Maximum Muscular Bodyweight

Training Bodybuilding
321

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This has gone on for pages and for many months. The ones most likely to fall for this are the newbies or people who won’t achieve much in the way of development because they are too focused on what they CAN’T do.[/quote]

This is exactly the type of deluded dreamer I wrote the booklet and article for. You are at least amusing, however.

As far as the equations being appropriate to other athletes, there are equations in the booklet that included strongmen competitors, powerlifters and football players in the fit (also included is a section on what could be considered “freaks”). As I’ve already said, several times, that is not the focus of the article posted on the website.

322

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dude, no offense, but you are going round and round on this when THIS is the main issue. This study means very little since many people with genetics on the extreme end of strength and muscular development will often choose a high paying sport to excel in rather than pose on stage for no money and a trophy. That invalidates the claim that anyone surpassing this must have better genetics than the best in the past…since he EXCLUDES the best in other sports or activities.

That, my friend, makes no sense.

This study only shows what those bodybuilders of the past were able to achieve, not what ANYONE can achieve. Since we can’t even prove they are the elite in terms of human genetic potential (because sports like football were excluded), this “study” shows nothing…NOTHING but that.

This has gone on for pages and for many months. The ones most likely to fall for this are the newbies or people who won’t achieve much in the way of development because they are too focused on what they CAN’T do.[/quote]

Exactly what I have been trying to say X. And I agree, it’s gone on long enough.

323

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This has gone on for pages and for many months. The ones most likely to fall for this are the newbies or people who won’t achieve much in the way of development because they are too focused on what they CAN’T do.

This is exactly the type of deluded dreamer I wrote the booklet and article for. You are at least amusing, however.
[/quote]

I am also well educated…and unlike you, actually treat real live patients to earn the title “Doctor”. Deluded dreamer?

324

Personally, I don’t think that people with bachelor’s degrees in dental assistance or whatever, should be allowed to call themselves “doctors”.

That has little to do with this thread.

325

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Personally, I don’t think that people with bachelor’s degrees in dental assistance or whatever, should be allowed to call themselves “doctors”.

That has little to do with this thread.[/quote]

This was an insult? I have a DDS degree with a specialty in oral surgery. How you can degrade that is beyond me. I can write prescriptions for medication. Can you?

326

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This was an insult? I have a DDS degree with a specialty in oral surgery. How you can degrade that is beyond me. I can write prescriptions for medication. Can you?[/quote]

I actually have a “doctorate” degree. And no, I’m really not impressed with your education.

Honestly, I really don’t think this is an appropriate discussion to have here. I would have liked to have thought that someone so highly educated as yourself wouldn’t be so immature.

327

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This was an insult? I have a DDS degree with a specialty in oral surgery. How you can degrade that is beyond me. I can write prescriptions for medication. Can you?
I actually have a “doctorate” degree. And no, I’m really not impressed with your education.

Honestly, I really don’t think this is an appropriate discussion to have here. I would have liked to have thought that someone so highly educated as yourself wouldn’t be so immature.[/quote]

You are the one who has mentioned his “education” several times. I am letting you know that you are not speaking to a bunch of uneducated individuals, but people on or ABOVE your own level. That isn’t immature, it is simply fact.

328

[quote]Professor X wrote:
MarkT wrote:
Professor X wrote:
MarkT wrote:
Most posts on this have been by very experienced trainees with reason to question these “limits”, and concerns about the effect on newbie motivation from reading this. I’ve only been training for a year. I liked the article. I look at it as a convenient description of the physiques of the best Golden Age bodybuilders, which is a look I would be happy to achieve. I’m not comfortable asking muscular men at the gym how much they weigh, so I can only guess how much more muscle I’ll need to gain to get a particular visual effect. This data fit is helpful in that regard, and just generally interesting. I think the experienced guys already have a good feel for this, but I don’t. It’s a little surprising how low my predicted “maximum” weight is, and I certainly wouldn’t stop short at that weight if I hit it. Maybe I’m fatter than caliper measurements say. In any case, I find it to be positive motivation - maybe I’m not so many pounds of muscle away from a standout physique as I’d thought. I think the criticisms by Sentoguy and others are valid, but I still think it’s a useful article.

  • MarkT

Let us know how “useful” it is after 5 years of serious training when you realize the mental barriers you will have to overcome to reach your true genetic upper limit.

Newbies have no basis for understanding just how much mental fortitude this will take for years and years of non-stop training. Allowing doubt to set in at an early stage in training is a huge mistake…if you actually plan on standing out in a crowd.

