Max natural body weight

[Xennen]

I Just finished losing a bunch of weight (use to be 326 now at 6'2, 215 im 14% bodyfat) so Im going to start trying to bulk up again but I was wondering how big can you actually get without doing Juice ? The personal trainer who did the BF assement on me recomended I start bulking but really I could never probably break the 235-240 mark naturally and even that would take a long time (without sky rocketing my body fat back up to 20+%)

Ive read its really hard to cut your BF below 10% and due to the fact that I use to be really over weight cause of the skin I dont know If I would end up with a visible 6 pack anyways, So im kinda stuck on what to do If i should continue to cut or if its worth it for me to bulk.

[Pull14]

Originally Posted by Xennen

I Just finished losing a bunch of weight (use to be 326 now at 6'2, 215 im 14% bodyfat) so Im going to start trying to bulk up again but I was wondering how big can you actually get without doing Juice ? The personal trainer who did the BF assement on me recomended I start bulking but really I could never probably break the 235-240 mark naturally and even that would take a long time (without sky rocketing my body fat back up to 20+%)

Ive read its really hard to cut your BF below 10% and due to the fact that I use to be really over weight cause of the skin I dont know If I would end up with a visible 6 pack anyways, So im kinda stuck on what to do If i should continue to cut or if its worth it for me to bulk.

No way of telling what your genetic limits are, but one thing is for sure, most people don't come close to their limits before turning to anabolics.

The way people think of bulking is retarded, eat everything in sight to gain a **** load of fat with some muscle. Its possible to contantly gain muscle while keeping bf in the mid teen's. Its just hard because your diet has to be good, it have to be healthy and balanced. The lower you keep your bf "when bulking" the less muscle you'll lose when cutting.

[NaturalHIT]

Originally Posted by Pull14

No way of telling what your genetic limits are, but one thing is for sure, most people don't come close to their limits before turning to anabolics.

The way people think of bulking is retarded, eat everything in sight to gain a **** load of fat with some muscle. Its possible to constantly gain muscle while keeping bf in the mid teen's. Its just hard because your diet has to be good, it have to be healthy and balanced. The lower you keep your bf "when bulking" the less muscle you'll lose when cutting.

X 2.

OP, you have cut enough. If your goal is to get as muscular big as possible you need to start doing that. At 6'2" I guess you could get over 250 with 15% BF.

Biulding muscle takes time, there is a lot of tissue remodeling that needs to take place. Tendons, joints, ligaments need to strengthen and adjust.
No sense wasting your time cutting BF below what you have now.

Also gaining muscle while MAINTAINING higher BF is easier than gaining while maintaining lower BF.
IMO you should have started on muscle gaining back when you were 250.

It's not good to lose too much weight too fast, as skin does not have enough tome to shrink.

So, yes, get on a clean bulk now, gain a lot of strength and muscle. You should do it for a year at least, before considering cutting.
.

[Xennen]

Thanks Very much for the tips Also I know peoples opinions differ but If im looking to keep the BF% low while bulking I should continue to do cardio right ?

[Pull14]

Originally Posted by Xennen

Thanks Very much for the tips Also I know peoples opinions differ but If im looking to keep the BF% low while bulking I should continue to do cardio right ?

Yeah, always good to be doing some kind of conditioning. Keep it "easy" though, going over board could take away from any strength or muscular gains your seeking. Walking, light jogs, sprints, sled drags...

Of course its not necessary, but keeps ya in shape, helps keep fat off.

[glwanabe]

Originally Posted by Pull14

No way of telling what your genetic limits are, but one thing is for sure, most people don't come close to their limits before turning to anabolics.

The way people think of bulking is retarded, eat everything in sight to gain a **** load of fat with some muscle. Its possible to contantly gain muscle while keeping bf in the mid teen's. Its just hard because your diet has to be good, it have to be healthy and balanced. The lower you keep your bf "when bulking" the less muscle you'll lose when cutting.

Your a bit misinformed.

http://muscleandbrawn.com/your-maxim...-measurements/

Muscle and Brawn has done the math for you here.

http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/4798-post6.html

[Pull14]

Originally Posted by glwanabe

Your a bit misinformed.[/url]

Misinformed, no - was just never aware this exsisted. I stand corrected.

Good info.

