Maximum Muscular Bodyweight

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]wressler125 wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
I don’t even know why this is generating so much debate. Worry about your genetic potential when you hit it. For most of us, that will be never.

That is exactly why it has generated so much debate. This “calculator” tells people their supposed genetic potential, which for some is not all that heavy and sometimes very close.

I am 5’11" and it puts my max at 178. That’s only 10lbs away for me, but for someone that is 5’11" tall, 178 is far to light to have the right leverages for powerlifting.

I also can’t bear to think how many people will take this for fact and immediately resolve that they are “genetically predisposed” to be small and weak.[/quote]

I think you have misunderstood the article. The maxes quoted are for BODYBUILDERS, not powerlifters, footballers or anyone else. If you have no aspirations to be a bodybuilder you should just ignore it - it doesn’t apply to you. Powerlifters don’t have to be 6% bodyfat.

BTW, I don’t know how on earth you got only 178lbs at your height. I fed in 71 inches, 7 in wrist and 9 in ankle with 12%bf (which would be a sensible level for a powerlifter not in the unlimited weight class) and got 206.5. Check your calculation.

As for your last point, WTF? Are you saying that champion natural bodybuilders are small and weak?

62

[quote]derek wrote:
Casey Butt wrote:

It is ridiculous for adult drug-free bodybuilders to think they will add 50 pounds of lean body mass and look like an IFBB pro without massive, regular doses of anabolic drugs.

Really? I started training weighing 180-185lbs with visable abs.

I this picture, I weighed just over 260 with the very same visable abs.

I know I don’t look massive but… isn’t that like 75 lbs I gained?

Do the math.[/quote]

Visible abs? Visible gut is more like it.
[photo]1991[/photo]

63

I say fuck what this statistical analysis says. Don’t let this shit crush your hopes or dreams. Use this as fuel for the fire. Go lift. Get bigger than anyone thinks you can. Prove the people who doubt you wrong. After all, your only limits are self-imposed.

64

[quote]sharetrader wrote:

I think you have misunderstood the article. The maxes quoted are for BODYBUILDERS, not powerlifters, footballers or anyone else. If you have no aspirations to be a bodybuilder you should just ignore it - it doesn’t apply to you. Powerlifters don’t have to be 6% bodyfat.[/quote]

No, but a 198lb powerlifter won’t be any good at an excessive amount of bodyfat. I put in 10%, not 6%.

[quote]
BTW, I don’t know how on earth you got only 178lbs at your height. I fed in 71 inches, 7 in wrist and 9 in ankle with 12%bf (which would be a sensible level for a powerlifter not in the unlimited weight class) and got 206.5. Check your calculation.[/quote]

My wrists are 6", ankle 7 3/4 and I put in 10%. I used one of those bodypart measuring tape things I bought for $3.

If you don’t know how I got it, maybe you should consider not everyone has the same bone structure as you.

[quote]
As for your last point, WTF? Are you saying that champion natural bodybuilders are small and weak? [/quote]

No I’m saying that there will be people on this board reading this post that are just starting out that takes this to mean they can’t achieve up to or beyond what this table tells them.

You should probably read things twice before making assumptions. This site caters to weightlifters and people wanting to learn more about training, not to “champion natural bodybuilders”.

65

[quote]IronWarrior24 wrote:
I say fuck what this statistical analysis says. Don’t let this shit crush your hopes or dreams. Use this as fuel for the fire. Go lift. Get bigger than anyone thinks you can. Prove the people who doubt you wrong. After all, your only limits are self-imposed.[/quote]

You wish. I issue a challenge to all those who say this analysis is BS. Prove it. Get yourself into bodybuilding contest shape, take the pics to prove it, take a pic of yourself on the scales weighing more than this formula predicts.

I predict there will be exactly zero people who succeed. What is more, I doubt if there are any of you out there who have the guts to take up the challenge. After all, you might be proved wrong.

66

[quote]wressler125 wrote:
sharetrader wrote:

I think you have misunderstood the article. The maxes quoted are for BODYBUILDERS, not powerlifters, footballers or anyone else. If you have no aspirations to be a bodybuilder you should just ignore it - it doesn’t apply to you. Powerlifters don’t have to be 6% bodyfat.

