Lies, Damned lies, and statistics.
The coefficients were determined so they would produce an accurate fit to the body of data. That is how any such regression is done. That is not “fudging” the coefficients, it is determining what they should be. I did not alter the weights or measurements of anybody used in determining those formulae.
Population statistics following a bell curve strongly implies that champion bodybuilders (from 2006 and/or 1950) are, in fact, the statistical outliers on that bell curve – that’s why they were chosen as the reference.
Lean body mass increases with body fat. That is accounted for in the equation. Though, admittedly, the equation is most accurate in the 6-12% body fat range.
The article has nothing to do with crushing people’s hopes. It is simply a reflection of reality. It is ridiculous for adult drug-free bodybuilders to think they will add 50 pounds of lean body mass and look like an IFBB pro without massive, regular doses of anabolic drugs. The average drug-free champion increases his lean body mass by about 20% over non-trained individuals of the same height and structure – that is true from 1950 to current drug-free champions. This is something drug-free people either must accept or resort to drugs.
Likewise, a drug-free bodybuilding who thinks he will develop a contest-ready arm exceeding roughly 2.375 times his wrist circumference (at least on an otherwise balanced physique) is simply setting himself up for frustration and disappointment. If reality is disappointing, it is not reality that must be argued it is why people have unrealistic expectations.
Hopefully that article will help people gain some perspective on what is realistic …not judge themselves by the standards of drug-users. That is why I wrote the article. But I also must add that realism and defeatism are not the same thing. Few people will ever surpass those predictions without drugs. Current “natural” world champions do not, and past drug-free champions did not.
At least two of the world champions whose stats are listed in the article were given access to it before it was posted here. Neither of them refuted it or suggested that it was not accurate.
I have been training for over 16 years. I am close to what those equations predict. It is not at all a disappointment. I suspect that when most people attain those figures they are not at all disappointed with their physiques. It’s simply a matter of perspective. If anything, I would prefer for that paper to be inspirational to frustrated trainees who’ve been training a lot of years, but still cannot attain a “Flex” magazine physique.
Sharetrader, your last post summed up my thoughts exactly.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
It is ridiculous for adult drug-free bodybuilders to think they will add 50 pounds of lean body mass and look like an IFBB pro without massive, regular doses of anabolic drugs. The average drug-free champion increases his lean body mass by about 20% over non-trained individuals of the same height and structure – that is true from 1950 to current drug-free champions. This is something drug-free people either must accept or resort to drugs.[/quote]
There is a huge difference between looking like an IFBB pro and gaining 50lbs of lean body mass. I have done the latter so it can’t be “ridiculous”. I don’t look like an IFBB pro the likes of Melvin Anthony, however. To tell everyone that it is impossible to make extremely large changes in body comp is ridiculous.
No one is arguing that someone drug free will look like an elite drug assisted bodybuilder. What is being argued is the attempt to even promote this type of thinking or even to make statements as if gaining 50lbs of lean body mass is impossible without drugs. Do we really need to get into the fact that it will cause people to believe that anyone who has gained anywhere near that much naturally must have used drugs no matter what?
It is very rare for anyone to even look like most “drug free” bodybuilders from decades ago and that has much more to do with mental limitations than simply the fact that people are trying so hard and running to drug use. If the average newbie now thinks they need to actively avoid getting “too big”, why would anyone feel the need to promote even more mental restrictions when the only outcome can be a decrease in the drive to try to begin with?
I did not say anything even implying that it is not possible for anyone to drastically change their lean body mass or body composition. I myself was once 55% bodyfat at over 320 pounds. I then went down to 160 pounds at 15% bodyfat, then back up to 175 at 9% body fat. That was a gain of 23 pounds of lean body mass or a 17% increase. The changes in my appearance were quite noticeable.
If you really do carry 50 pounds more lean body mass than an average person of your height and bone structure then you have almost doubled the accomplishments of the greatest drug-free bodybuilders of all time.
Many people who believe that are comparing themselves to when they were teenagers and just began training. That is not accurate because most people are naturally heavier in their twenties than they were at age 16 or 17 …regardless of weight training.
Realism has nothing to do with defeatism. How people choose to interpret reality is completely up to themselves. Of course, accepting “limitations” requires some maturity that most young bodybuilders don’t have, but that is itself influenced by people’s skewed perceptions.
