Because it is an unsubstantiated claim and you obviously have very little knowledge of steroid history. That, and the fact that it’s already been addressed in this thread.
People think all sorts of things. The calculator that provided that estimate (assuming that’s where the 0.4 is coming from) was based on published research, not my or anyone else’s opinion.
And, yes, people’s joint girths can thicken into the mid-twenties.
Grimek won the Mr America in 1940 and 1941. That was before the use of steroids in bodybuilding or availability of them.
The bulk of research on synthetic anabolic steroids did not begin until 1948, by Searle. Ciba had patented methyltestosterone in 1945. Dianabol wasn’t released until 1958.
The earliest patent for a testosterone ester (that I know of) is Schering’s 1941 patent for testosterone propionate. That patent would have preceded actual availability of the drug.
I believe John Grimek once bulked up to over 250 lbs. so evidently his “given” weight is not his maximum size. Grimek decided to cut down so that he could compete in a lighter weight class as an olympic lifter, and look more pleasing as a bodybuilder.
For the old time bodybuilders the Grecian ideal was what they were after, not so much maximum muscle size. Finding a correlation between their wrist/ankle circumference and muscle dimensions therefore says a lot more about what they trained for than their maximum possible size. They WANTED their body dimensions to be a certain percentage of their wrists and ankle size.
For the record, why would the size of the bones by any indicator of total muscle potential? Would the bone break if the muscle became too big??
Some of the smallest-boned bodybuilders built the biggest muscles, Serge Nubret and even Oliva come to mind. I believe muscle belly length is a better indicator, hence the lack of calf development on a lot of black bodybuilders.
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I believe John Grimek once bulked up to over 250 lbs. so evidently his “given” weight is not his maximum size. Grimek decided to cut down so that he could compete in a lighter weight class as an olympic lifter, and look more pleasing as a bodybuilder.
For the old time bodybuilders the Grecian ideal was what they were after, not so much maximum muscle size. Finding a correlation between their wrist/ankle circumference and muscle dimensions therefore says a lot more about what they trained for than their maximum possible size. They WANTED their body dimensions to be a certain percentage of their wrists and ankle size.
For the record, why would the size of the bones by any indicator of total muscle potential? Would the bone break if the muscle became too big??
Some of the smallest-boned bodybuilders built the biggest muscles, Serge Nubret and even Oliva come to mind. I believe muscle belly length is a better indicator, hence the lack of calf development on a lot of black bodybuilders.[/quote]
I agree with all of this…but if you read this thread, that exact same argument has been raised. You will find that anything that even questions the results of this “study” will be either completely disregarded, mocked, or treated as if anyone who saw different results can attribute that to steroid use alone.
It’s grasping at straws to say that old-time bodybuilders didn’t train for maximum size. This has already been addressed in this thread.
Also, whether Park and Grimek did or didn’t do steroids at the time their measurements included in my data were taken (1942, 1949, 1951 and 1958) has no effect on the validity of the equations because, statistically, they were not outside the bounds of other drug-tested bodybuilders of more modern eras. This has also already been addressed in this thread.
Muscle belly length, as well as the theoretical basis of all the equations, is dealt with extensively in the latest edition of the e-book. The online article is merely a brief excerpt from a section on elite bodybuilders, appropriate primarily for bodybuilders with approximately average bone structures for their heights.
Professor X, just as before, your trolling won’t de-rail at least a semblance of mature discussion here.
Bill Roberts, I appreciate your input. It’s always nice to hear from truly knowledgeable people on the subject.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
It’s grasping at straws to say that old-time bodybuilders didn’t train for maximum size. [/quote]
This is false. “Old-time” bodybuilders would have considered someone who even looked like Mike Mattarazzo in his prime to be disproportionate and NOT the goal. They would have gagged at the thought of someone like Markus Rhul. They even laughed at Tom Platz when he first hit the scene because of his legs. Therefore, how do you come to the conclusion that it is grasping at straws when we say they did not just train for maximum size?
They didn’t even train legs for maximum size seeing as the leg development on even Arnold and Sergio would be considered UNDER-developed today.
Grasping at straws? That is really the basis of your argument?
Oh, and I see you added this later:
Trolling? Between you and two authors here, you all sure do get your feathers ruffled when someone challenges what you write.
Professor X. Are you really as stupid as you seem or do you simply thrive on argument? I suspect both.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Professor X. Are you really as stupid as you seem or do you simply thrive on argument? I suspect both.[/quote]
Wait, personal attacks with no attempt to even debate the opposition to your arguments…and I am the stupid one?
Aren’t you the one who thought being a doctor equaled a Bachelor’s degree?
Actually, Professor X, you are right. I shouldn’t have said that and I apologize.
