Just to make this point clear, in science and medicine, when discussing topics like this, especially as it refers to large populations, you come up with a RANGE of observable data. I would be very skeptical of the political or emotional motives of any “scientist” who literally comes out with an exact number that somehow relates to all people unless it is a very extreme number and we are talking about absolutes.
Simply put, this “80lbs limit” is unsupported and contested…so why keep retelling it?
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
It also works the other way, it’s smart to change your goals when you realize you don’t want to do all that is necessary to get there. For example, look at austinbicep. At one point he said he wanted to be an IFBB pro and was bulking like crazy. Now he’s changed his goals to I believe physique or so because (I’m assuming) he has a more realistic idea of what’s up, and that as a normal guy, he doesn’t want to take a boatload of drugs and all the $/legal risk/etc that comes with the territory. What’s wrong with being grounded and properly planning?[/quote]
Austin is still in college. he will change his life goals many more times in the next few years. That is what many of us have been telling many of you.
Once again, how do you know what someone else can do? Austin won’t even know what Austin can do UNTIL HE DOES IT…so making life long goals based on one ill-conceived limitation makes very little sense.
I would hope most people would use real life goals and priorities before worrying about this “ceiling for all people”.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
we’re really not in disagreement here, no need to get all capsy with me[/quote]
Hey, it took 35 pages to come back to the same point I was making from the start. Excuse the attempt to get rid of the guys wasting pages arguing as if they can’t understand what is being written.
The caps are for emphasis only as I write just like I think and talk most of the time. It’s faster that way.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Just to make this point clear, in science and medicine, when discussing topics like this, especially as it refers to large populations, you come up with a RANGE of observable data.
[/quote]
Agreed. I think that’s the point though; observable data. Guys like Brick (I reference him because I honestly think the guys has a solid grasp on real world science as well as being a die hard bodybuilding fan) have continually pointed out the considerable amount of data available since the 1950’s, and while obviously we can’t discount with 100% certainty who made use of PEDs, and who didn’t (although some are fairly obvious), the people who try to accurately and scientifically make a prediction based on this vast amount of information have drawn their conclusions that there is indeed a top level to this range. I’m of course referring to guys like Lyle, Casey etc.
Now while I admittedly don’t agree with everything these guys write, I can acknowledge that whether we’ve seen it or not, there must be a finite level of development for our species. This must be true on a biological level, even taking into account the odd mutation. Of course instances like that are rare, and for you to always take the stance that it happens every day, and give the impression that you know of many people who have never made use of any sort of ‘help’ (PEDs, prohormones etc), and from the point of a mature healthy adult, gained 80 lbs of discernible muscle (taking into account consistent bodyfat levels), is what keeps these threads bouncing back and forth and making everyone look ridiculous in the process.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Agreed. I think that’s the point though; observable data. Guys like Brick (I reference him because I honestly think the guys has a solid grasp on real world science as well as being a die hard bodybuilding fan) have continually pointed out the considerable amount of data available since the 1950’s,[/quote]
Please, stop right there. I stated I was body fat read and was then told that it didn’t matter or wasn’t accurate unless I was underwater weighed…so unless this “considerable data” matches that level of critique, then it isn’t so “considerable”.
In this thread alone we established that unless these guys were measured AFTER THEY STOPPED GROWING IN HEIGHT, then the data is that much less useful.
Therefore, in order for Brick and his “solid grip” on real world science to stand up and support this limit, there had better be tons of video and underwater weighing on people after the age of at least 18.
Now while I admittedly don’t agree with everything these guys write, I can acknowledge that whether we’ve seen it or not, there must be a finite level of development for our species. This must be true on a biological level, even taking into account the odd mutation. Of course instances like that are rare, and for you to always take the stance that it happens every day, and give the impression that you know of many people who have never made use of any sort of ‘help’ (PEDs, prohormones etc), and from the point of a mature healthy adult, gained 80 lbs of discernible muscle (taking into account consistent bodyfat levels), is what keeps these threads bouncing back and forth and making everyone look ridiculous in the process.
S[/quote]
Happens everyday?
Look, I know a lot of guys from Nigeria. In general, these guys have the better genetics for building muscle and staying lean of most other cultures I have been exposed to. Even Casey Butt has stated that some of his “theories” do not relate to some of African descent.
These aren’t “mutations” when they walk in the gym weighing 240lbs with abs showing at 5’11" with less than two years of training (one friend of mine in school at Baylor med school).
