[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
No but we do know how to read better enough and comprehend what he writes
[/quote]
Ryan, what where do you draw the Natty Line in The Sand between believable, questionable, no way Jose?
Hypothetically speaking and obviously this isn’t 100% set in stone.
I would be interested in hearing some hypothetical numbers.[/quote]
Already stated 3lbs per inch lean. [/quote]
Just for reference, zraw is around that level and he extremely developed.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
No but we do know how to read better enough and comprehend what he writes
[/quote]
Ryan, what where do you draw the Natty Line in The Sand between believable, questionable, no way Jose?
Hypothetically speaking and obviously this isn’t 100% set in stone.
I would be interested in hearing some hypothetical numbers.[/quote]
Already stated 3lbs per inch lean. [/quote]
The suggestion is to start with 5’0" as a base height and 100 pounds as a base weight. Then add 10 pounds for every inch of height above 5’0" for a medium bone structure, 8 pounds for a small structure, and 12 pounds for a large structure. Above 5’9" add only half those amounts. A person of 5’9" with a medium structure would weigh 190 pounds. A person of 6’1" with a large structure would weigh 232 pounds. This is a worthwhile refinement of the simple linear approach, but becomes inaccurate when dealing with very large and/or very small structured people
This is just a quick off the cuff estimate proposed by Stuart McRobert based off a similar formula Steve Reeves used.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
…I personally would like to hear from Brick…when someone refers to Brick…not the “we” who seem to speak for each other.[/quote]
I don’t know what Brick thinks but 5’10" 10% 210 is pretty attainable. Having done that and never touched a weight with no upper body size as was alluded to is very questionable but maybe they work some type of very physically demanding job that forced them to become built without gym time. However MassiveGuns 5’6" 220lb 6% year round natty friend is mythical. At least one, and most likely two of those descriptors is false.[/quote]
He said SIX to 10…and you only focused on the 10.
Either way, I do believe I would like to hear from Brick.
Perhaps the pages of nonsense would stop…if some of you stopped trying to speak for one another and allowed an actual discussion to happen instead of the mob attack.
[quote]mistereg wrote:
I know two guys in various sports (wrestling and basketball) who are very lean (6-10% bf) and weigh almost the same as this “natural limit lbm numbers” suggest. (one of these guys is 5’10 and weighs 210 lbs). They have never touched a weight in their life…Both of them have huge legs and small upper bodies. So what do u think would happen if these guys started lifting weights? They would add lbm and would be over the “natural limit” easily. Does this makes them top natural bodybuilders?[/quote]
It is very likely that they wouldn’t add any significant size regardless of protocol or diet.
[/quote]
I am very interested in what makes you think this.
Someone who never trained like a bodybuilder would be lagging in many areas…so how would they possibly not gain any size at all if they started training like one?[/quote]
I’m curious about this as well.
Definitely, some mass would be gained. Sounds like it would mostly be upper body mass from the example given, so 5 lbs of pure LBM on an upper body would be a HUGE difference.
[quote]mistereg wrote:
I know two guys in various sports (wrestling and basketball) who are very lean (6-10% bf) and weigh almost the same as this “natural limit lbm numbers” suggest. (one of these guys is 5’10 and weighs 210 lbs). They have never touched a weight in their life…Both of them have huge legs and small upper bodies. So what do u think would happen if these guys started lifting weights? They would add lbm and would be over the “natural limit” easily. Does this makes them top natural bodybuilders?[/quote]
It is very likely that they wouldn’t add any significant size regardless of protocol or diet.
[/quote]
I am very interested in what makes you think this.
Someone who never trained like a bodybuilder would be lagging in many areas…so how would they possibly not gain any size at all if they started training like one?[/quote]
I’m curious about this as well.
Definitely, some mass would be gained. Sounds like it would mostly be upper body mass from the example given, so 5 lbs of pure LBM on an upper body would be a HUGE difference.
[/quote]
Exactly.
I know many athletes with big legs…who avoided ever training lateral delts, traps, chest, or back hard.
Unless there is a disease process going on, nothing should be hindering further growth…which is one reason that “limit” can be questioned in athletes instead of only looking at natural competing bodybuilders.
I am not trying to speak for Brick. I am speaking for myself as I alluded to. And I focused on the 10 because the 10 is believable. He is getting into unbelievable territory with 210 6% and NEVER TOUCHED A WEIGHT but I suppose that one is slightly possible with a large enough framed person.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
5 10, 210 and 6-10% natural? Oh no bro.
