Maximum Muscular Bodyweight

Training Bodybuilding
401

I will redo the equation for you hold on. This post will be edited.

Edit

Your estimated maximum muscular bodyweight at ~12% bodyfat is: 205.5 lbs

I am currently at 195 carb depleted. There is no way in hell I am above 15% bodyfat, I’m closer to 10. If I had to guess I’d put myself at 12. Even if I’m 15% bodyfat, which is unlikely

Your estimated maximum muscular bodyweight at ~15% bodyfat is: 215.5 lbs

I’m what, 20 pounds off? At most? Add another 5-10 for water that comes with glycogen and this calculator is looking pretty damn stupid.

Edit 2: My measurements at 215 with 15~ bodyfat before I cut were as follows

Waist 35.75 inches
right arm 16.5 inches
left arm 16.5 inches
chest 48 inches (I flex my lats when measuring this I’m not sure if thats the right way to do it)
R calf 16.25 inches
L calf 16.25
R quad 27 inches
L quad 26.75 inches
Neck 16.5

The calculators telling me its impossible to pass these numbers when i peak

Chest: 47.4 in Biceps: 17.1 in
Forearms: 13.7 in Neck: 16.6 in
Thighs: 25.1 in Calves: 16.8 in

As of right now, on a low carb diet my measurements are as follows

R arm 16
L arm 16
R Calf 15.75
L Calf 15.5
R Quad 25.75
L Quad 25.5
Waist 31.5

Unless my tape measure is broken, as well as my scale, and I’m delusional it would be idiotic to think its impossible to pass these “limits” by the time I peak when I’m in my 30s. Honestly, how high can my bodyfat be with a waist under 32 inches?

402

[quote]Defekt wrote:
Your estimated maximum muscular bodyweight at ~15% bodyfat is: 215.5 lbs

I’m what, 20 pounds off?
[/quote]

No. You are 58.5 pounds off.

(215.5/85)x100=253.5
253.5-195=58.5

That’s still the maximum muscular bodyweight, as it has been for over a year since this thread was started. Call it lbm if you like. Then you add on enough fat to make you 15% fat.

Not arsed either way about the article, but a lot of those discrediting it because they are so damn close to the predicted max need to add on the fat.

403

I must have misread it then, which was my idiocy. It didnt occur to me that It was LBM, because I figure that if I gained 50 pounds my measurements would far exceed those listed as my maxes. Maybe I’m missing something completely, which is likely but I’m already AT 3-4 of those measurements.

Edit: Redid the equation, and my LBM is 30 pounds off of the predicted then. Current LBM is around 170, when done with 11-12% bodyfat which is a more accurate measurement.

I still believe I can put on more than 30 pounds of lean mass before I die.

This is saying that at 12% bodyfat I’ll be walking around at 225~

404

Like I said, I couldn’t give a shit either way about the article.

It does sound like 30lbs of lean mass in your lifetime is too low though.

405

And I’ll say again.

it says my max LBM is 166 lbs, I’ll get back to you at the end of summer.

as of last week my LBM was 153 lbs

406

It would be useful for people to post up their recent physique pictures - these can then be compared to image of guys who are known to have conformed to these ‘limits’.

407

i think that this calculator probably has some problems once you go over 10% bf (especially with regard to measurements). there has yet to be anyone say the are natural, and be very lean, and blow this calculator out. Mad Titan is the closest and he has been training hard for 10 years.

408

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1592435

I think he comes in at like 200 pounds in contest shape. I haven’t measured his joints recently though so I can’t claim whether or not that beats the calculator.

409

[quote]evo2008 wrote:
It would be useful for people to post up their recent physique pictures - these can then be compared to image of guys who are known to have conformed to these ‘limits’.[/quote]

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=2131951

there ya go.
Unless my math is wrong, apparently I can only gain another 13 lbs of muscle, please, I’m not even close to my genetic potential.

410

[quote]Woppa wrote:
Defekt wrote:
Your estimated maximum muscular bodyweight at ~15% bodyfat is: 215.5 lbs

I’m what, 20 pounds off?

