What Naturals are Truly Capable of...

Training
881

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Although I believe the type of development mentioned could be achieved without direct weight training, that development is the response to some type of athletic conditioning. If the individual is indeed 5’10" @ 210 in lean condition the odds are against any significant unassisted development. Note that I clearly said ‘odds are against’ not impossible.
[/quote]

I would disagree just from personal experience.[/quote]

My personal experience has been different…Yes;I have known one or two individuals like that, however the majority of individuals were not. You have mentioned that the ‘Lion’s Share’ of your experience has been with ‘Top Shelf’ individuals, I suspect that influences opinion.

882

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Although I believe the type of development mentioned could be achieved without direct weight training, that development is the response to some type of athletic conditioning. If the individual is indeed 5’10" @ 210 in lean condition the odds are against any significant unassisted development. Note that I clearly said ‘odds are against’ not impossible.
[/quote]

I would disagree just from personal experience.[/quote]

My personal experience has been different…Yes;I have known one or two individuals like that, however the majority of individuals were not. You have mentioned that the ‘Lion’s Share’ of your experience has been with ‘Top Shelf’ individuals, I suspect that influences opinion.
[/quote]

I can agree with that. Most of my friends are big dudes…even if they don’t lift. That is why I don’t buy the “limits”…because while NONE of them may win a bodybuilding contest, no one is looking at them and saying, “oh, that’s just fat”. They are muscular guys who would be really muscular if they ever lifted like I do.

My cousin was hitting 260lbs over a year ago and was a NFL prospect in high school before an injury that killed that plan.

I am related to someone who is a famous athlete…so I already know my genetics are not “average”…which is why I hate telling everyone to accept less or to guide themselves by what “most” think they can do instead of actually seeing what your body does.

883

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

Although I believe the type of development mentioned could be achieved without direct weight training, that development is the response to some type of athletic conditioning. If the individual is indeed 5’10" @ 210 in lean condition the odds are against any significant unassisted development. Note that I clearly said ‘odds are against’ not impossible.
[/quote]

I would disagree just from personal experience.[/quote]

My personal experience has been different…Yes;I have known one or two individuals like that, however the majority of individuals were not. You have mentioned that the ‘Lion’s Share’ of your experience has been with ‘Top Shelf’ individuals, I suspect that influences opinion.
[/quote]

I can agree with that. Most of my friends are big dudes…even if they don’t lift. That is why I don’t buy the “limits”…because while NONE of them may win a bodybuilding contest, no one is looking at them and saying, “oh, that’s just fat”. They are muscular guys who would be really muscular if they ever lifted like I do.

My cousin was hitting 260lbs over a year ago and was a NFL prospect in high school before an injury that killed that plan.

I am related to someone who is a famous athlete…so I already know my genetics are not “average”…which is why I hate telling everyone to accept less or to guide themselves by what “most” think they can do instead of actually seeing what your body does.[/quote]

Me and you don’t agree about some things (maybe a lot of things) but I do agree that no one should impose any kind of limits on themselves. I look at my proposed 202 at 10% limit and think I can best that. Most lifters would I think.

Most of the discussions that have been had regarding limits really serve no purpose except to provide an interesting debate for those intrigued by the academic side of the human body. And I think some of the ideas discussed can be useful in providing a comparison between differently built individuals.

884

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

Me and you don’t agree about some things (maybe a lot of things) but I do agree that no one should impose any kind of limits on themselves. I look at my proposed 202 at 10% limit and think I can best that. Most lifters would I think.

Most of the discussions that have been had regarding limits really serve no purpose except to provide an interesting debate for those intrigued by the academic side of the human body. And I think some of the ideas discussed can be useful in providing a comparison between differently built individuals. [/quote]

I think what got missed in those threads is the fact that people right here do not fit into some “average category”…and that has NOTHING to do with what the best naturals are capable of.

Those are two completely different arguments.

Someone with a large frame…like some guy who is 5’9" with a size 13 shoe and wide shoulders and hips…may never win a bodybuilding contest even if he is the biggest dude on stage.

That would mean he gets overlooked if someone comes along and ONLY looks at winners or competitors of “natural bodybuilding” and tries to use that as a sample of all of human population and achievement.

