You guys realise as the author has already stated in this thread that this equation scales former champions physiques to your size…he just gave it a shitty name in regards to representation of what is actually does. Kinda like most supplement companies do to their products.
/facepalm
[quote]NAUn wrote:
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.
[/quote]
That does seem like a reasonable assumption, and 300 is a large sample size. Still, the equation just doesn’t work (at least for me and for several others on this site). So I’m just saying that without any extra information on the data set, we can’t know anything about the biases present. For instance, I am guessing there isn’t much representative data from extremely tall or short people, so the equation probably won’t work very well for them.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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]
Agreed. Most people want everyone to be the same, so they will try to place their own limitations on you. A lot of my successes in general have come at times when someone specifically told me that I couldn’t do something, but for some reason I had an unshakable confidence in my potential.
Anyway, I didn’t realize this thread was so old. Hah, why is it still around?
[quote]Fezzik wrote:
[quote]NAUn wrote:
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.
[/quote]
That does seem like a reasonable assumption, and 300 is a large sample size. Still, the equation just doesn’t work (at least for me and for several others on this site). So I’m just saying that without any extra information on the data set, we can’t know anything about the biases present. For instance, I am guessing there isn’t much representative data from extremely tall or short people, so the equation probably won’t work very well for them.[/quote]
Agreed. The further someone deviates from the characteristic BBer build, the less the equation applies. And I think that’s the direction best-suited for the thread- a discussion of the values and limitations of the equation as well as suggestions about how to better improve the results.
For example, can ankle/wrist size change significantly with heavy exercise? I would think lifting weights consistently would necessarily require improved joint strength, but I don’t know how much or if the joints actually increase in size to accompany increased muscle mass. If they did, then every time you add significant weight/thickness your results from the equation will continue to trend upward.
Not to mention - and it’s been mentioned before in this thread, probably by me - that in any normal distribution, there will always be statistical outliers that do not come close to representing the mean…
The calculator is based on static measurements for wrist size etc.
The problem is that wrist size (tendon and bone size and strength) is not static, but adapts under the right conditions.
An inch of wrist(etc) size can change the calculation’s outcome big time… The entire “logic” behind the calculator is thus (even when not counting the numerous other issues such as differences in competition shape and muscle-loss from back in the day vs today, credibility of the measurements obtained etc) fatally flawed.
This does not only affect drug-users and young people… Otherwise, every drug-free guy over 30 would be unable to ever recover from a broken bone, or ever bench more than ~250 or some such without tearing something instantly.
The calculator cannot predict any kind of future potential.
It can at most tell you how much mass you should have at a given, static wrist(etc)-size according to the data it is based on (i.e. scaled against the people whose supposed measurements Mr. Butt used to create this thing).
This is the reason for why so many people get roughly (plus minus) their current stats (with some flukes here or there due to differences in training age, strength, diet, training style, whether they train a muscle and have made the right amount of progress on the given exercises, muscle-shape and what have you… All compared to the group Casey used, or made up or whatever)…
If you’ve been training for 20 years and have never had it in you to truly lift heavy and progressively across the board (hint: If you want 20+ inch arms, it may help to be curling the 90’s or 100’s among other things… What, you can’t believe somebody could possibly do that? Well idiot, find a goddamn way to get there instead of making excuses.), then of course you’ll be convinced that you’re at some kind of limit.
You are indeed… The limit imposed upon you by your current diet first and foremost, then training style… And possibly hormone levels (helps if you aren’t 50 at the time you’re beginning your journey drug-free).
Please note that Mr. Butt is now selling the whole thing as an e-book for money.
Also note the comments about how people who have reached the limit can use that information to focus on something else now, as there is no reason to try and achieve more (it is impossible, after all).
So he tries to convince you of your limits first, and then wants to prevent you from ever finding out the truth by making sure you make no real attempt to get past them.
This entire thing is ultimately a trick similar to the ones used in commercials and by just about everyone trying to sell you something dodgy… Or by various quasi-religious gurus etc…
Fool: “Okay, I don’t think this actually works, but tell me my fortune anyway.”
Fortune Teller: “I see dark times ahead for you, but also good times.”
Fool (2 weeks later): “Oh wow Mr. Fortune Teller, you were totally right! On the one hand, I cut myself with a knife, but on the other hand, my favorite series is being aired again! Please tell me my future again, oh wise one!”
Fortune Teller: “I see even darker times (potentially involving a machete or chainsaw) ahead, but only if you do not pay me. Er. Cash or credit card?”
We should just stick to BMI calculators.
/sarcasim
Wow, missed this thread. Can’t wait to read the whole fuckin’ thing tomorrow.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Wow, missed this thread. Can’t wait to read the whole fuckin’ thing tomorrow.[/quote]
You’ll regret that decision.
This is quite an interesting read.
It seems that people have become so accustomed to seeing so many chemically-enhanced bodies in the media that people don’t even know what a great natural physique at 10% bodyfat even looks like anymore.
People nowadays think the great legends don’t have enough mass even though they’re clearly the upper limit of muscularity at 10% bodyfat.
Hey, these 300 outstanding gifted specimens were all trying to build maximum lean muscle with low bodyfat, and they all topped out, what’s the problem?
It’s a bit comical (and a bit sad too) to see so many big beefy macho guys getting so irate over this calculator.
The truth clearly hurts sometimes.
