Maximum Muscular Bodyweight

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Again, when did we prove that wrist circumference NEVER changes regardless of how much muscle you gain?[/quote]

In my own case, wrist size was 6.25" when beginning training at age 30. It is now 7.5" in leaner condition.

Now, it’s true that I have not been remiss in my use of the juice. However I also don’t think the wrists would still be 6.25" if not for that.

Do any still-natural lifters have before-and-present wrist size figures?

EDIT: From the article I now see that their definition of wrist size is the measurement on the “hand side” of the styloid process. My figures are the other side. I have no idea of whether there has been change on the “hand side” or not or what the starting figure was. So my figures don’t have relevance to the question the way the article is treating it.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Again, when did we prove that wrist circumference NEVER changes regardless of how much muscle you gain?

In my own case, wrist size was 6.25" when beginning training at age 30. It is now 7.5" in leaner condition.

Now, it’s true that I have not been remiss in my use of the juice. However I also don’t think the wrists would still be 6.25" if not for that.

Do any still-natural lifters have before-and-present wrist size figures?

EDIT: From the article I now see that their definition of wrist size is the measurement on the “hand side” of the styloid process. My figures are the other side. I have no idea of whether there has been change on the “hand side” or not or what the starting figure was. So my figures don’t have relevance to the question the way the article is treating it.

[/quote]

I think I made that same point a year ago. And yes, both sides of the wrist change size from training.

the website of that article is coming up with a malicious code in the site, by the way. but i think it is just some webstat thing.

The formula is sheer nonsense. It makes predictions based on average muscular potential, but remember that potential is relative- in order for one man to have outstanding potential, another man has to have shit potential in comparison. So if you assume that everyone has equal potential based on wrist size then there is no point in even discussing potential in the first place.

Another problem with it is more subtle.

A real danger in developing models based on past data (input data) for the purpose of providing useful predictions is that because the model is built to fit the input data (if it does not fit it, it will be tweaked till it does fit it) models have a way of fitting input data really, really well.

But this does not necessarily indicate that they will fit other data well. Just the data they were built on, perhaps.

So yes, the article gives “impressive” statistics on how well the model’s “predictions” fit some famous natural bodybuilders. But this shows nothing of the predictive ability: it shows only tha the model fit the data it was created to fit.

Now, I am not natural anymore, but someone with better genetics, someone more of a natural mesomorph, most certainly can match or exceed naturally what I can achieve with the juioe. So I thought it fair enough to see what the calculator would do with my figures.

It pretty much nailed the predicted weight – only 2 lb off my actual weight at the bodyfat percentage given. So far so good. (And note: contrary to at least one above post, the calculated weight is NOT intended to be LBM, but total weight at the provided percent bodyfat.)

However, the calculated measurements were not at all in agreement, IMO, to the calculated or actual weight… Most of them were much greater girths than actual in my case – and of course it does make complete sense that a gifted natural bb’er of my height, wrist, and ankle measurements could have much greater girths in those regards – but the greater girths would have to give greater weight. Yet somehow it does not, in the calculated figures.

It’s not that I’m disproportionate and there is vast weight elsewhere making up for being in fact considerably lighter in the arms, chest, and calves.

The girths given would have to yield a considerably higher bodyweight at the bodyfat percentage given than what the calculator actually says, or at least most surely would in my case. I would have to add a great deal of muscle to have those measurements, yet I am a touch over the weight that supposedly is associated with those figures at my percent bodyfat.

So the thing is not, IMO, even consistent within itself.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
In my own case, wrist size was 6.25" when beginning training at age 30. It is now 7.5" in leaner condition.
[/quote]

That’s very interesting, Bill, a really big change in your wrist size, it seems like you’ve moved from small to large wrists. Do you have any thoughts on whether that is from thicker tendons, bones, or whatever? If that is typical of what can happen with long-term serious training (and assuming it does not require steroids) it changes the meaning of Casey’s formulas, even if you believe they are useful data fits to champion physiques. If you use pre-training wrist and ankle measurements, the formulas should under-predict what is possible.

[quote]MarkT wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
In my own case, wrist size was 6.25" when beginning training at age 30. It is now 7.5" in leaner condition.

