What Naturals are Truly Capable of...

Training
981

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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?[/quote]

So nobody mentions race but you can pull the race card as to people not being fair to you.

Then you can start ragging on white man feet size and it’s all gravy? So not only are we supposed to respect your awe inspiring muscle size but your foot as well?

982

[quote]Waittz wrote:

So nobody mentions race but you can pull the race card as to people not being fair to you.

Then you can start ragging on white man feet size and it’s all gravy? So not only are we supposed to respect your awe inspiring muscle size but your foot as well? [/quote]

Dear Lord…do you think the average Caucasian male matches the lean body mass of the average Samoan?

How about this…you try to stay on topic and have an actual adult discussion and this thread doesn’t turn to complete shit again.

983

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

So nobody mentions race but you can pull the race card as to people not being fair to you.

Then you can start ragging on white man feet size and it’s all gravy? So not only are we supposed to respect your awe inspiring muscle size but your foot as well? [/quote]

Dear Lord…do you think the average Caucasian male matches the lean body mass of the average Samoan?

How about this…you try to stay on topic and have an actual adult discussion and this thread doesn’t turn to complete shit again.[/quote]

How about this…no.

984

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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?[/quote]

If they’re smart, they wouldn’t. However, it would provide some fairly interesting information seeing what competitive bodybuilders have been able to accomplish over the years of constantly trying to push their limits.

S

985

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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?[/quote]

If they’re smart, they wouldn’t. However, it would provide some fairly interesting information seeing what competitive bodybuilders have been able to accomplish over the years of constantly trying to push their limits.

S[/quote]

That is all it is…interesting information.

Glad we agree.

Thanks for the good discussion.

986

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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?[/quote]

If they’re smart, they wouldn’t. However, it would provide some fairly interesting information seeing what competitive bodybuilders have been able to accomplish over the years of constantly trying to push their limits.

S[/quote]

That is all it is…interesting information.

Glad we agree.

Thanks for the good discussion.[/quote]

Way to go! You manipulated another persons intent to make it sound like you are right! Self high five!

987

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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?[/quote]

If they’re smart, they wouldn’t. However, it would provide some fairly interesting information seeing what competitive bodybuilders have been able to accomplish over the years of constantly trying to push their limits.

S[/quote]

Agreed it would

Stu can you change your AVI it just make hate my arms more than I have to

988

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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?[/quote]

If they’re smart, they wouldn’t. However, it would provide some fairly interesting information seeing what competitive bodybuilders have been able to accomplish over the years of constantly trying to push their limits.

S[/quote]

That is all it is…interesting information.

Glad we agree.

Thanks for the good discussion.[/quote]

Benchmarks and guidelines are useful to anyone pursing a given goal. Having them can give something to strive for, provide a visual image of what actual stats (which mean nothing when posted online) can look like, and even serve as a target to try to exceed with your own progress. If such statistics and measurements can possibly be applied to the vast majority of people who would be interested in them in the first place, I see no reason for anyone to take issue.

You have a background in science, isn’t it the accepted practice to come up with what accepted norms may be based on collected information, until such time as more/better studies have been done and you can verify an honest provable shift in your standards?

S

989

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
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]

I wouldn’t go as far as to say that. I don’t really care what I look like if I’m able to perform on the platform, run after my 5 yo (those little guys are fast and furious), and I’m not heart attack material. How balanced I look, how big my calves or biceps are, or whether or not I have abs doesn’t really matter.

I think that the site revolves more around performance than just bodybuilding. There’s CTs forum (and CT is very much about performance, the Powerlifting forum, oly lifting forum, and conditioning forum.

james

990

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

Benchmarks and guidelines are useful to anyone pursing a given goal. Having them can give something to strive for, provide a visual image of what actual stats (which mean nothing when posted online) can look like, and even serve as a target to try to exceed with your own progress. [/quote]

I definitely agree with this…which is why I have discussed weight set points before and setting actual goals like that if the end goal is to be extremely developed.