Brickhead says you are either a) lying b) your friends are on roids c) you don’t know what bodyfat is. Because he talked to a load of bodybuilders about it. Who apparently are all pathological liars. Does that make much sense?
[/quote]
5’10, 210 pounds @ 10% isn’t unattainable as a natural and I’m sure Brick would agree.
Please try not to stir up more S, things have become civil lately and lets yet to keep it that way.
I’m sure we can keep it civil for a little while until some mega douche decides to try and really stir it up again…
Did you get a chance to snap a photo of your massive guns for me?
I am still waiting for the arms tips because mine are lagging :([/quote]
For the record, I’m 5’9" 230 at approximately 18% BF. I was 17 at my last DEXA scan so I know that’s very close. Theoretically, if I dropped half of my body fat I would be about 209 at a true 9%, and I haven’t used roids. So I would agree that it’s doable.
[quote]bpick86 wrote: I don’t know what Brick thinks but 5’10" 10% 210 is pretty attainable. Having done that and never touched a weight with no upper body size as was alluded to is very questionable but maybe they work some type of very physically demanding job that forced them to become built without gym time. However MassiveGuns 5’6" 220lb 6% year round natty friend is mythical. At least one, and most likely two of those descriptors is false.[/quote]
This is a good point and I am glad you are not speaking for brick.
Also, people lie.
All the time.
Who knows what anyone’s stats really are or if they are natural or if the train consistently or not.
Who really knows.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I am not trying to speak for Brick. I am speaking for myself as I attained. And I focused on the 10 because the 10 is believable. He is getting into unbelievable territory with 210 6% and never touched a weight but I suppose that one is slightly possible with a large enough framed person. [/quote]
So you think a person with a large frame could pass this “limit”?
That is interesting…because I would think the same…and I would also think that someone with a very wide frame may also be NON-idealic for bodybuilding in terms of proportion…which questions why one would only look at competing bodybuilders for a “perceived limit”.
[quote]mistereg wrote:
I know two guys in various sports (wrestling and basketball) who are very lean (6-10% bf) and weigh almost the same as this “natural limit lbm numbers” suggest. (one of these guys is 5’10 and weighs 210 lbs). They have never touched a weight in their life…Both of them have huge legs and small upper bodies. So what do u think would happen if these guys started lifting weights? They would add lbm and would be over the “natural limit” easily. Does this makes them top natural bodybuilders?[/quote]
It is very likely that they wouldn’t add any significant size regardless of protocol or diet.
[/quote]
I am very interested in what makes you think this.
Someone who never trained like a bodybuilder would be lagging in many areas…so how would they possibly not gain any size at all if they started training like one?[/quote]
I’m curious about this as well.
Definitely, some mass would be gained. Sounds like it would mostly be upper body mass from the example given, so 5 lbs of pure LBM on an upper body would be a HUGE difference.
[/quote]
Exactly.
I know many athletes with big legs…who avoided ever training lateral delts, traps, chest, or back hard.
Unless there is a disease process going on, nothing should be hindering further growth…which is one reason that “limit” can be questioned in athletes instead of only looking at natural competing bodybuilders.[/quote]
You should go read the last part of blue’s thread. He states he had been at the same weight yet his mass has been redistributed. Legs shrunk and upper body came up
I would argue that is what would happen in this case
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I am not trying to speak for Brick. I am speaking for myself as I alluded to. And I focused on the 10 because the 10 is believable. He is getting into unbelievable territory with 210 6% and never touched a weight but I suppose that one is slightly possible with a large enough framed person. [/quote]
Maybe next time you should begin your post with:
“I don’t know what Brick thinks”…
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I don’t know what Brick thinks but 5’10" 10% 210 is pretty attainable. Having done that and never touched a weight with no upper body size as was alluded to is very questionable but maybe they work some type of very physically demanding job that forced them to become built without gym time. However MassiveGuns 5’6" 220lb 6% year round natty friend is mythical. At least one, and most likely two of those descriptors is false.[/quote]
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
5 10, 210 and 6-10% natural? Oh no bro.
Brickhead says you are either a) lying b) your friends are on roids c) you don’t know what bodyfat is. Because he talked to a load of bodybuilders about it. Who apparently are all pathological liars. Does that make much sense?
[/quote]
5’10, 210 pounds @ 10% isn’t unattainable as a natural and I’m sure Brick would agree.
Please try not to stir up more S, things have become civil lately and lets yet to keep it that way.
I’m sure we can keep it civil for a little while until some mega douche decides to try and really stir it up again…
Did you get a chance to snap a photo of your massive guns for me?
