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). [/quote]
So you achieved what you believe to be the natural limit of someone with your frame and you have below average genetics? Wouldn’t that automatically mean that someone with average or above average genetics would be able to surpass these so called natural limits?
This will be my only post in this thread. I’m done fueling the fire.
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. What, did your strength just stop increasing? After 3 years? Seriously? Routine and diet?
[/quote]
If a person doesn’t have a goal of bodybuilding he may take a lower rate of growth or strength as a sign of a plateau. When comparing a 100 lbs gain in your first 3 years, 5lbs over the next year or even 6 months is going to seem like a plataue.
Proveyourclaims, you need to learn how to train properly and eat properly for your goals if you think that you reached your genetic limit after three years of training and weighing 170 pounds. I’m under the impression that it could take 10-25 years of VERY serious training and ideal nutrition for an average trainee to reach his or her genetic peak. And that’s not even taking into that most people’s training isn’t intense enough and most people don’t follow the perfect diet for their goals.
[quote]Josh Rider wrote:
Proveyourclaims, you need to learn how to train properly and eat properly for your goals if you think that you reached your genetic limit after three years of training and weighing 170 pounds.[/quote]
He might want to step into the 21st century with the rest of us also considering the last time he was trying to gain anything at all, Reagan was in office.
Why do people with the weakest genetics think everyone else is exactly like them?
The funny thing is that I exceeded my estimated max thigh size before I even started training…just to emphasize again the innacuracy of this calculator.
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. What, did your strength just stop increasing? After 3 years? Seriously? Routine and diet?
If a person doesn’t have a goal of bodybuilding he may take a lower rate of growth or strength as a sign of a plateau. When comparing a 100 lbs gain in your first 3 years, 5lbs over the next year or even 6 months is going to seem like a plataue.
[/quote]
This guy clearly stated that he could not surpass his plateaus in 10 more years of training.
He is also talking about maximal drug-free lean mass at 8 percent bf and measurements etc here, with his calculator and whatnot. So I dare say the goal must have been bodybuilding, no? If he’s after the >maximum<…
Your post is completely irrelevant to this thread.
I think one thing to note is that this is assuming 8% bf and also with LBM not your total weight.
Also, I think this is more of where you will look good vs your limit.
For me at 204LBM or 220 weight, at 6ft while being 8% BF seems to be pretty big.
For those saying that they’ve exceeded the “max” stat before even working out, think about whether you were 8% bf or not.
All in all, I definitely DO NOT think this shows the genetic limit.
[quote]proveyourclaims wrote:
Back.
Hmmm…just me in the line of fire of several comments. Whose do I reply to first? Who’s here that’s posted since I left for work?
[/quote]
Professor – you’d uploaded a photo of, I assume, yourself…a great double bi shot, btw – so, my questions regarding it:
What was your bodyfat when that shot was clicked? And, how did you take your bf reading?
What’s your height?
What are your ankle and wrist circumferences?
What were your measurements, cold, when that shot was taken?
When that pic was taken, had you ever used or were you then using any pharmaceuticals? Any steroids, prohormones, growth drugs or enhancers of any kind?
Huh – what? you not here? you mean you have to work sometime too? how convenient!
let’s see – someone asked me about my below-average genetics…my thought is that my small bones and joints are below average for my height. Muscle mass is linked primarily to bone size and muscle belly length – other genetic factors such as fiber type and quantity, CNS effectiveness, and metabolic effectiveness, while bearing, I find no evidence being as governing as bone diameter and belly length in the long term of building muscle – for example, someone with genetically weaker capacity for CNS recovery will need more time to reach his max mass because he’ll have to train less frequently, but eventually, if he perseveres, he’ll reach the biggest mass his bones and insertions allow him.
With 6 5/8" wrists and 7 7/8" ankles at 5’8", and with short bellies, my frame is obviously below average. Therefore, my muscle mass (DAMMIT!) max is below average – best I ever accomplished, at 176 lbs around 12% bf, were 15 3/4" arms. Someone my height with, say, 7 1/4" wrists and 9" ankles is in the average range for a 5’8" guy. His mass potential is greater than someone my frame size. An above-average-boned guy can grow even more - but, he’ll still be limited by his bones and bell lengths.