[quote]
If such statistics and measurements can possibly be applied to the vast majority of people who would be interested in them in the first place, I see no reason for anyone to take issue.[/quote]

Well, that’s the problem…the world is now included whereas this was mostly an “american of privilege” activity before due to the finances needed for food and trraining which could be seen as a luxury.

That means they can’t be applied to the vast majority anymore.

[quote]

You have a background in science, isn’t it the accepted practice to come up with what accepted norms may be based on collected information, until such time as more/better studies have been done and you can verify an honest provable shift in your standards?

S[/quote]

Yes. We also are educated in the concept that in order to come to any conclusion on what even most of humanity can do, you would not use such a limited sample to even approach that idea.

991

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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?[/quote]

If they’re smart, they wouldn’t. However, it would provide some fairly interesting information seeing what competitive bodybuilders have been able to accomplish over the years of constantly trying to push their limits.

S[/quote]

That is all it is…interesting information.

Glad we agree.

Thanks for the good discussion.[/quote]

Benchmarks and guidelines are useful to anyone pursing a given goal. Having them can give something to strive for, provide a visual image of what actual stats (which mean nothing when posted online) can look like, and even serve as a target to try to exceed with your own progress. If such statistics and measurements can possibly be applied to the vast majority of people who would be interested in them in the first place, I see no reason for anyone to take issue.

You have a background in science, isn’t it the accepted practice to come up with what accepted norms may be based on collected information, until such time as more/better studies have been done and you can verify an honest provable shift in your standards?

S[/quote]

Its just semantics, but changing the word limits to benchmarks, guidelines, or averages in a lot of the “Limits” shit storm posts might actually alleviate a lot of the disagreement surrounding them. Maybe…

992

[quote]Waittz wrote:

So nobody mentions race but you can pull the race card as to people not being fair to you.

Then you can start ragging on white man feet size and it’s all gravy? So not only are we supposed to respect your awe inspiring muscle size but your foot as well? [/quote]

fruit by the foot

993

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

So nobody mentions race but you can pull the race card as to people not being fair to you.

Then you can start ragging on white man feet size and it’s all gravy? So not only are we supposed to respect your awe inspiring muscle size but your foot as well? [/quote]

fruit by the foot[/quote]

Do White guys have small feet?

"On the next “As T-Nation’s Nutz Shrivel”

994

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
If such statistics and measurements can possibly be applied to the vast majority of people who would be interested in them in the first place, I see no reason for anyone to take issue.[/quote]

Well, that’s the problem…the world is now included whereas this was mostly an “american of privilege” activity before due to the finances needed for food and training which could be seen as a luxury.

That means they can’t be applied to the vast majority anymore.
[/quote]

Even so, is there any reason to say that these aren’t still effective as general guidelines/benchmarks, for the majority of people?

It’s sort of like any scientific or mathematical model, many of them have been proven “wrong” over the years, but even the more naive models – when used in the right context – are often accurate enough.

To tell someone that they probably won’t be able to have lean 24" arms naturally but that they can have 14" arms naturally has this same concept of limits built in; it’s not that it can’t happen, just that it probably won’t. If natural anabolic hormone production runs awry, I think it’s completely possible… just very highly unlikely at this stage in our evolution. Likewise, statistics show that lean 14" arms are achievable by just about anyone.

As far as I know, no bodybuilder, recreationally or not, has significantly exceeded these limits. Theories tend to be considered “correct” until proven otherwise, and so far I’m not aware of these limits being proven wrong. When we do, it’s time to adjust the model.

That should pretty much make them applicable to the vast majority.

995

[quote]LoRez wrote:

Even so, is there any reason to say that these aren’t still effective as general guidelines/benchmarks, for the majority of people?[/quote]

I would disagree with them being “guidelines” for anyone but people who expect to do worse.

“benchmarks” yes.