885

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I look at my proposed 202 at 10% limit and think I can best that. Most lifters would I think.

Most of the discussions that have been had regarding limits really serve no purpose except to provide an interesting debate for those intrigued by the academic side of the human body. And I think some of the ideas discussed can be useful in providing a comparison between differently built individuals. [/quote]
How tall are you bpick?
Edit:
You’re 5’11?
A 10% 202 wouldn’t be your “limit” If we work off of the 3lbs per inch scenario.
A lean 8-10% 210lbs would be more around your number.
That is pretty damn big my man.

886

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I look at my proposed 202 at 10% limit and think I can best that. Most lifters would I think.

Most of the discussions that have been had regarding limits really serve no purpose except to provide an interesting debate for those intrigued by the academic side of the human body. And I think some of the ideas discussed can be useful in providing a comparison between differently built individuals. [/quote]
How tall are you bpick?[/quote]

5’ 10.5" I did some crude wrist and ankle measurements and plugged them into a formula so there may be a little error there but I don’t think I was off my much.

887

I think people get too caught up with numbers.
210 might not sound huge but if you stood next to a guy who was 210 with 8-10% you would think they were huge and that they weighed much more than they do.

Just look at the results from the NY Pro 212 division.
Those guys look absolutely ENORMOUS but weighed in under 212lbs lol.
Granted those guys are short (think 5’7-5’8) but still.
Being lean makes you look way bigger.

888

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

Me and you don’t agree about some things (maybe a lot of things) but I do agree that no one should impose any kind of limits on themselves. I look at my proposed 202 at 10% limit and think I can best that. Most lifters would I think.

Most of the discussions that have been had regarding limits really serve no purpose except to provide an interesting debate for those intrigued by the academic side of the human body. And I think some of the ideas discussed can be useful in providing a comparison between differently built individuals. [/quote]

I think what got missed in those threads is the fact that people right here do not fit into some “average category”…and that has NOTHING to do with what the best naturals are capable of.

Those are two completely different arguments.

Someone with a large frame…like some guy who is 5’9" with a size 13 shoe and wide shoulders and hips…may never win a bodybuilding contest even if he is the biggest dude on stage.

That would mean he gets overlooked if someone comes along and ONLY looks at winners or competitors of “natural bodybuilding” and tries to use that as a sample of all of human population and achievement.[/quote]

Yeah, I get what your saying but I don’t think it will make as big of a difference as you do. I think that there is <10% increase in those potential LBM numbers for even the outliers that Blue was referring to. I cant prove that I’m right, because its conjecture and my limited anecdotal evidence, same as you can prove that I am wrong but you believe that I am because of your anecdotal evidence. Hence the impasse in the debate. And if it hasn’t been made clear, I do not share the same disdain for you that many others do. I just don’t always agree with you but I try to keep things civil and on point.

889

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Does anyon actually believe that there are natural 5’10 210 pound basketball players at 6% who have never touched a weight in their life?[/quote]
no

890

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I think people get too caught up with numbers.
210 might not sound huge but if you stood next to a guy who was 210 with 8-10% you would think they were huge and that they weighed much more than they do.

Just look at the results from the NY Pro 212 division.
Those guys look absolutely ENORMOUS but weighed in under 212lbs lol.
Granted those guys are short (think 5’7-5’8) but still.
Being lean makes you look way bigger.[/quote]

Yeah, I know they are, but that doesn’t stop me from thinking I could do that. Probably same as you have never once thought, My body isn’t capable of that (with the obvious common sense exceptions of looking like Phil Heath as a natty or something similar).

891

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
*I do not believe that discussing the lifetime development of previous bodybuilders, listing those developments in a table, or calculating stats from the data could interfere with any individuals progress or development unless they are ‘weak’ minded to begin with
[/quote]

x2

892

Since others have thrown in themselves as examples, I’ll use me too :slight_smile:

5’10, size 10.5-11 shoe. Was 19 years old when I first lifted a weight. My height and shoe size are still the same. My weight at that time was just under 130. I’m in the 180’s now, I have NOT worked out consistently over the past 10 years (I’m 29 now), and my bodyfat percentage is lower than it was when I was 130 (decent vascularity now, zero vascularity then.)