Professor X, I don’t doubt that keeping motivated over many years is very tough. In fact, this is why I’m a newbie now, at age 46 - every previous time I started before, I quit after a few months. I just meant that for me, at this moment, this paper has a positive motivational effect. I doubt it will poison my attitude long-term, I’m always open to re-thinking things. If I’m still training seriously 4 years from now, I’ll probably be thinking about new things, rather than this. I’m not good at long-term planning of my life, as you seem to be. I tend to work toward mid-range goals a few years away (with a long-range dream in mind, too), then reassess what I want. If I ever get really big, it will be by a process of getting substantially bigger, getting used to that, and deciding bigger would be better. I feel this happening already with regard to my “beginner gains”, which at first seemed amazing, now less of a big deal more the new status quo, tomorrow maybe inadequate. As for standing out in a crowd, it will have to be due to great width, as I am 5’7".

  • MarkT

Something tells me you have little to worry about as far as ever getting really big.

I must be psychic.
[/quote]

You are astute and certainly correct by your standards of “big”, and probably even by my standards. But I am enjoying getting big-er, and I found the article interesting and unlikely to stunt my progress anytime soon. That’s all I meant to say. I’ll back out now while you and Sentoguy are chewing on Casey.

  • MarkT
329

MarkT,

You’re wise not to involve yourself in this silly thread.

Professor X,

I was aware of your education. Restating it still doesn’t make a bachelor’s degree in dentistry that impressive to me. Especially in light of your behaviour - which tells a truer story. Your degree gives you no experience with scientific research either in analysis or publication. Yet, somehow, you’ve bestowed the internet title of “professor” on yourself.

Seriously, you’ve been chiming in on this thread when no one was really talking to you simply because you wanted to seem important and start a pissing match. There’s nothing about you at all that hints of higher intelligence.

I have considered all the points you have made thus far and have either dismissed them or accounted for them in the booklet I wrote on the subject of maximum muscular measurements and bodyweights (of which you are not even awaare). I have no desire to debate anything with you or to communicate with you in any way.

330

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
MarkT,

You’re wise not to involve yourself in this silly thread.

Professor X,

I was aware of your education. Restating it still doesn’t make a bachelor’s degree in dentistry that impressive to me. Especially in light of your behaviour - which tells a truer story. Your degree gives you no experience with scientific research either in analysis or publication. Yet, somehow, you’ve bestowed the internet title of “professor” on yourself.

Seriously, you’ve been chiming in on this thread when no one was really talking to you simply because you wanted to seem important and start a pissing match. There’s nothing about you at all that hints of higher intelligence.

I have no desire to debate anything with you or to communicate with you in any way.[/quote]

Bachelors degree in dentistry? Where have I written this? You do realize that dentists go to the same classes as med school students aside from the last two years?

I have a BS degree in Biology and a DDS degree…which means a Doctorate in Dentistry.

For someone so educated, you would think you would know this.

331

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
I was aware of your education.[/quote]

332

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Casey Butt wrote:
I was aware of your education.[/quote]

Gee, apparently not if you try so hard to degrade it by relating it to a Bachelors degree when it is well past it.

Bottom line, many of the arguments brought forth are valid, especially what Sentoguy has been typing to you. You sure are quick to dismiss what others are saying.

333

“Professor X”,

If I was quick to dismiss what people were saying I wouldn’t have stayed around for 14 pages responding to it. On the other hand, I wrote a 27-page book on the subject (which none of you have read) and spent over 6 years collecting and analyzing data and am in a better position to speak on the subject than you. I’m quick to dismiss what you say, because you haven’t said anything that hasn’t already been “discussed” and now you’re just trying to hang around and get in on the action. You’re points are very good, you really aren’t very bright and you’re obviously only here to quench your need for argument. So, no, your opinion doesn’t mean much to me.

Sentoguy raised some decent points (as I’m sure people are shocked to see me admit), though by my very experienced eye in such matters (if such an arrogant statement doesn’t offend people too greatly), Lockett’s wrists are well above 8" and his ankles over 10". In any case, that’s a moot point, because I simply do not trust Lockett’s current drug-free status or the point at which he started anabolics.

Nothing said here has invalidated the article …especially in light of the intended audience and the fact that the other groups mentioned are covered by specific data in the booklet.

334

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:

Nothing said here has invalidated the article …especially in light of the intended audience and the fact that the other groups mentioned are covered by specific data in the booklet.[/quote]

Wow. Aside from your insults (which truly have me crying rivers right now…booh ahem hoo), I haven’t seen anyone making the point that your “study” is invalid. The point is that your “study” only focuses in on a very small population, therefore, no conclusions about HUMANS as a whole can be made. You would have to include genetic freaks in all sports to come to some conclusion about what can be achieved in terms of muscle mass.

I am sure most accept that most people would have a hard time getting their arms to a muscular 17" and above. However, to use this as a ceiling (while describing everyone else who surpasses it as genetic freaks) would make little sense.