I agree that people should not mentally defeat themselves because of some information that they interpret in a negative fashion. But I really don’t see how that article is negative in any way. The only way it is negative is if people have unrealistic expectations in the first place.
I think after 10 years of hard, drug-free training and plateauing around where the equations predict, most people will come to “accept” that article much quicker than the younger crowd.
The statistics are accurate, the analysis was accurate. There’s really nothing else to it than that. I did nothing other than analyze and formulate the existing data. Kouri E.M., Pope H.G. Jr., Katz D.L. and Oliva P. independently came to the same conclusions as myself.
Of course people have choices of how they deal with the information. If they’re concerned about it planting self-defeatist attitudes in their heads they can: 1) Simply not read the article. 2) Just ignore it. 3) Adjust their unrealistic expectations. 4) Get mad at the drug-free champions for not setting a more positive example by being bigger. 5) Get mad at drug-users for raising the bar to a level which is unattainable without drugs.
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…
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.
I’m 5’10" with a 7" wrist and 8.75" ankle. According to this, some decent girth targets for me are:
46" chest
16.5" bicep
24" thigh
16" calf
16" neck
13.25" forearm
If I get those with a <32" waist and <10% BF, I’ll be very happy - just 1 or 2" to go on each. How many people reach that level of development? Not many.
I think the article is pretty good, but to be honest I still thing it’s best to just devote 10 years to getting as strong as possible in the big lifts, letting the results take care of themselves.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
I did not say anything even implying that it is not possible for anyone to drastically change their lean body mass or body composition. I myself was once 55% bodyfat at over 320 pounds. I then went down to 160 pounds at 15% bodyfat, then back up to 175 at 9% body fat. That was a gain of 23 pounds of lean body mass or a 17% increase. The changes in my appearance were quite noticeable.
If you really do carry 50 pounds more lean body mass than an average person of your height and bone structure then you have almost doubled the accomplishments of the greatest drug-free bodybuilders of all time.
Many people who believe that are comparing themselves to when they were teenagers and just began training. That is not accurate because most people are naturally heavier in their twenties than they were at age 16 or 17 …regardless of weight training.
Realism has nothing to do with defeatism. How people choose to interpret reality is completely up to themselves. Of course, accepting “limitations” requires some maturity that most young bodybuilders don’t have, but that is itself influenced by people’s skewed perceptions.
I agree that people should not mentally defeat themselves because of some information that they interpret in a negative fashion. But I really don’t see how that article is negative in any way. The only way it is negative is if people have unrealistic expectations in the first place.
I think after 10 years of hard, drug-free training and plateauing around where the equations predict, most people will come to “accept” that article much quicker than the younger crowd.
The statistics are accurate, the analysis was accurate. There’s really nothing else to it than that. I did nothing other than analyze and formulate the existing data. Kouri E.M., Pope H.G. Jr., Katz D.L. and Oliva P. independently came to the same conclusions as myself.
Of course people have choices of how they deal with the information. If they’re concerned about it planting self-defeatist attitudes in their heads they can: 1) Simply not read the article. 2) Just ignore it. 3) Adjust their unrealistic expectations. 4) Get mad at the drug-free champions for not setting a more positive example by being bigger. 5) Get mad at drug-users for raising the bar to a level which is unattainable without drugs.[/quote]
Why do you feel it is impossible to change your body without anabolic drugs?
You have set an incredibly low ceiling with this formula, there is no way that in just under 2 years of training I should have almost reached my maximum muscle potential and in a few cases exceeded my maximum sizes.
If you’re seriously saying that the average person cannot exceed these numbers without drugs, I’d seriously have to doubt your own experience with changing your body.
"Your estimated maximum muscular measurements (@ ~8%-10% bodyfat) are:
Chest: 45.5 in Biceps: 17.3 in
Forearms: 13.8 in Neck: 16.8 in
Thighs: 22.5 in Calves: 15.1 in"
I’ve already exceeded 2 of the measurements and almost hte predicted weight, in under 2 years of training. I understand trying to help those with unrealistic expectations through this article, but unrealistically low expectations don’t help anyone, and spouting the same old tired crap that you cannot see serious change without anabolic steroid use certainly does nothing to help anyone, all it does is serve as an excuse for the “hard gainer” mentality and perpetuates those that see themselves as a victim of their genetics.