That’s very interesting, Bill, a really big change in your wrist size, it seems like you’ve moved from small to large wrists. Do you have any thoughts on whether that is from thicker tendons, bones, or whatever? If that is typical of what can happen with long-term serious training (and assuming it does not require steroids) it changes the meaning of Casey’s formulas, even if you believe they are useful data fits to champion physiques. If you use pre-training wrist and ankle measurements, the formulas should under-predict what is possible.[/quote]

It happens to naturals as well as long as you get strong enough…
Not sure if it works quite as well for guys who start training in their 30’s or later though.

Honestly man, don’t worry about these formulas… We have wrist-wraps available these days if you feel that your wrists get too beat up from doing heavy RGB’s and such, lots of guys who started out very skinny/with small wrists use them once they get to the heavy weights…

[quote]MarkT wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
In my own case, wrist size was 6.25" when beginning training at age 30. It is now 7.5" in leaner condition.

That’s very interesting, Bill, a really big change in your wrist size, it seems like you’ve moved from small to large wrists. Do you have any thoughts on whether that is from thicker tendons, bones, or whatever? If that is typical of what can happen with long-term serious training (and assuming it does not require steroids) it changes the meaning of Casey’s formulas, even if you believe they are useful data fits to champion physiques. If you use pre-training wrist and ankle measurements, the formulas should under-predict what is possible.[/quote]

I really don’t know the causes of the change. I suppose it is probably a combination of thicker bones and tendons but don’t actually know.

I agree that this phenomenon works towards underprediction for a person attempting to use this calculator early in their training.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
MarkT wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
In my own case, wrist size was 6.25" when beginning training at age 30. It is now 7.5" in leaner condition.

That’s very interesting, Bill, a really big change in your wrist size, it seems like you’ve moved from small to large wrists. Do you have any thoughts on whether that is from thicker tendons, bones, or whatever? If that is typical of what can happen with long-term serious training (and assuming it does not require steroids) it changes the meaning of Casey’s formulas, even if you believe they are useful data fits to champion physiques. If you use pre-training wrist and ankle measurements, the formulas should under-predict what is possible.

It happens to naturals as well as long as you get strong enough…
Not sure if it works quite as well for guys who start training in their 30’s or later though.

Honestly man, don’t worry about these formulas… We have wrist-wraps available these days if you feel that your wrists get too beat up from doing heavy RGB’s and such, lots of guys who started out very skinny/with small wrists use them once they get to the heavy weights…

[/quote]

Cephalic_Carnage: Thanks for your thoughts, I always make sure to read your posts. I’m not obsessing over the formulas, it’s just that the attempt is interesting to my technical side. I have smallish wrists, but they have not been a problem so far. Minor shoulder, elbow, lower back, and bicep tendon problems, but not wrists yet. Probably they’re next.

I started training in my mid-forties, and my wrists got smaller at first, from moderate fat loss. I doubt they’ve gotten much larger, it’s only been a couple of years. But now they look like mostly bone and tendon, which is cool.

[quote]MarkT wrote:

Cephalic_Carnage: Thanks for your thoughts, I always make sure to read your posts. I’m not obsessing over the formulas, it’s just that the attempt is interesting to my technical side. I have smallish wrists, but they have not been a problem so far. Minor shoulder, elbow, lower back, and bicep tendon problems, but not wrists yet. Probably they’re next.

I started training in my mid-forties, and my wrists got smaller at first, from moderate fat loss. I doubt they’ve gotten much larger, it’s only been a couple of years. But now they look like mostly bone and tendon, which is cool.[/quote]

Thanks, I was wondering if wrist-size adaption was possible past the 30’s, guess it actually is.

Did your tendon-problems come with exercise or did they show up prior to your training already (or did/do you do other activities which may have caused them and now training sort of aggravates them)? If you want to you can pm me your routine and such and what equipment you use (wraps, sleeves etc) and maybe I can give you some advice as to how to reduce tendon issues/stress somewhat.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
MarkT wrote:

Cephalic_Carnage: Thanks for your thoughts, I always make sure to read your posts. I’m not obsessing over the formulas, it’s just that the attempt is interesting to my technical side. I have smallish wrists, but they have not been a problem so far. Minor shoulder, elbow, lower back, and bicep tendon problems, but not wrists yet. Probably they’re next.