[kris90]

Originally Posted by Pull14

No way of telling what your genetic limits are, but one thing is for sure, most people don't come close to their limits before turning to anabolics.

The way people think of bulking is retarded, eat everything in sight to gain a **** load of fat with some muscle. Its possible to contantly gain muscle while keeping bf in the mid teen's. Its just hard because your diet has to be good, it have to be healthy and balanced. The lower you keep your bf "when bulking" the less muscle you'll lose when cutting.

I agree here. There is a misconception with bulking, and I know I was guilty of it too. I figured I should eat everything in sight, non stop, all day, 24/7 and lift weights. I gained a good 40 lbs by doing this, but definitely fat came along with it. Some people who are young, and have good genes luckily can eat almost anything and not get fat. If your trying to bulk up, do it slowly, so that you will gain minimal fat. Your diet should stay the same as when cutting, but you want to increase calories to around 500 more than your burning off. Your diet still stays clean, just up calories a little bit, and maybe back off on the cardio, and this will help you gain 1 lb per week which is a safe way to pack on muscle with minimal fat.

[Xennen]

If i just kept my cutting diet the same and added more Peanutbutter/olive oil and Milk to get it up to around 3000-3200 calories would that be the best way to go ?

[NaturalHIT]

OP
I've done some loking into links for potential lean body mass and it appears most a natural 6'2" can have is about 200 lbs. LBM
According to you 215 @ 14%BF would give you 184.9 LBM
That would mean your are only 15 lbs of muscle away from world class physique.
What I am saying is that either your BF measurment is not that accurate and you have higher BF, or those links give too low of an estimate for tall people.

[NIguy]

Originally Posted by glwanabe

Your a bit misinformed.

http://muscleandbrawn.com/your-maxim...-measurements/

Muscle and Brawn has done the math for you here.

http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/4798-post6.html

A big ****ing pinch of salt I'd say - guidelines sure, but there are going to be those who can gain more than those measurements predicted and those that will never be able to reach that total.

My advice is not to limit yourself, mentally and physically by basing your progress on some arbitary set of calculations.

[glwanabe]

Originally Posted by NIguy

A big ****ing pinch of salt I'd say - guidelines sure, but there are going to be those who can gain more than those measurements predicted and those that will never be able to reach that total.

My advice is not to limit yourself, mentally and physically by basing your progress on some arbitary set of calculations.

The man who wrote the parent article, is not some flake. You might want to read a bit more of his work. He clearly states that there is room for some varience, based on body type. The findings are also based on specific BF%.

What are your credentials to make an educated counter arguement to his work?
If you can provide evidence that this work is incorrect, please do so.

[UCFBuilder]

Originally Posted by Pull14

No way of telling what your genetic limits are, but one thing is for sure, most people don't come close to their limits before turning to anabolics.

The way people think of bulking is retarded, eat everything in sight to gain a **** load of fat with some muscle. Its possible to contantly gain muscle while keeping bf in the mid teen's. Its just hard because your diet has to be good, it have to be healthy and balanced. The lower you keep your bf "when bulking" the less muscle you'll lose when cutting.

this is the best post ive seen in a while on here....take this advise man

[NIguy]

Originally Posted by glwanabe

The man who wrote the parent article, is not some flake. You might want to read a bit more of his work. He clearly states that there is room for some varience, based on body type. The findings are also based on specific BF%.

What are your credentials to make an educated counter arguement to his work?
If you can provide evidence that this work is incorrect, please do so.

I know his work, I'm saying that his supposed guidelines are all too often taken as gospel truth for what can and cannot be achieved in terms on adding muscle. It's not helpful when people forward it as truth to others who perhaps have only started working out. They then look at the chart and think, 'that's the best I can be,' which isn't helpful to anyone.

Jeff Willet, natural pro bodybuilder, 5ft 7 approx. 198lbs competition weight.
Way off the scale.

[glwanabe]

Originally Posted by UCFBuilder

this is the best post ive seen in a while on here....take this advise man

Seriously?

[GuyJin]

First off, Casey Butts's website is one of the best resources to turn to in training. He doesn't BS anyone and his measurements are more on than off. He also allows for variances in the "norms" he sets out. While there will always be some exceptions to the rule or those outside the bell curve (take your pick) his "predictions" are for the most part, correct.