I am still waiting for the arms tips because mine are lagging :([/quote]
For the record, I’m 5’9" 230 at approximately 18% BF. I was 17 at my last DEXA scan so I know that’s very close. Theoretically, if I dropped half of my body fat I would be about 209 at a true 9%, and I haven’t used roids. So I would agree that it’s doable.
[/quote]
Agreed. It is very doable…and more than that is doable.
Whether people do it on award winning natural bodybuilding stages is another story altogether.
You should go read the last part of blue’s thread. He states he had been at the same weight yet his mass has been redistributed. Legs shrunk and upper body came up
I would argue that is what would happen in this case [/quote]
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
5 10, 210 and 6-10% natural? Oh no bro.
Brickhead says you are either a) lying b) your friends are on roids c) you don’t know what bodyfat is. Because he talked to a load of bodybuilders about it. Who apparently are all pathological liars. Does that make much sense?
[/quote]
5’10, 210 pounds @ 10% isn’t unattainable as a natural and I’m sure Brick would agree.
Please try not to stir up more S, things have become civil lately and lets yet to keep it that way.
I’m sure we can keep it civil for a little while until some mega douche decides to try and really stir it up again…
Did you get a chance to snap a photo of your massive guns for me?
I am still waiting for the arms tips because mine are lagging :([/quote]
For the record, I’m 5’9" 230 at approximately 18% BF. I was 17 at my last DEXA scan so I know that’s very close. Theoretically, if I dropped half of my body fat I would be about 209 at a true 9%, and I haven’t used roids. So I would agree that it’s doable.
[/quote]
Good job man, you’ve put on some good size.
What are your goals and plans?
This “limit” is completely separate from the one we beat to death earlier first off. But yes, it would take a very large frame person to hit 210 6%bf @ 5’10". That being said, there have been some very successful naturally large framed body builders, Dave Draper comes to mind. Reg Park was very large framed back in the day. And the reason bodybuilders were used as a gauge to try to quantify “LBM potential” is because they are the ones that have come the closest to achieving that.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
This “limit” is completely separate from the one we beat to death earlier first off. But yes, it would take a very large frame person to hit 210 6%bf @ 5’10". That being said, there have been some very successful naturally large framed body builders, Dave Draper comes to mind. Reg Park was very large framed back in the day. And the reason bodybuilders were used as a gauge to try to quantify “LBM potential” is because they are the ones that have come the closest to achieving that.[/quote]
No, by large I do not just mean big muscles or wide shoulders.
For instance, how tall are you and what is your shoe size?
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
5 10, 210 and 6-10% natural? Oh no bro.
Brickhead says you are either a) lying b) your friends are on roids c) you don’t know what bodyfat is. Because he talked to a load of bodybuilders about it. Who apparently are all pathological liars. Does that make much sense?
[/quote]
5’10, 210 pounds @ 10% isn’t unattainable as a natural and I’m sure Brick would agree.
Please try not to stir up more S, things have become civil lately and lets yet to keep it that way.
I’m sure we can keep it civil for a little while until some mega douche decides to try and really stir it up again…
Did you get a chance to snap a photo of your massive guns for me?
I am still waiting for the arms tips because mine are lagging :([/quote]
For the record, I’m 5’9" 230 at approximately 18% BF. I was 17 at my last DEXA scan so I know that’s very close. Theoretically, if I dropped half of my body fat I would be about 209 at a true 9%, and I haven’t used roids. So I would agree that it’s doable.
[/quote]
Agreed. It is very doable…and more than that is doable.
Whether people do it on award winning natural bodybuilding stages is another story altogether.[/quote]
Yes but they did it while lifting weights as I am assuming Gooze has. It is pretty unbelievable although not entirely unfathomable that it could be done by strictly playing a sport without lifting a weight. On a side not, what wrestling or basketball program doesn’t lift weights?
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
This “limit” is completely separate from the one we beat to death earlier first off. But yes, it would take a very large frame person to hit 210 6%bf @ 5’10". That being said, there have been some very successful naturally large framed body builders, Dave Draper comes to mind. Reg Park was very large framed back in the day. And the reason bodybuilders were used as a gauge to try to quantify “LBM potential” is because they are the ones that have come the closest to achieving that.[/quote]
No, by large I do not just mean big muscles or wide shoulders.
For instance, how tall are you and what is your shoe size?[/quote]
5’10.5" size 11.5 I also have small wrists and ankles but wide shoulders for my frame