Isn’t this calculation based on if you lift without anabolic hormones (naturally)?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
proveyourclaims wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
according to a max bench calculator using 275, I should only bench 360. I however have benched 360 for 3 reps. but I shouldn’t progress any more, because the calculator says I can’t.
You can’t be this dumb. please see the 2009 members suck thread. too many trolls.
Is it for calculating Maximum attainable strength in an lift, or is it for determining 1RM based on other reps and poundages? Does it say you’ll never be able to bench more than 360 for one, or is that calculator for comparisons, and says nothing about what strength max you can ultimately attain? if it’s a typical 1RM calculator, it has nothing to do with Max Strength potential.
I’m focused on a max lean mass calculator here.
No… it is a current 1RM calculator. Meaning it says I shouldn’t be able to do more than X amount of weight (currently), even though I can. should I wait to get my 10RM up before I attempt any more weight on a 1RM?[/quote]
It means you should be able to do at least that much for 1RM, not that you aren’t able to do more. IRM calculators deal with the MININMUM you should be capable of, not the maximum. But, we’re discussing MAX here, specifically mass maximums.
[quote]Ramzy18 wrote:
Isn’t this calculation based on if you lift without anabolic hormones (naturally)?[/quote]
Correct – that lean mass potential calculator is only for natural, not for anyone that has used or is using steroids or growth enhancers.
After running my numbers through your calculator I’m now thoroughly convinced that it’s great at predicting where you’ll be once your beginner gains stop after a year or two of serious training.
Good work. Might want to rename it to “when-do-my-beginner-gains-stop-and-I-have-to-start-training-seriously-calculator”, though.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
proveyourclaims wrote:
Professor X wrote:
proveyourclaims wrote:
LOL
I suggest you do the same with IQ and social status. We don’t want anyone believing they can accomplish any more than what a piece of paper says they can, huh?
Even IQ and social strata have limits.
How is this a response to my statement? No one with an IQ much less than 130 should try to be a doctor since I once read that is about average for those in that profession or those with an health occ. education past grad school, right?
The average engineer has an IQ of about 120-125 so no one with an IQ of 110 should expect to be one, right?
Why not apply this logic to all activities?
[/quote]
Qualifications for professions such as doctors and engineers involve more variables than IQ…but, granting your argument…A person with an IQ of 80 may single-mindedly strive, unwaveringly believe, wholeheartedly persevere toward becoming a doctor his entire life – but his genetic limits will prohibit that happening.
[quote]proveyourclaims wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
proveyourclaims wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
according to a max bench calculator using 275, I should only bench 360. I however have benched 360 for 3 reps. but I shouldn’t progress any more, because the calculator says I can’t.
You can’t be this dumb. please see the 2009 members suck thread. too many trolls.
Is it for calculating Maximum attainable strength in an lift, or is it for determining 1RM based on other reps and poundages? Does it say you’ll never be able to bench more than 360 for one, or is that calculator for comparisons, and says nothing about what strength max you can ultimately attain? if it’s a typical 1RM calculator, it has nothing to do with Max Strength potential.
I’m focused on a max lean mass calculator here.
No… it is a current 1RM calculator. Meaning it says I shouldn’t be able to do more than X amount of weight (currently), even though I can. should I wait to get my 10RM up before I attempt any more weight on a 1RM?
It means you should be able to do at least that much for 1RM, not that you aren’t able to do more. IRM calculators deal with the MININMUM you should be capable of, not the maximum. But, we’re discussing MAX here, specifically mass maximums.[/quote]
So a 1 rep MAX calculation isn’t about the maximum amount you can lift for 1 rep… really? If you were really this dumb you wouldn’t be able to type.
[quote]proveyourclaims wrote:
Professor X wrote:
proveyourclaims wrote:
Professor X wrote:
proveyourclaims wrote:
LOL
I suggest you do the same with IQ and social status. We don’t want anyone believing they can accomplish any more than what a piece of paper says they can, huh?
Even IQ and social strata have limits.
How is this a response to my statement? No one with an IQ much less than 130 should try to be a doctor since I once read that is about average for those in that profession or those with an health occ. education past grad school, right?
The average engineer has an IQ of about 120-125 so no one with an IQ of 110 should expect to be one, right?
Why not apply this logic to all activities?
Qualifications for professions such as doctors and engineers involve more variables than IQ…but, granting your argument…A person with an IQ of 80 may single-mindedly strive, unwaveringly believe, wholeheartedly persevere toward becoming a doctor his entire life – but his genetic limits will prohibit that happening.
[/quote]
Wait…so you acknowledge that there are more variables that go into getting an education of that degree than simply IQ…but you are judging the genetic limit of an ENTIRE BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM by their wrist and ankle measurements?
Do you realize how dumb you sound?
