Maximum Muscular Bodyweight

On the question of whether this is setting lower expectations than should be the case for young natural lifters on their way up:

Let’s say you have say 100 randomly selected (but for all being serious about bodybuilding) young guys at early levels of weight lifting with height and girths for wrists (once thickened from weight training) and ankles same or less than for example Steve Reeves who expect that without using steroids they will surpass him in bicep, forearm, chest, and calf measurement.

It is IMO fair to say that not merely the vast majority, but either virtually all or actually all of them if thinking this are wrong in their expectation.

There may be a quite small number that exceed Reeves in a specific thing or two, though.

Anyone who wants to pretend the opposite, to pretend something such as that half these guys COULD if they JUST TRY HARD ENOUGH and eat big enough and so forth exceed Reeves without steroids in these measurements while in lean condition, is welcome to do so.

Whether such persons, if there are any, are in a fantasy world or not is something each of us can decide for ourselves.

It seems to me on having given this more thought that the above is true as well for individuals having differing height, wrist (again corrected for how wrist may be thickened from weight training) and ankle size than Reeves:
that of any modestly large group of randomly selected young men not using steroids the vast majority will not exceed the forearm, bicep, chest, and calf sizes given by Mr Butt’s calculator.

However as for the maximum muscular bodyweight figure given by that specific calculator – and we learn above that Mr Butt has different formulas for individuals not of the bodytype of someone with small hips and waist relative to the rest of the body –

I do think many can exceed it, even if falling substantially short on even arms, chest, and calves all at the same time, and most certainly if matching the calculator on all of them.

The reason being that a more typically-proportioned hip and waist structure than is assumed by that specific calculator can add substantial weight.

Additionally the greater thigh mass that I’m convinced to be an entirely reasonable expectation for many to develop will push up the potental total bodyweight from the calculator’s value.

On that last detail, I did not include the calculated thigh value as being something that most young guys would be in error if they actually expect to exceed naturally. The reason for this likely is that the natural bodybuilders the calculator is based on simply were not trying for thigh size such as they could almost undoubtedly have achieved had they wished.

The figures for forearm, bicep, chest, and calf do indeed represent excellent achievement for a natural in lean condition: the thigh value does not, these days.

As for goal setting: I don’t think anyone would reasonably expect that the intent of Mr Butt’s work or how very many people would apply it would be that if say someone has already attained 17" arms and the calculator figures 18" as a natural maximum given his more-fixed measuremens,

that he is going to assume he can never beat that, that if he has an image of 19" in his mind he is being a fool, etc. I don’t think that is what this is about.

But on the other hand, if someone has yet to beat or much beat say the 15" mark, and the calculator gives 18" as a natural maximum, what problem is there here? Should he, while still at or below 15", be disdainful of achieving anything under 20" or 22", figures he has read in the bb’ing magazines?

Is there a problem with, at this stage, his instead deciding from guidance from Mr Butt’s calculator that 18" is a believable target that is achievable for some and may potentially be for him and would represent a fine accomplishment? Rather than basing his thinking on figures from the bb’ing magazines?

The big problem, to me, with the “conceive it, believe it, achieve it” mantra is that when you “conceive and believe” something that is purely silly in the individual case –

let’s say, believing you can fly by flapping your arms or believing, for 99-plus percent of individuals, that you can be as muscular in lean condition as Ronnie Coleman without using steroids, or for that matter with – that does not cause it to be achieved.

Better to conceive and believe in something that is rational.

And then if you get close to exceeding it, great… now start conceiving of going beyond to a truly great level. However, complaining that Walter Mitty’s dreams are being shattered because a calculator figures a maximum of 18" arms given his other dimensions and he dreams of 24" in lean condition without drugs, seems to me a bogus complaint against the calculator.

The more unrealistic thing is the fantasy, not the work in looking at what has in fact been achieved by some exceptional people as it relates to more fixed dimensions.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Casey Butt wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN

My thought exactly.

I was referring to you.[/quote]

Awesome!

Umm…why is everyone blaming mr butt here?
He just recorded his observations and has thrown the floor open for anyone who is natural, and has the results to refute him.

AAS does help you hold on to size better when dropping weight. Natties lose too much size when dropping weight - still this is a concern only if they didn;t work on adding size and letting it reach maturity for an extended period of time imo - or we would see much bigger natural competitors than stringbeans like Ferensik.

Moral of the story - don’t waste your time being natural!

(j/k) what was the point of the original article anyway?

I spent four hours reading through this whole thread because I couldn’t sleep tonight.
I then registered on this site just to post what I’ve gathered from reading all of this mess.

Here’s my take on it.

