The article makes it even harder to believe CT Fletcher is natural. lol
I’d consider the theory of maximal natural muscle mass an important asset in gauging training long-term strategy.
Perceiving it as a limitation seems ill-advised, as approaching a genetic ceiling doesn’t mean a full stop.
It seems always when certain members here talk as if something magical could happen to them tomorrow.
Maybe it’s the bodybuilding version of the american dream?
“My natural body has been chasing 17inch arms for ten years now, but maybe this program will get me 18 inches- who knows!”
I don’t believe in a nocturnal muscle-fairy who visits stubborn trainees in their sleep to push their bodies through plateaus.
As if talent would not become apparent pretty quickly, especially for guys who train hard and smart.
Most muscularly-talented people I met make fantastic initial gains in a few short months, often using pretty straightforward or even outdated methods.
Good stuff stu, intesrting stuff. As a gym owner, it’s a constant battle for me, to try to convince these 15-20yr kids not to dive in to the juice, and jeperdize they’re health. Funny enough, talk of heart, and lungs mean nothing to them, only when I sugest they may never get a hard on again, do they’re ears perk up.
My hope is the longer I can keep them natural, the more knowlage they will gain, for when, and if they do finaly use. I’m not sure if this chart, and article would help or hinder my cause. Also I know it’s impossible to determine who’s actually used, but I use a magazine spead of Mike O’Hearn to show young kids what I think (or thought before today) is the outter most limits of a natural trainer, and even on someone as big as him, arm, and leg size seems limited.
One last point, is I feel as mature lifter’s, especialy ones that use, is to try and not glorify juice. I made the choice to add some compounds at the age of 34, after 15yrs of lifting, which I’m open about with the kids, to impress the point that it’s best to wait atleast till genetic limits are hit, before considering other options. At that point your well informed, and looking for a small edge, rather than a boat load of gains. It blows my mind how previlent this stuff is with young kids, and it bother’s me that older guys seem to encourage this.
kids asking about cycles the day they join a gym, before ever lifting a weight, blows my mind. Sorry I got off topic, I enjoy intelligent discussions, that can inform the new generation of lifter’s about this, and guy’s like yourself showing what can be acomplished !
I plugged my numbers into Dr. Butt’s calculator then put more measurements into a few bodyfat estimation calculators…I have a loooong way to go!
The WeighTrainer
Maximum Drug-Free Potential Measurements Calculator
Height: 68 in Wrist: 6.75 in
Ankle: 8.5 in
The estimated maximum muscular measurements (@ ~8%-10% bodyfat) are:
Chest: 46.8 in Biceps: 17.1 in
Forearms: 13.5 in Neck: 16.9 in
Thighs: 25.6 in Calves: 16.8 in
My current measurements at what the calculators estimate is 23%-25% bodyfat. I think it’s actually a bit higher.
Neck = 17.5"
Upper arm = 16"
Forearm = 12.5"
Chest = 47"
Waist (around navel) = 38"
Waist (where my trousers ride) = 37"
Thighs (measured at the same spot as before, judging by my dangly bits) = 25"
Calves = 15"
*Hips (around the “peak” of my glutes) = 39"
*Added for bf calculator.
If the question is whether there is a natural limit (or even PED-limit) to muscle growth then this seems obvious to me. There are limits to all biological organisms. And in the case of muscle growth, PED’s push out the limits but they are still there. There is only so much meat that can be stuffed into the sausage casing after all.
If you agree that there is a limit, then the question is only where that limit is.
The current world record for the mile is 3 minutes 43.13 seconds. This record was set over 13 years ago. Does this not suggest that the limit to how fast as adult male can complete this run is somewhere around this time? Similarly, if data points to a limit range for muscle growth at a given body fat percentage, this seems like a non-event to me.
With PED’s or without, there is eventually a limit. This does not stop people from struggling to match or even surpass records - nor should it. But we should not pretend there are not barriers.
Personally, if I can reach even 90% of my unassisted potential as described in the referenced articles in this thread then I will be ecstatic. As I actually prefer this look I feel no need to dive into the world of PED’s. But for those that do use, there should not be any surprise that they won’t reach the size of an elephant.
[quote]The_Jed wrote:
The WeighTrainer
Maximum Drug-Free Potential Measurements Calculator
Height: 68 in Wrist: 6.75 in
Ankle: 8.5 in
The estimated maximum muscular measurements (@ ~8%-10% bodyfat) are:
Chest: 46.8 in Biceps: 17.1 in
Forearms: 13.5 in Neck: 16.9 in
Thighs: 25.6 in Calves: 16.8 in
[/quote]
H: 70in
W: 6in
A: 7.5in
max:
chest:44.9
arms:16.5
thigh:24.5
forearms:13
calves:16.1
neck:16.2
…but i’m almost there and still don’t look like i lift, :(, lol.