Can you (or one of your alternate accounts) finally post up your training history, strength levels and dietary intake at the point where you thought you hit your genetic ceiling?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait…so you acknowledge that there are more variables that go into getting an education of that degree than simply IQ…but you are judging the genetic limit of an ENTIRE BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM by their wrist and ankle measurements?
Do you realize how dumb you sound? [/quote]
Don’t bother patronizing me – tell musculoskelatal biology that it sounds dumb to you. The facts speak for themselves, kiddo.
[quote]proveyourclaims wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Wait…so you acknowledge that there are more variables that go into getting an education of that degree than simply IQ…but you are judging the genetic limit of an ENTIRE BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM by their wrist and ankle measurements?
Do you realize how dumb you sound?
Don’t bother patronizing me – tell musculoskelatal biology that it sounds dumb to you. The facts speak for themselves, kiddo.
[/quote]
Gee, you are speaking to someone who can spell “musculo-skeletal” correctly and who knows quite a bit about the subject. The facts are that you don’t judge the genetics of an entire organism by one or two variables present and expect for ALL HUMANS to fall beneath that qualification with no exceptions whatsoever.
That isn’t biology. That is pseudoscience.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Can you (or one of your alternate accounts) finally post up your training history, strength levels and dietary intake at the point where you thought you hit your genetic ceiling?
[/quote]
I’m 53, lifelong natural…trained from age 15 1/2 to age 28, 19-year hiatus, then started training again about six years ago at age 47.
I never heard of a mass max calculator til a couple years ago…they didn’t exist, as far as I know, in the 1970’s…but, in my original 13-year training stint,I hit size plateaus in three years that I could never surpass after about ten more years of training.
Back then, I just figured if I kept trying harder, training smarter, increasing intensity, adjusting recovery time, refining volume, etc, I’d eventually break through. But, to my frustration, that never happened, right up to when I quit training (I didn’t quit because I wanted to quit, but thought I needed to at the time due to events going in my life, sadly).
When I came across a mass calculator a couple years ago, and ran my height, wrist, and ankle sizes (5’8", 6 5/8" wrist, 7 7/8" ankles), I was stunned to discover the size numbers were what I measured when I was at what I thought was that “plateau”. Got me investigating further…remembering things about others in my earlier years.
Oh – I’m 170lbs, torn right rotator cuff, bad lumbar disc, chrondomalacion in both knees from years of contracting work. I train on compound free weight exercise, hitting a bodypart twice every eight days, calves and abs thrice. But, though my heart is still in it, I can’t train as intensely as I could when I was under 30.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
proveyourclaims wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Wait…so you acknowledge that there are more variables that go into getting an education of that degree than simply IQ…but you are judging the genetic limit of an ENTIRE BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM by their wrist and ankle measurements?
Do you realize how dumb you sound?
Don’t bother patronizing me – tell musculoskelatal biology that it sounds dumb to you. The facts speak for themselves, kiddo.
Gee, you are speaking to someone who can spell “musculo-skeletal” correctly and who knows quite a bit about the subject. The facts are that you don’t judge the genetics of an entire organism by one or two variables present and expect for ALL HUMANS to fall beneath that qualification with no exceptions whatsoever.
That isn’t biology. That is pseudoscience.[/quote]
Thank you pointing out my spelling error – serves me right for never learning to type properly.
I agree – claims without verifiable proof are pseudoscience. Where’s your verifiable proof, “professor”?
[quote]proveyourclaims wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Can you (or one of your alternate accounts) finally post up your training history, strength levels and dietary intake at the point where you thought you hit your genetic ceiling?
I’m 53, lifelong natural…trained from age 15 1/2 to age 28, 19-year hiatus, then started training again about six years ago at age 47. [/quote]
That means your best growing years were suspended back in 1984. That means you haven’t had any benefits of advances in supplements alone (let alone training strategies) since the early 80’s. At age 47, I sure as hell wouldn’t expect someone to make “amazing” progress aside from fat loss. You are past the time in your life where you could grow like you would at the age of 25.
You weigh all of 170lbs. Some of us hit that in our first year of training. Why do you think you have the entire world figured out as far as genetic limits?
[quote]proveyourclaims wrote:
Professor X wrote:
proveyourclaims wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Wait…so you acknowledge that there are more variables that go into getting an education of that degree than simply IQ…but you are judging the genetic limit of an ENTIRE BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM by their wrist and ankle measurements?
Do you realize how dumb you sound?
Don’t bother patronizing me – tell musculoskelatal biology that it sounds dumb to you. The facts speak for themselves, kiddo.
Gee, you are speaking to someone who can spell “musculo-skeletal” correctly and who knows quite a bit about the subject. The facts are that you don’t judge the genetics of an entire organism by one or two variables present and expect for ALL HUMANS to fall beneath that qualification with no exceptions whatsoever.
That isn’t biology. That is pseudoscience.
I agree – claims without verifiable proof are pseudoscience. Where’s your verifiable proof, “professor”?
