Maximum Muscular Bodyweight

Training Bodybuilding
141

[quote]derek wrote:
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

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]

Chill, chill. I never said (or thought) that you were lying when you said that you were tested at 10-12%bf. I said back then that I thought you looked to be more than that to me, and I still stand by that.

I don’t know why it is so important to you to believe that your bf is 10-12% (why would you care if it was 14%, as long as you were happy with the way you looked and your lifting performance), but if you want to believe that skinfold test, go right ahead.

I also can’t see why it is important to you what I believe about your bf%, but you seem to have spent a lot of time trying to convince me that your skinfold test is spot on.

Oh, and I never called you or anybody else “delusional”. I did suggest to another poster that he should enjoy his delusions, but we all have some delusions. That is a long way from being “delusional”, which usually is taken to mean totally separated from reality. That is not what I meant.

142

Right, becease we all know that in drug free bodybuilding, all things being equal the smaller guy always wins.

143

[quote]Sliver wrote:
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?

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]

No, not at all. What is does prove however is you have an issue with balls. As in you have none.

Ya know, no one enjoys the yapping of someone who hides in the bushes. It’s very annoying, like a mosquito.

I’m a little intrigued that, if you accept that I’m not lying, my stats in the original picture of me show the data is somewhat mistaken and you can’t seem to accept it. Odd, really.

144

People with 6" wrists and 10" ankles and are 90" tall have the potential to be 1000lbs of pure muscle.

PROVE ME WRONG!

Who will step up to the challenge!

145

[quote]sharetrader wrote:
derek wrote:

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?

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]

So you weren’t referring to me when you wrote the above TO ME?

146

Why are people giving stats on themselves if they are not champion natural bodybuilders, for which this article and its formulas was based?
If you believe thats this formula is wrong or the stats are wrong then? you can either get the actual weights and measurements of the people in the article, or you can win a competition. Other than that your battling facts with opinions.

147

[quote]sharetrader wrote:

Chill, chill. I never said (or thought) that you were lying when you said that you were tested at 10-12%bf. I said back then that I thought you looked to be more than that to me, and I still stand by that.[/quote]

In the picture I posted, you are still wrong. I couldn’t care less what you still stand behind. Let’s face it, you’re not exactly someone to turn to for strength training knowledge.

[quote]
I don’t know why it is so important to you to believe that your bf is 10-12% (why would you care if it was 14%, as long as you were happy with the way you looked and your lifting performance), but if you want to believe that skinfold test, go right ahead.

I also can’t see why it is important to you what I believe about your bf%, but you seem to have spent a lot of time trying to convince me that your skinfold test is spot on.[/quote]

This entire argument rides on whether my BF% was accurate. Sorry you missed all that.

[quote]
Oh, and I never called you or anybody else “delusional”. I did suggest to another poster that he should enjoy his delusions, but we all have some delusions. That is a long way from being “delusional”, which usually is taken to mean totally separated from reality. That is not what I meant.[/quote]

Are you sure about that?

148

I really don’t mean to be an ass. Not even to this Casey guy who seems like a smart enough fella with honest intentions, but can somebody tell me why anybody cares abut this? Has anybody,s training or goals been changed by what they found in this calculator? If not then who cares? If so then what’s going to happen when the revised version shows up or somebody else’s looks better?

149

[quote]n3wb wrote:
People with 6" wrists and 10" ankles and are 90" tall have the potential to be 1000lbs of pure muscle.

PROVE ME WRONG!

Who will step up to the challenge![/quote]

How can you even say such a thing?

“Prove me wrong”! What kind of person even says that?

It’s like some people would like to have a system of peer review, or something that would hold them accountable, examine their work, and make certain that it passes some sort of stringent examination.

Thats freakin Crazy!