Why not lose that roll on your stomach and put up some pictorial proof that you’ve actually outdid the calculator? Don’t bull$#!t us (nor yourself) with exaggerated numbers neither, put up the truth.
I see angry people refuting and condemning Dr. Butt’s scientific instrument, but no one offering a shred of documented proof that they’ve outdid this calculator naturally.
Quit deluding yourself that you’re at 10% bodyfat.
…or face the truth and get on the juice if you want to look like the IFBB Pros (and have massive health problems at relatively young ages like the IFBB Pros too).
[quote]the_bradguy wrote:
This is quite an interesting read.
It seems that people have become so accustomed to seeing so many chemically-enhanced bodies in the media that people don’t even know what a great natural physique at 10% bodyfat even looks like anymore.
People nowadays think the great legends don’t have enough mass even though they’re clearly the upper limit of muscularity at 10% bodyfat.
Hey, these 300 outstanding gifted specimens were all trying to build maximum lean muscle with low bodyfat, and they all topped out, what’s the problem?
It’s a bit comical (and a bit sad too) to see so many big beefy macho guys getting so irate over this calculator.
The truth clearly hurts sometimes.
Why not lose that roll on your stomach and put up some pictorial proof that you’ve actually outdid the calculator? Don’t bull$#!t us (nor yourself) with exaggerated numbers neither, put up the truth.
I see angry people refuting and condemning Dr. Butt’s scientific instrument, but no one offering a shred of documented proof that they’ve outdid this calculator naturally.
Quit deluding yourself that you’re at 10% bodyfat.
…or face the truth and get on the juice if you want to look like the IFBB Pros (and have massive health problems at relatively young ages like the IFBB Pros too).
[/quote]
Aggressive first post.
Somewhere a dead horse is being beaten.
That Professor dude is huge. Massive arms. Clearly loads of work, perseverance, and dedication in the gym, and of course good genetics for building muscle, but where’s the abs shot showing the ripped 6 pack, serratus, and intercostals?
They’re a terrific indicator of adipose levels.
That calculator is absolutely ridiculous. I dont care if its generally right, in no way can I logically deduce that my wrist and ankle measurements can tell someone else how wide/broad I am in other areas.
If my hips are 4 inches wider than someone else, my rib cage 4 inches wider, and my shoulders 5 inches wider… while keeping the same size wrist and ankle… then what, I WILL weigh the same if I’m the same height? What a load of shit.
^^shut up troll! Are you really trying to turn a 3 year old thread into yet another prof x call out thread? Give it a rest you turd.
EDIT: my post is obviously meant for the the post two above this one.
[quote]the_bradguy wrote:
This is quite an interesting read.
It seems that people have become so accustomed to seeing so many chemically-enhanced bodies in the media that people don’t even know what a great natural physique at 10% bodyfat even looks like anymore.
People nowadays think the great legends don’t have enough mass even though they’re clearly the upper limit of muscularity at 10% bodyfat.
Hey, these 300 outstanding gifted specimens were all trying to build maximum lean muscle with low bodyfat, and they all topped out, what’s the problem?
It’s a bit comical (and a bit sad too) to see so many big beefy macho guys getting so irate over this calculator.
The truth clearly hurts sometimes.
Why not lose that roll on your stomach and put up some pictorial proof that you’ve actually outdid the calculator? Don’t bull$#!t us (nor yourself) with exaggerated numbers neither, put up the truth.
I see angry people refuting and condemning Dr. Butt’s scientific instrument, but no one offering a shred of documented proof that they’ve outdid this calculator naturally.
Quit deluding yourself that you’re at 10% bodyfat.
…or face the truth and get on the juice if you want to look like the IFBB Pros (and have massive health problems at relatively young ages like the IFBB Pros too).
[/quote]
Casey?
Y’see, this is exactly what I’m talking about…
Angry over-emotional responses and personal attacks instead of concrete, logic-based facts and evidence.
Powers of reasoning.
A man’s debate ought to be based on facts and logic (male thought), not on petty personal attacks and over-emotional outbursts devoid of any facts or logic (female response).
[quote]the_bradguy wrote:
Y’see, this is exactly what I’m talking about…
Angry over-emotional responses and personal attacks instead of concrete, logic-based facts and evidence.
Powers of reasoning.
A man’s debate ought to be based on facts and logic (male thought), not on petty personal attacks and over-emotional outbursts devoid of any facts or logic (female response).
[/quote]
Obvious troll is obvious
[quote]the_bradguy wrote:
Y’see, this is exactly what I’m talking about…
Angry over-emotional responses and personal attacks instead of concrete, logic-based facts and evidence.
Powers of reasoning.
A man’s debate ought to be based on facts and logic (male thought), not on petty personal attacks and over-emotional outbursts devoid of any facts or logic (female response).
[/quote]
What part of my post made no sense?
Lets play this ridiculous game then troll face.
The size of that calf should tell you it’s atleast double my ankle. Ankle is 8.5 inch, I’m not gonna tell you how big that actual calf is cause you wont believe me but you can see it’s clearly double the ankle and its not flexed
I’m not even big, you can kind of tell I lift weights. That calf is over potential, I have visible abs, I’m 10lbs away from potential [in LBM] according to that calculator. Recently lost some weight due to illness.
Am I fuck anywhere near MY potential.
The funny shit is, I’m not strong, and I’m not even average for this forum. So STFU just cause you cant lift hard and eat big consistantly and stop trying to put other people down.