[quote]
It’s sort of like any scientific or mathematical model, many of them have been proven “wrong” over the years, but even the more naive models – when used in the right context – are often accurate enough.[/quote]

The problem here is that they are being used often in the wrong context…like to tell if someone is natural or not…or to imply that someone did not make gains even if they were body fat tested simply because you believe in the “limit”.

The “right context” would be simply observing the data and saying, “well, that is what those guys did”. Nothing more.

[quote]

To tell someone that they probably won’t be able to have lean 24" arms naturally but that they can have 14" arms naturally has this same concept of limits built in; it’s not that it can’t happen, just that it probably won’t. [/quote]

I think this is a horrible example. Most grown men should have 14" arms from masturbation alone.

I agree that some extremes are “improbable”…but setting that limit right at a point many believe can be passed and many are saying they passed just seems outright obstinate to any opposing views.

There is a huge difference between using a “24” arm" as an example when maybe Ronnie had 23"…and saying no one can gain more than 80lbs of lean body mass when people right next to you are saying they did it.

[quote]

If natural anabolic hormone production runs awry, I think it’s completely possible… just very highly unlikely at this stage in our evolution. Likewise, statistics show that lean 14" arms are achievable by just about anyone.

As far as I know, no bodybuilder, recreationally or not, has significantly exceeded these limits. [/quote]

How much is “significantly”? If they passed it, then why would that limit still stand at all?

The scientific truth is that it is an UNKNOWN. Sure, you can use these as a benchmark for your own progress…but using them as a guide as to what can actually be done is taking it too far.

[quote]

Theories tend to be considered “correct” until proven otherwise, and so far I’m not aware of these limits being proven wrong. When we do, it’s time to adjust the model.

That should pretty much make them applicable to the vast majority.[/quote]

But, many are saying they are wrong…the people who are just get told they will lose the lean body mass when they diet down to contest condition…even though most will never compete…so these limits should NEVER BE USED to represent what all naturals can do…since most naturals won’t ever compete.

996

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve never seen it phrased as “no one can gain more than 80lbs lean mass”, or really in any truly limiting phrasing.

It’s quite possible that some people phrase it that way, but I’ve never seen it written that way on these forums. As far as I’ve seen, it’s been treated in the same way as any other “record” is in any other sport… nothing more than “this is the best that’s been done up until now.”

If you met some kid and he was hoping to run a 2 minute mile, would you encourage that? Or would you attempt to set him straight on what’s been achieved so far… and then wish him luck? Or really, how would you approach that? Genuinely curious.

I think it’s an unrealistic goal and he should be “corrected” to a more realistic goal… say, a 4 minute mile. When he can do that, I’d encourage him to push the envelope. In fact, I’d probably stick with a goal of something quite a bit “easier”, just to build the momentum of positive reinforcement rather than the constant negative of “shit, I didn’t make a 2 minute mile this time either”.

Of those that are saying they have surpassed their “lean mass limits”, they may have actually done that. But those charts aren’t really of “lean mass limits”, rather “lean mass at a competitive bodybuilding fat %” … which is technically … “lean mass at a fat % low enough to be competitive in a high-tier bodybuilding competition”. It’s not a clearly defined bodyfat percentage.

As of yet, I don’t think there’s anyone who has dieted down to be competitive in a high-tier bodybuilding competition, who has exceeded those calculations.

997

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve never seen it phrased as “no one can gain more than 80lbs lean mass”, or really in any truly limiting phrasing.

It’s quite possible that some people phrase it that way, but I’ve never seen it written that way on these forums. As far as I’ve seen, it’s been treated in the same way as any other “record” is in any other sport… nothing more than “this is the best that’s been done up until now.”[/quote]

I don’t feel like going back into threads that are now closed down…but that was my biggest issue with what Brick was writing before. He has since stopped saying that it is a limit for all naturals from what I can tell.

I have quoted what he wrote many times…but when you are getting shouted down by several posters over 30 pages, it gets lost.

