[quote]Defekt wrote:
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
[/quote]
That is only true 3.6% of the time…and only if their wrists are over 7".
[quote]UkpairehMombooto wrote:
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.[/quote]
Yes it did …otherwise the equations would not work …yet they do. The maximum LBM equation has a stronger correlation and has not been linearized.
300 “top” athletes were selected. As those come from a much larger pool of unknown experienced, yet aspiring, bodybuilders there is no meaningful way of attaching a population confidence to that.
Yes to the last two questions …if you have even READ THE ARTICLE (let alone the book) you would know that.
That’s not statistics - it’s deception (which I did not do).
This is explained in the book …and body fat % is included in all calculations.
Then you understand incorrectly because, I repeat, I DID NOT CLEVERLY SELECT individuals to fit the hypothesis.
Such relations are apparent from any large population anthropometric database. I expanded upon those relations and how they pertain to the maximum muscle mass developed by drug-free trainees. Such relations were not terribly complicated and can be expressed mathematically and approximated by relatively simpler equations (though, as you said, the actual functioning of the human body is).
I’ve been researching this for over 6 years …I would hardly call that a rush. In addition, I didn’t “get published” by anyone. We are discussing an article on a bodybuilding website.
A person’s clavicle width has next to nothing to do with his forearm, upper arm or neck development. Chest and back measurements certainly are influenced by clavicle width (more significantly rib cage size) and this is addressed in the book.
There have been several fits to an individual’s body fat level using waist, hip, ankle, etc girths (not diameters - an engineer should be more careful with his words). These were done on large populations databases by the U.S. Department of Defense. I would not consider them reliably accurate, though ball-park “interesting” for non-trained individuals.
It seems you African Ph.D’s smoke quite a bit of it already.
If you truly believe that, without having even read the analysis, then your comments are largely worthless.
Quite unnecessary. Many statistics are listed in the book and were either given to me personally, taken by me, or from accepted, published sources. It is quite adequately explained and anyone can understand it (unless they refuse to). There is no secret as to what competitive bodybuilders weigh and enough girth statistics to establish weight/girth/stature relations.
Unfortunately, you have a tendency to repeat the same points and not accept clear rebuttals to them. Your entire argument seem to revolve around me specially selecting some bodybuilders who fit some “idea” I had. However, as I have clearly repeated:
I SELECTED THE LARGEST ELITE DRUG-FREE BODYBUILDERS FROM THE PAST 61 YEARS AND DISCARDED NO ONE. FROM THIS GROUP, ANALYSIS REVEALED A STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN WEIGHTS, MEASUREMENTS AND THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES CHOSEN.
There was no manipulation of data to fit some preconceived ideal.
That is the entire hinge point of your argument …yet your accusation is false. Perhaps you should actually read the article (which is a very abridged and simplified version of a small section of a full booklet).
The same argument. Once again, I did NOT. Body fat is accounted for in every equation in the booklet (dozens).
Once again, bodybuilders and strength athletes from 1947 to present were included in the analysis. That is stated CLEARLY in the article and in this thread several times.
I am not the one repeated playing the education card. I have only done so when my own education was challenged or bore a direct relevance to the “conversation”.
Which is at the heart of most people’s unwillingness to accept the content of that article and booklet. The equations are acceptably accurate. That is easily proven by selecting almost any top elite natural of the past 60 years, yet people will cling to any theoretical counter argument to try and avoid the significance of that.
On the other hand, this is a place populated largely by trolls hiding behind fake names and pictures. Almost no one here has any accountability or even an established identity …hardly a forum for mature discussion. I have yet to see a paper or thesis defense where all the reviewers use aliases and hide behind masks.
Maybe we should start a thread in the T-cell where Mr. Butt can’t post? lol
[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
Maybe we should start a thread in the T-cell where Mr. Butt can’t post? lol[/quote]
I think you meant to type, “maybe we should start a thread in the T-Cell where an author I disagree with won’t be able to defend/discuss his work lulz.”
A funny thing is that my neck was near its supposed “maximum” size when I started lifting at under 140 pounds and over that size by the time I weighed 155. But my chest was more than ten inches under maximum.
Right there it’s obvious that my proportions are very different from those of these natural champion guys. These statistics might be very accurate for handsome guys with good proportions but they seem completely irrelevant to the ugly and oddly shaped.