Magnate, you have either failed to read the article and my posts fully or you have not understood them. The data stands on its own and speaks for itself. I merely did the analysis. I did not set any ceiling or influence the data in any way.
For people who are legitimately interested in the information presented in that article, and not just upset about it: Calves and forearms were the hardest to get a reasonably accurate fit for because they vary so much between individuals. What the equations give are a “middle of the road” fit for calves and forearms because some bodybuilders easily exceed the predictions whereas others can never reach them.
I doubt that I will ever attain my forearm prediction, but I have a friend who exceeds the calf measurement with no training …what the equations give are the “average” for physique champions, but the deviation within them is quite high.
If your thighs are significantly above the predictions you either are gifted in the thighs or you are carrying too much fat there …when I’m 15% bodyfat I exceed my predicted quad measurement by 3 inches. At 8% bodyfat my quads are starting to show some definition, and are just above the prediction. In truly lean shape they’d be about right on …but thighs are my “easiest” bodypart and I’ve hammered them for 16 years.
Like it or not, the equations simply scale the development of current and past drug-free champions to your height and bone-structure (as determined by wrist and ankle circumferences). How people interpret that is up to them.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
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!
You’re fortunate to have genetically gifted calves. Calves and forearms were the hardest to get a reasonably accurate fit for because they vary so much between individuals. What the equations give are a “middle of the road” fit for calves and forearms because some bodybuilders easily exceed the predictions whereas others can never reach them.
I doubt that I will ever attain my forearm prediction, but I have a friend who exceeds the calf measurement with no training …what the equations give are the “average” for physique champions, but the deviation within them is quite high.
If your thighs are significantly above the predictions you either are gifted in the thighs or you are carrying too much fat there …when I’m 15% bodyfat I exceed my predicted quad measurement by 3 inches.
At 8% bodyfat my quads are starting to show some definition, and are just above the prediction. In truly lean shape they’d be about right on …but thighs are my “easiest” bodypart and I’ve hammered them for 16 years.[/quote]
my calves have always been big, even without training. But i believe my thighs are 4 inches over hte estimation because i have 3 leg days a week. I dont think im carrying a lot of fat there as im around 6% bodyfat, but they are less defined than other areas.
edit: I understand how you went about getting the data, i did not mean to accuse you of purposely skewing it, I just do not understand how these numbers came out to be so low, at least for me, when they are taken from those with incredible physiques, whom i would not consider underweight or underdeveloped (like i consider myself), yet seem to be so close to where i am right now.
Magnate, sorry about that …I was editing my post when your new post went through.
I think you’ll be surprised at how much size your thighs will lose when you get them very lean. I’d still expect you to be above the prediction though. I also carry fat on my thighs and they’re the last to get lean. But in any case, I think you can back off on the leg training now. 
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
But in any case, I think you can back off on the leg training now. ;)[/quote]
NEVER!!!
i want to deadlift 450 and squat 500 soon 
First of all, thanks for chiming in.
I believe this has already been addressed by someone on this thread:
Many of the old champions would not be considered huge or even particularly big today by most standards, even for natural trainers.
How do you think do the advances regarding training, nutrition and supplements which have undoubtedly taken place over the last decades and will continue to, at least to some degree, influence the accuracy of your formula?
Do you believe these advances could make it necessary to adjust the limits in the future?
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
I did not say anything even implying that it is not possible for anyone to drastically change their lean body mass or body composition. I myself was once 55% bodyfat at over 320 pounds. I then went down to 160 pounds at 15% bodyfat, then back up to 175 at 9% body fat. That was a gain of 23 pounds of lean body mass or a 17% increase. The changes in my appearance were quite noticeable.[/quote]
Good for you. Congratulations on making that kind of progress. however, you don’t think you are near the top in terms of genetic potential, do you?
[quote]
If you really do carry 50 pounds more lean body mass than an average person of your height and bone structure then you have almost doubled the accomplishments of the greatest drug-free bodybuilders of all time.[/quote]
I started training seriously in college weighing about 150lbs. I was over 200lbs by the end of my second year. I never said I was average in terms of genetics, but I know many people who are better than me in that area. It seems you truly believe that your results are what everyone else should expect.
