What Naturals are Truly Capable of...

Training
961

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]Highjumper wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[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[/quote]

Does it matter if he was a basketball player? Or can it be any sport? Herschel Walker in high school was a fuckin monster and never touched a weight. As a freshman in college he was 6’1" 218 lbs of pure muscle. Why do you say some people can’t be this genetically gifted?[/quote]
lolololololol[/quote]

Who says Herschel Walker never touched a weight?[/quote]

I remember Shaq saying he didn’t regularly lift.

962

[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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.
[/quote]

I love when you say this sort of stuff, “no would say I/he/she is/isn’t ________ (insert negative attribute)” as if you can read EVERY human being’s mind or what they’re saying in conversation when the person of conversation is not around.

It’s the same as when Brandon Lilly was the topic of conversation in which you said, “No one would say this guy’s fat,” when it could be reasonably assumed that he was carrying 25% or more bodyfat.

963

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…when that author has no clinical medical degree to back up that claim.

[/quote]

Yeah I know right. I mean, people with masters and Phd’s in exercise physiology, kinesiology, and nutrition don’t count.

964

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[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]

No pics I’m afraid. I’m not here to prove anything. I’d like to think that the logic of what I say when I decide to talk sense speaks for itself. But then again, not everyone’s into logic.
[/quote]

Says the guy who thinks “many” is synonymous with “all”.

965

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[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]

Before I answer the direct question I want to clarify my general position on the matter…
*I do believe that every athlete/lifter has an individual genetic limit

*I do believe that less than 1% of athletes/lifters even come close to that limit

*I do believe that although there are outliners; the majority of lifters will fall within the historical averages. IMO…the outliners represent 1% of the 1% and are statistically insignificant

*I do believe that(unassisted)3lbs/inch of height in lean condition is an accomplishment few will achieve; and there are athletes/lifters that have surpassed that point, see 1% of 1% above

*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

Direct Answer…
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]

One of the best posts I’ve read in a long time.

966

[quote]Highjumper wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]Highjumper wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[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[/quote]

Does it matter if he was a basketball player? Or can it be any sport? Herschel Walker in high school was a fuckin monster and never touched a weight. As a freshman in college he was 6’1" 218 lbs of pure muscle. Why do you say some people can’t be this genetically gifted?[/quote]
lolololololol[/quote]

Who says Herschel Walker never touched a weight?[/quote]
I was talking about in highschool he didn’t but since you asked

He said it himself…[/quote]
Just to clarify, I thought it was funny because you used an example that didn’t fit the description

967

Yeah I just did it to show that there are those genetic freaks out there. As rare as they may be some do still exist

968

[quote]Highjumper wrote:
Yeah I just did it to show that there are those genetic freaks out there. As rare as they may be some do still exist[/quote]
I’m definitely aware of them.

969

[quote]Highjumper wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[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[/quote]

Does it matter if he was a basketball player? Or can it be any sport? Herschel Walker in high school was a fuckin monster and never touched a weight. As a freshman in college he was 6’1" 218 lbs of pure muscle. Why do you say some people can’t be this genetically gifted?[/quote]

Walker claimed to do over a thousand pushups and situps a day and only eat once a day, usually chicken, rice and veggies. He’s also been caught lying about a TON of shit and was diagnosed with multiple personality disorder, so do with that what you will.

970

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[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]

Before I answer the direct question I want to clarify my general position on the matter…
*I do believe that every athlete/lifter has an individual genetic limit

*I do believe that less than 1% of athletes/lifters even come close to that limit

*I do believe that although there are outliners; the majority of lifters will fall within the historical averages. IMO…the outliners represent 1% of the 1% and are statistically insignificant

*I do believe that(unassisted)3lbs/inch of height in lean condition is an accomplishment few will achieve; and there are athletes/lifters that have surpassed that point, see 1% of 1% above

*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

Direct Answer…
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]

One of the best posts I’ve read in a long time.
[/quote]

is that it then? I mean, surely no one disagrees with anything Blue said there, so are we done with this now?

971

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[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]

No pics I’m afraid. I’m not here to prove anything. I’d like to think that the logic of what I say when I decide to talk sense speaks for itself. But then again, not everyone’s into logic.
[/quote]

Says the guy who thinks “many” is synonymous with “all”.
[/quote]

Brick where did you find that gem. Here for logic I have not seen one logical post yet

972

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[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]

Before I answer the direct question I want to clarify my general position on the matter…
*I do believe that every athlete/lifter has an individual genetic limit

*I do believe that less than 1% of athletes/lifters even come close to that limit

*I do believe that although there are outliners; the majority of lifters will fall within the historical averages. IMO…the outliners represent 1% of the 1% and are statistically insignificant

*I do believe that(unassisted)3lbs/inch of height in lean condition is an accomplishment few will achieve; and there are athletes/lifters that have surpassed that point, see 1% of 1% above

*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

Direct Answer…
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]

One of the best posts I’ve read in a long time.
[/quote]

is that it then? I mean, surely no one disagrees with anything Blue said there, so are we done with this now?[/quote]

Yes. For those who missed it, here is a picture summary of Blue’s response to this thread.

973

[quote]Waittz wrote:
Yes. For those who missed it, here is a picture summary of Blue’s response to this thread. [/quote]

LOL!

974

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Actually, the SOURCE of that information should be questioned by anyone who actually does understand the variability that could fall into any study.

