<-- needs a reality check

[shlape]

I came across this website which got me rethinking things as a natural bodybuilder. I'll admit, I've never really thought about how far I could go in gaining mass. Instead I had a thought of keeping going and see how far I can get. It kind of parallels the old saying bodybuilding is a journey, not a destination, but this website had me rethinking.

As a rough estimate, according to this website, I'll never get past approx. 189lbs (if at 6% BF), as a natural bodybuilder. Sounds a lot like a destination when it comes to the big picture. I'm not thumbing my nose at that sort of achievement which I've yet to come close to, but looking at the figures it does seem like an impenetrable brick wall up ahead.

What do you think? It'd be interesting to hear from others standing 5'8" who have passed this limitation, although the website says the values may vary not more than +10lbs.

[*STEVE*]

For me , I think its pretty rite on the money , especially +/- the 10 lbs.

[geer_matt]

I am 6'4" and have pretty wide shoulders to start with I have an amazing potential to get huge lol. Even stick thin I am hovering a little over 190 : )

[ironwill2008]

I'd say it's pretty close. You have to realize that we all have a genetic limit to how much mass we can add and carry, natural. However, that shouldn't stop anyone from training and eating to be the very best he/she can be.

I topped-out at 200 pounds, at about 10-11% bodyfat, 5 years ago.

[IronCharles]

As long as you feel limited by numbers, calculations, and opinions.... you've pretty much decided how far you can go. Expect mediocrity, mediocrity is what you will achieve.

What I mean is, if you've decided that your 17 inch arms are as big as they are ever going to get, then your body will follow your belief set, and will keep you from achieving anything more. There is no drug as strong as the power of the human mind. People who are unaware of "limitations" generally accepted in society, are usually the first to exceed them.

If you believe you cannot achieve something, then you are absolutely right. Don't put limits on yourself, even when popular opinion says you should. Think outside the box, to achieve extraordinary results.

[IronCharles]

Originally Posted by ironwill2008

You have to realize that we all have a genetic limit to how much mass we can add and carry, natural.

I believe this is basically a true statement. However, I also believe that no bodybuilder on earth has ever reached their full genetic potential!

Originally Posted by ironwill2008

However, that shouldn't stop anyone from training and eating to be the very best he/she can be.

Absolutely!

[OutOfStep]

IronCharles, I couldn't agree more. Repped. I can't understand for the life of me why people are always trying to put limits on things. It's a fukin' loser's mindset. I started off at 155 17 years ago and hit so many size plateaus over the years. Eventually, I figured out a way to blow through every single one of them and I'm still growing. I will NEVER entertain the notion that my body might be maxed out. EVER.

[shlape]

Originally Posted by IronCharles

As long as you feel limited by numbers, calculations, and opinions.... you've pretty much decided how far you can go. Expect mediocrity, mediocrity is what you will achieve.

What I mean is, if you've decided that your 17 inch arms are as big as they are ever going to get, then your body will follow your belief set, and will keep you from achieving anything more. There is no drug as strong as the power of the human mind. People who are unaware of "limitations" generally accepted in society, are usually the first to exceed them.

If you believe you cannot achieve something, then you are absolutely right. Don't put limits on yourself, even when popular opinion says you should. Think outside the box, to achieve extraordinary results.

I like your outlook and would like to think one day I could share it. Don't worry everyone, I'm not going to start having a sulk now.

My personal experience with bodybuilding has locked me into this line of thinking, which has me more likely to believe such websites over optimistic views. I've yet to have an experience with bodybuilding where I could totally agree with you.

The point of this post was to at least try to gain a realistic outlook, not an overly-optimistic or pessimistic one.

[OutOfStep]

Originally Posted by shlape

I like your outlook and would like to think one day I could share it. Don't worry everyone, I'm not going to start having a sulk now.

My personal experience with bodybuilding has locked me into this line of thinking, which has me more likely to believe such websites over optimistic views. I've yet to have an experience with bodybuilding where I could totally agree with you.

