[quote]eaboadar wrote:
What about CT? He’s natural and he’s got to be way over 25.
I think the study they quote looses a lot of validity in view of the ever improving training and nutrition/supplementation strategies,[/quote]
…CT’s not natural. He’s said this. He admitted to steroid use at 2 points in his life.
[quote]eaboadar wrote:
I think the study they quote looses a lot of validity in view of the ever improving training and nutrition/supplementation strategies,[/quote]
It’s all the same thing just re packaged/branded/advertised.
[quote]eaboadar wrote:
What about CT? He’s natural and he’s got to be way over 25.
I think the study they quote looses a lot of validity in view of the ever improving training and nutrition/supplementation strategies,[/quote]
CT wrote about doing pretty heavy cycles in the past.
Edit:in too lateski
How anyone can look at Jason Khalipa, the guy in the OP photo, and think hes natural is mind boggling. I always held out hope for Rich Froning, since he sort of came out of no where and won second place because he fell off a rope climb in his first games appearance.
Look up how 2nd place finisher Khalipa and his training partner, 5th place finisher Garret Fisher, trained for this past games. They hired some well known triathlete to help their endurance and ran a shit ton. I doubt anyone could keep up the mass they have, running miles upon miles, while still lifting heavy every day, not to mention burn out at some point.
[quote]gregron wrote:
…[/quote]
Just pointing out that all these guys are clustered around the ‘3lbs per inch of height-lean’ standard.
[quote]joemomma wrote:
How anyone can look at Jason Khalipa, the guy in the OP photo, and think hes natural is mind boggling. I always held out hope for Rich Froning, since he sort of came out of no where and won second place because he fell off a rope climb in his first games appearance.
Look up how 2nd place finisher Khalipa and his training partner, 5th place finisher Garret Fisher, trained for this past games. They hired some well known triathlete to help their endurance and ran a shit ton. I doubt anyone could keep up the mass they have, running miles upon miles, while still lifting heavy every day, not to mention burn out at some point.
[/quote]
Because he does Crossfit.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
…[/quote]
Just pointing out that all these guys are clustered around the ‘3lbs per inch of height-lean’ standard.
[/quote]
That’s true, I didn’t even calculate that.
I always liked that formula you advocated.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
…[/quote]
Just pointing out that all these guys are clustered around the ‘3lbs per inch of height-lean’ standard.
[/quote]
That’s true, I didn’t even calculate that.
I always liked that formula you advocated.[/quote]
As do I.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[/quote]
26.7
26.4 adjusted
@ 50 years old[/quote]
Do you have a training log, Q&A thread, or a thread describing your history and training? I’d like to read through if you have one; I looked at your recent posts, but you’re pretty active on the forum and a thread like that didn’t jump out at me.
[quote]grappling_hook wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[/quote]
26.7
26.4 adjusted
@ 50 years old[/quote]
Do you have a training log, Q&A thread, or a thread describing your history and training? I’d like to read through if you have one; I looked at your recent posts, but you’re pretty active on the forum and a thread like that didn’t jump out at me.[/quote]
Great, thanks.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It should also be noted that achieving a FFMI over 25 natural would be very possible…being a world class athlete at +25 much, much more difficult.[/quote]
Considering they arrived at the number 25 based on a wide variety of natty/assisted lifters and cross referenced it with a large number of Mr Universe (or was it another comp?) winners “very possible” isn’t exactly how I would phrase it haha[/quote]
Yea, you are probably right…within the realm of possibility would be better wording.
[/quote]
Agreed.
It’s not physically impossible but if the number well exceeds 25 I would bet money on PED’s being involved.[/quote]
I agree, especially if they are dominating metcon intensive crossfit games wods at that level of muscularity and strength.