The prediction for overall body mass would be 195 pounds at 10% BF… I should know in another year if I can exceed that.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Sentoguy,
. Expecting to have similar potential as such a person would be the same as thinking you’re the next Michael Jordon, Wayne Gretzky or Isaac Newton.
e.[/quote]
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
On a side note, can I buy some pot from you?
It seems you African Ph.D’s smoke quite a bit of it already.[/quote]
So can I or can’t I get some pot from your white trash ass?OR do I need to make an appearance on “Springer” with your transexual sister first 
j/k
You keep repeating that you used the “LARGEST” group of drug free bodybuilders possible. If you could provide a COMPLETE list of your population (with signed stats) this discussion will end fast.
[quote]Then you understand incorrectly because, I repeat, I DID NOT CLEVERLY SELECT individuals to fit the hypothesis.
Such relations are apparent from any large population anthropometric database. I expanded upon those relations and how they pertain to the maximum muscle mass developed by drug-free trainees.[/quote]
ANd how the fuck did you extrapolate from these so-called anthropometric databases to cover a group of weight training individuals with years of heavy lifting and bulking up before dieting down?
Really? So how did you conclude that they didn’t affect maximum LBM attainable??? I repeat…can I buy some pot from you? YOu can throw in a copy of your book as well.
According to both the african-american/african as well as white trash PhD’s around here (not including your esteemed self) your publication is a whole lot of “hooeeeyy” and if anyone does drop the cash to purchase the book from your broke ass, do let me know.
FINALLY you yourself said that this was not a “serious” publication. As a person who has reviewed close to a thousand technical articles for international refereed journals, I can agree that this is an amateurish attempt to blend statistics and bodybuilding (not the first).
I see there is no point arguing with you. I still maintain that you are a bright guy but not the “rescue artist” you assumed you were. If anyone actually reads your article as anything more than a column in the “daily mirror” then that person deserves his disappointment. Goodbye to you, youngblood. And mail the pot to me through Biotest.
I’m too lazy to read the rest of the thread. How many years of training does Casey have under his belt?
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
I SELECTED THE LARGEST ELITE DRUG-FREE BODYBUILDERS FROM THE PAST 61 YEARS AND DISCARDED NO ONE. FROM THIS GROUP, ANALYSIS REVEALED A STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN WEIGHTS, MEASUREMENTS AND THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES CHOSEN.
[/quote]
How did you get measurements of their wrists and ankles ?
I’m guessing height is pretty easy. But wrists ? Ankles ?
[quote]k.elkouhen wrote:
Casey Butt wrote:
I SELECTED THE LARGEST ELITE DRUG-FREE BODYBUILDERS FROM THE PAST 61 YEARS AND DISCARDED NO ONE. FROM THIS GROUP, ANALYSIS REVEALED A STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN WEIGHTS, MEASUREMENTS AND THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES CHOSEN.
How did you get measurements of their wrists and ankles ?
I’m guessing height is pretty easy. But wrists ? Ankles ?
[/quote]
My wrists are larger now than they were when I was graduating high school. I know this because I can’t even wear a watch I still have from that time period. I am not sure when it was “proven” that wrist size is unchangeable.
I would agree that it may be this way in most people, but anyone who is now 50-80lbs heavier than they used to be or more as a result of weight lifting will probably not have the same sized wrists as when they were untrained.
If you are now capable of gripping over 400lbs without wrist straps, my guess is, your tendons have thickened a little in those wrists as well.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
k.elkouhen wrote:
Casey Butt wrote:
I SELECTED THE LARGEST ELITE DRUG-FREE BODYBUILDERS FROM THE PAST 61 YEARS AND DISCARDED NO ONE. FROM THIS GROUP, ANALYSIS REVEALED A STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN WEIGHTS, MEASUREMENTS AND THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES CHOSEN.
How did you get measurements of their wrists and ankles ?
I’m guessing height is pretty easy. But wrists ? Ankles ?
My wrists are larger now than they were when I was graduating high school. I know this because I can’t even wear a watch I still have from that time period. I am not sure when it was “proven” that wrist size is unchangeable.
[/quote]
Good point !
Need I mention that I don’t think anyone is going to find that “proof” since bodybuilders don’t regularly measure their wrists, do they ?
