Are you going to tell me there’s a limit to strength too according to some calculator based on my wrist size and weight?
because if it is, I’d love to see it.
I’m 5’7" with 6.5" wrists and 8" ankles
When I started off I had 12" biceps @ 14-15% BF
I got up to 16" arms at 7% BF 3 years later [the calc says my limit should’ve been 15.4]
I expect you are going to say I’m some genetic anamoly now?
[quote]taleb wrote:
I’m 5’7" with 6.5" wrists and 8" ankles
When I started off I had 12" biceps @ 14-15% BF
I got up to 16" arms at 7% BF 3 years later [the calc says my limit should’ve been 15.4]
I expect you are going to say I’m some genetic anamoly now?
[/quote]
You are obviously some kind of genetic anomaly. Stop it, stop it now before anyone else gets hurt by your exploding guns that have exceeded their limit.
For the science and the proof behind the calculator read the “Your Muscular Potential” book. That should answer all of your questions and rest any doubts about it’s legitimacy.
Sorry bout that, but someone’s book is NOT very often actually science. Since individuals supporting this idea are using science as justification, I would expect some form of reference to peer reviewed work, otherwise you have no proof, just an interesting idea.
Hold on, I take that back, just a random idea that if anything simply justifies personal inadequacies when you don’t want to work/train hard enough and want a good excuse for why you’re the way you are. Yes, I went there. This is just a cop out argument and there is no actual, real science to support it.
And since I know that there is absolutely no evidence to support the nonsense being spewed out here, I’m going to stop feeding the trolls.
[quote]proveyourclaims wrote:
him.
With 6 5/8" wrists and 7 7/8" ankles at 5’8", [/quote] You have bigger wrists than I started out with… And [quote]
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.[/quote] And by how much did these increase after your first 3-4 years of training? And your diet? [quote]
Will try to be back again later, to handle more heat from you boys…I’m scheduled to do legs tonight.
[/quote]
Of course there’s a limit to how big you can get. The statistical limits on a human male’s natural androgen and GH levels assures that. That is precisely why equations of this nature can be fit to elite drug-free bodybuilders. It is also why drug-users are, as a group, bigger than natural trainees.
Escalating exogenous hormone levels (i.e. steroid use) is why bodybuilders of the '60s were bigger, as a group, than those of the '50s; why top bodybuilders of the '70s were bigger than those of the '60s; why top bodybuilders of the '80s were bigger than those of the '70s; why top bodybuilders of the '90s were bigger than those of the '80s; why top bodybuilders of the '2000s were bigger than those of the '90s; and why future champions will be bigger than those of the past - until health complications prohibit them from pushing the drug use any higher.
It is also why, statistically, today’s top drug-free bodybuilders are no larger than those of the past - leaner yes, but more lean body mass, no. Some of you here obviously wish to ignore that fact, cloud it with baseless conjecture, or dismiss it as coincidence.
It never ceases to amaze me that nameless, faceless people, not one of which have physiques even remotely comparable to the past and current champs upon which those equations were/are based, claim to have surpassed them. In fact, some have with substantially more body fat than the equations specify - which is not really surpassing them at all.
It’s amusing how nonchalantly people throw out claims of being proportionally more developed than the likes of Jon Harris, Reg Park, Layne Norton, etc, yet not one of these supposed physical specimens has any drug-tested competition placings under their belts.
And if it is true that these equations merely predict when ‘beginner gains’ stop then what a puzzle it is that history’s greatest drug-free champions (from 2007 back to the 1940s), all of whom fit within the bounds of the equations, have never managed to get past their ‘beginner gains’.
The premise of the equations is quite simple: They are, in essence, fits to history’s greatest drug-free champions from the past to the present. Claiming you have exceeded them in lean condition is, in effect, claiming you are more developed, proportionally, than those champions - something that it is highly, highly unlikely that any of you here can claim with even a hint of reality.
If you think you can then you need to take an honest assessment of your body fat, your measurement technique, or your squandering of your own elite-level potential and get on stage at the next WNBA Worlds.
