[quote]Professor X wrote:
I haven’t seen anyone making the point that your “study” is invalid.[/quote]
I can see I’m late to this party, but this looks like too much fun to pass up. So I am going to make the point that the “study” might be invalid.
It’s published on a website and not in a peer-reviewed academic journal. We have no way of verifying the analysis.
Regression coefficients provided without p-values are meaningless. We don’t know your sample size (probably small), confidence intervals, or standard errors.
There is no good reason to believe the sample is representative of individuals with the highest genetic potential. The number of individuals who train with weights is very small compared to the number of humans. The number who put serious effort towards achieving maximum genetic potential is even smaller. In my experience, the individuals who began training with weights early were typically smaller than average. That was their motivation. As others have said repeatedly, the people with the greatest genetic potential may be in other sports that pay better.
Or, the most successful bodybuilders start using drugs, thus disqualifying themselves from your study. To think that bodybuilders of the 1950s achieved human genetic potential is silly. Every other sport has advanced by leaps and bounds since then based on improved nutrition, training knowledge, etc. Why would bodybuilding be different?
I don’t understand why there are different equations depending on what sport an individual plays. That’s absurd. The limits of the human body are universal limits, regardless of the interests or efforts of the individual. It is only when individuals with the greatest potential attempt to achieve those limits that we have any idea of what those limits are. That rarely happens.
You seemed to be personally biased in your sample selection. You operate under the assumption that if an individual exceeds your predictions, they must be on drugs, therefore they do not exceed your predictions. In fact, your favorite paper to cite (Kouri E.M., et al) draws exactly that conclusion: “it appears that FFMI (fat free mass index) may represent a useful initial measure to screen for possible steroid abuse”.
You are trying to sell something. That damages your credibility.
red4, you are not making valid points in light of 60 years of what cannot be merely “coincidence”. I’m sure you think you’ve found some theoretical counter-arguments, but the fact remains that if the results of the analysis were not valid, such strong relationships would not have surfaced in the first place.
toddthebod,
read this thread and others on the same subject (there is another one here on this forum somewhere).
I have a life and a job. I don’t have time to take on another one here that fails to understand even the basics of the premise of that article. If you can’t find the answers you’re looking for in the past 14 pages and the other thread I’m afraid I don’t have time or energy to repeat it.
You don’t need to explain statistical analysis and scientific publishing to me. I have quite a bit of experience in both of those fields. It’s a booklet and web article for bodybuilders, not a research journal. If interested parties ever convince me to publish it in a scientific setting it will be written differently. Until then the fit of the equations to histories biggest drug-free bodybuilders is obvious and speaks for itself.
I really don’t know what people want to hear.
That the fact that for 60 years elite-level bodybuilders have carried approximately the same level of muscle mass in relation to their skeletal structures is merely coincidence? Of course, that can’t be true because we know so much about nutrition now? BS. It is true. Otherwise the results would have exposed it. There may be trends, but in the overall realm of upper limits, no significant changes in lean body mass have occured (other than statistical outliers which are also dealt with in the booklet).
That football players have the potential to get bigger than bodybuilders and even though several bodybuilding champions throughout history have been former football players this must mean that they were the one’s with low potential for building muscle?
That the equations may be off for some people by a 1/2"?
In any case, there hasn’t been a verified drug-free bodybuilder in history that exceeds the equations in that booklet (and very few for the article) by more than a few pounds. Yet people still want to delude themselves into thinking that the analysis means nothing because of some theoretical reasons that it can’t be valid - despite the past 60 years of overwhelming evidence that it is.
I’ve spent six years collecting and analysing data, yet some dude reads the thread and comes up with some brilliant counter argument that I haven’t considered years ago??? I spent 15 years studying hard sciences, publishing research papers and teaching university courses, yet I need a refresher in basic statistical analysis for a paper on a web site intended as a tool for drug-free bodybuilders?
The article is not credible because I’m selling the results of thousands of hours of research and analysis for under $10 and using that money to keep my website online and commercial free?
Despite all the claims as to its fallacy one fact remains. Pick a verifiably drug-free bodybuilder (and even some who aren’t) from any era, plug his stats into the appropriate equations in that booklet, and it will spit out his accurate weight and measurements. Then it can tell you what you’d need to compare to him, what statistically is likely, and how you can further gauge your own potential. If it was wrong, the fit simply wouldn’t “fit”, yet people seem to ignore that fact.