I started training in my mid-forties, and my wrists got smaller at first, from moderate fat loss. I doubt they’ve gotten much larger, it’s only been a couple of years. But now they look like mostly bone and tendon, which is cool.

Thanks, I was wondering if wrist-size adaption was possible past the 30’s, guess it actually is.

Did your tendon-problems come with exercise or did they show up prior to your training already (or did/do you do other activities which may have caused them and now training sort of aggravates them)? If you want to you can pm me your routine and such and what equipment you use (wraps, sleeves etc) and maybe I can give you some advice as to how to reduce tendon issues/stress somewhat.
[/quote]

Basically from training. I work around them and they go away eventually, but no doubt it slows my progress. Thanks for the offer, I’ll PM you later when I get the chance.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
In my own case, wrist size was 6.25" when beginning training at age 30. It is now 7.5" in leaner condition.

Now, it’s true that I have not been remiss in my use of the juice. However I also don’t think the wrists would still be 6.25" if not for that.

Do any still-natural lifters have before-and-present wrist size figures?

EDIT: From the article I now see that their definition of wrist size is the measurement on the “hand side” of the styloid process. My figures are the other side. I have no idea of whether there has been change on the “hand side” or not or what the starting figure was. So my figures don’t have relevance to the question the way the article is treating it.

[/quote]

I am certain my wrist thickened since I started training and first measured it for this very same calculator. However, I was 17 when I started training… I’m turning 18 in a few days. Now, I don’t remember exactly… but my wrist was around 5" when I first measured it… on the hand side. It is now 6.25"… on the hand side… about 10 months later.

And the calculator is bull. According to that calculator my thighs are as big as they’ll ever be. I just can’t believe 21" thighs is all I’ll ever have! lol… screw that! I know I’m a small guy… but screw that! I’ve not even completed a full year of intelligent training yet!

It was a cool thing once I first saw it though. But that same site also had me convinced for a while that I could only put on .4lb/week…

At 17 you’re still growing (as your increase in wrist girth over the past year shows) - none of the rate calculations on my site are appropriate for growing youths. As well, at this point you just don’t know what your full adult structure will be, so the muscular potential equations can’t really be applied either. Your surging hormones now are perfect for building muscle.

[quote]yeahbuddy86 wrote:
A pretty interesting article about what a natural bodybuilder can attain in lean body mass and measurements based on wrist and ankle size.

Any thoughts that would disprove this would be interesting to hear.

http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html [/quote]

My thought on this is LOL!! It’s rubbish.

Reg Park and John Grimek both did steroids.

The study is null because you can’t know what natural limits are since both Grimek and Park did steroids.

Also, who the fuck were Current World Champ. “B”, Current National 1st Place “A”, and Current National 1st Place “B”?

[quote]Peteman wrote:
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]

After all this time I’m getting pretty good at spotting what the finished and nearly finished product according to those equations looks like. You seem to be nailing it down. It’s nice to see a real person with real photos on here. By the way, good luck.

[quote]Peteman wrote:
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) [/quote]

Ah, so you must be 31 or 32!

Personally I don’t think it’s fair how the equation would put me at 7.2% for the same exact skinfolds, being age 46, whereas you get that figure! :wink:

I’m natural and my wrists got bigger. I never use any straps either, Bill.

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
But that same site also had me convinced for a while that I could only put on .4lb/week…

At 17 you’re still growing (as your increase in wrist girth over the past year shows) - none of the rate calculations on my site are appropriate for growing youths. As well, at this point you just don’t know what your full adult structure will be, so the muscular potential equations can’t really be applied either. Your surging hormones now are perfect for building muscle.[/quote]

I haven’t grown in height since 8th grade. I was able to grow a full beard at 16 as well.

Does adult structure count for more than just final height? I’m pretty sure I’m done growing height wise.

But I am not the only one who thinks .4lb/week is bolognia, btw

HELLO, PEOPLE-

Why is it ignored that Reg Park and Grimek took steroids, thus causing the study to be null?