But, I have no bias whatsoever as to the ‘results’ of those equations. If you have in fact surpassed them, I want to hear from you and I want your body weight, measurements and body fat. Of course, I’ll also need photos to support your claims.
If you significantly surpass the predictions of the equations and can make a justifiable claim to drug-free status I’ll include your stats into the data pool and, if warranted, the adjustments will be reflected in a future update of the equations and e-book upon which the ‘ideals’ in the article are based. Incidentally, in the past two years, including correspondence with some top WNBA, NPA and IFPA competitors, and despite having to endure endless unsubstantiated claims and protests, no one has given me reason for a major update. If you can, then by all means, please contact me and I look forward to hearing from you.
You can contact me through: www.weightrainer.net
using the timeframe these calculations are based on (grecian ideal right?)…wouldnt it make sense that since they didnt prioritize legs as much as modern day bodybuilding, that we could reasonably pack on another good 10-20 lbs in legs/hips/back than that calculator suggests
if you were to add that to the calculated max, i would be very suprised to see many people increase past these points (although wonder if your bones/wrists thickened a bit due to years of heavy lifting, thus increasing your “max potential”…probably too small of a difference to matter much i suppose)
i know i’m going to take shit for this…but realistically, keeping that in mind, i doubt this is that far off…think about it
-say that leaves an average sized 6’ guy(joint wise) to top out at 225ish (20 extra lbs or so) at 8% bodyfat…now obviously most people wont attain this anyways, but realistically…after dieting down, how many people could actually surpass this By a Considerable Amount without extra help? -if you were competition ready at 255 at that height right now you’d be fighting for the top bodybuilding spot in all of canada…obviously 8% isnt as dry/lean, but its still pretty damn lean (even an extra 15 lbs of fat/water would put them at 240 with a bit of abs (12%ish)…thats pretty damn big for MOST naturals
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Of course there’s a limit to how big you can get. The statistical limits on a human male’s natural androgen and GH levels assures that. That is precisely why equations of this nature can be fit to elite drug-free bodybuilders. It is also why drug-users are, as a group, bigger than natural trainees.
Escalating exogenous hormone levels (i.e. steroid use) is why bodybuilders of the '60s were bigger, as a group, than those of the '50s; why top bodybuilders of the '70s were bigger than those of the '60s; why top bodybuilders of the '80s were bigger than those of the '70s; why top bodybuilders of the '90s were bigger than those of the '80s; why top bodybuilders of the '2000s were bigger than those of the '90s; and why future champions will be bigger than those of the past - until health complications prohibit them from pushing the drug use any higher.
It is also why, statistically, today’s top drug-free bodybuilders are no larger than those of the past - leaner yes, but more lean body mass, no. Some of you here obviously wish to ignore that fact, cloud it with baseless conjecture, or dismiss it as coincidence.
It never ceases to amaze me that nameless, faceless people, not one of which have physiques even remotely comparable to the past and current champs upon which those equations were/are based, claim to have surpassed them. In fact, some have with substantially more body fat than the equations specify - which is not really surpassing them at all.
It’s amusing how nonchalantly people throw out claims of being proportionally more developed than the likes of Jon Harris, Reg Park, Layne Norton, etc, yet not one of these supposed physical specimens has any drug-tested competition placings under their belts.
And if it is true that these equations merely predict when ‘beginner gains’ stop then what a puzzle it is that history’s greatest drug-free champions (from 2007 back to the 1940s), all of whom fit within the bounds of the equations, have never managed to get past their ‘beginner gains’.
The premise of the equations is quite simple: They are, in essence, fits to history’s greatest drug-free champions from the past to the present. Claiming you have exceeded them in lean condition is, in effect, claiming you are more developed, proportionally, than those champions - something that it is highly, highly unlikely that any of you here can claim with even a hint of reality.
If you think you can then you need to take an honest assessment of your body fat, your measurement technique, or your squandering of your own elite-level potential and get on stage at the next WNBA Worlds.