No, but a 198lb powerlifter won’t be any good at an excessive amount of bodyfat. I put in 10%, not 6%.

BTW, I don’t know how on earth you got only 178lbs at your height. I fed in 71 inches, 7 in wrist and 9 in ankle with 12%bf (which would be a sensible level for a powerlifter not in the unlimited weight class) and got 206.5. Check your calculation.

My wrists are 6", ankle 7 3/4 and I put in 10%. I used one of those bodypart measuring tape things I bought for $3.

If you don’t know how I got it, maybe you should consider not everyone has the same bone structure as you.

As for your last point, WTF? Are you saying that champion natural bodybuilders are small and weak?

No I’m saying that there will be people on this board reading this post that are just starting out that takes this to mean they can’t achieve up to or beyond what this table tells them.

You should probably read things twice before making assumptions. This site caters to weightlifters and people wanting to learn more about training, not to “champion natural bodybuilders”.
[/quote]

This site does, but the article doesn’t. Like I said, if you have no aspirations to be a bodybuilder, ignore it. It doesn’t apply to you.

If you have only 6 in wrists, you can forget about being much more than mediocre as a powerlifter. You simply don’t have the right build for it. But hey, have fun doing it anyway. You only have to beat yourself to succeed :wink: 9 for 9 and 3 PRs at your next meet!

67

[quote]sharetrader wrote:

Visible abs? Visible gut is more like it.
[/quote]

Nice insult there asswipe.

Why on earth would you write that? Yeah, that was a bad “gut” time for me you got me there. But I used another picture and it was accurate. If you want to pick out a crappy picture of me when I was sporting some gut, that’s your choice. Not sure what you were getting at beside being a douchebag.

Care to reply?

68

[quote]sharetrader wrote:

Visible abs? Visible gut is more like it.
[/quote]

Oh, I looked at your pictures. Oh wait you don’t have any, sorry.

And why are so damned rabid about defending this article. You are nuttier about it than the dude who wrote it.

69

[quote]sharetrader wrote:
<<< You wish. I issue a challenge to all those who say this analysis is BS. Prove it. Get yourself into bodybuilding contest shape, take the pics to prove it, take a pic of yourself on the scales weighing more than this formula predicts.

I predict there will be exactly zero people who succeed. What is more, I doubt if there are any of you out there who have the guts to take up the challenge. After all, you might be proved wrong.[/quote]

Personally I don’t want the results of anybody,s formula in my head even if I believed they were pretty accurate. There is no useful point to me in doing so.

I’ll just keep training the hardest and best ways I know how and get as big as I can in however long it takes. I don’t want or need any preconceived ideas of what that may mean lurking in the back of my mind. I cannot see any good coming of it. If you or somebody else can then fine, but you won’t convince me.

70

[quote]derek wrote:
sharetrader wrote:

Visible abs? Visible gut is more like it.

Nice insult there asswipe.

Why on earth would you write that? Yeah, that was a bad “gut” time for me you got me there. But I used another picture and it was accurate. If you want to pick out a crappy picture of me when I was sporting some gut, that’s your choice. Not sure what you were getting at beside being a douchebag.

Care to reply?
[/quote]

Sure. What I am getting at is that a lot of the people who are criticising this article and saying they are way bigger than this guy’s formula predicts are probably deluding themselves about their bf%. Sorry if I hit a raw nerve :wink: But be honest with us (and yourself) - you have put on 75lbs since you started training; can you honestly say more than 50lbs of that was lean bodyweight?

Again, my apologies for any insult.

71

[quote]sharetrader wrote:
IronWarrior24 wrote:
I say fuck what this statistical analysis says. Don’t let this shit crush your hopes or dreams. Use this as fuel for the fire. Go lift. Get bigger than anyone thinks you can. Prove the people who doubt you wrong. After all, your only limits are self-imposed.

You wish. I issue a challenge to all those who say this analysis is BS. Prove it. Get yourself into bodybuilding contest shape, take the pics to prove it, take a pic of yourself on the scales weighing more than this formula predicts.