If no one is saying this is what naturals are limited to, then there is no problem.

Would’t that depend on how fast the kid is?

Why would I tell them what they can’t do if I am not aware of what they can do?

If he can run fast enough to possibly challenge that with training, then that is all that matters no matter how improbable it may be to the general population.

Uh, yeah…that’s the big problem and what causes so much debate.

I look at what the individual actually does…you choose to ignore that to tell them what other people can do.

If someone has great genetics, why would I be sitting there telling them that they can’t do something? To protect them?

From trying too hard?

Well, then, that means it does not apply to most people here…which questions its relevance at all outside of someone who specifically trying to compete in natural contest against guys who look like the guys who have won in the 60’s.

998

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Uh, yeah…that’s the big problem and what causes so much debate.

I look at what the individual actually does…you choose to ignore that to tell them what other people can do.[/quote]

There was a reason for the “correction”. It wasn’t “it can’t be done”, it’s “don’t focus on that now, until it’s more attainable for you”. If the guy is currently running a 6 minute mile, it’d probably be better to focus on the near term of getting a 5:30 mile, then a 5:00 mile, then 4:30, etc. It’s not “there’s no way you’ll ever get a 2 minute mile so you should just give up”.

Likewise on the weight gain. There’s nothing wrong with an extremely aggressive goal, but if you’re focusing ONLY on that goal without breaking it down into easier-to-achieve chunks… for most people… this just ends up causing discouragement and disappointment. For some, that’s exactly what they need for motivation, but for many, a series of smaller goals is a better route.

Maybe the word “realistic” is a bad choice. But I would say someone who wants to weigh a lean 900lbs is being unrealistic. It’s more a matter of where you draw the line. I think “the best that anyone’s done + a bit more” is realistic. Shooting beyond that is fine, once you’ve already gotten that far.

[quote][quote]
Of those that are saying they have surpassed their “lean mass limits”, they may have actually done that. But those charts aren’t really of “lean mass limits”, rather “lean mass at a competitive bodybuilding fat %” … which is technically … “lean mass at a fat % low enough to be competitive in a high-tier bodybuilding competition”. It’s not a clearly defined bodyfat percentage. As of yet, I don’t think there’s anyone who has dieted down to be competitive in a high-tier bodybuilding competition, who has exceeded those calculations.[/quote]

Well, then, that means it does not apply to most people here…which questions its relevance at all outside of someone who specifically trying to compete in natural contest against guys who look like the guys who have won in the 60’s.[/quote]

I agree that it doesn’t apply to most people here.

Just as looking at physiques of Olympia winners is also inapplicable to most people here, and effectively irrelevant to all but Olympia contestants. But it’s still an interesting topic.

999

Not speaking for PX-- just interjecting my own thoughts into this very reasonable discussion.

[quote]LoRez wrote:
If you met some kid and he was hoping to run a 2 minute mile, would you be encourage that? Or would you attempt to set him straight on what’s been achieved so far… and then wish him luck? Or really, how would you approach that? Genuinely curious.[/quote]

Here’s a more applicable ‘what if’.

Take a kid like Spidey on this forum (no particular reason, just the first sort of new kid I thought of).

Say his goal was to bench a raw 800 lbs - a world record. (To my knowledge the raw WR is low 700’s)

Say his current bench is 185.

Would you NOT encourage that? I would say you say “FUCK YES”, but first, we get you to 190. Then 225, then …

You don’t say “Well, that’s a world record and you don’t have the genetics to do it because nobody has ever done it and I have a chart of all recorded raw benchpress numbers here to show it”.

The only answer is “FUCK YES, YOU CAN DO THIS, NOW GO EAT”.

Now, raw 800lb BP with #hawtabz at 10.0334534% BF — we’ll work on that a little later…

1000

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

#hawtabz at 10.0334534%
[/quote]

Thats 10.0334533%

MIND YO SHIT