But, I have no bias whatsoever as to the ‘results’ of those equations. If you have in fact surpassed them, I want to hear from you and I want your body weight, measurements and body fat. Of course, I’ll also need photos to support your claims.
If you significantly surpass the predictions of the equations and can make a justifiable claim to drug-free status I’ll include your stats into the data pool and, if warranted, the adjustments will be reflected in a future update of the equations and e-book upon which the ‘ideals’ in the article are based. Incidentally, in the past two years, including correspondence with some top WNBA, NPA and IFPA competitors, and despite having to endure endless unsubstantiated claims and protests, no one has given me reason for a major update. If you can, then by all means, please contact me and I look forward to hearing from you.
You can contact me through: www.weightrainer.net[/quote]
I have mixed feelings about this whole thing…
On the one hand I do believe modern day bulking techniques give today’s drug free bodybuilders and “anabolic” edge over bodybuilders of the 50s simply because food wasn’t as abundant.
Also, it appears as though many drug-free NFLers (if you believe that) shatter those predictions.
On the other hand I also laugh at the overwhelming majority of faceless posters who claim to have bigger stats than the golden age pros. Sure - from a pure measurement standpoint I have no doubt they are bigger, but they are delusional regarding how much body fat they are holding AND how much lean mass they will be able to hold on to after they get down to single digit body fat.
Pure numbers don’t tell the entire story. PX recently made this point in another thread that his 210# (at the time) looks vastly different than another poster’s 210# at approximately the same height.
Oh well… Whether the formula is relatively accurate or not makes no difference to me. I’m still getting stronger and bigger than when I started out. I guess one day I’ll have to get in contest shape to see if I can maintain lean mass and beat the golden agers…
What was the average height of people 100 years ago and what is it now? The Bell Curve shifted to the right to make the average person bigger and taller than their great grandparents. There will also always be statistical anomalies who far surpass the mean and it will apply to almost any physical trait - be it height, weight, size etc…
[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
What was the average height of people 100 years ago and what is it now? The Bell Curve shifted to the right to make the average person bigger and taller than their great grandparents. There will also always be statistical anomalies who far surpass the mean and it will apply to almost any physical trait - be it height, weight, size etc…[/quote]
The fact that they won’t even acknowledge the possibility of people existing outside of the confines of this calculator is why their entire debate is bullshit from the ground up. These people aren’t scientists. They are just men with short man syndrome who really want to believe that their progress is the most progress anyone can make.
I personally wouldn’t even be talking on a bodybuilding forum if I was claiming decades of training (despite the 20+ year lay off) and had only managed a soft 170lbs as the result.
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Of course there’s a limit to how big you can get. The statistical limits on a human male’s natural androgen and GH levels assures that. That is precisely why equations of this nature can be fit to elite drug-free bodybuilders. It is also why drug-users are, as a group, bigger than natural trainees.
Escalating exogenous hormone levels (i.e. steroid use) is why bodybuilders of the '60s were bigger, as a group, than those of the '50s; why top bodybuilders of the '70s were bigger than those of the '60s; why top bodybuilders of the '80s were bigger than those of the '70s; why top bodybuilders of the '90s were bigger than those of the '80s; why top bodybuilders of the '2000s were bigger than those of the '90s; and why future champions will be bigger than those of the past - until health complications prohibit them from pushing the drug use any higher.
It is also why, statistically, today’s top drug-free bodybuilders are no larger than those of the past - leaner yes, but more lean body mass, no. Some of you here obviously wish to ignore that fact, cloud it with baseless conjecture, or dismiss it as coincidence.
It never ceases to amaze me that nameless, faceless people, not one of which have physiques even remotely comparable to the past and current champs upon which those equations were/are based, claim to have surpassed them. In fact, some have with substantially more body fat than the equations specify - which is not really surpassing them at all.
It’s amusing how nonchalantly people throw out claims of being proportionally more developed than the likes of Jon Harris, Reg Park, Layne Norton, etc, yet not one of these supposed physical specimens has any drug-tested competition placings under their belts.