Someone else asked if my strength gains stopped. NO. I continued getting stronger for several of those ten years after my size ceilinged. Increased strength didn’t manifest in size gains, however – more density, but no more increase in size. When I began training, at age 15 1/2, I was 5’7" – even after a month of training I could barely bench press 50 lbs for 8 reps. After about 4 years, I was doing multiple worksets of 6 with 220 twice a week; squatting 315 for multiple 6’s; vertical plate-loaded Leg-pressing 690 for 8; Incline Benching 190 for 7 – a few numbers that I still recall. None of the poundages I ever used were much compared to what most average-boned natural guys can handle – I don’t claim they were – but they were for me, from where I’d started with the genes I got handed.
Will try to be back again later, to handle more heat from you boys…I’m scheduled to do legs tonight.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
Bonds got caught buying steroids though, something that Lockett has not.
Also, I’m not in any way arguing that steroids don’t make a difference.
I don’t think anyone has said anything about when it’s appropriate to use roids (and it’s very subjective anyhow).
That said, if someone has only been training for 3 years, then they have not reached their genetic limits, not even close. As others have pointed out, this might mark the end of their newbie gains, but not their genetic limits. If they choose to use roids at this point, that’s their decision, but they can still continue to make gains naturally as well.
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).
[/quote]
Interesting that you didn’t try altering the one variable most likely responsible for your plateau…food intake.
[quote]proveyourclaims wrote:
Muscle mass is linked primarily to bone size and muscle belly length – other genetic factors such as fiber type and quantity, CNS effectiveness, and metabolic effectiveness, while bearing, I find no evidence being as governing as bone diameter and belly length in the long term of building muscle –
[/quote]
How about you bring some evidence for this claim then? “I find no evidence…”, well go on, what have you looked at? Have you even read anything of actual note? You seem to portray yourself as a scientist or someone who is well read and understands the human body, but this post, to blatantly steal from another post, puts you more in the realms of pseudoscience.
[quote]proveyourclaims wrote:
Professor – you’d uploaded a photo of, I assume, yourself…a great double bi shot, btw – so, my questions regarding it:
What was your bodyfat when that shot was clicked? And, how did you take your bf reading?
What’s your height?
What are your ankle and wrist circumferences?
What were your measurements, cold, when that shot was taken?
When that pic was taken, had you ever used or were you then using any pharmaceuticals? Any steroids, prohormones, growth drugs or enhancers of any kind?
Huh – what? you not here? you mean you have to work sometime too? how convenient![/quote]
I’m sorry, but why do you need all of my measurements? You think I don’t know how to use a tape measure?
I weighed 210lbs, had arms just over 18" and was not on any drugs nor had I used any. I did not take my body fat percentage. I am over 5’10" by about half an inch.
Of course, you will try to tear this apart because I wasn’t “8% body fat”, so again I will bring up Michael Lockett who you ignored earlier.
He is near contest shape the majority of the time and clearly passes up whatever limitations this calculator sets.
You asked for pictures. I am not worried about going back in time and telling myself to get into contest shape just to prove something like this to you.
You believe in limiting yourself. As such, I doubt anyone would even know you lifted weights unless you told them. I personally never had that problem…at least not in a very long time.
I also think this thread has received enough attention.
You have a great life spreading the word that people should rely on a calculator using 2 variables to set a cap on progress in the human body.
Just don’t ever become a doctor. We don’t need someone that blind to genetic possibilities that they think all humans (without exception) can all be grouped into a category that precise.
This is pure bullshit. Most people will never come close to their potential when it comes o how much muscle they could possibly gain so how did you arrive at the conclusion that muscle mass is primarily linked to bone size and muscle belly length?
What studies were performed to come to this extremely scientific conclusion?
You would be better served looking at the parents/siblings of the individual than what you are trying to do here.
As mentioned previously, the Bell Curve. On the right extreme tail end Professor X, and on the left extreme tail end proveyourclaims. So simple. Most people will fall in between these extremes and should “shoot for and expect” as much.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
proveyourclaims wrote:
Professor – you’d uploaded a photo of, I assume, yourself…a great double bi shot, btw – so, my questions regarding it:
What was your bodyfat when that shot was clicked? And, how did you take your bf reading?