That’s the whole point of it and no theoretical reason why one person in 10 million can surpass it by a few pounds can diminish that fact or the booklet’s and article’s (somewhat more limited) usefulness.
Am I admitting that there are freaks who can surpass that web article? Yes, but I never denied that fact and they are dealt with in a special section of the booklet.
Until somebody stops repeating the same things again and again, without putting at least a fraction of the thought I have into this over the past 6+ years, then I’ve had all I can take of this ridiculous thread.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
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.[/quote]
Oh, I wasn’t suggesting that football should not be included and have no idea who went in what direction first. My post was not intended to support one view over the other. My only point was that the suggestion was made earlier that studying bodybuilders is not an accurate measure of the upper limits of human development because they aren’t elite, because if they were they would be playing football for more money.
My response to that is that bodybuilders are elite for what is being discussed- muscle development. Of course, there are people who have been bodybuilders and football players and I agree that ignoring them would be a mistake, but it seems that studying bodybuilders makes most sense and critiquing the study for not including football players seems ridiculous if for no other reason than football players don’t train for size exclusively (at least not while they are football players).
So, while I see some flaws with the study, I don’t think “performing the tests exclusively using bodybuilders as the measuring stick” is one.
I’m relatively new (2 years) to the sport so forgive my ignorance…but isn’t there a huge subjective component to bodybuilding? To the author, I haven’t seen an answer on this yet, but did you control for the subjective nature of bodybuilding contests in your analysis?
Correct me if I am wrong here. We can logically deduce that any year(x)'s champion’s results are a function of year(x-1)'s champions success. Both his training over the course of the year and the judges subjective analysis of the competitors is a direct function of the prior years result…and so on and so on all the way back to the “beginning”.
I find the striking similarities between the champions very interesting, but I wonder if the model is actually predicting the subjective outcomes of the contests as opposed to actual drug free potential.
take a look at my bulking thread in T-Cell alpha, do you really think I’m anywhere close to my genetic potential? Please, I’m so far off it’s sad I wasted so much time.
166 lbs is supposedly my max lean mass, I’m only 13 lbs away from that as of now, I’ll get back to you in a few months.
jesus christ, seriously are you that fucking retarded!
[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]
Im going to PM you with a list of prescriptions to send.
So I got my copy of Dino training this week, on page 102 in the section Singles for Grip Work Brooks Kubik, an avid outspoken anti-AAS proponent(that could be good or bad), says his wrist went from 7 and 1/2 inches to over 8 inches in aboit 1.5 years. This is at the ripe old age of 37, already being able to Bench over 400 lbs. He didnt get big and fat, at least I dont think he did judging by the pictures of him on his site. Maybe his genetic potential just increased by about 7%.
So if you want to improve your genetic potential, you should do heavy singles for grip work. Actually he credits it to increasing the size of the tendons and such that cross his wrist, so maybe, just maybe, if you dont got your wrist tendons “maxed out” for size, you cant even tell what your genetic potential is. But then, how would you know how big your wrists could get?
This one is still running on? Gee whiz.
Seriously though, the author hasn;t posted any research showing how wrist size doesn;t significantly increase in adult weight training populations who engage in heavy lifting (outside of body fat gains).
Also using just wrist and ankle diameter as variables seems weird. I would consider clavicular width, rib cage depth, elbow joint thickness,knee circumference, hip size and others to get a more accurate picture, but the fact that he says he was able to fit his equations to the bodybuilders he mentioned: sure, you can always do regression with a set of data using a limited number of variables and present the set as a comprehensive treatise of human limits.
The old timers did not train for maximum muscle mass, they trained for proportions and symmetry, another thing to chew on. I daresay old time strongmen who dieted down would carry far more LBM than old time bodybuilders albeit to a lower level of symmetry and poorer proportions.
YOu also have not considered the effect of using herbal pro-testosterone products in your regimen - something a lot of “natural” lifters do these days.
Have any of the guys who phoned in their acceptance of your numbers been using longjack for instance? I would imagine these would slightly skew your inferences.
I repeat, all you did is take a set of bodybuilders, use a couple of variables and used regression over the data sets to cast a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
THE ONLY thing that would lend any credibility to (or show the lack thereof in) his arguments and equations as pertaining to current generation weight training population: how many modern day lifters (from this forum and others) can put up figures and photographs and pop up as statistical outliers? Assuming someone who has breezed past these “limits” actually cares.