And if it is true that these equations merely predict when ‘beginner gains’ stop then what a puzzle it is that history’s greatest drug-free champions (from 2007 back to the 1940s), all of whom fit within the bounds of the equations, have never managed to get past their ‘beginner gains’.
The premise of the equations is quite simple: They are, in essence, fits to history’s greatest drug-free champions from the past to the present. Claiming you have exceeded them in lean condition is, in effect, claiming you are more developed, proportionally, than those champions - something that it is highly, highly unlikely that any of you here can claim with even a hint of reality.
If you think you can then you need to take an honest assessment of your body fat, your measurement technique, or your squandering of your own elite-level potential and get on stage at the next WNBA Worlds.
But, I have no bias whatsoever as to the ‘results’ of those equations. If you have in fact surpassed them, I want to hear from you and I want your body weight, measurements and body fat. Of course, I’ll also need photos to support your claims.
If you significantly surpass the predictions of the equations and can make a justifiable claim to drug-free status I’ll include your stats into the data pool and, if warranted, the adjustments will be reflected in a future update of the equations and e-book upon which the ‘ideals’ in the article are based. Incidentally, in the past two years, including correspondence with some top WNBA, NPA and IFPA competitors, and despite having to endure endless unsubstantiated claims and protests, no one has given me reason for a major update. If you can, then by all means, please contact me and I look forward to hearing from you.
You can contact me through: www.weightrainer.net[/quote]
Look, you’ve developed a reasonably accurate statistical model of what known naturals have achieved. Like any model, it’s only going to be as good as it’s source data, and honestly, compared to humanity in general, you appear to have a relatively small sample size. More importantly, you appear to be convinced that since you have a model which fits your sample data, it will hold for every human on the planet.
Finally, even if your model is correct for 98% of the population, there will still be that 2% who can surpass your values. The issue most people have with the calculator is not that accuracy, it’s the fact the a whole lot of idiots will use it as an excuse not to push themselves past a certain point. Some of those idiots might even be able to do more, but if they decide that they best they’ll ever do is hit 225lbs at 8%bf, then a whole lot of them will decide that 220lbs at 8% is good enough, instead of aiming for 230lbs at 8%. I still have a long way to go before I hit the numbers your model predicts for me, but once I get their I’m sure as hell not going to call it quits and stop striving for more.
Here’s what I get:
Height: 70 in Wrist: 8 in
Ankle: 10.2 in
Your estimated maximum muscular bodyweight at ~10% bodyfat is: 210.2 lbs
Your estimated maximum muscular measurements (@ ~8%-10% bodyfat) are:
Chest: 50.5 in Biceps: 18.2 in
Forearms: 14.6 in Neck: 17.7 in
Thighs: 26.7 in Calves: 17.9 in
So…
Right now, measurments are chest: 52.5
arms: 17.5
forearms: 14.3
legs: 29" calves 19" @265 lbs of bodyweight at 5’ 10" bodyfat = not 10 % lol…
So, I’ll see what happens when I get to 8 - 10%… ; )
Oh, and I agree that this thing is a reasonably accurate statistical tool for a certain percentage of the population, but I have to say that I don’t think it can ever truly predict what any given individual is capable of - that’s simply impossible to ever really know…
Until that individual has gone through years of training, firing on all cylinders (consistency, intensity, diet, supplementation etc…) - Only then can you really know what a person is capable of. It’s an interesting tool, and an interesting theory, but the idea that it is 100 % unfailingly accurate is laughable…
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Here’s what I get:
Height: 70 in Wrist: 8 in
Ankle: 10.2 in
Your estimated maximum muscular bodyweight at ~10% bodyfat is: 210.2 lbs
Your estimated maximum muscular measurements (@ ~8%-10% bodyfat) are:
Chest: 50.5 in Biceps: 18.2 in
Forearms: 14.6 in Neck: 17.7 in
Thighs: 26.7 in Calves: 17.9 in
So…
Right now, measurments are chest: 52.5
arms: 17.5
forearms: 14.3
legs: 29" calves 19" @265 lbs of bodyweight at 5’ 10" bodyfat = not 10 % lol…
So, I’ll see what happens when I get to 8 - 10%… ; )[/quote]
This should be interesting.