What’s your height?
What are your ankle and wrist circumferences?
What were your measurements, cold, when that shot was taken?
When that pic was taken, had you ever used or were you then using any pharmaceuticals? Any steroids, prohormones, growth drugs or enhancers of any kind?
Huh – what? you not here? you mean you have to work sometime too? how convenient!
I’m sorry, but why do you need all of my measurements? You think I don’t know how to use a tape measure?
I weighed 210lbs, had arms just over 18" and was not on any drugs nor had I used any. I did not take my body fat percentage. I am over 5’10" by about half an inch.
Of course, you will try to tear this apart because I wasn’t “8% body fat”, so again I will bring up Michael Lockett who you ignored earlier.
He is near contest shape the majority of the time and clearly passes up whatever limitations this calculator sets.
You asked for pictures. I am not worried about going back in time and telling myself to get into contest shape just to prove something like this to you.
You believe in limiting yourself. As such, I doubt anyone would even know you lifted weights unless you told them. I personally never had that problem…at least not in a very long time.
I also think this thread has received enough attention.
You have a great life spreading the word that people should rely on a calculator using 2 variables to set a cap on progress in the human body.
Just don’t ever become a doctor. We don’t need someone that blind to genetic possibilities that they think all humans (without exception) can all be grouped into a category that precise.[/quote]
Good answer, “Professor”! – your ad hominems and defensive attitude reveals more about you than your pic.
I confess ignorance about Michael Lockett. Thanks for mentioning him – I plan to check on him.
As far as me “limiting” – I don’t do that: bone size and belly lengths do that in each of us. Knowing that you have limits, and what they are, so you have definite goals for which to strive – that’s honest, it’s realistic, and it’s liberating.
But – keep on pitching your “sky’s NOT the limit, and if you believe hard enough, you can fly to the moon without a rocket” to your disciples – and, keep using ridicule instead of truth and facts to excommunicate 'em when they fail to defend your Faith.
There is no doubt that an infinitesimally small percentage of people ever even approach their potential with or without drugs. How, pray tell, does anybody know before they get there what to shoot for, except the maximum possible, whatever that might turn out to be?
People have a generally hard enough time as it is making serious gains without pre-limiting themselves before they’re even close.
Nobody doubts that there’s a maximum mass limit for each person and indeed the human race at large. Who’s ever seen somebody 400 pounds at 6 foot and sub 10 BF?
Trying to determine what your potential is by any method other than the empirical one is a recipe for either failure or underachievement. There’s something amiss with people who approach things this way and this has been gone over to death in that “potential calculator” or whatever it was thread.
As far as me “limiting” – I don’t do that: bone size and belly lengths do that in each of us. Knowing that you have limits, and what they are, so you have definite goals for which to strive – that’s honest, it’s realistic, and it’s liberating.
But – keep on pitching your “sky’s NOT the limit, and if you believe hard enough, you can fly to the moon without a rocket” to your disciples – and, keep using ridicule instead of truth and facts to excommunicate 'em when they fail to defend your Faith. [/quote]
Ok then. Hurry up and provide proof that bone size and muscle belly length are the primary determinant of our total potential muscle size and strength level. Since YOU are in total opposite to scientific evidence for what influences muscle size, then the onus is upon YOU to provide the evidence to support your hypothesis.
So how does your interesting theory work with respect to the remodelling that bone undergoes following loaded resistance exercise owing to the adaptations explained in research that underpin Wolff’s Law?
So how does your theory hold up when we are still trying to understand how manipulation of the mTOR protein kinase pathway can accelerate muscle growth?
So how does your theory hold up when we’re still trying to understand how the potential activation of genes that trigger protein-C pathways, the so-called survival mechanism, may facilitate muscle growth and performance in spite of “physical” limitations.
Trotting out old anthropometric data isn’t evidence.
Why don’t you even try to provide an actual mechanism for how this physical restraint prediction theory works?
I’m sure you will resort to anecdotal evidence to support your answer, but again, for someone who is ASSUMING an awful lot about musculoskeletal physiology, I seriously doubt you can provide any explicit evidence to support your, well, bullshit.