The point of this post was to at least try to gain a realistic outlook, not an overly-optimistic or pessimistic one.

Realistic according to who? Why would you let others define what is possible for you? Bro, you seriously need to work on your mindset before anything else. With your current way of thinking, your are not even going to get close to your genetic ceiling, so worrying about where that ceiling might be is a complete waste of your time.

[KyleAaron]

Originally Posted by IronCharles

Expect mediocrity, mediocrity is what you will achieve.

What I mean is, if you've decided that your 17 inch arms are as big as they are ever going to get, then your body will follow your belief set, and will keep you from achieving anything more.

17" arms are mediocre?

The limits proposed in the article still lead to what most would consider a Herculean physique. That ain't so bad.

"You will only ever get to look like Steve Reeves."
"Oh noes! Now I shoot myself."

[hochspeyer]

I don't trust the study for a couple of reasons-

1) I'm naturally a bit skeptical.
2) He has fifty years worth of data- pretty impressive on the face. However, I became suspicious when he said he had studied "approximately" 300 individuals. How were they studied? Did he use someone else's data- or did he get the ankle and wrist measurements himself? Were all of the subjects alive when he got their data? He also does not indicate of these approximately 300 subjucts how mant times they were measured, which leads me to believe there may not be an accurate baseline. He also does not mention a control group.

Well, that's just my two cents. It might be accurate, but the more I look at it, the more I doubt it. His sample of approximately 300 may or may not include women, although in the referrred to Butt piece, only males are mentioned. I also don't trust the number of "N/A's" in his charts- when N/A occurred, it was usually in two of the six categories, which means he has an approximate number of subjects, and an iindeterminate number of these have two thirds- or maybe less- of the data filled in. Finally, he claims his data is accurate...

Table 2: Measurements of Drug-free Bodybuilders Chest Biceps Forearms Neck Quads Calves
Bodybuilder actual/pred actual/pred actual/pred actual/pred actual/pred actual/pred
George Eiferman 47.5 / 47.9 16.7 / 17.1 13.4 / 13.7 16.5 / 16.7 25.0 / 25.5 16.0 / 17.1
Reg Park NA / 50.5 18.5 / 18.5 NA / 14.8 18.0 / 18.0 26.5 / 26.4 17.5 / 17.7
John Grimek 49.9 / 49.8 18.1 / 18.1 14.5 / 14.5 17.7 / 17.6 25.7 / 26.1 17.3 / 17.5
Jack Delinger 47.5 / 47.9 17.2 / 17.4 13.8 / 13.9 16.8 / 17.0 25.0 / 25.1 16.6 / 16.8
Steve Reeves 49.5 / 49.6 18.0 / 18.0 14.5 / 14.4 17.5 / 17.6 26.0 / 26.1 17.9 / 17.5
Current World Champ. "B" NA / 44.3 16.5* / 16.2 NA / 12.9 15.5 / 15.7 23.0 / 23.2 16.0 / 15.6
Current National 1st Place "A" 47.3 / 48.9 17.5 / 17.7 NA / 14.2 17.8 / 17.3 25.5 / 25.8 16.5 / 17.3
Current National 1st Place "B" NA / 46.9 17.2 / 17.1 NA / 13.7 17.0 / 16.6 24.5 / 24.6 15.5 / 16.5
* pumped
Some of the predicted vs actual numbers vary by 9.5%- that is accurate in horseshoes, I suppose, but once again, he doesn't define accuracy.

I personally wouldn't worry about this "study."

[jeffaus]

If theres one thing I have learned in the 9 months I have been lifting and reading studies on the subject, its this:
Im sick of reading studies on the subject.

I dont care what any studies say anymore. My theory is this:
1. Train hard
2. Eat well
3. Get good amount of rest

And time will tell how far I can take my body.

