Hell yeah! I’m a genetic superfreak! I already exceeded my potential for being 167 lbs at 6 ft tall! God, it’s good to be king.
I better start doing some bosu ball training before I really break my genetic boundaries and have to throw out all of my size M t-shirts.
Why would I let anyone impose a limit on me. Doing so would be admitting defeat.
According to the calculator
5’7
6.5 wrist
8.5 ankle
wanting 8% bf (currently 11)
and I should shoot for
Chest: 43.6 in Biceps: 15.5 in
Forearms: 12.3 in Neck: 15.1 in
Thighs: 23.3 in Calves: 15.6 in
I am already over some of those measurements. Should I stop training those muscle groups and focus on the others? What happens when I surpass those. Should i just train for maitenance?
This is crazy
Why don’t the two of you post some pics of yourselves in your profiles and show off your progress?
HELP! I’ve exceeded my predicted measurements! Should I stop lifting???
Man those old timers were small. TELL ME IT AIN’T SO! I always admired Grimek but he was one skinny dude. Reeves had skinny legs sure but didn’t know they were THAT bad. Great beard though.
wtf is with the skinny legs??? WHAT THE HECK is with the current champions 23" quads!!!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
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.[/quote]
You seem eager to provide as “evidence” a hypothetical notion from the unknown population - in other words, create a circular argument - while remaining content to ignore or count as irrelevant actual data collected from the known population. Your position on this issue seems somewhat religious.
If the survey sample is irrelevant as you suggest then how does one account for the high degree of correlation?
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Why don’t the two of you post some pics of yourselves in your profiles and show off your progress?[/quote]
Says the invisible man…
[quote]Scotacus wrote:
You seem eager to provide as “evidence” a hypothetical notion from the unknown population - in other words, create a circular argument - while remaining content to ignore or count as irrelevant actual data collected from the known population. Your position on this issue seems somewhat religious.
If the survey sample is irrelevant as you suggest then how does one account for the high degree of correlation?
[/quote]
The unknown population is not being presented as evidence. It is being presented to discredit the notion that the sample used is in fact the genetic elite.
The high degree of correlation is realy easy. Anybody with a ti-89 can create this formula given a sample population.
The key here is that it is only applicable and accurate to the sample population- who were used to create the formula.
[quote]Scotacus wrote:
If the survey sample is irrelevant as you suggest then how does one account for the high degree of correlation?
[/quote]
Because the variables were fitted to the data.
Which is fine as long as readers understand stats and realise that all these things are describing is the data - they are not describing the population and there are many, many assumptions made.
I find the study very interesting. I’m really glad to have a summary of these stats and also, a formula that can be used to compare myself with this sample that was studied.
I find it a bit disappointing that the old timers were that small and light, in many ways they really are VERY ordinary. A completely lean 26" quad is very, very, very average for any human who hasn’t sat on their ass their whole life. A 17" neck is very normal. But in other ways they are far from normal, especially in arms, chest, and overall appearance.
But like I said I like the study because I can see it for what it is - a description of the sample that was taken which includes many of the old timers.
It’d be nice to see honest stats for the measurements of todays’ monsters, and a nice formula to fit.
Aha there is one great use for it - for women. “I don’t want to do weights and get too big …” if you can do a formula like this and it convinces more women to do heavy weights that would be GREAT.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Sliver wrote:
Why don’t the two of you post some pics of yourselves in your profiles and show off your progress?
Says the invisible man…
[/quote]
I hope you aren’t stupid enough to think I’m actually going to let you shift the burden of proof. I’m not the one saying that I’ve got better genes than 50 years worth of drug free bodybuilding champions.
If you think the article is bullshit them put your money where your mouth is. Until you get on stage and take home the trophy you can exercise your constitutional right to kiss my hairy white ass.
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
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. [/quote]
The difficulty of dropping to eight percent body fat is of zero importance. Supposedly the results of the study interpolate to higher levels of bodyfat. If people are presenting bodyweights and bodyfat levels that are not consistent with the model then it is either very strong evidence that the model is flawed or that the measurements are noisy.