This is why I tend to be in the X camp on the limits stuff. I don’t consider myself to be particularly close to my own limit, given my lack of dedication over the years, and I’ve put on at least 40 lbs lean mass as an adult. I think the degree of variance between individuals is larger than many realize.

Flame away :wink:

893

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I cant prove that I’m right, because its conjecture and my limited anecdotal evidence, same as you can prove that I am wrong but you believe that I am because of your anecdotal evidence. Hence the impasse in the debate. [/quote]

That isn’t an impasse.

I just don’t use conjecture to decide for me what an individual can do…because real science fact teaches me human variability…and real world experience shows me outliers.

I simply feel bad for the guy who can do more but is convinced that he should stick to “exactly 2lbs of gain a month” because said this is all a person can gain…when that author has no clinical medical degree to back up that claim.

Most of the guys reading this are not grown men who have already gotten big…they are KIDS trying to look and see what works and what doesn’t.

That is why we should be aware of the overall effect of telling people certain things.

An adult has already learned what they are capable of.

A child can still be TOLD…and will be believe what they are told.

894

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
Since others have thrown in themselves as examples, I’ll use me too :slight_smile:

5’10, size 10.5-11 shoe. Was 19 years old when I first lifted a weight. My height and shoe size are still the same. My weight at that time was just under 130. I’m in the 180’s now, I have NOT worked out consistently over the past 10 years (I’m 29 now), and my bodyfat percentage is lower than it was when I was 130 (decent vascularity now, zero vascularity then.)

This is why I tend to be in the X camp on the limits stuff. I don’t consider myself to be particularly close to my own limit, given my lack of dedication over the years, and I’ve put on at least 40 lbs lean mass as an adult. I think the degree of variance between individuals is larger than many realize.

Flame away ;)[/quote]
The more generally accepted standard seems to be a lean, 8-10%, 3 pounds per inch.
You still have 20+ pounds of pure muscle to go :wink:
Lookin good BTW

895

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
Since others have thrown in themselves as examples, I’ll use me too :slight_smile:

5’10, size 10.5-11 shoe. Was 19 years old when I first lifted a weight. My height and shoe size are still the same. My weight at that time was just under 130. I’m in the 180’s now, I have NOT worked out consistently over the past 10 years (I’m 29 now), and my bodyfat percentage is lower than it was when I was 130 (decent vascularity now, zero vascularity then.)

This is why I tend to be in the X camp on the limits stuff. I don’t consider myself to be particularly close to my own limit, given my lack of dedication over the years, and I’ve put on at least 40 lbs lean mass as an adult. I think the degree of variance between individuals is larger than many realize.

Flame away ;)[/quote]

No one should be flaming you at all.

You made good progress.

896

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am related to someone who is a famous athlete…[/quote]

Wes Welker?

897

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am related to someone who is a famous athlete…[/quote]

Wes Welker?[/quote]

You would probably never guess…and I don’t know if he wants to be talked about here.

I am just saying that if it were known who the guy is, maybe less would believe my gains are so unbelievable or whatever the issue is they seem to have with me.

898

[quote]Gooze wrote:
I’d be much happier reaching 250lbs at 12% bf than I would 225 at 6%, but that’s just me, and that will still likely take 10 years, but that’s okay. [/quote]
12% bodyfat isn’t even fat is a decent amount of leanness lol

899

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I simply feel bad for the guy who can do more but is convinced that he should stick to “exactly 2lbs of gain a month” because said this is all a person can gain…when that author has no clinical medical degree to back up that claim.
[/quote]

Serious question X: I personally only read studies published in CSCS and Nutrition related journals as those type of studies relate to my own training. Are there actually any published ‘medical’ studies that have looked at the amount of muscle a human can gain? I would imagine that in the absence of actual studies, that simply making educated approximations from collected data should be viewed not as limiting, but certainly giving a fairly useful picture, even if the sample group is somewhat narrow.

S

900

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am related to someone who is a famous athlete…[/quote]

Wes Welker?[/quote]
A different patriot perhaps?
Vince Wilfork?
:wink: