Ok. Let me try and use smaller words.
You said that these statistics do not apply to the genetic elite. I asked if you think they apply to people who are not genetic freaks.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Ok. Let me try and use smaller words.
You said that these statistics do not apply to the genetic elite. I asked if you think they apply to people who are not genetic freaks.[/quote]
You may need to start learning larger words if you think that is all that has been stated in this thread or as if that was even the main point being discussed.
These “statistics” only apply to the sample of people they were attained from. That is all it applies to. It gives you an idea of what those particular individuals measured up to. It does not by any means give cross sectional view of the human population as a whole or even the genetic ability of potential bodybuilders.
Why? Because it is a HUGE assumption to begin with to assume that people with the absolute greatest genetic potential when it comes to bodybuilding are even interested in bodybuilding. That means that while we may hold the specific population used up as the bodybuilding “elite” it doesn’t mean there aren’t or weren’t people out there who would have been able to achieve much more than they could but who
a) Were not interested in bodybuilding
b) Gravitated towards higher paying jobs or activities
c) Could even afford to eat enough to see the most progress.
or even
d) Lived in areas with the equipment necessary to take their bodies to the limit of their potential.
Now, if those words were too large, let me know.
Yeah, they only had 50 years worth of drug free world champions to draw they’re data from. Maybe in 3 or 4 more decades they’ll have enough to make it statistically significant.
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
That is IF you could diet down to 245 and be 8% bf. I don’t see it myself. Looking at the pic you posted, I reckon that 10-12% caliper measurement was pretty generous. You look to be carrying a bit of visceral fat that would throw out the caliper assessment. What’s your waist measurement?[/quote]
I purposely used a picture where I was most definately at my peak physical best. You used a picture of me where I was probably the WORST I ever looked. My picture proved my point and the picture of me you needed to throw up there was quite a bit beneath my peak.
My waist IIRC was 36" in my picture (the Samurai deadlifting one). Probably 38" in yours.
You’re right though, dropping 3-4% bodyfat is out of the realm of possiblity. No way in hell THAT’S ever happened huh?
I do like the fact that you think that since I probably WONT drop to 8% for this trivial contest that it’s impossible.
So even if I’m slightly deluded (it was a caliper test by a nutritionist who prepared natural bodybuilders for shows) I am still above the stats.
Too bad that makes you guys feel badly about yourself.
Yes, I guess I am superman as you suggest.
These arguments seem to be between two groups of people
A) people who have an understanding of statistics, are muscular, made rapid progress naturally and/or know people who have
and
B) people with no understanding of statistics, populations, samples, assumptions, who are struggling to put on muscle, or are overweight, and don’t know anyone who has done well or if they do, assume it is drugs or fat
Group A are angry that group B is discounting their achievements, calling them fat or drug users or liars, and that group B is trying to stop people aiming high. It is really annoying for group A because actual evidence contradicts what is being said.
Group B are angry that their low performance and expectations are not being validated, that they are not measuring up. It is really annoying for group B because speculative assumptions are being challenged.
Natural bodybuilders are NOT the most gifted to develop a great physique. They never were. There is no money in it. It is worse than pro bodybuilding. People with the greatest potential for bulding a physique - and the psychological desire to get HUGE - in my opinion are far more likely to move to drugs much sooner and go pro.
People with the namby pamby desire to stay clean don’t have what it takes to compete psychologically at a pro level, let alone physically.
To put it another way for the people who can’t read,
What person who is physically gifted in this day and age is going to stay natural and compete in bodybuilding contests, instead of pursue a top paying elite sport, or going pro?
Where does that leave the naturals? They are the leftovers who are not at the top of potential or they are damned disciplined or anti-drugs.
Please note I am not knocking them at all, I admire all that and am not particularly pro-drugs, I am just pro facts.
I am not really against the study, which is interesting, just its conclusions, which are horseshit.
And please don’t assume the old time bodybuilders were drug free. Steroids have been around since the 40’s.
And don’t put forward the golden age guys as the ultimate, they were very ordinary and very lagging, but overall, pleasing to the eye. They were an extremely small sample of the population who stumbled into the bodybuilding world.
People are using this study wrongly.
You should not use it as a thing to limit yourself by.
You should look at it, and if it looks like you are exceeding these stats, then you should realise you are probably at the upper end of the population with great potential.
If you are severely lagging in it, despite all your best efforts, maybe you should switch activities. If that really matters to you.
Winners never quit
Quitters never win
But people who never win or quit are idiots.
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
These arguments seem to be between two groups of people
A) people who have an understanding of statistics, are muscular, made rapid progress naturally and/or know people who have
and
B) people with no understanding of statistics, populations, samples, assumptions, who are struggling to put on muscle, or are overweight, and don’t know anyone who has done well or if they do, assume it is drugs or fat
[/quote]
Maybe I was a little short before. I had other things going on too.
I belong to a third group who just don’t really see much use to this type of thing beyond mentally preconditioning people to set themselves up for either disillusionment or underachievement.
Also, along the lines of one part of this discussion. I’ve wondered at times how many brilliant people have been hidden in the obscurity of the Amazon basin, the deep African interior or just plain inopportunity.