Given that the measurements presented have been calculated by professionals (according to the posters generous enough to share their stats) it seems reasonable to call the studies results into question.
EDIT:
I read the report. Casey, you may have a PHD, but it clearly is not in statistics. This is a classic case of making claims your study does not support and overstating the generality of your results.
Human studies are notoriously noisy when large samples are used. The way in which measurements are taken is noisy. The measurement devices themselves are noisy and errors naturally creep into the results as data is accumulated. Not only do you give a cursory description of your population, only three or so lines are devoted to describing the population from which the data was accumulated, but you also fail to do any analysis of error for your model on the sample population. One would expect error in the results if a reasonable model was used and the results were representative of the population as a whole. Of course, it appears you have introduced significant bias by using a very specific subset of the human population. This might not be unreasonable had you more carefully defined the population you were limiting the results to. Unfortunately, you do not even list how much data was used for the regression so its questionable to what degree this model even applies to the population subset you used.
More importantly you provide a model and do nothing to describe why we should expect it to generalize to people in the general population. Surely you are familiar with the problem of model selection and how important it is to insuring that your results are applicable beyond the population data you are using for the regression(Your understanding of model selection is questionable given that the “linearization” of your model results in a clearly nonlinear function of %bf ). Afterall, I could have chosen a more expressive model and reported zero error on the sample population. Of course, one wouldnt expect my model to mean anything, much like no one should expect yours to mean anything.
In many ways its hard to even criticize this study as you have carefully avoided providing much of the important details necessary to properly analyze your results. Of course, thats part of what makes this such a poor analysis. You shouldnt put garbage like this on the internet especially if you are a scientist.
[quote]adubswils wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
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.
The difficulty of dropping to eight percent body fat is of zero importance. Supposedly the results of the study interpolate to higher levels of bodyfat. If people are presenting bodyweights and bodyfat levels that are not consistent with the model then it is either very strong evidence that the model is flawed or that the measurements are noisy.
Given that the measurements presented have been calculated by professionals (according to the posters generous enough to share their stats) it seems reasonable to call the studies results into question.[/quote]
Skinfold measurements, even by experts, can be pretty misleading. Quote from the Dave Tate Project, Part I
"Now, before moving on, I want to comment on the need for the DEXA scan listed above. DEXA scans are quickly becoming the gold standard in body fat testing. This is due to the fact that these scans offer the ability to peek inside the body to account for all the fat that’s in there, not just the fat between the skin and the muscle.
Why is this so important for Dave? Well, Dave recently sent me the results of a seven-site skinfold test he’d done on himself. The verdict: 290 pounds and 12% body fat.
I don’t believe it. Don’t get me wrong, for a 290 pound guy, Dave is surprisingly lean. Yet take a look at this picture:
Although Dave’s skinfolds might say he’s only 12%, that abdominal region tells me something very different. As you can see, most of Dave’s body fat is central adiposity, or fat between his abdominal organs.
Since skinfold tests only measure subcutaneous adiposity, or fat between the skin and the muscle, I think the skinfold test is a poor one for someone like Dave. Therefore if we want to measure true fat loss, we’ll need to use a DEXA measure. "
According to John Berardi, Dave’s actual bf at the start of this project was 18%. Big difference from 12.
The other thing that people tend to forget is that when you lose fat from your fat cells, they also lose fluid (fat cells are not entirely made of fat). So even if you lose NO muscle mass, when you lose fat, you lose lean mass as well.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
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]
very good point
[quote]Sliver wrote:
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?[/quote]
The better idea is to do what I asked. Obviously you can’t.
And what in God’s name are you trying to say with that last bit of garbage you spewed?
You doubt I was measured at 10-12% at 260 lbs. Too bad you weren’t present in the office when the measurement was taken. You’d most likely have fainted from shock.
And guess what? I’m not a bodybuilder, natural or otherwise. Guess your disappointed in never seeing me in posing trunks?
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
adubswils wrote:
sharetrader wrote:
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.
The difficulty of dropping to eight percent body fat is of zero importance. Supposedly the results of the study interpolate to higher levels of bodyfat. If people are presenting bodyweights and bodyfat levels that are not consistent with the model then it is either very strong evidence that the model is flawed or that the measurements are noisy.