No. You are 58.5 pounds off.

(215.5/85)x100=253.5
253.5-195=58.5

That’s still the maximum muscular bodyweight, as it has been for over a year since this thread was started. Call it lbm if you like. Then you add on enough fat to make you 15% fat.

Not arsed either way about the article, but a lot of those discrediting it because they are so damn close to the predicted max need to add on the fat.[/quote]

Aight, I’m confused now. The weight number at the end that the formula gives you is just the LBM, not the total weight with fat included?

411

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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. [/quote]
Your watch isn’t functional, and that’s the problem

412

[quote]greekdawg wrote:
Woppa wrote:
Defekt wrote:
Your estimated maximum muscular bodyweight at ~15% bodyfat is: 215.5 lbs

I’m what, 20 pounds off?

No. You are 58.5 pounds off.

(215.5/85)x100=253.5
253.5-195=58.5

That’s still the maximum muscular bodyweight, as it has been for over a year since this thread was started. Call it lbm if you like. Then you add on enough fat to make you 15% fat.

Not arsed either way about the article, but a lot of those discrediting it because they are so damn close to the predicted max need to add on the fat.

Aight, I’m confused now. The weight number at the end that the formula gives you is just the LBM, not the total weight with fat included?
[/quote]

i believe that is incorrect, the calculate gives you your bodyweight- it says to enter:
“Bodyfat - the bodyfat percentage that you want to calculate your maximum bodyweight at.”

413

[quote]elliot007 wrote:
greekdawg wrote:
Woppa wrote:
Defekt wrote:
Your estimated maximum muscular bodyweight at ~15% bodyfat is: 215.5 lbs

I’m what, 20 pounds off?

No. You are 58.5 pounds off.

(215.5/85)x100=253.5
253.5-195=58.5

That’s still the maximum muscular bodyweight, as it has been for over a year since this thread was started. Call it lbm if you like. Then you add on enough fat to make you 15% fat.

Not arsed either way about the article, but a lot of those discrediting it because they are so damn close to the predicted max need to add on the fat.

Aight, I’m confused now. The weight number at the end that the formula gives you is just the LBM, not the total weight with fat included?

i believe that is incorrect, the calculate gives you your bodyweight- it says to enter:
“Bodyfat - the bodyfat percentage that you want to calculate your maximum bodyweight at.”
[/quote]

Like I was saying, I don’t know why a drop of 3% bodyfat from 15%-12% was accompanied by a TEN POUND muscle loss. If someone butchers their diet that badly…

414

Casey you speak the truth man, to be brief, I agree with your observations completely… I have been training hard for 16 years and consider myself an experienced lifetime drug free bodybuilder… as my avatar will prove, I am pretty close to my genetic limit I was 199 pounds dry in the morning with an 8mm ab caliper, 5mm suprailiac, 4mm thigh caliper, and 3mm triceps caliper putting me at 4.9% (jackson-pollock 4 site method) at 10.3% I am currently 217 lbs which is close to your calculator… I just thought I’d share to contribute my 2 cents to the thread… take care…

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
elliot007 wrote:
Many people just do not understand how fat they really are. if you told them 5’9 175 5%bf with no pics, they would tell you to eat and that you are a skinny fag.

EXACTLY. I think that causes a lot of people to “mis-interpret” that article

greekdawg wrote:
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?

Yes. I adjusted the anthropometrics-based body fat estimation methods from the DoD and other sources (like I mentioned above) by comparing those equations to known data from modern bodybuilders. There were 10 in all. Then I visually compared the results to modern bodybuilders of known body fat levels. The old-timers tended to come in at around 8%-10% body, though there were a few leaner guys (but still above 7%). Incidently, they tended to stay that way all year.

In the booklet, I listed the old-timers estimated body fats as well but didn’t do that on the website just to keep things simple.

All practical body fat estimation methods are subject to error. So, yeah it did introduce some error, but over the course of a large number of “subjects” I don’t think it had much of an overall effect.