[slainethewarped]

ok this is going to be a bit of a rant as this is a sore point with me! The human body and mind are capable of amazing things and the only thing that limit us are our minds. dedication and consistancy can achieve unbelivable results. there isn't a week goes by when im not accused of being on the juice. im constantly asked what do you take to get so big, you must be on something then i see these same people getting drunk at the weekend, taking in nigh on zero protein or training with endless sets and never seeing a set to failure. You have to learn what works it takes time, meticulous attention to detail and truthful training diaries and assessment.

Im 6ft 1 i weigh 300lb at 17% (i know its too high diet starts in 2 months) I have over 21" arms cold, a 57" chest, 38" waist, 32" thighs and 20" calfs Isquat 240kg for 4, leg press 600kg for 6, shoulder press 60kg d/b's 4, bentover row160kg for 5, flat d/b press 60kg's for 6 and i am am natural!!!!!!!!

The big secret? There isn't one I train balls to the wall hard i never miss a session, bodybuilding is my life. Im lucky i have a very supportive wife and kids.
And before you say it's easy as i have the genetics its not easy its damn hard work in an untrained state i was over 400lb of blubber

[shlape]

Originally Posted by hochspeyer

I don't trust the study for a couple of reasons-

1) I'm naturally a bit skeptical.
2) He has fifty years worth of data- pretty impressive on the face. However, I became suspicious when he said he had studied "approximately" 300 individuals...

I personally wouldn't worry about this "study."

Thanks for pointing that out. What you mentioned does open questions to his claims.

Originally Posted by slainethewarped

Im 6ft 1 i weigh 300lb at 17%

Well, that kind of blows the research on said website away. BTW, from the pics you added and your current one, I think you're doing great.

Originally Posted by slainethewarped

...it takes time... I train balls to the wall hard i never miss a session...

Yeah, I accept it does take time, but after 20+ yrs of doing this continuously, you'd think I'd have figured something out by now. I can't really blame it on the sleep-related problem I have, because I have heard and seen results by others with the same problem, who have impressive builds. Its seems I've still missed something(s).
Having said that, I've had others comment on my good form, as well as the way I eat. I'm up to almost 3500 cals. I get about 9hrs a night of sleep because I found that's what my body needs. I updated my stats tonight which showed another step backward regardless of the effort put in between now and the last weigh-in. Go figure.

Originally Posted by OutOfStep

Bro, you seriously need to work on your mindset before anything else.

Any crap I may have on my mind gets left at the front of the gym. I am very focused and the person you'll least-likely see chatting with others during a workout. It can't easily be explained but I've had many, such as personal trainers and "fitness professionals", unable to figure this one out. I've had GP's tell me I technically shouldn't have the medical problem since my BF% isn't in the obese range. I can see your point about mindset and how it would negatively impact performance in the gym, but I don't think this is my problem. If you saw how I train you'd probably agree. I'll stop ranting cos it's going off topic.

Thanks for all the comments and helping remove the glass ceiling.

[Reality_Check]

Interesting..but note that there is an error in the definition of the BF% term at

http://muscleandbrawn.com/2009/01/de...ing-potential/

where BF% is described as

"BF% = The bodyfat percentage at which the ankle and wrist circumferences were taken"

This would make no sense as increasing BF% will only increase W (wrist size) and A (ankle size). It would mean that you could increase your maximum potential future lean body mass simply by packing on a ton of fat then using the formula. Or to put it another way packing on another 40 lb (then measuring W and A) shouldn't increase your maximum potential lean body mass.

If you go to the original site they copied the formula from

http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html

you see that the bf% is actually defined as

%bf = The body fat percentage at which you want to predict your maximum lean body mass

Now this makes sense. It reflects the fact that at higher body fat your body will hold on to more muscle mass (all other things being equal such as not experiencing decreased T production due to higher fat level aromatising testosterone to estrogen).

[IR45N]

Originally Posted by shlape

I came across this website which got me rethinking things as a natural bodybuilder. I'll admit, I've never really thought about how far I could go in gaining mass. Instead I had a thought of keeping going and see how far I can get. It kind of parallels the old saying bodybuilding is a journey, not a destination, but this website had me rethinking.