150

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Why are people giving stats on themselves if they are not champion natural bodybuilders, for which this article and its formulas was based?
If you believe thats this formula is wrong or the stats are wrong then? you can either get the actual weights and measurements of the people in the article, or you can win a competition. Other than that your battling facts with opinions.[/quote]

I was under the impression that one could take one’s own measurments to see where you’ll be predicted to top out muscle mass-wise.

And in so doing, many of us have exceded our pre-determined limits which makes some of us question the validity of the article.

It was also stated that in order to gain anything greater than 50lbs of muscle, one would need to take “massive” amounts of steroids.

Again… Huh?

151

[quote]derek wrote:
In the picture I posted, you are still wrong. I couldn’t care less what you still stand behind. Let’s face it, you’re not exactly someone to turn to for strength training knowledge.
[/quote]So why are you expending so much energy trying to convince me I’m wrong?[quote]

…

Are you sure about that?

[/quote]

Yes.

152

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I really don’t mean to be an ass. Not even to this Casey guy who seems like a smart enough fella with honest intentions, but can somebody tell me why anybody cares abut this? Has anybody,s training or goals been changed by what they found in this calculator? If not then who cares? If so then what’s going to happen when the revised version shows up or somebody else’s looks better?[/quote]

Good post. Those who think it’s crap can ignore it, those who think it’s interesting as a study of bodybuilders can, well, study it, those who think it gives them something to aspire to can aspire to it. Then we can all get back into the gym and stop wasting time in front of a computer arguing about it.

153

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I really don’t mean to be an ass. Not even to this Casey guy who seems like a smart enough fella with honest intentions, but can somebody tell me why anybody cares abut this? Has anybody,s training or goals been changed by what they found in this calculator? If not then who cares? If so then what’s going to happen when the revised version shows up or somebody else’s looks better?[/quote]

Its important to criticize bad information. Getting at the truth of things is an important endeavor.

154

[quote]sharetrader wrote:
derek wrote:
In the picture I posted, you are still wrong. I couldn’t care less what you still stand behind. Let’s face it, you’re not exactly someone to turn to for strength training knowledge.
So why are you expending so much energy trying to convince me I’m wrong?

…

Are you sure about that?

Yes.[/quote]

OK, you really need to read the whole post before you respond to it.

I told you that the entire arguement was based on whether my BF was accurate or not. I said it was, you said it wasn’t.

Without me pushing the fact that my BF was what it was, the entire arguement goes nowhere.

Now do you understand (again)?.

155

[quote]adubswils wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
I really don’t mean to be an ass. Not even to this Casey guy who seems like a smart enough fella with honest intentions, but can somebody tell me why anybody cares abut this? Has anybody,s training or goals been changed by what they found in this calculator? If not then who cares? If so then what’s going to happen when the revised version shows up or somebody else’s looks better?

Its important to criticize bad information. Getting at the truth of things is an important endeavor.[/quote]

Exactly right. Truth, facts and/or falacies need to be discussed if we are to learn from what we read. If we have data to the contrary, it’s our duty to bring it forth. Unless we are all so indifferent that it no longer matters whether it’s right or wrong.

156

[quote]sharetrader wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
I really don’t mean to be an ass. Not even to this Casey guy who seems like a smart enough fella with honest intentions, but can somebody tell me why anybody cares abut this? Has anybody,s training or goals been changed by what they found in this calculator? If not then who cares? If so then what’s going to happen when the revised version shows up or somebody else’s looks better?

Good post. Those who think it’s crap can ignore it, those who think it’s interesting as a study of bodybuilders can, well, study it, those who think it gives them something to aspire to can aspire to it. Then we can all get back into the gym and stop wasting time in front of a computer arguing about it.[/quote]

I think that if the info were true it could also be very valuable to those considering “chemical enhancement”. Once you know when you hit your natural physical limits you can start your cycle right away instead of wasting weeks and months of training time making no progress.

157

You got served LOL

[quote]sharetrader wrote:
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?