Now, back to my question. Mr Butt how did you get your data ?
I’m very interested in how you got the wrist and ankle measurements of all THE LARGEST ELITE DRUG-FREE BODYBUILDERS FROM THE PAST 61 YEARS
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
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? [/quote]
I am using the lost art of the self-quote to add another car to the stupid-train.
I agree that heavy lifting thickens up ligaments and tendons to a good extent. I believe very very heavy lifting has the potential to cause bone transformation (some law called wolf’s law or something) but its dangerous to attempt. I feel heavy gripper work for low reps and levering do this better than static holds but don;t have any evidence.
It used to be believed that a person can slightly add to his overall adult height (perceptibly) by tapping one of the processes on the inner knee (when sittign corss-legged) and while this is borderline insane, I have seen some people add close to an inch in a few months (while the rest just developed soft tissue trauma or whatever). What I saying is, people assume that bones, ligaments and tendons never grow…heavy lifting makes them adapt greatly over several years, but youve got to get to moving some serious weight for substantial volume.
George Jowett claimed to go from 7 inch wrists to 9 inch wrists over a 12 year period of serious lifitng, and he was a reputed strength writer of the times.
OF course, if you start cutting down every time you lose sight of your abs, it may not happen…but you can always start writing against the bloated fetish objects on the olympia stage when youre in your early forties with your career hanging by a thread and you barely look like you lift seriously.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
k.elkouhen wrote:
Casey Butt wrote:
I SELECTED THE LARGEST ELITE DRUG-FREE BODYBUILDERS FROM THE PAST 61 YEARS AND DISCARDED NO ONE. FROM THIS GROUP, ANALYSIS REVEALED A STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN WEIGHTS, MEASUREMENTS AND THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES CHOSEN.
How did you get measurements of their wrists and ankles ?
I’m guessing height is pretty easy. But wrists ? Ankles ?
My wrists are larger now than they were when I was graduating high school. I know this because I can’t even wear a watch I still have from that time period. I am not sure when it was “proven” that wrist size is unchangeable.
I would agree that it may be this way in most people, but anyone who is now 50-80lbs heavier than they used to be or more as a result of weight lifting will probably not have the same sized wrists as when they were untrained.
If you are now capable of gripping over 400lbs without wrist straps, my guess is, your tendons have thickened a little in those wrists as well.[/quote]
Dr. Butts,
I put out the call to some of my bodybuilding colleagues, and a half-dozen wrote back with their measurements that far exceed those predicted by the equations in your article. Unfortunately, I cannot name them because of the “sensitive” nature of body weights and measurements to actively competing bodybuilders. But at least this proves once and for all that your equations are not valid. Thank you for doing all of that great research, though. It will still be useful for lifters whose goal is the pinnacle of human achievement sixty years ago.
Regards,
Todd
I dont even think mad titan beats these numbers and if he does, it is close and he looks fucking phenomenal
everyone else that is saying they beat these numbers has a high bf% and is hypothesizing
so, we have is a bunch of guys saying they are EASILY better than mad titan, reg park and steve reeves
I find that much harder to believe than this guys analysis
Measurements are not key. Proportions are key (slight difference) But limiting LBM in addition to announcing measurement limits helps no one.
Just assuming that every guy who is 5’10" and weighs 220 at 9% body fat looks just as good is ridiculous. Different people will need to bulk up to different weights (and add different amount of LBM) due to differences in proportions, innervation etc.
Lee priest was able to get a decently sized upper body (shoulders, width, etc) but his legs grew disporptionately huge in getting there. IF you train with a whole set of limits BOTH on measurements as well as on the maximum LBM that you can attain naturally, youre going to get discouraged.
There IS a limit to how much overall mass you can add and sustain at a lower body fat but that depends not just on joint circumferences and height, but also lifting age, protocols followed, whether you bulked your bodyweight to get there and held the bulk sifficiently long and so forth.
Where monsieur butt got himself into trouble is with the maximum LBM prediction (at a certain body fat%) that he casually tossed out (as purely a function of 2 joint circumferences and height) while there are several other factors that determine the limits.
A wide hipped guy (like the 14 year old on these forums, Ahzaz) will be able to add significantly more overall LBM before topping out, (but he has to be careful not to end up looking like a traffic cone), much more so than another guy with the same wrists and ankles.