Since most of what you say has been a postulate, I postulate that ANYONE who spends a sufficiently long time bulking up and focussing on size and strength gains at the expense of staying lean will (after dieting down and rebounding upwards) carry much more muscle mass than a guy who tries to “lean bulk” his way upwards. IF we can get a sumo wrestler to diet down over a few years (without killing himself) then it would be interesting to apply this equation to him.
Incidentally, Ronnie won his pro card completely natural by the way, and without crunching the numbers, it would appear that your equations wouldn;t explain him.
Not that I care…you consider yourself at the limit of your genetic limits and that says more about your “paper”. Have a nice day and stay strong.
Oh:: And I have a doctorate degree as well, a PhD (so there’s no confusion) if that helps make my arguments more worth your while.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
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?
I’m not too worried. I’m a “fake doctor”, just like him (my doctorate is in engineering), we know our kind well.
Besides, I;m still waiting to see how he determined that wrist and ankle size are all thats needed to nail down your potential. He could have crunched equations using JUST wrist size and pretended that everyone on this blue marble was a slave to them. HEll, he could have used soem obscure set of variables and still made his “point”
Its just very funny that a LINEAR quation with no more than two fucking variables determines the potential of such a bio-mechanical-chemical complex system as the human body. If that doesn;t raise eyebrows regarding the validity of the study, I dunno what will.
But I think we can use his article to make a GOOD point. “youre not going to get too big and your best efforts could end up making a small difference. Mass adding should not be taken lightly. On the other thread, we saw a bunch of people oohing and aahing over the 40 pounds that Gustavopacho dropped, with no regard to the years of heavy lifting that carved him up in the first place”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
UkpairehMombooto wrote:
Oh:: And I have a doctorate degree as well, a PhD (so there’s no confusion) if that helps make my arguments more worth your while.
Be careful. Mr. Butt is “educated” enough that he considers Doctorate degrees to be Bachelors degrees as if real doctors are beneath him.
Actually, the bodyweight equations are not linear and contain four, not two, independent variables. That’s basic math. (Grade 10?) The body part equations were linearized merely for simplicity as this did not unacceptably affect accuracy.
There were quadratic and linearized versions of the equations on my website several months ago, but they were simplifications merely to make the math easier for people without math backgrounds. The simplification caused errors of a few pounds and 1/2" at most. In light of the fact that most people have no idea whatsoever of natural bodybuilders’ statistics I didn’t consider this terribly significant. It’s more important to give people a reasonably accurate idea of what the elite measure than have them completely in dreamland.
[quote]I repeat, all you did is take a set of bodybuilders, use a couple of variables and used regression over the data sets to cast a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
[/quote]
Using a regression and obtaining a fit which accurately predicts un-manipulated data is far from creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If that were the case then all regression analyses would be worthless. You need to brush up on some basic statistical analysis. Before my engineering degrees I did physics and math degrees as well. I know how weak engineers data analysis usually is.
There are well-established relations between weight, height and joint circumferences, those existing relations can be used as a basis for further calculations if enough data is known. In this case, it was. If you actually read the text that “paper” was based on you would realize that, and would have a better understanding of how the equations were formulated.
Ankle, wrist and height were chosen because they adequately express the data and are convenient both to take and with regards to existing data. Of course I would like more variables, but the data is much harder to collect and unnecessary for adequate accuracy anyway. Wide hips, clavicle width, etc, affects the estimation by a few pounds at most (most likely because this is approximated sufficiently by wrist and ankle measurements) - quite minor in the big scheme of things.
Of course, if one was trying to estimate the statistics of every bodybuilder on Earth to within a 10th of a pound and a 100th of an inch the task would be much more difficult (impossible). But given the group concerned and the accuracy desired (within 1/4" to 3/4" and within a few pounds) then height, wrist and ankle was enough. If it wasn’t, the relations wouldn’t have revealed themselves in the first place.
And that is what it all comes down to. Whomever, with whatever credentials he likes, can launch any theoretical argument against the booklet that he chooses, but that cannot discount the fact that the development of almost every top drug-free bodybuilder of the past 61 years is accounted for by an appropriate section of that booklet (and most “winners” by that article).
If the “regression” was not sound (based on whatever the variables) then that would not be the case …yet it is. If modern bodybuilders carried significantly more lean body mass than previous champions that would also eliminate a practical data fit …yet it does not because any changes in the absolute level of top competitors has not significantly changed (baring statistical outliers, which are also covered in a section of the booklet).
The development of the equations are theoretically sound (though, as I said, you are not actually familiar with that). And the “limitation” levels are set with reference to the biggest drug-free bodybuilders (and strength athletes) in history. Given that, they can scale any bodybuilder to corresponding levels of development - and that is the entire point of the booklet.