The biggest "X" factor to these equations is that they don't really take into account the KIND of muscle fibres or the amount in EACH body part. Some guys may have the potential to have a really jacked back but their chest may not have the sufficient amount of fibres to look really thick. (Think of Mike Mentzer--great back, but his chest was always a bit smaller than the other pros of his day and he wasn't exactly weak or wimpy in his training. Or Dave Draper at his peak; great arms and huge back and chest, but legs--strong as they were--were always on the smallish side and he certainly trained hard).

Also, insertion points will differ; Chris Dickerson had short bis and tris, yet long insertion points on his lats and calves and those two bodyparts were standouts on his physique. It's very rare for a man to have the perfect frame and the optimum insertion points all over his body; Steve Reeves, Reg Park and Arnold were the only three in the past I can think of--and maybe Leo Robert--and perhaps Phil Heath now.

Leaving out the other factor of how much test is "free" and how much is "bound" (and only blood tests can confirm this) there is only one way to find out your limits, and that's to train hard and consistently for a number of years, figure out which exercises give you the best results and which need to be discarded, no matter how "hard-corz" they may be i.e. benches, squats and rows. (For me, benches don't do a damn thing but low-inclines are the shiznit). Only when you have reached your limits of strength (or as near as you can go without hurting yourself) will you know what your personal "limit" is.

And as some wiser dudes than I have said many a time: The greatest weapon for or against you is what's between your ears. Whoever said that should be repped for life.

[glwanabe]

Originally Posted by NIguy

I know his work, I'm saying that his supposed guidelines are all too often taken as gospel truth for what can and cannot be achieved in terms on adding muscle. It's not helpful when people forward it as truth to others who perhaps have only started working out. They then look at the chart and think, 'that's the best I can be,' which isn't helpful to anyone.

Jeff Willet, natural pro bodybuilder, 5ft 7 approx. 198lbs competition weight.
Way off the scale.

You have given one example of a person who you claim is natural and exceeds the tables given.

Reg Park falls right in line with the data. You mean to tell me that somebody would look at Reg Park and say, "Thats all the bigger I can get"? You may not like the fact that there are natural limits, but they are a fact. Differnet body types will achieve different total mass when worked to each's limit.


The research is based on science. Your arguement is based on your opinion. Thats ok, your entitled to it. I just don't agree with it.

[NIguy]

Originally Posted by GuyJin

First off, Casey Butts's website is one of the best resources to turn to in training. He doesn't BS anyone and his measurements are more on than off. He also allows for variances in the "norms" he sets out. While there will always be some exceptions to the rule or those outside the bell curve (take your pick) his "predictions" are for the most part, correct.

The biggest "X" factor to these equations is that they don't really take into account the KIND of muscle fibres or the amount in EACH body part. Some guys may have the potential to have a really jacked back but their chest may not have the sufficient amount of fibres to look really thick. (Think of Mike Mentzer--great back, but his chest was always a bit smaller than the other pros of his day and he wasn't exactly weak or wimpy in his training. Or Dave Draper at his peak; great arms and huge back and chest, but legs--strong as they were--were always on the smallish side and he certainly trained hard). Also, insertion points will differ; Chris Dickerson had short bis and tris, yet long insertion points on his lats and calves and those two bodyparts were standouts on his physique. It's very rare for a man to have the perfect frame and the optimum insertion points all over his body; Steve Reeves, Reg Park and Arnold were the only two in the past I can think of--and maybe Leo Robert--and perhaps Phil Heath now.

Leaving out the other factor of how much test is "free" and how much is "bound" (and only blood tests can confirm this) there is only one way to find out your limits, and that's to train hard and consistently for a number of years, figure out which exercises give you the best results and which need to be discarded, no matter how "hard-corz" they may be i.e. benches, squats and rows. (For me, benches don't do a damn thing but low-inclines are the shiznit). Only when you have reached your limits of strength (or as near as you can go without hurting yourself) will you know what your personal "limit" is.

And as some wiser dudes than I have said many a time: The greatest weapon for or against you is what's between your ears. Whoever said that should be repped for life.

Guy you always speak the truth!
End thread now.

[Ochman44]

Push your body as hard as you can go to lift heavier and heavier weights, and eat like there is no tomorrow with good food and see how far it takes you. If you begin thinking about limits you won't ever reach a potential because you have in your mind you can't get that big because some chart says you can't. Let your body work it's self out for it after you put in a few years of busting your ass the see where you are it.