Sorry, I don’t have time to add anything else …I’m going to be VERY busy over the next few weeks/months.

Mad Titan looks phenomenal. According to the equation he has 4-8 pounds left to go (I’m guessing his wrist at about 6.75"-7.0" and puting his body fat pretty low at 6%).

P.S. Sometime in the next few days I’ll add the regression coefficients for the groups used to the website article. They varied from 0.73 (from thigh to height) to 0.94 (for biceps to wrist). I’m also adding a form of “maximum deviation” (my personal version of a standard deviation :slight_smile: ) to the equations in the booklet.
[/quote]

415

You can hold more lean mass with a higher body fat percentage. I think this is a significant factor that people are not taking into account.

So, if you’re 5’9 and 250lbs, but to get that big you’ve blown up a bit and are carrying 30lbs of excess fat, by the time you get down to 9% body fat, you will not weigh 220lbs because you will not be able to keep hold of all of the muscle tissue.

If you’re using anabolics, you’ll be able to hold on to the lean mass much more efficiently.

I’m sure someone will tell me this is ballshit, but this is my view on the matter.

416

You can hold more lean mass with a higher body fat percentage. I think this is a significant factor that people are not taking into account.
This should not be about maximum lean mass, it should be about maximum lean mass at a relatively ripped body mass.

So, if you’re 5’9 and 250lbs, but to get that big you’ve blown up a bit and are carrying 30lbs of excess fat, by the time you get down to 9% body fat, you will not weigh 220lbs because you will not be able to keep hold of all of the muscle tissue.

If you’re using anabolics, you’ll be able to hold on to the lean mass much more efficiently.

I’m sure someone will tell me this is ballshit, but this is my view on the matter.

417

IT is understandable that you can hold more lean mass when you’re carrying fat. But in the sense of my equation it doesn’t make any sense.

At 12% fat my max predictions would be 205 lean body mass with 28 pounds fat and a 234 walking around weight.

With 15% fat my predictions would be 215 lean body mass 37 pounds of fat 252 walking around weight.

So to go from 15%-12% at my maximum peak it’s telling me that I have to lose 9 pounds of fat, and 10 pounds of muscle.

More than a 1-1 muscle-fat loss ratio when I’m not even in single digits? Something here isn’t make any sense.

No reason it should take ten ponds of muscle per ten pounds of fat.

418

[quote]evo2008 wrote:
You can hold more lean mass with a higher body fat percentage. I think this is a significant factor that people are not taking into account.
This should not be about maximum lean mass, it should be about maximum lean mass at a relatively ripped body mass.

So, if you’re 5’9 and 250lbs, but to get that big you’ve blown up a bit and are carrying 30lbs of excess fat, by the time you get down to 9% body fat, you will not weigh 220lbs because you will not be able to keep hold of all of the muscle tissue.

If you’re using anabolics, you’ll be able to hold on to the lean mass much more efficiently.

I’m sure someone will tell me this is ballshit, but this is my view on the matter.

[/quote]

Well, yeah. But the article still states what your max LBM can be right? regardless of BF%

419

[quote]evo2008 wrote:
You can hold more lean mass with a higher body fat percentage. I think this is a significant factor that people are not taking into account.
This should not be about maximum lean mass, it should be about maximum lean mass at a relatively ripped body mass.

So, if you’re 5’9 and 250lbs, but to get that big you’ve blown up a bit and are carrying 30lbs of excess fat, by the time you get down to 9% body fat, you will not weigh 220lbs because you will not be able to keep hold of all of the muscle tissue.

If you’re using anabolics, you’ll be able to hold on to the lean mass much more efficiently.

I’m sure someone will tell me this is ballshit, but this is my view on the matter.

[/quote]

That sure was short sighted. Even if this person does lose muscle mass, are you saying they can not gain it back after they get done dieting?

420

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
And I’ll say again.

it says my max LBM is 166 lbs, I’ll get back to you at the end of summer.

as of last week my LBM was 153 lbs[/quote]

Bump to see where jehovah is based on the above (even though we are well past summer).