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]

158

[quote]adubswils wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
I really don’t mean to be an ass. Not even to this Casey guy who seems like a smart enough fella with honest intentions, but can somebody tell me why anybody cares abut this? Has anybody,s training or goals been changed by what they found in this calculator? If not then who cares? If so then what’s going to happen when the revised version shows up or somebody else’s looks better?

Its important to criticize bad information. Getting at the truth of things is an important endeavor.[/quote]

No, its important to disprove bad information. Good information is often criticized; criticism is not a virtue, its merely a perspective.

159

[quote]n3wb wrote:
People with 6" wrists and 10" ankles and are 90" tall have the potential to be 1000lbs of pure muscle.

PROVE ME WRONG!

Who will step up to the challenge![/quote]

HAHAHHA best post yet

To the poster who said losing fluid with the bodyfat = losing lean mass … the fluid lost when fat cells shrink is counted as “fat” in the loss.

Man, you don’t think lean bodymass is just the proteins in the muscles and not the fluids/water? WOAH if the water is excluded then I can get a max lean of 200 lbs + another 300lbs of water therefore I can get FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS OF MUSCLE MASS!!!

I better hit the weights

and the fridge
and the water cooler

160

Sliver,

While you may not hold any personal moral reservations with steroid use, you certainly seem to be emotionally invested in the results of this study being true for non steroid using individuals. Why? You also seem quick to attempt to insult others when they bring your beliefs into question. Personally I don’t mind if you disagree with me, but at least try to do it in an intelligent manner.

No one has said that this study doesn’t apply to “ANYONE”, several people (myself included) have already conceded that the statistics do apply to the population studied in the article. But, that is unfortunately the only part of the population that the study applies to.

Also, I don’t think anyone is “thumbing their nose” at Steve Reeves (or any of the other past bodybuilding champs that were listed in the article), Reeves had a phenomenally aesthetic bone structure, and long muscle bellies. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he is the pinnacle of human muscle growth potential.

I also noticed in the article that Reeves was quoted as giving his “ideal” of body weight. Notice that if you calculate what Reeve’s “ideal” bodyweight would be according to this ideal, he would be 210 lbs (6’1"). So, perhaps once Reeves had reach this ideal he stopped training to put on lean mass. Perhaps in fact he could have gotten a lot bigger. The problem is that no one can ever prove either way.

Note: Also, I checked out Reeve’s Wikepedia page and it lists his bodyweight at 216 lbs, not 213 as the study suggests. Seriously, if the author can’t even get his fact right about the bodybuilder’s weights, this should really call into question his statistical analysis.

Also, since Anabolic steroids were discovered in the early 1930s (the first know reference to an anabolic steroid in a bodybuilding magazine was in Strength And Health magazine in 1938) all of the men in the study cannot be ruled out as having used steroids.

Let me state that again. Since there were no sanctioned physique contests prior to this date (or at least none of the men cited had won any titles prior to this date, Grimek won his first in 1939) it is impossible to say that none of the above men could have possibly taken steroids.

So, your comment that you keep making about having 50 years of drug-free champions isn’t necessarily true. Any of the men cited in the study could have used anabolic steroids, and to the best of my knowledge, the tests for such performance enhancing drugs were nonexistent in those days (or at least extremely primitive.

Sharetrader,

Your point about the inaccuracy of skin fold tests may in fact be true, and likewise DEXA measures may be quite different than skin fold tests.

However, this calls into question the actual body fat levels of all but possibly the most recent natural bodybuilding champs. How after all do you think that they measured their body fat levels? I can tell you that it most certainly wasn’t with DEXA machines. In all probability they used skin fold tests.

Therefore, you must keep the same method of analysis if you want your statistics to be accurate. You couldn’t for instance take a sample of raw Bench press maxes throughout history and then attempt to compare them to Max Bench presses using shirts. The methods for attaining the numbers wasn’t consistent, so therefore any statistics gathered or comparisons made are therefore not valid.

So, derek’s skin fold test is actually a more relevant reading in regards to the article in question, than would be a DEXA reading.

Good training,

Sentoguy