Yes, thats a postulate and careful observation of A framed individuals will confirm this.
ALL that we have been trying to say is that people have a LITTLE more control over their limits than MR Butt alleges.
and yes, for those cursed with poor proportions, they will need to consider “super supplementation” at some point if they want to get anywhere with their physiques. They will need to be careful not to end up looking liek Paco BAutista though…
And Mad Titan looks phenomenal because he HAS the right proprtions at a low body fat and SUFFICIENT mass for his frame and proportions…
someone with a different frame will need to add more mass (at same height and bf%) to match his proprtions, and thats why loosely throwing out these mathematical limits on LBM is unhealthy…and I sincerely think he wouldn;t be there if he had read this article at a relatively young training age.
I’ve had enough of this thread. Every once in a while some half wit bumps it from the dead and drags the irate doctor into the discussion.
Then some well-intentioned members try to restore order and the resultin dickwaving ignites a flame war - in the meantime a bunch of guys who are probably not getting too far with their own training try to use the article to explain their own lack of progress - then the flame war rages harder till the thread dies - and then in a few harvest moons the thread revives again.
This is the real phoenix. I;m outta here. If this article helped your training, more power to you. if you feel it disappointed you, take it from the few experienced members that the limits have been severely exaggerated. And if you are truly concerned about improving your body and feel you have hit a wall for a looong time and it has been accurately predicted by the article… feel free to research “super supplements” and throw away the “natural hero” cape on your back.
Whateva…this time I;m out for good.
[quote]elliot007 wrote:
I dont even think mad titan beats these numbers and if he does, it is close and he looks fucking phenomenal
everyone else that is saying they beat these numbers has a high bf% and is hypothesizing
so, we have is a bunch of guys saying they are EASILY better than mad titan, reg park and steve reeves
I find that much harder to believe than this guys analysis
[/quote]
This is just a way to discourage ourselves from the goals we have already set. I plan on gaining, long term, about 40 pounds of muscle. According to this equation, my natural gains will stop after another 9 pounds of muscle. The problem is that I’m just 19 and have a long way to go on training.
[quote]elliot007 wrote:
I dont even think mad titan beats these numbers and if he does, it is close and he looks fucking phenomenal
everyone else that is saying they beat these numbers has a high bf% and is hypothesizing
so, we have is a bunch of guys saying they are EASILY better than mad titan, reg park and steve reeves
I find that much harder to believe than this guys analysis
[/quote]
Mad Titan only weighs about 175lbs. He has great genetics for proportion, but he isn’t exactly carrying that much lean body mass. I doubt even he would claim he has trained for size as his primary goal since he hasn’t gained much size over the past few years.
I would rather he spoke on that himself, but from actually speaking with him, overall size is not his primary concern.
Also, unless you think a higher body fat percentage somehow erases the level of lean body mass someone is carrying…or that they somehow lose all of their lean body mass when dieting down, what is your point?
It is RARE for there to be bodybuilders who even have arms over 18"…but they are out there. Just because the majority will be less likely to be able to achieve an extreme level of muscle mass, it does not mean that we start capping off what can be reached and tout that as the LIMIT that can be achieved.
All of us are not “average”.
I’m sorry if this has been asked already but I did not feel like going through all of this massive thread.
I was just wondering about armspan. It usually correlates with height but some people have armspans at least four inches larger than their height,and some like me have armspans 1-2 inches smaller. How would this affect the calculations? Would not a person of large armspan have a disproportionately large arm development potential relative to one’s height?
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
By the way, caliper equations tend to underestimate body fat in people with above “normal” levels of lean body mass.
[/quote]
Casey,
This brings up a legitimate question I’ve been meaning to ask you regarding your article, formula, calculations, and analysis.
It’s highly unlikely that the drug-free bodybuilding champions of the past had accurate methods to calculate their bodyfat percentages. I doubt they used calipers back then, or had access to more modern, more accurate technologies like DEXA scans underwater weighing, etc. so how do we/you actually know the exact body fat percentages of bb champions from 30-40- 50 years ago? Where are you getting your stats from? And how would know they are accurate?
Wouldn’t that kind of throw off your formula?
This is not an attack on you, but meant to further the discussion. Curious as to your thoughts on this.