In my own experience, some of the people with what seemed to be the greatest genetic potential NEVER TRAINED VERY HARD OR EVEN PUSHED TO SEE EXTREME DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY AHEAD OF THE MARK TO BEGIN WITH. That means assuming that everyone at the extreme end in terms of potential is into bodybuilding is a basic overstep on your part.
I remember my roommate in college who didn’t workout but every rare holiday who weighed over 235lbs at 6 feet tall with what must have been below 8% body fat. He played football. He was huge and that was just who he was. He never pushed to gain more than that. I think he felt he was already a “freak” to begin with. He hated standing out like that. People like that exist and ignoring the possibility in an effort to make statistics apply to all people makes no sense.
[quote]
Many people who believe that are comparing themselves to when they were teenagers and just began training. That is not accurate because most people are naturally heavier in their twenties than they were at age 16 or 17 …regardless of weight training.[/quote]
I have been training for quite a few years now. I am comparing myself now to where I was around 18. I haven’t grown in height since then but have put in over a decade of consistent hard training. You would have a point if we were discussing someone still growing in height. We aren’t.
[quote]
Realism has nothing to do with defeatism. How people choose to interpret reality is completely up to themselves. Of course, accepting “limitations” requires some maturity that most young bodybuilders don’t have, but that is itself influenced by people’s skewed perceptions.[/quote]
The person who accepts “limitations” before they ever reach them is the person who won’t ever push that hard to begin with. I am glad I never listened to anyone as they told me what I couldn’t do. NO ONE thought I would be this size now. There are other areas of my life where this applies as well. Thinking of “limitations” is now mature? Self defeating? Yes. Mature? Please.
This is like telling a kid he has a slightly below average IQ. What are the chances he will see himself becoming that doctor or lawyer? Statistically, he won’t be one of those, will he?
[quote]
I agree that people should not mentally defeat themselves because of some information that they interpret in a negative fashion. But I really don’t see how that article is negative in any way. The only way it is negative is if people have unrealistic expectations in the first place.[/quote]
How do you know what someone else can expect in their training before they ever achieve it? The point being made is that this can damage the end result of people who choose to believe it from the start. If you can’t understand that after explaining it this many times, you simply don’t want to.
[quote]
I think after 10 years of hard, drug-free training and plateauing around where the equations predict, most people will come to “accept” that article much quicker than the younger crowd.[/quote]
“Most people” will never push that hard to begin with. “Most people” think with even more restrictions than this article implied.
[quote]
Of course people have choices of how they deal with the information. If they’re concerned about it planting self-defeatist attitudes in their heads they can: 1) Simply not read the article. 2) Just ignore it. 3) Adjust their unrealistic expectations. 4) Get mad at the drug-free champions for not setting a more positive example by being bigger. 5) Get mad at drug-users for raising the bar to a level which is unattainable without drugs.[/quote]
How about option #6, discuss it openly and point out why focusing on it as a beginner should be absolutely avoided.
Alright, I gave this formula a look, here are my results:
Starting from (age 18)
Height: 5f7i
Weight: 121 pounds (not cut, no visible 6-pack)
Stats now (age 24)
Height: 5f7i
Weight: 198 pounds
Given my measurements: 67h, 6,6W, 9,2A
My maximum genetic potential at 15% (my current) would be…198 pounds.
I daresay I’ll exceed this in the annual summer-bulk…
In the same time squat has gone from 50 pounds to 286. Whats my genetic maximum in the squat? 
[quote]michael2507 wrote:
Do you believe these advances could make it necessary to adjust the limits in the future?[/quote]
Instinctively, I’d have to say “yes”. But statistically, I’ll have to say “no”. For instance, Jon Harris (the 2006 WNBF Pro World Champion) weighed 170 pounds at 5’7". Assuming statistically average wrist and ankle circumferences for someone of his height (7" and 8.7", respectively) the prediction would put him at 171 pounds at 6% bodyfat. At 5% he would be 168.5 pounds. His off-season weight is 180 and the prediction puts him at 181.7 at 10%.
Likewise, Reg Park competed in 1951 at 214 pounds (looking to be somewhere between 8-10% bodyfat). The prediction puts him at 214.5 at 8%.