335

The intended audience is bodybuilders with the goal of achieving maximum muscle mass at low amounts of body fat. The article shows what select people have achieved and plotted it to a mathematical equation to predict the “average” (in quotes because they are obviously still elite in their sport, just not guaranteed to be the genetic elite) that they can expect to achieve.

If I am correct so far, then I don’t see how it is possible that nothing stated so far “invalidates” the article. Fledgling bodybuilders are worried about their MAXIMUM POTENTIAL, they don’t know if the people selected for this study accurately depict what is actually the maximum potential for human growth, and thus the study can not accurately predict their maximum supported muscle mass.

It is not a failure on your part, a failure on your science, it is just not possible to know who the “measurement” for top genetic potential should be taken from. Basically the study is a glaring example of why so many people hate so many scientific studies, they can be portrayed to contain information that they actually do not.

Edit: put invalidates in quotes, I agree with X that it’s not so much invalidated, I just don’t know what other word to use. The article just… doesn’t work to what it was supposed to.

336

It is very difficult to say that people who are the upper genetic limits for muscle growth likely go to higher paying sports over the stage. There is a correlation between strength and musculature in MANY sports, but to say that because the study was conducted on Bodybuilders it is inherently flawed or incorrect because everyone knows that, say, football players have better muscle genetics. If the study was done on football players and bodybuilders were excluded as “not elite”, the mutiny on here would be insane.

Below is a link to a website for a guy named Malcolm Marshall. His offseason pic (he is at 310 m’f’n lbs) is awesome. He played football at my alma mater (UNC-CH) and was drafted into the NFL. Read his bio- after a little whle in the NFL it became clear that his “gift” was more for building a muscular physique than actually playing football at the highest level. Looking at him, I can’t say I disagree.

Anyways, he seems like a cool guy and I thought about starting a thread on him but the athletes > bodybuilders theme caused me to post it in here.

www.houseshaka.com

337

[quote]trextacy wrote:
It is very difficult to say that people who are the upper genetic limits for muscle growth likely go to higher paying sports over the stage. There is a correlation between strength and musculature in MANY sports, but to say that because the study was conducted on Bodybuilders it is inherently flawed or incorrect because everyone knows that, say, football players have better muscle genetics. If the study was done on football players and bodybuilders were excluded as “not elite”, the mutiny on here would be insane.

Below is a link to a website for a guy named Malcolm Marshall. His offseason pic (he is at 310 m’f’n lbs) is awesome. He played football at my alma mater (UNC-CH) and was drafted into the NFL. Read his bio- after a little whle in the NFL it became clear that his “gift” was more for building a muscular physique than actually playing football at the highest level. Looking at him, I can’t say I disagree.

Anyways, he seems like a cool guy and I thought about starting a thread on him but the athletes > bodybuilders theme caused me to post it in here.

www.houseshaka.com

[/quote]

Actually, we don’t disagree on that at all and I have mentioned that. Many…MANY competitive bodybuilders over the last few years have been ex-pro/college football players. That implies that ignoring football would be a mistake if someone were to actually be interested in what can actually be achieved.

However, even you have to admit that he went in that direction first.

338

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Casey Butt wrote:
Personally, I don’t think that people with bachelor’s degrees in dental assistance or whatever, should be allowed to call themselves “doctors”.

That has little to do with this thread.

This was an insult? I have a DDS degree with a specialty in oral surgery. How you can degrade that is beyond me. I can write prescriptions for medication. Can you?[/quote]

Hook Me Up

339

[quote]red04 wrote:
…it is just not possible to know who the “measurement” for top genetic potential should be taken from.[/quote]

To think that for the past 60 years all the genetically gifted people did not bodybuild or did not compete leaving 60 years worth of champions to peak out at roughly the same sub-par level is unrealistic.

The fact that lean body mass has not significantly increased among world-class verifiably drug-free bodybuilders of the past 60 years indeed indicates strongly that it is acceptably reliable to use these statistics as an upper limit. If not, that limit would be routinely exceeded on a more regular basis. Yet, it is not. That is the whole finding of the article and the booklet upon which it was excerpted from a section of.

340

The muscle fibers most prone to growth(good genetics for bodybuilding) also happen to be the best muscle fibers for power production. I don’t think it is a big secret that football requires powerful athletes.

Also another flaw that could be pointed out is that since only natural athletes were tested(for good reasons to be truthful) who is to say that the best genetic athletes didn’t come to the realization that to be truly renowned champions they needed to give it their all, which means getting on some gear and competing with the mammoths.

The whole thing is just flawed, and you are right that people would disagree with a reverse study because it would also be flawed due to football players not training for maximum muscle growth. That is exactly the point being made, the study at it’s core just doesn’t work, so why conduct and publish the study so people who cannot come to these conclusions can be fooled into selling themselves short.