  1. Wrist size increases for a newbie past adult age with heavy training.
    Has been nothing to disprove this. Various claims of people’s wrist size increases after at least a year of heavy training and/or grip work.
  • Casey claims it’s impossible to increase it past early 20s aside from getting fat.
  1. Casey never listed the men he got the measurements from, their stats, their bodyfat, and credentials.
  • Casey says something to the effect of “Trust me guys, they were elite level natural bodybuilders.”

Those are the biggest holes I’ve seen in all of this. I’m trying to stay as neutral as possible.

I’d like to add a in a major exception to Casey’s calculator.

He factored in Layne Norton a few years ago, and he’s gotten considerably stronger and has added considerably more mass.

To quote layne
" My arms are 18.5" right now 7 weeks into my contest prep.
my best presses are 150 lb dumbbells for 8 reps
my best squats are
Squat - 585 for a single, 500 for 3 sets of 5 (yesterday), 455 for 10, and did 405 for 16 once. Also did 415 on front squats for 5 reps.
my best deadlift in competition is 700"

Layne is claiming 5’10.5 (on a good day he says in one of his posts, he usually claims 5’10)
233 lbs @ 11.5% on his bodyspace str8flexed's BodySpace - Bodybuilding.com

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:s2gRXU_ub-IJ:www.getbig.com/boards/index.php%3Faction%3Dprofile;u%3D20402;sa%3DshowPosts+getbig+casey+butt+skip+la+cour&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Here we have Casey Butt saying 5’10 @ 234 lbs at a smooth 10% is a practical impossible to achieve without drugs.

“Skip LaCour’s heaviest competition weight was at the NPC Team Nationals in 1996. He weighed 234 lbs at a height of 5’10” (according to LaCour’s own website).

At an estimated bodyfat of 6% that gives him a corrected fat-free mass index (FFMI) of 31.6.
Even if he came in at a very smooth 10% bodyfat (which he did not), his FFMI would be 30.3.
Hence my statement that LaCour had a “FFMI of more than 30”. For him to achieve this without drugs is a practical impossibility."

I’ll just throw this in too
http://musclememory.org/show.php?a=Stanko,+Steve
5’11 guy @ 223 lbs at what seems like to me, 10% bodyfat

Of course Casey can always claim they have monstrous wrist sizes.

I don’t have either of their measurements. I’m going to contact Layne and ask for his though.

** Everything I’ve posted above are excerpts from this thread, other forums, and quotes from various posters. I haven’t added my opinion in yet, which I am about to do **

IN MY OPINION, there may be a strong possibility that wrist size does increase as you gain more muscle mass / get strong.

IN MY OPINION, for those who are new to lifting, don’t give up. Using Layne Norton as an example, he has put on a considerable amount of muscle and strength over the past few years, and he’s been working out for about a decade.

Casey. can you elaborate on Layne Norton and your statement where you said “5’10 @ 234 lbs at a smooth 10% is a practical impossible to achieve without drugs.”.


DEAD THREAD REDEMPTION

Something tells me I already exceed these “predictions”…but I don’t feel the need to affirm that hunch by doing the formulas. Even more amusing considering I intend to gain another 60ish lbs after my enlistment is up.

I want to add one more thing.

Casey, Steve Stanko breaks your calculator.

Height: 71 in Wrist: 8 in
Ankle: 10 in Weight: 223

Your estimated maximum muscular bodyweight at ~10% bodyfat is: 215.7 lbs

His stats are listed here: Measurements of the first 15 Mr Americas

He looks leaner than 10% in that picture to me. and is 7.3 lbs larger than your predictions.

When I get Layne’s wrist and ankle measurement, I’ll post if he breaks the calculator as well. My prediction is he will by over 10 lbs.

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
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.

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]

Late contribution to this thread, but Steve Reeves developed his body in accordance with the Grecian ideal of the perfect male body. He built his physique using certain proportions as very specific guidelines which had nothing whatsoever to do with genetic limitations.

EDIT: never mind, its already been covered…

And the award for the “gheyist thread ever” goes to…

You people focus too much on bullshit, now go get there drink your milk and do your squats!

[quote]rbpowerhouse wrote:
How wonderful. At 5’7" my absolute maximum lean body mass is 163lbs, so I can only hope to add another 23lbs of LBM before I collapse into a black hole. Whew! I’m sure to be in contest condition this time next year, at my genetic peak.

Seriously though, statistics doesn’t lie, but you can definitely lie using stats.
I used to place a lot of faith in fat free mass until I saw lots (and I mean lots) of people in my gym who completely violate this condition.

www.naturalphysiques.com/tools.php?itemid=28[/quote]

Yeah, that’s gotta be wrong. It says that a maximal FFMI for a natural athlete is 25. I’m 22 years old, I have about a year of serious training under my belt and two years of moderate training, and I have an FFMI of 22.5? I don’t think I’ve nearly hit my genetic potential from two years of dicking around in the gym followed by close to a year of cutting.