[NIguy]

Originally Posted by glwanabe

You have given one example of a person who you claim is natural and exceeds the tables given.

Yes - thus proving that the table is not one suit that fits all people

Originally Posted by glwanabe

Reg Park falls right in line with the data. You mean to tell me that somebody would look at Reg Park and say, "Thats all the bigger I can get"?.

This makes no sense what are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by glwanabe

You may not like the fact that there are natural limits, but they are a fact. Differnet body types will achieve different total mass when worked to each's limit.

This is what I am saying, each person responds differently, Jeff Willet is an outlier, the OP might be an outlier - why would he base his own genetic limit on that calculator, why would he want to limit his own beliefs and perhaps undermine his own attempts to keep adding muscle.

Originally Posted by glwanabe

The research is based on science. Your arguement is based on your opinion. Thats ok, your entitled to it. I just don't agree with it.

Butts research is a theory - a theory I might add that is not widely accepted, not a scientific fact. Scientific facts are few and far between, the only scientific fact with regards to a natural limit of muscularity is that we all have one! Butts work might be true for the average, but there are always statisical outliers with studies like these who don't fall within the standard variation or error of the measurements.

[induced_drag]

Well I dont know how accurate these are....but I must say that I hope they are not!

According to this first article,

http://muscleandbrawn.com/your-maxim...-measurements/

it says I am very close to my genetic potential. It is funny I am the exact measurements of the example listed. That is 5'9, 7" wrist and 8.7" ankle. (always thought I was kinda scrawny jointed myself).

It says that my max (comp) weight would be 190. I am about 204 right now and 11-12%bf....so that is probably close there.

Only deal is I have only been back training for 6 months. I have managed to put back on 20+ lbs in this time. (no aas or ph ever) This is after taking a decade off the gym. I certainly hope I can gain more and will dam sure try! I trained very hard for about 7 years in my 20's but just now found my way back.

The measurements predicted are fairly close too and I would hardly consider myself ANYWHERE close to an elite bodybuilder. (although I am not in comp shape....but also not extremely out of shape either)

Predicted measurements from article (mine in parentheses)

chest = 45.6″ (I am under .6 @ 45")
biceps = 16.5″ (same on rt arm but left arm is 17")
forearms = 13.1″ (1"bigger on forearms)
neck = 16.0″ (3/4" bigger on neck)
thighs = 23.8″ (3/4" bigger on thighs)
calves = 16.0″ (1.5" smaller on calves Bird calves!)


So I for one hope this is not too accurate.

[NIguy]

Originally Posted by induced_drag

Well I dont know how accurate these are....but I must say that I hope they are not!

According to this first article,

http://muscleandbrawn.com/your-maxim...-measurements/

it says I am very close to my genetic potential. It is funny I am the exact measurements of the example listed. That is 5'9, 7" wrist and 8.7" ankle. (always thought I was kinda scrawny jointed myself).

It says that my max (comp) weight would be 190. I am about 204 right now and 11-12%bf....so that is probably close there.

Only deal is I have only been back training for 6 months. I have managed to put back on 20+ lbs in this time. (no aas or ph ever) This is after taking a decade off the gym. I certainly hope I can gain more and will dam sure try! I trained very hard for about 7 years in my 20's but just now found my way back.

The measurements predicted are fairly close too and I would hardly consider myself ANYWHERE close to an elite bodybuilder. (although I am not in comp shape....but also not extremely out of shape either)

Predicted measurements from article (mine in parentheses)

chest = 45.6″ (I am under .6 @ 45")
biceps = 16.5″ (same on rt arm but left arm is 17")
forearms = 13.1″ (1"bigger on forearms)
neck = 16.0″ (3/4" bigger on neck)
thighs = 23.8″ (3/4" bigger on thighs)
calves = 16.0″ (1.5" smaller on calves Bird calves!)


So I for one hope this is not too accurate.

You might be right at your genetic limit, who is to know?
Proof will out if you keep training and find out - that's what my gripe is, people paying too much heed to arbitary limits!

[fatdaddy67]

Originally Posted by induced_drag

It says that my max (comp) weight would be 190. I am about 204 right now and 11-12%bf....so that is probably close there.