As a rough estimate, according to this website, I'll never get past approx. 189lbs (if at 6% BF), as a natural bodybuilder. Sounds a lot like a destination when it comes to the big picture. I'm not thumbing my nose at that sort of achievement which I've yet to come close to, but looking at the figures it does seem like an impenetrable brick wall up ahead.

What do you think? It'd be interesting to hear from others standing 5'8" who have passed this limitation, although the website says the values may vary not more than +10lbs.

First, I haven't looked at the site Shlape mentions but this is something that's nagged me for a long time too about the light weight or welterweight BB'er who's like you say, 5'8" or so. This would be my niche IF I were to go for it; most likely a ghost comp in the next year-year & 1/2. But......

Looking at many of the lightweight or lower weight guys in Old Supe's comp (I think the link is in the advanced section) in spite of APPRECIATING their dedication, bravery, unimaginable hard work, I cannot get past thinking 'Is that all there is? & Where's the beef?'. I suppose it's the hard held association of bodybuilder and big/thick mass.

The bulk, pun intended I guess, of mag & internet BB info is about how to pack on mass, size etc. unless it's how to cut, but at some point, these guys had to tell themselves it's NOT that they're NOT TRYING HARD ENOUGH as far as training, eating, rest, sups, and MENTAL OUTLOOK and that they ARE or have been doing things right or good enough to be on stage. I cannot believe that most of these guys again, in the 5' 8" or min. 5'7" & above height just 'chose' to forego competing at higher weight classes or didn't try to be all they could be.

I guess I'd like some affirmation or thoughts from any avg height comp BB'ers in the lower weight classes on coming to terms that their BB place in the gym or on stage isn't going to be one of the really massive looking guys. I know it's the love of the craft, sport, lifestyle but, beyond that?

[oijibuur]

Originally Posted by shlape

I'll never get past approx. 189lbs (if at 6% BF), as a natural bodybuilder.

Adding 21 lbs of lean mass to a 5 8' frame is A HUGE amount of muscle.

[GoOrange]

The estimates are pretty realistic IMO, but there's no reason to become disillusioned with some sort of mythical brick wall ahead. In all likelihood, most bodybuilders/weightlifters aren't even going to come close to that. Once you get there, then you can worry about it. Until then, quit worrying and get back to eating right and training hard.

[Wildtim]

In all honesty I think it makes a pretty good reality check. I haven't actually been seriously working my body for all that long, but it nice to know I am moving in the right direction and that there is a destination, sort of. I've seen the looks of and weights of a lot of the natural competitors on this board and I think it looks pretty good, but it isn't nearly the same as looking at the Olympia or universe competitors whose pictures make all the magazines sell. It is comforting to know that I don't need to feel in any way inadequate that I don't look like that.

It is also nice to know that I am probably doing the right thing since I have been reducing my body fat while increasing my strength slowly for the last six months at a nearly static weight. If I continue to progress the way I have been I will be under 15% by the time I get anywhere near that genetic potential. Not a bad place to start a serious cut from.

I'll take it at face value and as a nice reality check.

[mavrick77]

Originally Posted by shlape

I came across this website which got me rethinking things as a natural bodybuilder. I'll admit, I've never really thought about how far I could go in gaining mass. Instead I had a thought of keeping going and see how far I can get. It kind of parallels the old saying bodybuilding is a journey, not a destination, but this website had me rethinking.

As a rough estimate, according to this website, I'll never get past approx. 189lbs (if at 6% BF), as a natural bodybuilder. Sounds a lot like a destination when it comes to the big picture. I'm not thumbing my nose at that sort of achievement which I've yet to come close to, but looking at the figures it does seem like an impenetrable brick wall up ahead.