Given that the measurements presented have been calculated by professionals (according to the posters generous enough to share their stats) it seems reasonable to call the studies results into question.
Skinfold measurements, even by experts, can be pretty misleading. Quote from the Dave Tate Project, Part I
[/quote]
Great! So I try to convince you that I was tested at 10-12% (whatever it was a few years ago) because you apparently think I’m lying. Now you try to tell us that the measurements that you don’t even believe (I think you called me “delusional”) are too flawed to be considered.
Sqirm much?
[quote]Franck wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
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.
very good point
[/quote]
I appreciate that, but it was actually a restatement from a different angle of a point made above by others.
derek, allow me to quote my last post.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
If you think the article is bullshit them put your money where your mouth is. Until you get on stage and take home the trophy you can exercise your constitutional right to kiss my hairy white ass.[/quote]
[quote]Sliver wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Sliver wrote:
Why don’t the two of you post some pics of yourselves in your profiles and show off your progress?
Says the invisible man…
I hope you aren’t stupid enough to think I’m actually going to let you shift the burden of proof. I’m not the one saying that I’ve got better genes than 50 years worth of drug free bodybuilding champions.
If you think the article is bullshit them put your money where your mouth is. Until you get on stage and take home the trophy you can exercise your constitutional right to kiss my hairy white ass.[/quote]
All these petty, childish insults from a guy who’s profile is completely devoid of any information or pictures about his own physique.
Come on, I played ball with my car-deadlift picture (and another sharetrader put up of me waaaay off my peak). The least you could do is shut the fuck up until you have the balls to show up with some of your own data.
Let me guess, you’re the guy who whistles at girls out the car window at 45mph so they don’t have time to tell you to go fuck yourself. Am I close?
[quote]Sliver wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Sliver wrote:
Why don’t the two of you post some pics of yourselves in your profiles and show off your progress?
Says the invisible man…
I hope you aren’t stupid enough to think I’m actually going to let you shift the burden of proof. I’m not the one saying that I’ve got better genes than 50 years worth of drug free bodybuilding champions.
If you think the article is bullshit them put your money where your mouth is. Until you get on stage and take home the trophy you can exercise your constitutional right to kiss my hairy white ass.[/quote]
I’ll take this response to mean that you like to pull your pants down in front of grown men?
Good thing you are invisible.
Otherwise, a slight fella like yourself might get manhandled.
[quote]derek wrote:
Sliver wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Sliver wrote:
Why don’t the two of you post some pics of yourselves in your profiles and show off your progress?
Says the invisible man…
I hope you aren’t stupid enough to think I’m actually going to let you shift the burden of proof. I’m not the one saying that I’ve got better genes than 50 years worth of drug free bodybuilding champions.
If you think the article is bullshit them put your money where your mouth is. Until you get on stage and take home the trophy you can exercise your constitutional right to kiss my hairy white ass.
All these petty, childish insults from a guy who’s profile is completely devoid of any information or pictures about his own physique.
Come on, I played ball with my car-deadlift picture (and another sharetrader put up of me waaaay off my peak). The least you could do is shut the fuck up until you have the balls to show up with some of your own data.
Let me guess, you’re the guy who whistles at girls out the car window at 45mph so they don’t have time to tell you to go fuck yourself. Am I close?
[/quote]
If you honestly think that the validity Casey’s statistics hinge on what my physique looks like then you really must be as dumb as you look.
And don’t think I’m going to let you hold me to a higher moral standard than the rest of the assclowns patronizing the author of the article just because you don’t agree with his conclusions.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
derek, allow me to quote my last post.
Sliver wrote:
If you think the article is bullshit them put your money where your mouth is. Until you get on stage and take home the trophy you can exercise your constitutional right to kiss my hairy white ass.
[/quote]
While that was as funny as it was creative, you still are under the eroneous belief that one needs to not only compete but actually WIN to show the data in the article is flawed.
You are getting ever closer to that “drooling mongoloid” you so quaintly remarked about earlier.
Great comeback just the same, really wonderful logic.