Maximum Muscular Bodyweight

Training Bodybuilding
161

Post your picture Clark Kent

Or better yet actual lose some of that fat and get lean and lets see how close you get to the formula. My guess is you would prove the articles point.

[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 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 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.
[/quote]

162

Yeah we saw the photo . Was that the burger and fries diet or the all you can eat chinese buffet. Maybe just too much fish oil.

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”.

163

[quote]derek wrote:

Now do you understand (again)?.[/quote]

Yes, and I understood before. My point is that I don’t get why it is so important to you to argue with me, seeing you don’t respect my opinions anyway.

164

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

…

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 [/quote]

Good point. I can accept that. Thanks for a useful contribution.

165

[quote]Magarhe wrote:

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.
[/quote]Says who?[quote]
Man, you don’t think lean bodymass is just the proteins in the muscles and not the fluids/water? [/quote]Of course not. Water is lean mass whether it is in your fat cells, muscle cells, brain, liver, or wherever. Water is NOT fat.[quote]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
[/quote]

166

Can someone tell me why it is so important to cut down to “contest” shape when it CLEARLY says that input the percentage bodyfat. Just put in a higher bodyfat. It’s not rocket science.

167

[quote]wressler125 wrote:
Can someone tell me why it is so important to cut down to “contest” shape when it CLEARLY says that input the percentage bodyfat. Just put in a higher bodyfat. It’s not rocket science. [/quote]

Because that is the only way they believe they have an argument when so many people keep saying that have already come close to or passed up some of these measurements. Sentoguy’s post sums up just about everything that needs to be said on the issue.

I also find it hilarious that most of these insults and call outs are coming from guys who have NEVER shown what they look like on these forums…and never will.

Instead of any kind of debate, this is simply a bunch of guys who are far removed from reaching any type of physique that would impress anyone arguing with a bunch of guys with intentions of achieving even more than they already have.

We already know most of these arguments would never happen if they were face to face.

Once again, Sentoguy, you did a good job of bringing it all together.

168

Damn this article is a huge wake up call, I guess my goal of gettings quads as wide (total) in circumfrence as I am tall (66") is never going to happen.
I am going to stop eating and start playing world of warcraft, becuase I know hard work and time will get me to a level 200 grand wizard! I think I will quit my job to.

This thread is retarded

169

[quote]Professor X wrote:
wressler125 wrote:
Can someone tell me why it is so important to cut down to “contest” shape when it CLEARLY says that input the percentage bodyfat. Just put in a higher bodyfat. It’s not rocket science.

Because that is the only way they believe they have an argument when so many people keep saying that have already come close to or passed up some of these measurements. Sentoguy’s post sums up just about everything that needs to be said on the issue.

I also find it hilarious that most of these insults and call outs are coming from guys who have NEVER shown what they look like on these forums…and never will. [/quote]

Ok, that was what I thought, just wanted to make sure.

170

Reeves officially weighed 213 when he won the Mr. America contest in 1947. He officially weighed 214 when he won the Mr. Universe contest in 1950.

Both Dianabol and Nilevar, the first two synthetic anabolic steroids introduced in the west, were developed in 1956. Testosterone was the only “available” “steroid” before that and was approved by the FDA for prescription to cancer patients in 1950 – before that it was an “experimental drug”.

The Soviet weightlifting team began using testosterone for sports enhancement in 1953. John Ziegler (American weightlifting team physician and co-developer of Dianabol along with CIBA) learned of this in October 1954 at the world weightlifting championships in Vienna. He started experimenting with testosterone on non-world caliber athletes shortly thereafter. Several analyses of weightlifting performances have been done over the past 50 years serving to confirm this.

I did not use any non-drug-tested bodybuilders past 1954 in the formulation of my equations for these very reasons.

171

Casey. Exactly how many people did you use in your study and what are the scientific standards the study has to meet to be statistically relevant?

172

Actually, the original version of those formulae were developed in 2001 based on E.M. Kouri et al.'s development of the fat-free mass index. At around that same time I was corresponding with a friend of Reg Park’s who wrote for Iron Man in the 1950s. I got Park’s stats from him (and I trust him) and tried to verify them versus what Kouri et al. concluded in their works.

The end result was a set of non-linear equations based on the major physique stars of the late 1940’s and 1950’s (about 20) and Kouri and Pope’s work which was based on 157 athletes in the mid-1990s to 2000. In addition, I used U.S. Army statistics to determine bone circumference and height/weight trends. I also referred to David P. Willoughby’s work with anthropometrics in the 1940 to 1960s (I have an extensive collection of pre-1965 bodybuilding texts and magazines).