We assume guys like Einstein are the pinnacle of human intellect, but have no way of knowing who may have passed through history without the ability to realize their potential. That applies here as well.
[quote]derek wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
That is IF you could diet down to 245 and be 8% bf. I don’t see it myself. Looking at the pic you posted, I reckon that the 10-12% caliper measurement was pretty generous. You look to be carrying a bit of visceral fat that would throw out the caliper assessment. What’s your waist measurement?
I purposely used a picture where I was most definately at my peak physical best. You used a picture of me where I was probably the WORST I ever looked. My picture proved my point and the picture of me you needed to throw up there was quite a bit beneath my peak.
My waist IIRC was 36" in my picture (the Samurai deadlifting one). Probably 38" in yours.
You’re right though, dropping 3-4% bodyfat it out of the realm of possiblity. No way in hell THAT’S ever happened huh?
I do like the fact that you think that since I probably WONT drop to 8% for this trivial contest that it’s impossible.
So even if I’m slightly deluded (it was a caliper test by a nutritionist who prepared natural bodybuilders for shows) I am still above the stats.
Too bad that makes you guys feel badly about yourself.
Yes, I guess I am superman as you suggest.
[/quote]
I don’t think that you can’t drop to 8%bf, in fact I’m sure you could. However, it seems you are you assuming you can drop to 8% bf or less without losing lean mass.
I think that is where you and a couple of other posters on this thread are going wrong. I think it is MUCH harder than you apparently think to drop down into single digit bodyfat without losing lean mass, and often significant amounts of lean mass (as a natural, that is). If it was that easy lots of people would be doing it.
I don’t feel bad about myself. I have never aspired to be a bodybuilder, I just enjoy lifting stuff. I continue to get stronger, which I think is a good result at my age. I hope you are too.
I completely agree with the people who’ve said that many people who could EASILY surpass the achievements of top bodybuilders don’t bother with bodybuilding. Like this guy - Alesana Tuilagi. 6’1", 250lb, 50" chest, 10.8 sec 100m. Maybe the formula doesn’t apply to Pacific Islanders…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Maybe I was a little short before. I had other things going on too.
I belong to a third group who just don’t really see much use to this type of thing beyond mentally preconditioning people to set themselves up for either disillusionment or underachievement.
Also, along the lines of one part of this discussion. I’ve wondered at times how many brilliant people have been hidden in the obscurity of the Amazon basin, the deep African interior or just plain inopportunity.
We assume guys like Einstein are the pinnacle of human intellect, but have no way of knowing who may have passed through history without the ability to realize their potential. That applies here as well.[/quote]
I don’t think you were too short and really, I can see where everyone is coming from in this argument.
People should use info to help them achieve their goals - or change their goals.
This study doesn’t help people achieve their goals.
It can be used to change your goals if they are unrealistic.
But nobody should assume this study is correct. Nobody should assume that they are within the norm, and not out on the fringes, until they have proven otherwise. If people are finding this study very inaccurate because their own results far exceed it, they should consider putting more effort into it / going pro etc… because they are at the upper ends.
I don’t think anyone just starting out should just give up because of this study. Nor should they assume that everyone is on roids and discount the achievements of others.
If people find they really are genetically inferior they should accept it and move on. But they shouldn’t be put off until they have shown that to be the case, after 2 years of solid training and good eating and sleep. Not because 4 weeks of a 4 day split and 2 tubs of super protein didn’t put on 50 lbs in their first month of training.
I don’t think Einstein was that smart, I think he stole his work from his wife, who was a genius. I AM SERIOUS. Read up on it.
I think countless millions of brilliant minds are lost in the sea of inadequate diets especially essential fats.
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
I think that is where you and a couple of other posters on this thread are going wrong. I think it is MUCH harder than you apparently think to drop down into single digit bodyfat without losing lean mass, and often significant amounts of lean mass (as a natural, that is). If it was that easy lots of people would be doing it.
I don’t feel bad about myself. I have never aspired to be a bodybuilder, I just enjoy lifting stuff. I continue to get stronger, which I think is a good result at my age. I hope you are too. [/quote]
And where you are going wrong here is that I know I will lose some lean mass. And knowing that I would keep an ideal diet, and keep the relative intensity of my training high, cut carbs, up the fats and protein, choke doen BCCA’s like candy etc., etc. I would maintain all but maybe 5-8 lbs of muscle along with as much or more bodyfat.
I know how to diet without sacrificing much in the way of mass and strength. Perhaps you do NOT know how to achieve such things and you are projecting your lack of knowledge and/or discipline on those that do?
You know the old saying… “Those that can, do. While those that cannot, tell everyone else they are full of shit”.
I think this formula is a little silly as well. According to it my goal weight at my current bodyfat should be 193lb, whereas I am currently 203lb. My arm (the example given) is 2.5 times my wrist circumference, rather bigger than 2.375 - and whereas my proportions may not be perfect yet, they’re pretty damn good.
