrist was about 6.25 inches. my grip/wrist strength was weak so i decided to bring that up and now my wrist is about 7.5. My left wrist is slightly under 7.2 inches. left hand is also significantly weaker that right, coincidence? ← how do you spell that? My forearm measurement is also about 1/2 inch above the predicted value(thats relaxed forearm right?) So anyways i dont think that stuff holds water very well.
[/quote]

Good point. While I never measured my wrist as a beginner, I know for a fact that it is larger now than it was when I was about 100lbs less in body weight. Without taking that into account at all, it makes the entire premise weak.

266

Here is a detailed article on this:

http://www.naturalstrength.com/history/detail.asp?ArticleID=602

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rander wrote:
When i was about 19-20 my wrist was about 6.25 inches. my grip/wrist strength was weak so i decided to bring that up and now my wrist is about 7.5. My left wrist is slightly under 7.2 inches. left hand is also significantly weaker that right, coincidence? ← how do you spell that? My forearm measurement is also about 1/2 inch above the predicted value(thats relaxed forearm right?) So anyways i dont think that stuff holds water very well.

Good point. While I never measured my wrist as a beginner, I know for a fact that it is larger now than it was when I was about 100lbs less in body weight. Without taking that into account at all, it makes the entire premise weak.[/quote]

267

[quote]rander wrote:
When i was about 19-20 my wrist was about 6.25 inches. my grip/wrist strength was weak so i decided to bring that up and now my wrist is about 7.5. My left wrist is slightly under 7.2 inches. left hand is also significantly weaker that right, coincidence? ← how do you spell that? My forearm measurement is also about 1/2 inch above the predicted value(thats relaxed forearm right?) So anyways i dont think that stuff holds water very well.
[/quote]

Same thing with my forearms and I know my wrist is larger now than when I was 18…Esp when I am now 6’5" I think my forearms need to be at least an inch bigger to look proportional to my upper arms. Just too many variables…

268

The strong correlation between the variables themselves indicates that the premise is not weak.

It is common for a person’s bone structure to continue to enlarge into their early-20s. Adults cannot significantly increase wrist size without gaining body fat - the predictions are for bodybuilders with a low level of body fat.

269

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
The strong correlation between the variables themselves indicates that the premise is not weak.

It is common for a person’s bone structure to continue to enlarge into their early-20s. Adults cannot significantly increase wrist size without gaining body fat - the predictions are for bodybuilders with a low level of body fat.[/quote]

Define significantly. It is true that once the epiphyseal plates have calcified that the bones won’t continue to grow in length. However, I’ve never seen any literature that suggests that they don’t still can’t continue to grow in girth.

So, provided that the bones of the wrist were continually exposed to progressively greater loads, then they would continue to grow in circumference in response to this.

Sure, it’s true that there is a limit to the amount that the bones will grow. But according to your formula an increase of an inch would mean a significant increase in muscular potential. And, I don’t think that an inch increase is out of the question for someone who is exposing their wrists to heavy loads.

Therefore, one could only really know what their maximal wrist circumference would be when they’d reached their maximal muscular development. Which makes the formula once again somewhat arbitrary, since one could never really be sure if one had reached their maximal wrist circumference/muscular bodyweight.

In regards to the whole “this article only applies to bodybuilders” thing. First, why? From what I’ve gathered, the article only applies to those who wish to have the same proportions as the golden era bodybuilders.

This however has nothing to do with drugs (since it is possible to reach those proportions with or without drugs), nor does it have to do with maximal muscular bodyweight.

You also can only use bodybuilders prior to the invention of steroids as examples, as you cannot know for certain that any bodybuilder since the invention of steroids is actually “natural”. Sure, you might know that they tested negative for steroids when they won their title (or possibly you might not).

But that doesn’t mean that they never did steroids, it only means that they didn’t have any steroids present in their system at competition time.

And since, as I’ve already pointed out, the Golden era guys were going for a specific look (aesthetic ideal), you likewise cannot use them as a gauge of maximal muscular bodyweight. Not to mention the possibility of them not being the genetic elite, supplemental/nutritional factors, training methodologies, recovery modalities, etc…

Good training,

Sentoguy

270

So does that mean my right wrist is always gonna be half an inch bigger than my left?
My wrists were the same size from 15 till i started training wrist and grip strength. Anyways i thought bone and tendon/ligaments adapt to stresses making them thicker where they need to be.