The original calculator based on the early version of these equations can be found on Bryan Haycock’s Hypertrophy Specific Training site - notice how I’m the last reference but the calculator is based entirely on my work ;): http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/maximum-size-calculator.html

Since then I’ve incorporated data from elite-level drug-tested bodybuilders from 2003-2006 and linearized the equations to make them more “user-friendly”, but the equations are developed to the point now where additional data doesn’t change the equations much. Most high-level athletes fall very close to what the equations predict, so updates are rarely necessary and are relatively minor.

I have noticed, however, that the tendency is for modern bodybuilders to have larger arms, but smaller chest circumferences than the “old-timers”. Also, some African-descent bodybuilders appear to have greater potential for building mass in the upper body. Ideally, these things would be accounted for, though the deferences are generally within 3% of the predictions.

As for statistical relevance, I’ve never really bothered to work out the correlation coefficients for the various parameters simply because the relations are so obvious (to within a few percent error).

As to the significance of the paper, I don’t really know. I do believe it’s the first of it’s kind since Willoughby’s work with bodybuilders many years ago. I hope it can be used as a tool for drug-free people to gain some perspective on what constitutes a maximally developed, impressive and healthy physique. The paper isn’t a treatise on limitations, it’s simply about perspective and the realities of drug-free bodybuilding. It really represents more of an “ideal” to be aspired to for natural bodybuilders than anything else. If people surpass the predictions then fine, but the reality is that very few people will ever be in the shape described by those equations.

173

Thanks X.

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Reeves officially weighed 213 when he won the Mr. America contest in 1947. He officially weighed 214 when he won the Mr. Universe contest in 1950.
[/quote]

Well, if those were the numbers that you were using based on the data that you had, then I can accept that and I apologize for assuming that you had not done your homework.

[quote]
Both Dianabol and Nilevar, the first two synthetic anabolic steroids introduced in the west, were developed in 1956. Testosterone was the only “available” “steroid” before that and was approved by the FDA for prescription to cancer patients in 1950 – before that it was an “experimental drug”.

The Soviet weightlifting team began using testosterone for sports enhancement in 1953. John Ziegler (American weightlifting team physician and co-developer of Dianabol along with CIBA) learned of this in October 1954 at the world weightlifting championships in Vienna. He started experimenting with testosterone on non-world caliber athletes shortly thereafter. Several analyses of weightlifting performances have been done over the past 50 years serving to confirm this.

I did not use any non-drug-tested bodybuilders past 1954 in the formulation of my equations for these very reasons.[/quote]

Okay, once again I can respect that, and will therefore concede that the champions who built their bodies pre 1954 are unequivocally “natural”. However, just because the later athletes never tested positive for steroid use doesn’t necessarily mean they never used it.

Also, you can’t say that all of the current pro bodybuilding crop has unquestioningly used steroids. Like I said before, unless the athlete has openly admitting to using or tested positive, then there is a possibility that they are in fact natural.

For instance, I entered in Dexter Jackson’s stats (height and contest weight, had to guess on wrist and ankle circumference) and he would have to have a huge frame to be at that contest weight according to the calculator. However, just looking a pictures of him, it’s clear that this is not the case. And to the best of my knowledge the blade has never admitted to using or tested positive for steroids.

Listen, Casey, like I said before, this study is interesting from a purely intellectual standpoint. However, it’s too small of a cross section of the population, and since it’s impossible to prove that the individuals cited in this article are in fact the pinnacle of potential natural human muscular development, it is also impossible to extract from such a study an accurate method of gauging maximal muscular development potential.

Now, had you included individuals from other sports, and a larger cross section of the population as well, and the formula still continued to hold true, then I think the conclusions would be more valid. Of course, it’s literally impossible to actually take into account every single individual on the planet, and therefore, not really possible to be totally accurate. But, this would at least be a step in the right direction.

Trying to suggest that his only applies to natural bodybuilders and not to athletes who play other sports, then at the same time trying to suggest that it can accurately predict the potential results of a different population outside of natural bodybuilders (the average person reading the article) is what I, and several others are objecting to.

Good training,

Sentoguy

174

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Sentoguy [/quote]

Great post sentoguy.

As for test in the old days … you also possibly cannot completely rule out glandulars and other weird things they used to eat. Don’t know how effective those things are though, chowing down on testes.

sharetrader - I think you will find the fluid in fat counts as fat when it is lost. “Of course not. Water is lean mass whether it is in your fat cells, muscle cells, brain, liver, or wherever. Water is NOT fat.” NO IT ISN’T.

Water as part of muscle cells is counted as muscle mass. Water as part of organs is organ mass. Water as part of fat cells is counted as fat mass. Blood vessels and everything else inside the fatty areas is counted as fat mass because everything adding volume in that area is measured by skinfold tests and visual judging.

I still say this study is gold for convincing the nitwits men and the women that they won’t get “too big” from lifting weights. Although maybe they’ll instead look at the measures, already exceed them, and never train thinking they have nowhere to go.

175

At least he has the balls to put his photos up in the first place.

[quote]Eric22 wrote:
Yeah we saw the photo . Was that the burger and fries diet or the all you can eat chinese buffet. Maybe just too much fish oil.

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”.

[/quote]

176

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Once again, Sentoguy, you did a good job of bringing it all together.[/quote]

Yea, except that the main point - the possible use of steroids in the sample - was wrong, apparently (like yourself, I dont know for sure, and just go by what I read on the internet. Though I go by what someone has published and is willing to discuss rather than by a random opinion that simply happens to reflect my own).

To be sure the original study likely has weaknesses, as Sentoguy has suggested concerning the accuracy of fat measurements in the 50s. But again, like yourself, I dont have the data or information as to how exactly that would factor in. So for me it must remain an “item of interest” - a suspect. For yourself, it’s irrefutable and damaging “proof”.

177

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Thanks X.

Casey Butt wrote:
Reeves officially weighed 213 when he won the Mr. America contest in 1947. He officially weighed 214 when he won the Mr. Universe contest in 1950.

Well, if those were the numbers that you were using based on the data that you had, then I can accept that and I apologize for assuming that you had not done your homework.

Both Dianabol and Nilevar, the first two synthetic anabolic steroids introduced in the west, were developed in 1956. Testosterone was the only “available” “steroid” before that and was approved by the FDA for prescription to cancer patients in 1950 – before that it was an “experimental drug”.

The Soviet weightlifting team began using testosterone for sports enhancement in 1953. John Ziegler (American weightlifting team physician and co-developer of Dianabol along with CIBA) learned of this in October 1954 at the world weightlifting championships in Vienna. He started experimenting with testosterone on non-world caliber athletes shortly thereafter. Several analyses of weightlifting performances have been done over the past 50 years serving to confirm this.

I did not use any non-drug-tested bodybuilders past 1954 in the formulation of my equations for these very reasons.

Okay, once again I can respect that, and will therefore concede that the champions who built their bodies pre 1954 are unequivocally “natural”. However, just because the later athletes never tested positive for steroid use doesn’t necessarily mean they never used it.

Also, you can’t say that all of the current pro bodybuilding crop has unquestioningly used steroids. Like I said before, unless the athlete has openly admitting to using or tested positive, then there is a possibility that they are in fact natural.

For instance, I entered in Dexter Jackson’s stats (height and contest weight, had to guess on wrist and ankle circumference) and he would have to have a huge frame to be at that contest weight according to the calculator. However, just looking a pictures of him, it’s clear that this is not the case. And to the best of my knowledge the blade has never admitted to using or tested positive for steroids.

Listen, Casey, like I said before, this study is interesting from a purely intellectual standpoint. However, it’s too small of a cross section of the population, and since it’s impossible to prove that the individuals cited in this article are in fact the pinnacle of potential natural human muscular development, it is also impossible to extract from such a study an accurate method of gauging maximal muscular development potential.

Now, had you included individuals from other sports, and a larger cross section of the population as well, and the formula still continued to hold true, then I think the conclusions would be more valid. Of course, it’s literally impossible to actually take into account every single individual on the planet, and therefore, not really possible to be totally accurate. But, this would at least be a step in the right direction.

Trying to suggest that his only applies to natural bodybuilders and not to athletes who play other sports, then at the same time trying to suggest that it can accurately predict the potential results of a different population outside of natural bodybuilders (the average person reading the article) is what I, and several others are objecting to.

Good training,

Sentoguy[/quote]

If I may, Sentoguy, you seem intent on underlining what the study did not represent or include. Let me ask you this: what do you think the survey sample does represent, specifically?

For myself, to your hypothesis that a wider sample would make or break the findings of the original, one can only add: obviously (right?) and maybe. However, what is most interesting statistically is the obivous nature of the relationship. Statistics dont always behave as such ie have apparent relations, even though they might. But for stats to have an obvious relation is highly significant, and may reflect a shortage of essential variables or flaw in methodology, or suggest something profound, approaching a fact.

178

This article was the culmination of a several-year study of drug-free elite bodybuilders – a group who specialize and train for the acquisition of muscle mass. Although, statistical outliers are addressed in the article.

Football players, Rugby players, ballerinas, etc all attain physiques conducive to success in their respective sports. It is not logical to apply the information in this article to groups other than drug-free bodybuilders, nor was it the intent of the article to be interpreted that way.

That said, it is very unlikely, with the exception of the chest, neck and bodyweight (due to larger waist and hips), that any of these groups attain lean physique measurements in excess of what the equations predict.

179

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
“Professor X”, I am surprised that someone who has achieved a Ph.D. (if that is, in fact, true) fails to understand the implications of that article and/or the material presented in it.

I came here to address questions about the validity of the article, not to see who the alpha male is on this discussion board or win an ego battle with you. (Why else would you “flash” your “credentials”? …and by the way, I also have a Ph.D.). I haven’t said anything to provoke you, I’ve merely defended my article and the premise upon which it was based.

[/quote]

CB,

The Prof loves to argue just for the hell of it.

180

[quote]Scotacus wrote:

If I may, Sentoguy, you seem intent on underlining what the study did not represent or include. Let me ask you this: what do you think the survey sample does represent, specifically?
[/quote]

Honestly, I believe that a lot of the Golden era guys were going after a specific look. An “ideal”. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that their physique measurements are similar in proportion to their frames. Notice that they all had fairly low development in their lower bodies as opposed to bodybuilders of today.

Doesn’t it seem interesting to you that none of these champs had really outstanding leg development, while just about every pro now-a-days has great leg development? And before you attribute this to steroid use, take a look at Arnold and the other top bodybuilders in the 70’s.

Now, Arnold has publicly stated that he used steroids, yet his legs were nowhere near as developed as just about any of today’s pros. Yet, he is held by many to be one of the greatest bodybuilders (if not the greatest) of all time.

Once again, how do you attribute these differences?

Could it be that the training methods and nutrition/supplement methods of today are simply superior to those in the 70’s/Golden era? Possibly.

Could it be that all of today’s pros have superior genetics for leg development? Not likely, but possibly.

Or, could it be that the champs of the 70’s/Golden era were not trying to develop their legs to the proportions of the current pros because the aesthetic “ideal” in those days was simply different? That would be my guess as the most likely reason.

As far as the modern day “natural” champs, it may be that these individuals either only have the genetic ability to attain the size of the Golden era guys, they too are attempting to mimic the look of the Golden era guys, or perhaps there is some correlation and the stats in this study aren’t that far off.

Unfortunately, it’s really difficult to say unless we take a look at a larger cross section of the population, and include in it athletes from other sports who may have superior genetic abilities for building lean mass.

[quote]
For myself, to your hypothesis that a wider sample would make or break the findings of the original, one can only add: obviously (right?) and maybe. However, what is most interesting statistically is the obivous nature of the relationship. Statistics dont always behave as such ie have apparent relations, even though they might. But for stats to have an obvious relation is highly significant, and may reflect a shortage of essential variables or flaw in methodology, or suggest something profound, approaching a fact.[/quote]

I agree. The stats are interesting, and I believe that if further studied and individuals from other sports/walks of life were taken into account then they might be used as a gauge of how genetically predisposed one was to gaining muscle.

However, once again it’s going to be extremely difficult to know whether the people who you are studying are in fact the genetic elite as far as muscular potential.

Once again, my objection is that Casey seems to be hell bent on refusing to take into account the muscular development of athletes in other sports who seem don’t seem to fit the statistics of the study.

Every time someone cites a counter example, either from personal experience or an individual in another sport, Casey claims that they don’t apply because they’re not a bodybuilder. Casey went so far as to saying in his most recent post:

"Although, statistical outliers are addressed in the article.

Football players, Rugby players, ballerinas, etc all attain physiques conducive to success in their respective sports. It is not logical to apply the information in this article to groups other than drug-free bodybuilders, nor was it the intent of the article to be interpreted that way."

So, the first comment I take to basically mean that there are individuals whom these stats don’t apply. And the second comment is basically stating that the study only applies to drug free bodybuilders.

But, if this study only applies to drug free bodybuilders, and that is all Casey is/was trying to show in the study, then why put a calculator function in the article so that individuals who may not be drug free bodybuilders could find out their maximal muscular potential?

That’s really what makes me question the validity of the stats. If they only apply to drug free bodybuilders, then they don’t necessarily apply to any other group of individuals and therefore can’t be used as a method of predicting maximal muscular development in the general public.

Therefore, they are interesting, but not necessarily as valid a method as the article would have you believe.

Good training,

Sentoguy