Obviously I could accept that I am a genetic anomaly, however a quick glance around a hard-training gym tends to suggest otherwise.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Yeah, they only had 50 years worth of drug free world champions to draw they’re data from. Maybe in 3 or 4 more decades they’ll have enough to make it statistically significant. [/quote]
Ummmm…no. See, the problem is that the only people we can unquestioningly know have taken steroids are those who have either openly admitted to it, or who have tested positive for it. Everyone else is questionable.
The only people who we can unquestioningly know have not taken steroids are those who achieved their physiques (and never improved upon them) before testosterone and other anabolic hormones were isolated. Everyone else is questionable.
And I really don’t think that 3 or 4 more decades of “natural” bodybuilders would make this study any more complete. As I stated before (and many people have stated before), we should not make the assumption that “natural” bodybuilding champions are the people we should be using as models for human muscle growth “potential”.
It’s really that word “potential” that makes this study questionable, and inaccurate as far as I’m concerned. Because potential suggests that these individuals are on the absolute extreme high end of the gene pool.
And as I stated before, there is really no evidence to support this assumption. However, several people have cited examples of people who they have either known, or of professional athletes in other sports who surpass these calculations.
Therefore, there is actually more evidence to suggest that the champions studied in this article are NOT the genetic elite that they are made out to be than there is evidence that they are the genetic elite.
And to address your other question “And what about those of us who don’t grow just by looking at a pair of dumbbells?” what about them? They are clearly not the genetic elite, and therefore shouldn’t be used as a gauge of human muscle growth potential.
Of course they are actually the ones who probably are in the most danger of stagnating or mentally giving up while read this study.
I say this because since such people have to work much harder for their gains, they may use this study as an excuse to say “well, according to this study I’ve reached my genetic potential, so I guess there’s no more point in killing myself in the gym”. When in fact, it may be possible for them to surpass these statistics.
As far as why the builds of basketball and football players being relevant, because they are also members of the population and therefore must be taken into account in a study that is trying to predict human muscle potential. Honestly I don’t even understand why one would ask such a question, or how the concept has eluded you.
The study attempts to determine HUMAN muscle potential. Since basketball and football (and every other sport or profession on earth) players are HUMAN, they must be taken into consideration. What about that concept is difficult to understand?
Good training,
Sentoguy
last time i read something like this i convinced myself i was already toped out at a huge 185 at 6’1" with aobut 10% fat… as soon as i decided it was bull shit I made huge gains.
with this new formula, it says once again, I’m toped out, actualyl bigger than it says i can be, currently 205ish with about 10% fat… this stuff is interesting, but as many others said, is jsut setting you up for defeat
For the drooling mongoloids that are posting pics of sports stars.
1.You have to prove he’s not on steroids.
2. That he’s at 8 to 10% bodyfat when the pic was taken.
[quote]wsk wrote:
I completely agree with the people who’ve said that many people who could EASILY surpass the achievements of top bodybuilders don’t bother with bodybuilding. Like this guy - Alesana Tuilagi. 6’1", 250lb, 50" chest, 10.8 sec 100m. Maybe the formula doesn’t apply to Pacific Islanders…
[/quote]
Could be, actually. Pacific Islanders (particularly folks like Samoans) have, on average, a higher BMI than other people while having comparable or lower BF%. Body size, body composition, and fat distribution: a comparison of young New Zealand men of European, Pacific Island, and Asian Indian ethnicities - PubMed
They also have bigger, dense bones than Europeans at least.
Put another way: Pacific Islanders tend to be big people.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
For the drooling mongoloids that are posting pics of sports stars.
1.You have to prove he’s not on steroids.
2. That he’s at 8 to 10% bodyfat when the pic was taken.[/quote]
While you are correct, you could’ve easily made your point with just your numbered points.
The “drooling mongoloids” comment makes you seem like just another dipshit running loose in the forums.
Then I’m in good company.
Oh, and two more things.
-
just so everyone is clear about where I stand. I hold no personal moral reservations with steroid use.
-
I also have no doubts in my mind that there are people that these statistics do not apply to.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10196-2004Jun27.html
There are some idiots here that think that because there are SOME people this study doesn’t apply to that it doesn’t apply to ANYBODY. Which is horse shit.
And I’m seriously fucking baffled with the retards bitching about how “small” natural bodybuilding champions are. Last I checked, having a body like Steve Reeves was something to aspire to and you fucktards have the nerve to thumb your nose at people you’ll never even measure up to let alone look better than.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Oh, and two more things.
-
just so everyone is clear about where I stand. I hold no personal moral reservations with steroid use.
-
I also have no doubts in my mind that there are people that these statistics do not apply to.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10196-2004Jun27.html
There are some idiots here that think that because there are SOME people this study doesn’t apply to that it doesn’t apply to ANYBODY. Which is horse shit.
And I’m seriously fucking baffled with the retards bitching about how “small” natural bodybuilding champions are. Last I checked, having a body like Steve Reeves was something to aspire to and you fucktards have the nerve to thumb your nose at people you’ll never even measure up to let alone look better than.[/quote]
Why don’t you quit being so elusive and just name names? And maybe then if you have the time and the ability, quote where anyone said the things you allude to.
That would clear things up a bit, thanks.
I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t you go diet down to 10% bodyfat and go become the greatest natural bodybuilder in the history of humankind?