204 at 11-12% means you have a base lean muscle mass of 179 which is the same as me and dead on with Casey's calculations. Your competition weight would then be 190-ish at the 5-6% bodyfat%.

I've been lifting for 23 years and it's almost impossible for me at 5'10" to get past 179 base muscle.

[induced_drag]

Originally Posted by fatdaddy67

204 at 11-12% means you have a base lean muscle mass of 179 which is the same as me and dead on with Casey's calculations. Your competition weight would then be 190-ish at the 5-6% bodyfat%.

I've been lifting for 23 years and it's almost impossible for me at 5'10" to get past 179 base muscle.

That is part of my point.....I have only been lifting for 6 months. (That is after a 10 year layoff of lifting for 7 years in my 20's) I sure hope I can continue to gain.....dont plan on quitting trying just because of an article BTW...

[NaturalHIT]

Originally Posted by NIguy

I know his work, I'm saying that his supposed guidelines are all too often taken as gospel truth for what can and cannot be achieved in terms on adding muscle. It's not helpful when people forward it as truth to others who perhaps have only started working out. They then look at the chart and think, 'that's the best I can be,' which isn't helpful to anyone.

Jeff Willet, natural pro bodybuilder, 5ft 7 approx. 198lbs competition weight.
Way off the scale.

I kind of feel same way.
Also I feel a lot of people could surpass his estimates in LBM (by a lot) if they never have to diet down to 5%BF.
He does mention that lifter can carry more LBM at higher BF, but his formulas do not reflect that enough.

For me I could be 190.7 lbs LBM @ 5% BF, but only 203 lbs LBM @ 20% BF. I feel there is more drastic maximum LBM increase with higher BF.

At my best I had 27" legs, with BF under 15%, that already surpasses his max predicted size for legs. And I only considered myself an intermediate at the time. Only trained legs seriously for about a year, I am sure I had another inch in me to add.
Could this be because I have large knee joint (close to 17"), but rather small ankle?

[induced_drag]

Originally Posted by NaturalHIT

.........At my best I had 27" legs, with BF under 15%, that already surpasses his max predicted size for legs. ...Could this be because I have large knee joint (close to 17"), but rather small ankle?

He does say that it is not uncommon to have a certain body part that is gifted genetically towards growth....but goes on to say that it is unlikely that many or all of the persons measurements would exceed the predictions.

Do you just have big legs or are all of your measurements bigger? Also 17"knee.....wow....big joint!

[NaturalHIT]

Originally Posted by induced_drag

He does say that it is not uncommon to have a certain body part that is gifted genetically towards growth....but goes on to say that it is unlikely that many or all of the persons measurements would exceed the predictions.

Do you just have big legs or are all of your measurements bigger? Also 17"knee.....wow....big joint!

No, just the legs. Back in high school I did O lifting and was told I had potential, because strong legs.

I naturally have calves close to 17", but they look so small because knee joint is about the same size. That sucks.

I am kind of in the same boat as you. Only I had about 15 years off. Tried to come back a couple of times but between changing jobs, changing appartments, small injuries could never stick to it. I am keeping my fingers crossed this time.

[NaturalHIT]

Originally Posted by induced_drag

...

Wow, just looked at your pics from 95, you do have elite genetics. You were at the level where a lot of people would question drug free status.

Do you think back in 95 (or whenever you had layoff) you were almost at your natural limit?
.

[CookAndrewB]

This thread makes me laugh... everybody "knows a guy"

I've talked with Casey about his charts a couple times and he has broken down some of the best natural guys and they all fit within the framework of his charts. These are VERY gifted bodybuilders, champions. What are the honest to gosh chances that a non-champion nobody is going to be an outlier and a champion is going to fit the bill?

If you think you are an outlier, show me the pictures, show me the BF measurements, show me the joint measurements. I'll bet dollars to donuts that your amazing examples still fit in, and that there is slop and e-stats in there causing the error that you find.

[CookAndrewB]

Originally Posted by NaturalHIT

Wow, just looked at your pics from 95, you do have elite genetics. You were at the level where a lot of people would question drug free status.

Do you think back in 95 (or whenever you had layoff) you were almost at your natural limit?
.

No. As a 190lb guy I would say that he looked "alright" but elite or a question of drugs? C'mon, you are joking, right?