But you have been nothing but a troll in this thread, have refused to accept even the simplest of arguments and have repeated the same things for pages, simply because you want to appear to be right.
So, perhaps another time and place you’ll say something worthy of a response, but as for this topic, unless you actually do come up with something intelligent, worthy of address, and already hasn’t been discussed, then I have no intention to be drawn into another “troll-fest” with you.
Steve Reeves did not train his calves for years in order for his arms to catch up. Evidently he did not pursue maximum muscle in his legs.
Reg Park quit exercising his chest at a certain point.
And these are just two I know of from the top of my head…
NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
Steve Reeves did not train his calves for years in order for his arms to catch up. Evidently he did not pursue maximum muscle in his legs.
Reg Park quit exercising his chest at a certain point.
And these are just two I know of from the top of my head…[/quote]
That practice even continued throughout the 80’s. Phil Hill quit training his legs until right before a contest because he thought they were too big as it was.
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
Steve Reeves did not train his calves for years in order for his arms to catch up. Evidently he did not pursue maximum muscle in his legs.
Reg Park quit exercising his chest at a certain point.
[/quote]
All such cases are examples of genetically gifted body parts that develop ahead of the rest of the body and the bodybuilder cannot achieve such development in the rest of his muscle groups. That is mentioned in the article and more extensively in the e-book. It has nothing to do with bodybuilders not training for maximum overall size, but rather maintaining proportion. Every bodybuilder has at least one gifted body part which outpaces the others. Again, the article addresses that.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN[/quote]
My thought exactly.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Professor X
But you have been nothing but a troll in this thread, have refused to accept even the simplest of arguments and have repeated the same things for pages, simply because you want to appear to be right.
[/quote]
But… he… is… right…
I wonder how many times Obama said to himself “Well guys, statistically I’ll never be elected president, so fuck it, lets call this whole thing off.”
Even in my own situation the same holds. Had I listened to statistics, based on the last three generations from both sides, i would be:
a) an alcoholic, and possibly a drug addict
b) working shift work in a dead end factory for 30,000 a year
c) no college education
d) divorced once with at least one child
f) dirt poor, not able to heat my home this winter
Instead, I tried at life…
a) No drugs, and barely drink socially
b) have a career in a profession, and make well more than double 30,000 in just under 3 years experience.
c) working on my MBA
d) married to a wonderful woman, with a beautiful son
f) own my home, heat that bitch & can afford a couple nice things.
I believe you called people who strive for better than average delusional at some point 13 pages ago, or maybe it was another one of the cool-aid drinkers, but regardless. I am so happy I strive for more than average, and don’t just arbitrarily believe people, even when they try to use “science” to tell me I can’t. It is statements like that that help motivate me to prove statistics like this to be hogwash.
I’m just curious how many great men, that actually achieved something, ever believed they had a statistical maximum or even took the time to consider where their "maximum’ would be if it existed.
Whats worse, I’m curious how many men that could have been great, never tried hard enough, because some study, or some statistic, or worse someone, told them they would never be more than X or Y.
Mr. Butt,
a) I don’t doubt your science, I just hope to christ my tax dollars didn’t pay for this.
b) For someone constantly calling out the intelligence & maturity levels of others, those in glass houses…
c) I know you don’t believe you should babysit people that read your study, but ummmm, it’s like this: When a sports star bitches about being a role model, they are being idiots. Part of the 100 million dollar contract is the fact that 3 million kids are going to want to be just like you when they grow up. When you sign that line, you have a social responsibility to be better than you were before. You too sir have a social responsibility to not peddle self defeatism and mediocrity as an established, educated and intelligent member of society.
d) Your defense of your study sounds dangerously close to the same type arguments that Auditors use when their opinions are being challenged, or their clients suddenly are caught fudging the books. Just because you “did your due diligence” doesn’t mean the study itself adds to society in any way. The article may be just a sample of your book that actually contributes to the advancement of our culture, but it taken by itself, it fails to do anything but limit people.
Great, I just said the same shit over again that has been said for pages. But it doesn’t matter…
Butt will continue to refuse to understand my point, and I will continue to refuse to settle.
Not being average, not listening to people when they said I couldn’t = awesome.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN
My thought exactly.[/quote]
I was referring to you.
An interesting part of the article is the information regarding Steve Reeves.
Other articles on the question of symmetry from what I suppose one might call the “Silver Age” perspective or the supposedly-derived-from-classical art perspective (Grecian Ideal) sometimes bring forth also Reeves’ published comments on this. These include his absolutely ridiculous and obviously false claim on his chest size. Namely, supposedly 54".
(Maybe the claim is true with regard to measuing with full lat spread, full chest expansion, and pumped but this is not the definition of chest size as used in the context in question: which is normal posture relaxed.)