271

[quote]rander wrote:
So does that mean my right wrist is always gonna be half an inch bigger than my left?
[/quote]
Most likely, yes. It is practically impossible for a man to increase his true adult wrist girth by more than 5% (unless he gets fat). A 3/8" increase is not uncommon for a man who begins training in his late teens …and that would be for a man with at least 7.5" wrists to start. Most people will not come near this. Most apparent increases in “wrist girth” are due simply to body fat increases.

After a few years of heavy training, people’s wrist girths have increased as much as they’re going to.

272

[quote]Magnate wrote:
according to this my calves and thighs are too big already for my most muscular bodyweight of a whopping 174.2 lbs

i should stop lifting right away or i might become some hideous unbalanced freak!

wtf…[/quote]

Another moron who cannot read, you did the lean bodyweight calculation, not the total. 174.2 would be 0%BF. You’d be 193.6 at 10%bf and 204.9 at what you think is 10%bf but really 15%.

273

[quote]BigHog wrote:
How come if this is so accurate… I put in my height 78 inches, wrist size 7.5 inches, ankle 9 inches and my current body far level… approx 10%. my results was with those stats I’d top out at 205 pounds.

Unless I did it wrong I must be a genetic mutant because I already way 255 and my bodyfat at the highest has been tested at 12 and the lowest at 9… I’m definetly not a fat guy.[/quote]

One more that cannot do simple math, you’d be predicted to be at 237.6, add a bunch for your delusional “never been over 12%” bullshit and you’d be about right.

274

[quote]wressler125 wrote:
Ha ha… According to this I will be topping out at around 178lbs. Too bad I plan on lifting in the 198lb weight class…[/quote]

Add one more to those that either cannot read or do math, what are you 5 feet tall.

275

why are you responding to a thread that’s almost a year old?

and why did I respond at all?

276

[quote]kelleyb wrote:
why are you responding to a thread that’s almost a year old?

and why did I respond at all? [/quote]

Aparently, the “mastermind” has a problem with dates.

277

lol

278

Well, since this topic got resuscitated once again I’ve been recently thinking about Michael Lockett (I brought him up in another recent thread on the subject as an example of someone whom the equation does not apply).

I’ve actually went through and done the calculations and Lockett would have to:

  1. have hyooge wrists, ankles, or both for his height (5’9") for the equation to accurately predict his bodyweight (244 lbs on stage!), even with the 3% fudge factor

and

  1. have reached his maximal muscular bodyweight potential in only a little over 2 years of training. Problem with that is that the guy put on 25 lbs of solid muscle in a single year (from 2006-2007) natural!

Sorry, but I don’t buy it. Is he a genetic freak among freaks? Hell yeah! But does this still suggest that the equation might not be able to predict maximal muscular bodyweight? Yup.

In fact, I don’t really think statistics can ever (or were ever supposed to) tell you what the upper and lower limits were. All they can tell you is what is average, below average, and above average.

279

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

The really awesome post with good points all around. Ya that one.

Sentoguy[/quote]

Totally late to this discussion but especially the point you made about football players I wanted to make right away after reading this thread. High school athletes are generally just “the most muscular dudes at the school.” This is almost pure genetics, and as they have high muscular development at an early age they also get the power/speed/strength perks that come with it, and thus choose football/basketball/baseball/hockey/lacrosse/track/wrestling/etc. Last time I checked Bodybuilding(especially teenage BBing) isn’t exactly an insanely popular sport in the ESPN era.

There used to be a thread(maybe still is I haven’t checked physique forum in forever) dedicated to professional athletes with bodybuilding type bodies, or potential to be amazing bodybuilders and it was FILLED with NFL tight ends/defensive ends/safeties/linebackers/running backs. The true genetic freaks of the world.

I potentially repeated a lot of points made after Sentoguy’s post because I wanted to quote/reply right away after reading it.

Edit: I didn’t even notice I was reading a year old thread, oops.

280

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
…
In fact, I don’t really think statistics can ever (or were ever supposed to) tell you what the upper and lower limits were. All they can tell you is what is average, below average, and above average.[/quote]

Yup.