I predict there will be exactly zero people who succeed. What is more, I doubt if there are any of you out there who have the guts to take up the challenge. After all, you might be proved wrong.[/quote]

I don’t currently compete and I won’t be dieting down over the next few months just to prove something to some guy over the internet who has never even shown pictures of what he himself looks like at all.

That link I posted is to an episode of American Muscle about Delino Dixon who competed naturally at over 220lbs in contest shape at 5’11" (getting to 230lbs at his last contest that I remember him competing in years back).

Not one of the guys measured in that “study” were holding those types of measurements. Usually, any time a bodybuilder gets to a level that most can’t reach, they start questioning whether he is natural which means no one could ever “prove” this to you. You could simply claim they aren’t any time someone exceeds the measurements of that chart.

I do have to ask why someone would defend the idea that no one could pass that mark. Would I be right in assuming that you are nowhere near a size that would impress too many people? Could that be the reason?

72

[quote]derek wrote:
sharetrader wrote:

Visible abs? Visible gut is more like it.

Oh, I looked at your pictures. Oh wait you don’t have any, sorry.

And why are so damned rabid about defending this article. You are nuttier about it than the dude who wrote it.

[/quote]

You wouldn’t want to see them. I am 54 going on 55 and didn’t start lifting until I was 50. I am doing OK (deadlifted 400 recently) but I am carrying a fair bit of bf as you might expect at my age. I’m not setting myself up as an example.

I’m defending this article because I think the people attacking it are deluding themselves. See my response to your other post and my challenge in another post. No takers as yet - would you like to be the first? :wink:

73

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
<<< You wish. I issue a challenge to all those who say this analysis is BS. Prove it. Get yourself into bodybuilding contest shape, take the pics to prove it, take a pic of yourself on the scales weighing more than this formula predicts.

I predict there will be exactly zero people who succeed. What is more, I doubt if there are any of you out there who have the guts to take up the challenge. After all, you might be proved wrong.

Personally I don’t want the results of anybody,s formula in my head even if I believed they were pretty accurate. There is no useful point to me in doing so.

I’ll just keep training the hardest and best ways I know how and get as big as I can in however long it takes. I don’t want or need any preconceived ideas of what that may mean lurking in the back of my mind. I cannot see any good coming of it. If you or somebody else can then fine, but you won’t convince me.[/quote]

That is fine, in fact I applaud your attitude. But in that case, you don’t really have any basis to criticise the article or the formula. You can and should just ignore it. Good luck with your lifting!

74

[quote]sharetrader wrote:
derek wrote:
sharetrader wrote:

Visible abs? Visible gut is more like it.

Oh, I looked at your pictures. Oh wait you don’t have any, sorry.

And why are so damned rabid about defending this article. You are nuttier about it than the dude who wrote it.

You wouldn’t want to see them. I am 54 going on 55 and didn’t start lifting until I was 50. I am doing OK (deadlifted 400 recently) but I am carrying a fair bit of bf as you might expect at my age. I’m not setting myself up as an example.

I’m defending this article because I think the people attacking it are deluding themselves. See my response to your other post and my challenge in another post. No takers as yet - would you like to be the first? ;)[/quote]

…and I think those who would defend it to this degree do so because they they are lacking in the genetics department themselves. It helps you sleep better at night to think that no one can get to that level because you can’t.

75

[quote]sharetrader wrote:

Sure. What I am getting at is that a lot of the people who are criticising this article and saying they are way bigger than this guy’s formula predicts are probably deluding themselves about their bf%. Sorry if I hit a raw nerve :wink: But be honest with us (and yourself) - you have put on 75lbs since you started training; can you honestly say more than 50lbs of that was lean bodyweight?

Again, my apologies for any insult.[/quote]

Fuck off with your appology. You obviously have an issue with people that mess up your pessimistic little world.

In the picture I used (not the one you used) I was calipered at 10-12% BF and that’s very close to or perhaps even lower than I started at when I weighed 185.

I know for a fact that my abs were visable. Visable enough to see that I have an 8-pack, not a six pack.

Obviously you can call me a liar and who’s to know if I am or not? Who even cares?