What do you think? It'd be interesting to hear from others standing 5'8" who have passed this limitation, although the website says the values may vary not more than +10lbs.

not sure where you got the idea you will never get past a ceartin weight..... everyones genetics are differnt, and you will never know untill you push that envelop

[Casey Butt]

I don't trust the study for a couple of reasons-

1) I'm naturally a bit skeptical.

I'm enormously skeptical myself - I don't blame you for that. In fact, considering the amount of blatant bull**** in the bodybuilding/training world, a ton more skepticism is exactly what's needed.

2) He has fifty years worth of data- pretty impressive on the face. However, I became suspicious when he said he had studied "approximately" 300 individuals. How were they studied? Did he use someone else's data- or did he get the ankle and wrist measurements himself?

I gave the 300 number as "approximate" because the e-book (http://www.weightrainer.net/potential_e-book.html) the online article was based on contains 48 equations pertaining to different groups of trainees and not all were based on the same amount of data. Several versions of the equations have been fit over the years - starting in 2001 up to the present - and different lifters' statistics have been added and removed to the list as more data was collected and not all measurements were available for all lifters. It would be impossible to give a single number for the data pool size because it was not necessarily the same for each equation and all are continuously being adjusted as warranted.

Of the approximate 300 lifters' weights and measurements used, I took about 200 myself (starting in 1992), the others were cross-referenced from several sources for that same lifter. 'Other' sources included: Told to me personally by bodybuilders themselves (which I verified by comparison to other bodybuilders of similar structures that I have measured); taken from sources such as measurements taken by David Willoughby, Oscar Heidenstam, Ray Beck, or in the works of Philip Rasch, Kouri and Pope, Grover Porter, David Chapman, etc, or 'official' Mr. Universe contest measurements which were taken backstage up until the 1960s.

Were all of the subjects alive when he got their data?

No. Some of the pre-drug era lifters used are now dead (i.e. Clancy Ross, Reg Park, Steve Reeves, John Grimek, etc). Obviously, the current competitors (up to 2007) are still alive.

He also does not indicate of these approximately 300 subjucts how mant times they were measured, which leads me to believe there may not be an accurate baseline.

Some lifters were measured several times over several years, some just once. Actually, their changing weights and body fat levels were used to adjust lean body mass based on body fat (lean body mass potential increases with increasing body fat). Of course, the majority of measurements were taken in lean condition (varying from a claimed 4% up to roughly 15% body fat), and often pre-contest. I'm sure there were inaccuracies in some of the measurements used, but over a group of 300 lifters and 15 years of stats they tend to smooth out.

He also does not mention a control group.

The control group is the average of untrained males - for which the data groups studied have contained literally tens of thousands of subjects (army stats, ergonomic stats for engineering, government stats, etc). I did not take any amount of this data myself and there is no reason to - it is readily available, well accepted and not 'controversial' at all. However, I did partiallly use it to establish a correlation between height, wrist and ankle measurements, and weight and girth measurements. Population data can also be used to verify the 'form' of the equations (as it was to establish the BMI, which is weak because it doesn't consider bone structure or body fat level).

His sample of approximately 300 may or may not include women, although in the referrred to Butt piece, only males are mentioned.

Steve (Shaw of Muscle and Brawn - http://muscleandbrawn.com/2009/01/de...ding-potential) based his article on my online article (http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html), which is based on a section of the e-book (http://www.weightrainer.net/potential_e-book.html). Women were not considered.

The section the article is based on pertains to measurements of elite drug-free competitors who, as a group, have a certain range of wrist and ankles sizes. Assumably this is for aesthetic reasons, as smaller structured people cannot build the mass needed to reach this level, and very large-structured people are less common in the elite bodybuilding (and general) population. So, the equations given in that article do not apply well to people of very small or large bone structures - they tend to over-estimate the ultimate muscular potential of very small-structured people and they slightly under-estimate the potentials of the large-boned.

What Steve did is take an average wrist and ankle measurement of 7.5" and 9.5", which is accurate for someone 6' tall, but very large for someone 5'7" or less. That is why he gives a range by which he feels people can exceed the guidelines.