Once again, what is being contested…IS WHO THIS ORIGINAL DATA WAS DONE ON and how anyone can view that is representative of the entire world population.
Mind you, I have an education in genetics…so keep the questions coming.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
so keep the questions coming.[/quote]
You really have an education (a degree) in genetics?
S[/quote]
I have a degree in Biology and Biochemistry of which genetics is a component to earn the degree. I also have genetics lab experience with gene splicing on lab rats in Iowa at the U o I.
Well PX i feel generous, lucky you !
The range to reach triple digits IQ for you is to mutiply your present IQ by 2 to 8.
8 years old waste less time than you proving that …
I will be an optimist, i will allow you 20 years to reach 200(IQ).
Hopefully you will believe and stay more or less drug free.
Kouri EM, et. al.Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Clin J Sport Med. (1995) 5(4):223-8.
We calculated fat-free mass index (FFMI) in a sample of 157 male athletes, comprising 83 users of anabolic-androgenic steroids and 74 nonusers. FFMI is defined by the formula (fat-free body mass in kg) x (height in meters)-2. We then added a slight correction of 6.3 x (1.80 m ? height) to normalize these values to the height of a 1.8-m man. The normalized FFMI values of athletes who had not used steroids extended up to a well-defined limit of 25.0. Similarly, a sample of 20 Mr. America winners from the presteroid era (1939-1959), for whom we estimated the normalized FFMI, had a mean FFMI of 25.4. By contrast, the FFMI of many of the steroid users in our sample easily exceeded 25.0, and that of some even exceeded 30. Thus, although these findings must be regarded as preliminary, it appears that FFMI may represent a useful initial measure to screen for possible steroid abuse, especially in athletic, medical, or forensic situations in which individuals may attempt to deny such behavior.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I think 80 lbs is a great general limit.
[/quote]
It’s more along the lines of 40 to 50 pounds of muscle for naturals, provided they do everything right. Most can’t or won’t gain that, for whatever reason: life stressors, genetics, consistency. However, even a gain of 30 pounds of muscle can make someone look like a different person.
Come to think of it I’ve probably overestimated. From what I’ve seen and read the best natural bbers at my height are around 200 extremely lean, give or take 5 pounds.
I think the best thing we can do is just see who is stepping on stage at what weight, and then compare that with the lbm of someone at that height.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I think 80 lbs is a great general limit.
[/quote]
It’s more along the lines of 40 to 50 pounds of muscle for naturals, provided they do everything right. Most can’t or won’t gain that, for whatever reason: life stressors, genetics, consistency. However, even a gain of 30 pounds of muscle can make someone look like a different person. [/quote]
At 24 yo i was lean 5 feet 11.75 inches and 125 pounds. I do agree that a still lean me at 155 or 165 or 175 would be hard to recognize.
At 205 i guess i could pretend to be clean. Try to catch me, Lance gave me a few pointers.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
so keep the questions coming.[/quote]
You really have an education (a degree) in genetics?
S[/quote]
I have a degree in Biology and Biochemistry of which genetics is a component to earn the degree. I also have genetics lab experience with gene splicing on lab rats in Iowa at the U o I.[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
so keep the questions coming.[/quote]
You really have an education (a degree) in genetics?
S[/quote]
I have a degree in Biology and Biochemistry of which genetics is a component to earn the degree. I also have genetics lab experience with gene splicing on lab rats in Iowa at the U o I.[/quote]
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
Come to think of it I’ve probably overestimated. From what I’ve seen and read the best natural bbers at my height are around 200 extremely lean, give or take 5 pounds.
I think the best thing we can do is just see who is stepping on stage at what weight, and then compare that with the lbm of someone at that height.[/quote]
This may seem really picky, but as sort-of math person I find the glossing over of this fact very annoying: Going from Weight A to weight B at the same bodyfat does not mean you gained that much lean mass(not even muscle), because to stay at the same bodyfat % while gaining weight, you also gain fat.
15% Bodyfat at 160 = 24lbs of fat
15% at 240 = 36(12lbs of 80 gained are fat, 68 LBM)
10% at 240 = 24(0 lbs of 80 gained are fat, 80 LBM)
15% at 255 =~38(14lbs of 95 gained are fat, 81 LBM)
This calculation will skew worse the higher % BF you start from, because that % of mass gains will be fat.
A trainee needs to either get leaner(a not negligible amount leaner), or gain more mass.
OMG WHAT A NERD THIS IS A BODYBUILDING BOARD NOBODY CARES ABOUT NIT PICKY SHIT LIKE THIS. Sorry =[.