At the end of the day, after all the reasons why it can’t “work”, the fact is that it does.
Anyone who actually reads the book, rather than just announcing hastily thought of theories and opinions concerning the subject, will understand that.
Its just very funny that a LINEAR quation with no more than two fucking variables determines the potential of such a bio-mechanical-chemical complex system as the human body. If that doesn;t raise eyebrows regarding the validity of the study, I dunno what will.
Actually, the bodyweight equations are not linear and contain four, not two, independent variables. That’s basic math. (Grade 10?) The body part equations were linearized merely for simplicity as this did not unacceptably affect accuracy.[/quote]
Christ, my counting sucks. FOUR variables makes all the difference in the world when modeling the human body. My mistake.
I haven;t had the time to read through your statistical analysis, but have you given the p-value for your hypothesis? correlation coefficient?
What I am asking is, did your regression analysis show a close-to-linear relationship between the variables you chose (wrist, ankle, bf%, and height?) and your maximum LBM prediction.
How big was the population you considered? HAve you considered ALL weight training but natural populations? have you considered NATURAL weight trainers from THIS enlightened era besides yourself (who is clearly at the peak of natural achievement)
[quote]There were quadratic and linearized versions of the equations on my website several months ago, but they were simplifications merely to make the math easier for people without math backgrounds. The simplification caused errors of a few pounds and 1/2" at most.
In light of the fact that most people have no idea whatsoever of natural bodybuilders’ statistics I didn’t consider this terribly significant. It’s more important to give people a reasonably accurate idea of what the elite measure than have them completely in dreamland.[/quote]
1/2 inch and 4-5 pounds LBM can make all the difference depending on the size of the individual. Unless you normalized and found that it still wasn;t significant.
I STILL REPEAT I repeat, all you did is take a set of bodybuilders, use a couple of variables and used regression over the data sets to cast a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
Using a regression and obtaining a fit which accurately predicts un-manipulated data is far from creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If that were the case then all regression analyses would be worthless. You need to brush up on some basic statistical analysis. Before my engineering degrees I did physics and math degrees as well. I know how weak engineers data analysis usually is.
Not really. But statistics is a neat way of cleverly selecting your data set in order to show what you want to show as true, and thats what I meant by self-fulfilling.
What relations are you referring to? And why does body fat % not pop up in this statement of yours? And no, And hwat do you mean, formulated your equations. From what I understand, you used curve fitting on a cleverly selected group of individuals. And if an equation relating weight, height and joint circumference existed, what did YOUR study set out to add to that?
It would be even more convenient to measure for skull circumference and ear thickness instead.
AND THATS THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR GODDAMN STUDY. You were in a hurry to get published and tried to get it done as quickly as you could.
What a load of kangaroo piss. Wide hips and clavicle width have no more significant effect on an individuals potential to add upper body muscle mass, than two frickin extremities? And/or are you tring to POSTULATE that you can predict an individual’s hip and waist thickness form his wrists and ankle diameter?
On a side note, can I buy some pot from you?
[quote]Of course, if one was trying to estimate the statistics of every bodybuilder on Earth to within a 10th of a pound and a 100th of an inch the task would be much more difficult (impossible). But given the group concerned and the accuracy desired (within 1/4" to 3/4" and within a few pounds) then height, wrist and ankle was enough. If it wasn’t, the relations wouldn’t have revealed themselves in the first place.
[/quote]
THATS what I frickin meant,.,.you chose a group of individuals to reflect the conclusions you wanted to put out anyway.
[quote]
And that is what it all comes down to. Whomever, with whatever credentials he likes, can launch any theoretical argument against the booklet that he chooses, but that cannot discount the fact that the development of almost every top drug-free bodybuilder of the past 61 years is accounted for by an appropriate section of that booklet (and most “winners” by that article).[/quote]
EVERY top drug-free bodybuilder? Can you provide a list of these guys and their written testimonials (wit contact addresses) showing that their measurements and weights were well within your predictions?
[quote]
If the “regression” was not sound (based on whatever the variables) then that would not be the case …yet it is.
If modern bodybuilders carried significantly more lean body mass than previous champions that would also eliminate a practical data fit …yet it does not because any changes in the absolute level of top competitors has not significantly changed (baring statistical outliers, which are also covered in a section of the booklet).[/quote]
[b]Who the hell cares about your regression.Using regression to support a hypothesis is only as good as thepopulation you considered. IF i pick a bunch of Zimbabwean brawlers and plug it into ANOVA.