Are you currently in the process of trimming some fat?
[quote]Protoculture wrote:
This should be interesting.
Are you currently in the process of trimming some fat?
[/quote]
Yes - I’m down from 285 to 265 in the last few months, and looking to continue dropping fat…
Of course, that still won’t prove this thing correct. I can’t say that I’ve spent 20 years firing on all cylinders. I made a vast amount of mistakes when I was younger (before the Internet and the oceans of info available now) and I’m 42 years old. Who’s to say that had I started with the information I know now (or what I knew even 10 years ago), I wouldn’t be much further along by this point?
Like I said, it’s an interesting theory, and I’m not saying it doesn’t have some application, but I don’t believe it can account for every variable within any given individual.
That said, while there’s a lot of yelling and dick waving in this thread, the guy has made a legit challenge - show him someone who - at sub 10% BF and a lifetime natural - has surpassed those measurements and BW predicted by the equation (which I’d like a little more detail on - why use the square root of the wrist and ankle measurements for instance?). Sure, guys like Lockett no doubt, but he’s not statistically average by a long shot.
I mean, you can’t say that it doesn’t make some measure of scientific sense - clearly there are differences in bone structure and genetics. Soma-types are not some psuedoscience bullshit, that’s for sure. Perhaps people put too much stock into what bodytypes equate to in growth potential, but it’s certainly not nonsense, and can’t be discounted entirely when discussing the potential of someone who plans to never use AAS.
But really, in the end you should just shut up and train, because like I said, this has some possible merit, but as a 100 % accurate tool - nah…
I don’t see how any educated person could ever believe that a calculator is able to measure the maximum amount of size a trainee can obtain solely through two variables-the human body is much too complex.
According to this calculator these measurements (HEIGHT- 70 inches, 5.75 inch wrist, 7 inch ankle) would have been my maximum:
Lean body weight: 155.6
Chest Size (inches): 40.2
Upper Arms Size (inches): 14.8
Forearms Size (inches): 11.9
Thighs Size (inches): 20.2
Calfs Size (inches): 13.7
To put things into perspective, by achieving my supposed genetic maximum I would not even accomplish anything in bodybuilding, I would still be labeled a beginner, weighing in at a whopping 155 pounds on a 5’10 frame. Needless to say I surpassed all of these predictions within a year of training. If I had access to this calculator beforehand and actually believed the data, my progress would have been hindered as I would have thought I was just putting on just fat.
[quote]uahc wrote:
Needless to say I surpassed all of these predictions within a year of training.
[/quote]
Cool! Can you post some pictures showing what you look like now? That will shut that Casey character up real good!
[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
no one has given me reason for a major update.
[/quote]
So, you continue to ignore the National Football League…
Like was said in the other stupid fucking thread about this bullshit, your study ignores the fact that people with superior genetics, which would make for a better sample, either play sports that pay better, or do those evil roids because the untested stage pays better.
So my son comes up to me the other day and says: “Dad, Obama is biracial too right?”
“Yup.”
“Does that mean I can be president some day?”
My answer: “You would have to work your butt off, work harder than anyone you know, but if you really want something, that’s what you have to do. Life doesn’t come free.”
Mr Butts answer: “Well son I can’t afford to send you to an expensive private high school, or pay for a top notch college law degree. And we don’t have an political connections, so statistically nope YOU CAN’T. Aside from the fact we have only elected one non-honkey president, your only half honkey, so again the statistics, which are more than 100% solidly based on a perfect sample size, say NO. So no son, just be a plumber, you can do that, the statistics tell me so.”
I just want to say I love plumbers. You men and lady’s hook shit up. I just needed an example.