[/quote]
It seems some of this must depend on bodyfat levels. In other words, a pure strength athlete with a higher bodyfat percentage may be able to maintain a higher FFMI naturally given the higher bodyfat percentage. The data mentioned Mr. Universe competitors, who were obviously very lean. Since the cross fit guys are also very lean, it seems an apples to apples comparison. But, I’m not sure we’d all find it implausible for a powerlifter to, for instance, reach 245 pounds at 25% bodyfat and 5’10" in height without the use of drugs. That gives an FFMI of 26.5, above the cutoff for PED use.
I’m not sure I buy this piece just yet. It suggests that supplementation can only take you so far, and you’ll eventually plateau. I just don’t believe that’s correct with everything dialed in w/ Plazma, MAG-10, Indigo, MicroPA, etc etc…
Waiting for Chris’s story on the same subject of Crossfit/roids…
[quote]burt128 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It should also be noted that achieving a FFMI over 25 natural would be very possible…being a world class athlete at +25 much, much more difficult.[/quote]
Considering they arrived at the number 25 based on a wide variety of natty/assisted lifters and cross referenced it with a large number of Mr Universe (or was it another comp?) winners “very possible” isn’t exactly how I would phrase it haha[/quote]
Yea, you are probably right…within the realm of possibility would be better wording.
[/quote]
Agreed.
It’s not physically impossible but if the number well exceeds 25 I would bet money on PED’s being involved.[/quote]
I agree, especially if they are dominating metcon intensive crossfit games wods at that level of muscularity and strength.
[/quote]
It seems some of this must depend on bodyfat levels. In other words, a pure strength athlete with a higher bodyfat percentage may be able to maintain a higher FFMI naturally given the higher bodyfat percentage. The data mentioned Mr. Universe competitors, who were obviously very lean. Since the cross fit guys are also very lean, it seems an apples to apples comparison. But, I’m not sure we’d all find it implausible for a powerlifter to, for instance, reach 245 pounds at 25% bodyfat and 5’10" in height without the use of drugs. That gives an FFMI of 26.5, above the cutoff for PED use.
[/quote]
I have a ffmi of 28.4 so its possible to be over 25 naturally but thats at a much higher bodyfat than khalipa and the other guys.
[quote]tzoley wrote:
I’m not sure I buy this piece just yet. It suggests that supplementation can only take you so far, and you’ll eventually plateau. I just don’t believe that’s correct with everything dialed in w/ Plazma, MAG-10, Indigo, MicroPA, etc etc…
Waiting for Chris’s story on the same subject of Crossfit/roids…[/quote]
Do you really think that stuff actually does anything major lol
[quote]PJS2010 wrote:
[quote]tzoley wrote:
I’m not sure I buy this piece just yet. It suggests that supplementation can only take you so far, and you’ll eventually plateau. I just don’t believe that’s correct with everything dialed in w/ Plazma, MAG-10, Indigo, MicroPA, etc etc…
Waiting for Chris’s story on the same subject of Crossfit/roids…[/quote]
Do you really think that stuff actually does anything major lol[/quote]
They aren’t anabolics, but they definitely make a difference.
[quote]tzoley wrote:
I’m not sure I buy this piece just yet. It suggests that supplementation can only take you so far, and you’ll eventually plateau. I just don’t believe that’s correct with everything dialed in w/ Plazma, MAG-10, Indigo, MicroPA, [/quote]
Wait…
you don’t think natural trainees will at some point hit their genetic limit inevitably…
because of intra-WO shakes?
the test definitely seems to lose its accuracy above 9 percent.
did a 3 site caliper test for a 12.6%, at 210lbs …result now= 25.8.
did a test of a past BF and weight log - 204.5 at 11% = 25.5
and Im still a rookie, less then 2 years lifting and havent spent much time in the caloric surplus due to starting at 300lbs.
[quote]Kursplode wrote:
the test definitely seems to lose its accuracy above 9 percent.
did a 3 site caliper test for a 12.6%, at 210lbs …result now= 25.8.
did a test of a past BF and weight log - 204.5 at 11% = 25.5
and Im still a rookie, less then 2 years lifting and havent spent much time in the caloric surplus due to starting at 300lbs.[/quote]
Chances are your skin caliper test is way off.
definitely not “way off”