The article gives a figure for his chest size which in fact is entirely believable for normal posture relaxed. Namely, 49.5".
For those liking the “Grecian Ideal” calculation method, now knowing Reeves’ real chest value (presumably) it is possible to calculate what a person’s other values, if having the same chest size, would be if matching the Grecian ideal, and to compare them to published presumably-reasonably-accurate values for Reeves:
Grecian Ideal / actual
Chest 49.5 / 49.5
Waist 34.7 / 30
Hip 42.1 / unknown
Bicep 17.8 / 18 or 18.5 (two different sources)
Forearm 14.4 / 14.5
Thigh 26.2 / 26.1 or 27 (two different sources)
Calf 16.8 inches / 17.9 or 18.5 (two different sources)
Neck 18.3 inches / 17.5 or 18.5 (two different sources)
So for those finding interest in the first place in the Grecian Ideal, it’s interesting that Reeves matched it quite closely, by far the biggest differences being his much smaller waist, considerably better calves, and, as personal guess, much smaller hips.
Perhaps this explains or partially explains the apparent internal discrepancy I noted, where in my own case (not natural, but some naturals can certainly exceed what I have attained) the Casey Butt method correctly predicts my actual weight for given percent bodyfat, but says chest, arm, and calf sizes would be much better than actual.
So in other words the weight and those given girths don’t agree, as I’d have to be much heavier at same bodyfat to have those girths.
The reason may be, or part of the reason, that if the equation set is based on physiques such as Reeves, there’s an assumption of truly unusually small waist and hip size for overall body size.
E.g., while my hip size in fact matches the Grecian Ideal (within half an inch anyway) for my other girths, if Reeves had a waist/hip ratio of 0.85 to 0.90 (just throwing those out there, I don’t know what it was) then his hips may have been as small as 33-35 inches or so, given the 30" waist. Versus 38" for me in pretty lean condition, and versus 32.5" for the waist size. Or versus the 42" hips he would have had his hip size been in the “Grecian Ideal” proportion to his chest.
That’s a fair bit of weight he saved in the hips and waist, and thus a fair bit of extra mass available for the chest, arms, and calves for a given bodyweight.
So perhaps if my waist and hips were as proportionally small as Reeves’ – well under the “Grecian Ideal” rather than just about at it – then I would be enough lighter that acquiring the Casey Butt method chest, arm, and calf size (if possible) might only get me back to the calculated weight.
Similarly, it seems to me that gifted naturals matching Reeves for chest, arms, calves etc would typically easily outweigh what the method figures as maximum, for given bodyfat, if their waist and hip structures are heavier than Reeves’, which actually ordinarily will be the case. It seems to me the difference could easily be 20 lb or more from this cause alone.
The article, though, doesn’t bring out that the calculated supposed maximum weight for given percent bodyfat is assuming a physical structure with unusually small, for the other girths, waist and hips.
This is BS. The formula says my maximum total bodyweight at 10% is 212.
I refuse to believe that my goal of 230 @ 10% is impossible.
Bull fu&kiing sh^t
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Your defense of your study sounds dangerously close to the same type arguments that Auditors use when their opinions are being challenged, or their clients suddenly are caught fudging the books.[/quote]
Your accusation is worded with the assumption that I am “guilty” and am now trying to get away with something.
I have no motive to deceive people and I’m not inexperienced enough at research and data analysis to make the basic reasoning mistakes that some people here have accused me of. If enough evidence existed for me to update or even delete the article and e-book then I would do it. In fact, beginning in 2001, there have been 6 versions of those equations published in various places online and in-print. Each time new data was added and adjustments made. Just this past year or so I have been contacted by several advanced competitive natural bodybuilders (some on the national and world levels) …some thanks to this very thread.
I will not concede that reality is wrong simply because of discussion forum “peer pressure” or some twisted sense of social responsibility to disguise the truth.
In fact, if anything, it is my “responsibility” to present the truth based on the majority of data - which is what I have done and will continue to do. It is not my concern how some people respond to that.
Bill Roberts,
You are, of course, correct in many of your assumptions. The data used in that article was largely from elite-level competitors having favorable genetics for bodybuilding, and so the results were skewed in favor of them. The online article was excerpted from the section in the e-book dealing specifically with bodybuilding elite, so the results are skewed towards a bodybuilding “ideal” (small waist, big chest, etc). Most people, particularly those of smaller than average bone structures and shorter than typical muscle belly lengths, will not be able to achieve the development outlined in that article.
The first three sub-sections of the e-book actually contain more appropriate equations for the general training population (including large-structured powerlifters and strength athletes) than does the online article, and also include error terms to give a range for “outliers”. I made the decision to base the online excerpt on the elite bodybuilder section because I thought the majority of readers would find that more interesting and more useful from a goal-setting perspective.