You’re still a tool that resorted to insults in order to defend your baseless arguments.

76

[quote]sharetrader wrote:
You wouldn’t want to see them. I am 54 going on 55 and didn’t start lifting until I was 50. I am doing OK (deadlifted 400 recently) but I am carrying a fair bit of bf as you might expect at my age. I’m not setting myself up as an example.

[/quote]

OK, NOW I understand where all this is coming from. You just sit back and criticize while the rest of us cruise past limits your kind likes to lament about.

77

I know for a fact that if I train hard and eat right, in one year I can put FOURTEEN INCHES ON MY HEIGHT.

And that means I must recalculate my predicted lean bodyweight upwards.

Seriously though …

  • I would like to see these stats for powerlifters / olympic weightlifters. I want to know the lean mass of drug free strength athletes who have muscle development that is less … sarcoplasmic.

  • it is quite possible that many here arguing against the article are in fact at the extremes of the population

  • don’t assume that natural bodybuilders are the extremely gifted. In the olden days not everyone had the luxury to stuff around bodybuilding especially not as a career, or hobby. And today, wouldn’t most of the gifted people go pro - and probably not go clean? And even if not going pro, probably aren’t clean and probably aren’t in natural contests. And so the samples are skewed.

  • I do believe most people are not as lean as they would like to think they are

  • best bit of article was the stats on Grimek etc… I’ve always wanted those

  • the morale of this article is: USE DRUGS!

78

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
I know for a fact that if I train hard and eat right, in one year I can put FOURTEEN INCHES ON MY HEIGHT.

And that means I must recalculate my predicted lean bodyweight upwards.

Seriously though …

  • I would like to see these stats for powerlifters / olympic weightlifters. I want to know the lean mass of drug free strength athletes who have muscle development that is less … sarcoplasmic.

  • it is quite possible that many here arguing against the article are in fact at the extremes of the population

  • don’t assume that natural bodybuilders are the extremely gifted. In the olden days not everyone had the luxury to stuff around bodybuilding especially not as a career, or hobby. And today, wouldn’t most of the gifted people go pro - and probably not go clean? And even if not going pro, probably aren’t clean and probably aren’t in natural contests. And so the samples are skewed.

  • I do believe most people are not as lean as they would like to think they are

  • best bit of article was the stats on Grimek etc… I’ve always wanted those

  • the morale of this article is: USE DRUGS![/quote]

I have carefully considered the intellectual arguments you have herewith posited and have come to the unfortunate conclusion that I haven’t the slightest earthly idea what the hell you are trying to say. I only hope you will find it in yourself to forgive my inferior powers of reason and continue blessing the world with your profundities.

79

[quote]derek wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
You wouldn’t want to see them. I am 54 going on 55 and didn’t start lifting until I was 50. I am doing OK (deadlifted 400 recently) but I am carrying a fair bit of bf as you might expect at my age. I’m not setting myself up as an example.

OK, NOW I understand where all this is coming from. You just sit back and criticize while the rest of us cruise past limits your kind likes to lament about.

[/quote]

I truly believe this as well. I’m not anywhere near contest shape. I am not even trying to be currently, but to assume that I could not maintain or even gain back my current lean body mass after dieting is a little retarded.

Everyone knows that losing muscle mass is a factor when dieting. I doubt that is even being argued. However, according to his chart, I would have to lose close to 5" off my quads if I dieted down.

80

[quote]derek wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
You wouldn’t want to see them. I am 54 going on 55 and didn’t start lifting until I was 50. I am doing OK (deadlifted 400 recently) but I am carrying a fair bit of bf as you might expect at my age. I’m not setting myself up as an example.

OK, NOW I understand where all this is coming from. You just sit back and criticize while the rest of us cruise past limits your kind likes to lament about.

[/quote]

That’s exactly why he defends it. So he can try to convince himself that he has a reason for being so out of shape. It’s an excuse for him to not put forth any effort to make himself better. He tells himself, “It’s not my fault I can’t get any stronger. It’s because of my genetic limitations. Oh well, I guess that gets me out of pushing myself to reach any kind of goal in life.” People like that make me sick.