That is why you look at the perameters of that study…and focusing on natural bodybuilding alone leaves many questions left unanswered which we have just covered here…like all of those guys who are too awkwardly built to win a bodybuilding contest but are actually carrying more size…or all of those athletes.

It is dishonest to IGNORE the problems with the source data.[/quote]

Ahh, but this is where we keep running around in circles…

If the only people willing to diet down to truly discernible (I know, I know, not hydrostatic or DEXA, but visual, which I realize is only so accurate) levels of bodyfat, as well as having to actually weigh in the day of a contest are natural competitors (whether they win the shows or not), and everyone else falls into the description of validity simply by posted internet photos, inaccurate caliper readings by “certified” personal trainers at their local gym, or self bodyfat approximations, then you can see which options those who at least are trying to get a clearer picture will choose to look at.[/quote]

They can “choose” to look at whatever they want. That doesn’t change the fact that by focusing so intently on such a LIMITED and specific small population of people that do not represent all of mankind, saying you are using them to form “limits” for everyone is baseless and making assumptions.

“Natural Bodybuilding” isn’t just a niche sport…it is a niche sport within a niche sport…so the people who are even involved in it especially during some of the roughest times in this nation’s history can be questioned on NOT representing everyone or even the majority.

You simply know what a group of mostly caucasian males of similar body types could do in the 60’s.

[quote]
If these are the only options for source material, then even if the final answers are understood to be gross generalizations, which group would you examine from a scientific standpoint?

S[/quote]

The one that acknowledges how diverse mankind is…and not the one that ignores that to set a “limit” as a priority.

975

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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.
[/quote]

I love when you say this sort of stuff, “no would say I/he/she is/isn’t ________ (insert negative attribute)” as if you can read EVERY human being’s mind or what they’re saying in conversation when the person of conversation is not around.

It’s the same as when Brandon Lilly was the topic of conversation in which you said, “No one would say this guy’s fat,” when it could be reasonably assumed that he was carrying 25% or more bodyfat.
[/quote]

Once again, focusing on the most inane aspect of a post.

Most of us know a muscular guy when we see one.

Only on this site does it seem that some pretend as we can’t.

976

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…when that author has no clinical medical degree to back up that claim.
[/quote]

Yeah I know right. I mean, people with masters and Phd’s in exercise physiology, kinesiology, and nutrition don’t count. [/quote]

Wow…I didn’t write that…and you also need to include the entire statement. We can have an actual discussion when you do.

977

[quote]Professor X wrote:
They can “choose” to look at whatever they want. That doesn’t change the fact that by focusing so intently on such a LIMITED and specific small population of people that do not represent all of mankind, saying you are using them to form “limits” for everyone is baseless and making assumptions.

“Natural Bodybuilding” isn’t just a niche sport…it is a niche sport within a niche sport…so the people who are even involved in it especially during some of the roughest times in this nation’s history can be questioned on NOT representing everyone or even the majority.

You simply know what a group of mostly caucasian males of similar body types could do in the 60’s.[/quote]

I see what you’re saying.

For a natural bodybuilder who wants to compete in a natural federation, in a sport that’s judged by a certain set of proportional and aesthetic goals, I do think that those charts provide a pretty good set of realistic expectations for what you’ll find in your competition at the professional level… as well as a set of goals to meet and exceed.

On the other hand, some (many?) natural football player (or other athlete) may actually exceed those “limits” and carry more lean muscle mass… but never get very far in the bodybuilding world (due to the judging of proportions, aesthetics, conditioning), or because he just isn’t interested/committed/whatever. And he’s not included in the statistics.

So using those “limits” to define what a natural human being is capable of is wrong. But using those “limits” to get an idea of what a natural can achieve if his goals are bodybuilding-oriented is probably fairly accurate.

978

[quote]LoRez wrote:
So using those “limits” to define what a natural human being is capable of is wrong. But using those “limits” to get an idea of what a natural can achieve if his goals are bodybuilding-oriented is probably fairly accurate.[/quote]

Wow,… when you put it like that it all makes sense -lol. Especially considering that this entire site revolves around bodybuilding to some degree.

S

979

[quote]LoRez wrote:

I see what you’re saying.

For a natural bodybuilder who wants to compete in a natural federation, in a sport that’s judged by a certain set of proportional and aesthetic goals, I do think that those charts provide a pretty good set of realistic expectations for what you’ll find in your competition at the professional level… as well as a set of goals to meet and exceed.

On the other hand, some (many?) natural football player (or other athlete) may actually exceed those “limits” and carry more lean muscle mass… but never get very far in the bodybuilding world (due to the judging of proportions, aesthetics, conditioning), or because he just isn’t interested/committed/whatever. And he’s not included in the statistics.

So using those “limits” to define what a natural human being is capable of is wrong. But using those “limits” to get an idea of what a natural can achieve if his goals are bodybuilding-oriented is probably fairly accurate.[/quote]

Agree with this completely.

These “limits” may help you…if you fit the profile of the guys looked at…all Caucasian males who were NOT followed from puberty with similar builds.

Gee, I wonder how many of them were 5’10 with size 14’s?

980

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
So using those “limits” to define what a natural human being is capable of is wrong. But using those “limits” to get an idea of what a natural can achieve if his goals are bodybuilding-oriented is probably fairly accurate.[/quote]

Wow,… when you put it like that it all makes sense -lol. Especially considering that this entire site revolves around bodybuilding to some degree.

S[/quote]

Wait…but it DOESN’T revolve around COMPETITIVE bodybuilding.

I am sure most of the people here do not really want to compete…so why would most base their progress on the same area you would?