[quote]flch95 wrote:
[quote]The_Jed wrote:
The WeighTrainer
Maximum Drug-Free Potential Measurements Calculator
Height: 68 in Wrist: 6.75 in
Ankle: 8.5 in
The estimated maximum muscular measurements (@ ~8%-10% bodyfat) are:
Chest: 46.8 in Biceps: 17.1 in
Forearms: 13.5 in Neck: 16.9 in
Thighs: 25.6 in Calves: 16.8 in
[/quote]
H: 70in
W: 6in
A: 7.5in
max:
chest:44.9
arms:16.5
thigh:24.5
forearms:13
calves:16.1
neck:16.2
…but i’m almost there and still don’t look like i lift, :(, lol.[/quote]
The measurements are based on 8-10% BF.
I dont see how you are almost at those measurements (at a decent level of leanness) and not look like you lift?
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]flch95 wrote:
[quote]The_Jed wrote:
The WeighTrainer
Maximum Drug-Free Potential Measurements Calculator
Height: 68 in Wrist: 6.75 in
Ankle: 8.5 in
The estimated maximum muscular measurements (@ ~8%-10% bodyfat) are:
Chest: 46.8 in Biceps: 17.1 in
Forearms: 13.5 in Neck: 16.9 in
Thighs: 25.6 in Calves: 16.8 in
[/quote]
H: 70in
W: 6in
A: 7.5in
max:
chest:44.9
arms:16.5
thigh:24.5
forearms:13
calves:16.1
neck:16.2
…but i’m almost there and still don’t look like i lift, :(, lol.[/quote]
The measurements are based on 8-10% BF.
I dont see how you are almost at those measurements (at a decent level of leanness) and not look like you lift?[/quote]
X2 You may not look like you lift in a ski jacket but with no shirt on, I’m sure no one would think you’re a non-lifter.
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]flch95 wrote:
[quote]The_Jed wrote:
The WeighTrainer
Maximum Drug-Free Potential Measurements Calculator
Height: 68 in Wrist: 6.75 in
Ankle: 8.5 in
The estimated maximum muscular measurements (@ ~8%-10% bodyfat) are:
Chest: 46.8 in Biceps: 17.1 in
Forearms: 13.5 in Neck: 16.9 in
Thighs: 25.6 in Calves: 16.8 in
[/quote]
H: 70in
W: 6in
A: 7.5in
max:
chest:44.9
arms:16.5
thigh:24.5
forearms:13
calves:16.1
neck:16.2
…but i’m almost there and still don’t look like i lift, :(, lol.[/quote]
The measurements are based on 8-10% BF.
I dont see how you are almost at those measurements (at a decent level of leanness) and not look like you lift?[/quote]
X2 You may not look like you lift in a ski jacket but with no shirt on, I’m sure no one would think you’re a non-lifter.[/quote]
Exactly.
I plugged my own numbers into the calculator and didn’t match a single one of my projected numbers and I’m not close to 8-10%
FML lol
Simple solutions that Ive gleaned from the progress pics of most the posters on here as well as as my current gym :
-
Walk around shirtless and flexing hard as fuck all the time in real life. People will then definitely know you lift.
-
Always stand next to shorter people in real life to make yourself look more imposing.
-
For Facebook selfies, ALWAYS crop the head out to make your arms and delts and pecs look bigger, preferably after a workout pump for maximum vascularity OR holding a weight AND under an overhead light in a closed room. Remember to move one or both arms (insert bodypart) closer to mirror/camera to make it look bigger.
-
Again for FB selfies, if you’re lanky, snap your pic from above to make your upper body stand out more and then crop your lower body out under the waist. If your camera is positioned below your head then flare lats out and move head backward.
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]flch95 wrote:
[quote]The_Jed wrote:
The WeighTrainer
Maximum Drug-Free Potential Measurements Calculator
Height: 68 in Wrist: 6.75 in
Ankle: 8.5 in
The estimated maximum muscular measurements (@ ~8%-10% bodyfat) are:
Chest: 46.8 in Biceps: 17.1 in
Forearms: 13.5 in Neck: 16.9 in
Thighs: 25.6 in Calves: 16.8 in
[/quote]
H: 70in
W: 6in
A: 7.5in
max:
chest:44.9
arms:16.5
thigh:24.5
forearms:13
calves:16.1
neck:16.2
…but i’m almost there and still don’t look like i lift, :(, lol.[/quote]
The measurements are based on 8-10% BF.
I dont see how you are almost at those measurements (at a decent level of leanness) and not look like you lift?[/quote]
X2 You may not look like you lift in a ski jacket but with no shirt on, I’m sure no one would think you’re a non-lifter.[/quote]
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]flch95 wrote:
[quote]The_Jed wrote:
The WeighTrainer
Maximum Drug-Free Potential Measurements Calculator
Height: 68 in Wrist: 6.75 in
Ankle: 8.5 in
The estimated maximum muscular measurements (@ ~8%-10% bodyfat) are:
Chest: 46.8 in Biceps: 17.1 in
Forearms: 13.5 in Neck: 16.9 in
Thighs: 25.6 in Calves: 16.8 in
[/quote]
H: 70in
W: 6in
A: 7.5in
max:
chest:44.9
arms:16.5
thigh:24.5
forearms:13
calves:16.1
neck:16.2
…but i’m almost there and still don’t look like i lift, :(, lol.[/quote]
The measurements are based on 8-10% BF.