[/quote]
I was bigger than my “calculated” stats over 9 years ago when this pic was taken. Mind you, you will no doubt discount it because it doesn’t fall within what you want to believe.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
proveyourclaims wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Can you (or one of your alternate accounts) finally post up your training history, strength levels and dietary intake at the point where you thought you hit your genetic ceiling?
I’m 53, lifelong natural…trained from age 15 1/2 to age 28, 19-year hiatus, then started training again about six years ago at age 47.
That means your best growing years were suspended back in 1984. That means you haven’t had any benefits of advances in supplements alone (let alone training strategies) since the early 80’s. At age 47, I sure as hell wouldn’t expect someone to make “amazing” progress aside from fat loss. You are past the time in your life where you could grow like you would at the age of 25.
You weigh all of 170lbs. Some of us hit that in our first year of training. Why do you think you have the entire world figured out as far as genetic limits?[/quote]
Well, of course my best growth years are long passed…that’s a moot point here. I have no vested interest in grinding any axe – hell, with my work-accumulated injuries, even IF my joints were otherwise unworn and my t-levels were same as age 25, and I had the potential for another 15% of mass, I can’t train to achieve it.
My concern is what I see as serving up unrealistic goals to the average-gened guy (and, I full-well know I have always been below-average-gened muscle-potential-wise, to my sometimes despair in my younger day). If you serve up inflated expectations of mass grandeur, the average guy who actually has acheived what for him is excellent results goes away thinking he’s failed to do something correctly.
Gotta run for work – I’ll try to return and post further later.
[quote]proveyourclaims wrote:
If you serve up inflated expectations of mass grandeur, the average guy who actually has acheived what for him is excellent results goes away thinking he’s failed to do something correctly. [/quote]
Who the fuck has the goal of being average here?
[quote]
Gotta run for work – I’ll try to return and post further later. [/quote]
Yeah, you do that. Very convenient timing.
[quote]proveyourclaims wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Can you (or one of your alternate accounts) finally post up your training history, strength levels and dietary intake at the point where you thought you hit your genetic ceiling?
I’m 53, lifelong natural…trained from age 15 1/2 to age 28, 19-year hiatus, then started training again about six years ago at age 47.
I never heard of a mass max calculator til a couple years ago…they didn’t exist, as far as I know, in the 1970’s…but, in my original 13-year training stint,I hit size plateaus in three years that I could never surpass after about ten more years of training. [/quote] What, did your strength just stop increasing? After 3 years? Seriously? Routine and diet?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
If people in this day and age don’t think you are on something, are you really doing it right?
I will throw one name out there just to see the response. My guess is, you all will prove me right.
Michael Lockett
Is this another guy who says he doesn’t use steriods? hmmmm reminds me of Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Jose Conseco, Manny Ramirez, or maybe all of the Belgium Bodybuilding Competitors that walked out. Wait Barry Bonds didn’t fail a test he must not have used…
I don’t think anybody successfull has ever ADMITTED to steriods. So either steriods doesn’t exist or nobody uses it until they get caught.
I said this numerous times in the other thread, but, that’s one of the problems with the whole equation. You CAN’T know without a shadow of a doubt that ANYONE who has built an impressive physique since the isolation and synthetic reproduction of testosterone occurred is completely natural.
Therefore, the only possible way of determining whether someone is “natural” or enhanced is whether they have taken and passed a drug test, which Lockett has, several times. Therefore, he is natural.
If you don’t accept this, then you can’t call anyone post synthetic testosterone natural, and the whole equation simply becomes an interesting piece of nostalgia. “Wow, it looks like all these old timers had very similar proportions and bodyweight to skeletal structure ratios. Interesting. Too bad we can’t use anyone who has built an impressive physique since 1959 to see if this ratio has anything to do with maximal bodyweight (or perhaps it has to do more with the aesthetic ideal that these individuals were gunning for) since everyone past that time frame’s natural status is suspect.”
But, there’s already a huge thread about this which has tons of arguments against the theory, counter arguments, name calling, dick waving, and all that other fun stuff. 
So there’s really no reason to rehash all the same old crap.[/quote]
If you want to go by testing then fine, but then you have to admit Barry Bonds never used roids also. I’m willing to admit this for the technical sense and the sake of innocent to proven guilty. However, when people argue so hard against roids they really come off as if steriods doesn’t make a HUGE difference, when it does…IMO.
So whose to say there isn’t a guy out there now who doesn’t look like Mr. Lockett but could still go on to win the title if he used, yet after 3 years he’s plataeued and still doesn’t look like even the Natural Champion. Are you for sure that he’s simply training incorrectly and needs to wait 8 years to use roids? 1 year? 2?
Who gives a shit. bust your ass in the gym and eat right and be all you can be. Who needs a fucking system to tell them this.
On another note wouldn’t something like this make a person excel? If I cared enough about bodybuilding i would want to get at least a lb over my limit just to beat it. Am I just competitive?