So statistically, modern drug-free bodybuilders aren’t carrying any more lean body mass than bodybuilders of the early 1950s (just before the introduction of test, Dianabol, Nilevar, etc). They are, however, much leaner and more “completely” developed with regards to detail throughout their physiques …and who knows, had the 1950s crowd dieted down to 5-6% they might have lost muscle and come in with less lean body mass than predicted.
At least with this formula we’ll know when we’ve reached our “genetic potential”, and we can then safely begin steroid use to get bigger, because that will be the only way we’ll grow past there.
Well, that’s what a lot of people are going to think with this formula.
“Professor X” it is not my responsibility to chaperone people so they don’t damage their delicate psyches when they come across certain pieces of information. If people are negatively affected by a statistical analysis of champion drug-free bodybuilders then they will either have to not read that analysis or ignore it. It is simply not my responsibility to babysit.
Teenage males reach full height before they finish acquiring full adult lean body mass.
As for people carrying above statistically “normal” levels of lean body mass for champion bodybuilders I think that is quite normal for certain groups of people. That was also mentioned in the article. For instance, I would expect many extremely mesomorphic football players to exceed the predictions. But it is very unlikely that they would have the type of development which wins bodybuilding contests – bodybuilders and intending bodybuilders being the group upon which this article was based and intended for.
I completely understand your arguments that such information may be damaging to some people’s training attitude. But how people choose to deal with the data I have presented is beyond my control and, frankly, it is not my concern if people don’t have the training maturity or capacity to deal with it appropriately.
I did not and cannot control the statistics of drug-free champions and I cannot control people’s reactions to them with regards to motivation. And I am not responsible for the perceived shortcomings of drug-free bodybuilding champions. I myself do not see any shortcomings about the achievements of Jon Harris, Reg Park, etc.
…now I actually have to work out - yes, I am still motivated - so I won’t be able to respond for awhile. 
[quote]rsg wrote:
At least with this formula we’ll know when we’ve reached our “genetic potential”, and we can then safely begin steroid use to get bigger, because that will be the only way we’ll grow past there.
Well, that’s what a lot of people are going to think with this formula.[/quote]
No, wait, you’re supposed to think that since only elite bodybuilders can even achieve those measurements, that you should settle for MUCH much less than that.
“Hello, class, I am your substitute teacher for this afternoon as your regular teacher was shot in a drive-by on the way to work. I am here to let you know that STATISTICALLY, 90% of you will either end up in jail, on drugs or dead by the age of 18…so you might want to drop out of school right now. I hear there’s a really cool gang initiation going on on Martin Luther King Blvd at 4pm so if you all hurry, you can get front seats.”
“But…but I want to go to college!”
“Damn it, STATISTICS you little fucker, STAT-TIST-TICS.”
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
“Professor X” it is not my responsibility to chaperone people so they don’t damage their delicate psyches when they come across certain pieces of information. If people are negatively affected by a statistical analysis of champion drug-free bodybuilders then they will either have to not read that analysis or ignore it. It is simply not my responsibility to babysit.[/quote]
Oh, well thank you for your scientific contribution to society.
[quote]
Teenage males reach full height before they finish acquiring full adult lean body mass.[/quote]
Thank you for that. I have “doctor” in front of my name but there is always basic shit about biology that I missed. I shall credit that for my weight gain.
However, the majority of the people STATISTICALLY reading your article will never compete and will take this to mean it applies to them because they lift weights or “bodybuild”.
[quote]
I completely understand your arguments that such information may be damaging to some people’s training attitude. But how people choose to deal with the data I have presented is beyond my control and, frankly, it is not my concern if people don’t have the training maturity or capacity to deal with it appropriately.[/quote]
However, we are dealing with it, aren’t we? We have now managed for you to admit that this apparently only applies to people who win bodybuilding competitions and that there are several people of mesomorphic body types (athletes) who will exceed those measurements. I think we have come a long way.
[quote]
I did not and cannot control the statistics of drug-free champions and I cannot control people’s reactions to them with regards to motivation. And I am not responsible for the perceived shortcomings of drug-free bodybuilding champions. I myself do not see any shortcomings about the achievements of Jon Harris, Reg Park, etc.[/quote]
Who has ever said we should look at any past bodybuilders as having “short comings”? We are discussing genetic potential, something that is a little more complex than ankle and wrist measurements.