From what I have gathered the article’s statistical analysis fit the individuals whom it studied. That much is hard to argue with.
However, the problem is that the author is making the mistake of both
A) attempting to tell the reader what the “ideal” body builder aesthetic should be (I personally think that a lot of the “Golden Era” pros had disproportionately small lower bodies" when compared to many athletes today)
B) making the assumption that the Natural bodybuilding champions of past and present are the genetic elite.
I made the first comment because every time someone seems to come up with an exception to the “genetic potential” calculations someone will make the argument that these only apply to bodybuilding standards, or as Mr Butt himself stated “at least in an otherwise balanced physique”.
What the heck does that mean anyway? So, you’re saying that if someone had phenomenal genetic potential for building their quads and developed them to their potential (thus making the quads their standout body part) that this would in some way disqualify them from being used as an exception to the stats in this study, or even taken into consideration?
My other point is probably the more important one however. Mr. Butt, what makes you think that the past or present Natural bodybuilders are the genetic elite as far as their ability to build muscle mass? Really, there is no evidence that points to this being the case, especially now adays.
Think about it, there really isn’t much money in bodybuilding, and even less in natural shows. So, if someone truly had phenomenal athletic potential (and the ability to build a huge, powerful, muscular, athletic body) do you really think that they would choose to go into natural bodybuilding?
No, most likely they’d go into football, as there is a crap load more money in that sport. Not to mention that especially gifted athletes sign multimillion dollar contracts that ensure that they will get paid lots of money for several years. This is in stark contrast to bodybuilding, in which case they may or may not win a contest solely based on a judges like or dislike of their physique.
Honestly, if you were the above person, which route would you go? I know personally that I’d have to choose the football option. I wouldn’t consider myself to be a greedy person, but I’m also not stupid. You could always maintain an incredible physique and still get paid the big bucks to play football. The other way around would be a little harder.
Suggesting that this study only applies to bodybuilders and not to athletes who play other sports is a load of BS. It’s really not much of a reflection on the population as a whole if that is true, and therefore can’t be used as a method of determining “maximal muscular potential”. All it does is show that several past natural bodybuilding champions fit into the equation, that is all.
I guess it’s interesting from a purely intellectual standpoint, but I personally don’t put much stock into statistical analysis.
After all according to statistics I’m most likely to have 2 and a half children! How the heck do you have half a child? LOL.
Good training,
Sentoguy
I am not trying to convince myself of anything. YOU and your buddies are the ones trying to convince yourselves that you would be better than the champions if you just dieted down a bit (but you never do diet down, funnily enough).