I could cook up a new set of predictor equations. I challenged the choice of variables, population you considered and the validation of your results. So far you have not defended these adequately.[/b]
MORE postulates and puffery. YOu claim there’s a relation between weight, height and joint circumference independent of body fat%, THEN set out to relate weight to body fat%, heigth and joint circumference;
THEN you POSTULATE a correlation between hip/wiast size and joint circumference; THEN you shorten the variables list and POSTULATE that it doesn;t affect the results; Finally you use a population consisting of people who inarguably did NOT train for maximum muscular size and lacked the nutritional development of this day and age…and you seal off the whole damn thing with MORE postulates and a kindergarten-level debate about whose doctorates deserve to be respected and whose don’t.
While I couldn;t care less about validating myself before your esteemed eyes, I daresay you haven;t done much good for your position before a board of serious strength trainers some of whom have close to 50 years of lifting experience. Waiting for your insanely intelligent retort but give me a few hours to respond to it.
FINAL EDIT:: I think you are a well-educated intelligent guy who made significant physical progress and is proud of his achievements, as he should be. And while you may have intended your article for those who fall short of their expectations after working balls-off - this site is not really a place where serious trainers like to KNOW their maximum potential as much as they want to set an unreachable target that forces them to keep improving for the rest of their life. I do agree that drug-free limits exist, although I dispute your predictions and your methods.
That said, I have still to see a single student of mine make as much progress as you have. But I also would add that if you assume you have reached your natural limits, you are very very mistaken. When someone trains for size and strength, his potential for mass gain is vastly different compoared to someone who trains ONLY for aesthetics.
Let us ask teh mighty Glenn Ross to diet down and compete in 2011 and we can continue this discussion after that happens.
have read this thread and all apologies aside, I have a better formula
my LBM <it can be
and
My bodyfat% > it should be
I have crunched the numbers and it holds up
Why all the pissing? if anyone has exceeded the predicted values, so? GREAT for you? Who gives a shit?
If you haven’t, perhaps explore the probability that you haven’t is more accurate than you can’t.
Nice, I agree.
And in light of your epiphany, what would be the point of this article again?
Thats the reason for “all the pissing”.
Not that I particularly care…peace out, y’all.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
have read this thread and all apologies aside, I have a better formula
my LBM <it can be
and
My bodyfat% > it should be
I have crunched the numbers and it holds up
Why all the pissing? if anyone has exceeded the predicted values, so? GREAT for you? Who gives a shit?
If you haven’t, perhaps explore the probability that you haven’t is more accurate than you can’t. [/quote]
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
the article had more relevance than this thread.[/quote]
Really, I thought this thread was an honest exchange of ideas with a healthy side of dickwaving. Isn;t that the purest manifestation of testosterone?
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
I am shocked that this thread didn’t also piss down to a racial thread or political thread.[/quote]
Lets see where it goes. We have been tumbling downhill since page 1 anyway. I think the author has embedded a script that emails him everytime someone links to his article…no other reason why he keeps coming back for more punishment. Let me link to it on http://www.fantasyfeeder.com and watch the fun.
jp_dubya wrote:
the article had more relevance than this thread.
Really, I thought this thread was an honest exchange of ideas with a healthy side of dickwaving. Isn;t that the purest manifestation of testosterone?
jp_dubya wrote:
I am shocked that this thread didn’t also piss down to a racial thread or political thread.
Lets see where it goes. We have been tumbling downhill since page 1 anyway. I think the author has embedded a script that emails him everytime someone links to his article…no other reason why he keeps coming back for more punishment. Let me link to it on http://www.fantasyfeeder.com and watch the fun. [/quote]
Agreed. The ONLY reason this thread is still going is because Mr. Butts comes back again and again any time someone writes an equivilent to this data being questionable…which it is for the reasons MANY have typed. The personal insults just fuel the flame, especially when he flicks his nose at the educational background of those he is debating with.
PROFF X SHUT UP EVERYONE KNOWS YOU ARE BLACK AND THEREFORE YOUR EDUCATION IS FAKE IT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE WHO HAS EVEN GONE TANNING FOR MORE THAN TWO WEEKS TO ACHIEVE ANYTHING ABOVE A GED. IF THEY HAVE IT IS DUE TO RICH PARENTS WHICH PAYED TEIR WAY THROUGH COLLEGE SO THEY DONT COUNT