I dont see how you are almost at those measurements (at a decent level of leanness) and not look like you lift?[/quote]
Well I guess it depends. I’m 3 inches off on the chest, and an inch on everything else. Is that close enough? I get told that I look “fit”.
[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
3. For Facebook selfies, ALWAYS crop the head out to make your arms and delts and pecs look bigger, preferably after a workout pump for maximum vascularity OR holding a weight AND under an overhead light in a closed room. Remember to move one or both arms (insert bodypart) closer to mirror/camera to make it look bigger.[/quote]
lol damnit
Very helpful Stu, thank you. It was a great read to help set some goals.
[quote]GJ_Jim wrote:
Very helpful Stu, thank you. It was a great read to help set some goals.[/quote]
Yeah, I thought it would be cool to read, and most people are never going to come close to those proposed limits anyway. Again, while I don’t feel anyone should put 100% faith in anything really (too many unique issues when you’re talking about genetic variation), you can’t ignore the lack of evidence SO FAR that exceeds what so many people who study this subject have witnessed.
It is a very controversial subject though, because people in a pursuit/sport that is tied directly to how one looks sometimes can get caught up in their results (looks) defining who they are. This is why I think we all have to deal with people almost expecting us to be narcissistic to some degree. It’s human nature to a point.
There were some good comments after the article on the site where I first saw it, and in addressing how some people react to the very notion of proposed limits, Butts wrote that some people
“get livid when someone observes that over the past 100 years bodybuilders only get so big without drugs and that’s that. “Science” is only appealing for many when it seems to support what they want the believe.”
S
Maybe off topic. I agree with these limits. If a person can still gain after getting close to these limits I believe it would be unnoticeable at best.
My off topic question is: if the body has limits on muscle building, why does it not have limits on fat accumulation? I understand that body fat is important to some human body functions. Why doesn’t the body limit how much fat a person can gain rather than muscle?
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]GJ_Jim wrote:
Very helpful Stu, thank you. It was a great read to help set some goals.[/quote]
Yeah, I thought it would be cool to read, and most people are never going to come close to those proposed limits anyway. Again, while I don’t feel anyone should put 100% faith in anything really (too many unique issues when you’re talking about genetic variation), you can’t ignore the lack of evidence SO FAR that exceeds what so many people who study this subject have witnessed.
It is a very controversial subject though, because people in a pursuit/sport that is tied directly to how one looks sometimes can get caught up in their results (looks) defining who they are. This is why I think we all have to deal with people almost expecting us to be narcissistic to some degree. It’s human nature to a point.
There were some good comments after the article on the site where I first saw it, and in addressing how some people react to the very notion of proposed limits, Butts wrote that some people
“get livid when someone observes that over the past 100 years bodybuilders only get so big without drugs and that’s that. “Science” is only appealing for many when it seems to support what they want the believe.”
S[/quote]
In my opinion people that freak out about these ‘rules’ do so because they are scared by the truth. Some of them spent most of their adult life to get bigger because they were small, and being small scared them. Nothing wrong with wanting to get bigger and stronger. I want to. But come on man, if it were true that these rules were wrong there wouldn’t be all of the evidence supporting the rule. The majority of the evidence would be disproving the rule.
It’s like this. Here is my theory on the limits of muscle a person can put on naturally. Look at all of these examples to support my theory.
Compared to: That rule is bullshit, look at me I am way past that rule. Look at me! Everyone looks at that person and are like: yeah man you have a good amount of muscle but a lot of body fat as well. I think if you dropped body fat to level that showed pure muscle mass you would not be above that rule.
Also, thanks Stu for putting all of that information in one post. Very cool of you. And anyone who reaches those limits would have built a very impressive physique and should be very happy with what they have accomplished.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Why doesn’t the body limit how much fat a person can gain rather than muscle?
[/quote]
Perhaps because it take more work for the body to acquire and maintain muscle than fat? The body’s goal is to do as little work as possible to survive and reproduce…that’s it. WE require that it has lots of large muscles because we think it looks good. This has nothing to do with nature.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Why doesn’t the body limit how much fat a person can gain rather than muscle?
[/quote]
Never thought about it like that… But it doesnt seem fair does it? Gain ~30 muscle max… verus you can get infinitely fat basically. Lol, pretty shitty scenario for us.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Why doesn’t the body limit how much fat a person can gain rather than muscle?
[/quote]
Never thought about it like that… But it doesnt seem fair does it? Gain ~30 muscle max… verus you can get infinitely fat basically. Lol, pretty shitty scenario for us.[/quote]
Yeah, I’m sure if someone proposed a limit on possible body fat gain, we’d have plenty of people chiming in on how they’ve blown past such nonsense -lol.
S