Yeah that calculator is fucking weird. I got basically the same thing. If I slightly underestimate my weight, slightly overestimate my body fat, I still get an index of 22.5. But then my stats before I started working out and eating lots put me at 20, which is apparently above average. That can’t be right! I was a scrawny mother fucker, and knew plenty of people who were about my size now with virtually no training. I’m still fucking small, and only have a total training time of about 10 months!

H4M; using your stats and estimating your BF at 10%, your FFMI index comes out at 27.7. Even with a blatantly untrue BF of 14% you would be 26.5. Come on, admit it, it was all them roids - lol. :stuck_out_tongue:

It’s called outliers. Period. End of thread.

There are some topics that should be banned forever from the forums.

[quote]MEYMZ wrote:
There are some topics that should be banned forever from the forums. [/quote]
+1

Also +1 on the whole ``weak science nerd justifies lack of progress with `genetic limitations```

Oh no! I am 23 and have gone past my genetic limitations! I guess I need a new hobby

Anyway, statistically this article is complete BS. They mysteriously “derived” this equation, but don’t ever say what it is based on. It looks like all they did was a curve fit for the top natural bodybuilders with several different variables. That’s fine, but they use the same data points to “prove” that the formula works.

I could do a curve fit for stock market data, but the equation I come up with won’t be able to accurately predict any future values because there are WAY too many variables involved–just like the human body.

[quote]Fezzik wrote:
It looks like all they did was a curve fit for the top natural bodybuilders with several different variables. That’s fine, but they use the same data points to “prove” that the formula works.

[/quote]

Haha, I hope ColinCoolJ reads this statement. (I might have missed on the guys user name - I’m thinking of the guy with the vertical jump formula)

[quote]Fezzik wrote:
Anyway, statistically this article is complete BS. They mysteriously “derived” this equation, but don’t ever say what it is based on. It looks like all they did was a curve fit for the top natural bodybuilders with several different variables. That’s fine, but they use the same data points to “prove” that the formula works.

I could do a curve fit for stock market data, but the equation I come up with won’t be able to accurately predict any future values because there are WAY too many variables involved–just like the human body.[/quote]

Hey, we’ve been pretty much saying that since page one years back.

This thread was started 3 damn years ago…and people still don’t get this point.

I can’t even comprehend the level of fail in someone’s life that would have them focus on what they CAN’T do before they ever do much at all.

The people who stand out are the ones who DON’T do that. Everyone else can hate all they want.

[quote]Fezzik wrote:
Anyway, statistically this article is complete BS. They mysteriously “derived” this equation, but don’t ever say what it is based on. It looks like all they did was a curve fit for the top natural bodybuilders with several different variables. That’s fine, but they use the same data points to “prove” that the formula works.

I could do a curve fit for stock market data, but the equation I come up with won’t be able to accurately predict any future values because there are WAY too many variables involved–just like the human body.[/quote]

I’m by no means an expert in either aspect, but I think the comparison of a chaotic system such as the stock market to genetic potentials is very dubious. There are many fields where empirical relationships are derived through fitted equations. It’s a concept that is used extensively in scientific research. Sometimes these empirical relationships very accurately describe natural phenomena even if they don’t take into account actual mechanisms. So even if small ankles and wrists does not mean you are doomed to being small, there is clearly a trend that people with smaller joints tend to be able to put on less size.

60 years and over 300 people sounds like a pretty large sample size to me. Of course assumptions must be made or we’d never get anywhere when analyzing systems, and I don’t see why his assumptions are unreasonable. Assuming that natural bodybuilding champions tend to represent the most aesthetically developed drug-free bodies in the world sounds pretty reasonable to me. Is it perfect? Of course not, but that doesn’t detract from the information it provides.

I’ll agree that using examples to support his conclusions that were part of the fitted data does not make sense. He should get verifiable data from others and see how accurately it matches, and then modify the equations to account for the new data, but the article says he is more than willing to do that and improve the accuracy of the equation.

We should all be able to agree that we all have genetic limits. He is trying to get an idea of where that potential generally falls given easily measured markers of genetic variation. Why does it anger people to think about these limits, as if they are only real if you think about them?

There are tons of ways the measurements can be inaccurate, for instance some people with better genetics for BBing also have genetics that allow them to exceed elsewhere and they never see the stage. However, how can you quantify that? He had at his disposal a certain said of information, and so he made a reasonable assumption that allowed him to still get results.

I personally think the biggest reasons the equation may not be very accurate beyond that are because:

(1) symmetry and aesthetics play large roles so as has been mentioned these BBers may have left parts underdeveloped from the standpoint of their potential, but in line with the rest of their body
(2) BF% is pretty hard to measure so the accuracy of BF% numbers could be called into question unless truly accurate techniques were used.

Additionally, he mentioned it works best from BF% of 6-12% and the people who are using the equation to evaluate themselves may not be within those limits even if they think they are (see (2)).