...there's no reason to become disillusioned with some sort of mythical brick wall ahead. In all likelihood, most bodybuilders/weightlifters aren't even going to come close to that. Once you get there, then you can worry about it. Until then, quit worrying and get back to eating right and training hard.

My sentiments exactly ...this is probably the most mature statement I've ever read regarding that article and e-book on any bodybuilding forum.

I didn't intend people to use that article or e-book to impose limitations on themselves. It was meant to establish reality and perspective. In a very basic sense the equations allow you to scale the development of top drug-free bodybuilders to your own structure. You may or may not be able to achieve that because of your own natural testosterone levels, corticosteroid levels, thyroid levels, muscle belly lengths, etc, but it does represent the weight and measurements that you would need to attain to achieve a proportionally equal level of development to the elite of drug-free bodybuilding. The fact that the vast majority of elite drug-free competitors over the past 60 years also top out at developments described by the equations indicates that the relations the equations are based upon are no coincidence.

Nothing is meant to be taken as an etched in stone limitation (although in reality it most likely is), but the perspective is that in surpassing those predictions, whether you see them as limitations or not, you would also be surpassing the accomplishments of history's greatest drug-free bodybuilders. People need to believe in order to achieve, so I'd caution anybody against allowing these equations to 'limit' them, but on the other hand, as GoOrange said, "...most bodybuilders/weightlifters aren't even going to come close to that. Once you get there, then you can worry about it. Until then, quit worrying and get back to eating right and training hard.

[Felonist]

There is a wonderful article by Lyle Mcdonald that links to many other experts (Alan Aragon, Martin Berkham etc.) I think it is a great read and may answer you questions about possible potential

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...potential.html

[Ford_Power]

Originally Posted by jeffaus

If theres one thing I have learned in the 9 months I have been lifting and reading studies on the subject, its this:
Im sick of reading studies on the subject.

I dont care what any studies say anymore. My theory is this:
1. Train hard
2. Eat well
3. Get good amount of rest

And time will tell how far I can take my body.

This (and reps given).

Studies are useful for some things - but you and I still have to go put the work in (both in the gym and kitchen) and see where we end up. A scientific study does not tell me where I personally will end up if I put things in order and bust ass.

[fatdaddy67]

Originally Posted by Casey Butt

Steve (Shaw of Muscle and Brawn - http://muscleandbrawn.com/2009/01/de...ding-potential) based his article on my online article (http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html), which is based on a section of the e-book (http://www.weightrainer.net/potential_e-book.html). Women were not considered.

The section the article is based on pertains to measurements of elite drug-free competitors who, as a group, have a certain range of wrist and ankles sizes. Assumably this is for aesthetic reasons, as smaller structured people cannot build the mass needed to reach this level, and very large-structured people are less common in the elite bodybuilding (and general) population. So, the equations given in that article do not apply well to people of very small or large bone structures - they tend to over-estimate the ultimate muscular potential of very small-structured people and they slightly under-estimate the potentials of the large-boned.

What Steve did is take an average wrist and ankle measurement of 7.5" and 9.5", which is accurate for someone 6' tall, but very large for someone 5'7" or less. That is why he gives a range by which he feels people can exceed the guidelines.

I am Steve aka Muscle and Brawn. My point in the article was to paint a target for naturals to aim for.

Personally, using Casey's formula, I have been about 3 pounds under my natural potential for 10 years. I have been lifting for 20+ years. I appreciate Casey's work. Call it a restriction if you will, but I call it a goal. If you can achieve the range as presented in my generic chart, you will be pretty darn big.

[Chris_T]

Originally Posted by KyleAaron

"You will only ever get to look like Steve Reeves."
"Oh noes! Now I shoot myself."

Yeah, that would really suck.

[groink]

HaHa

These guys are funny....

Gotta love "experts"

[shlape]

Originally Posted by oijibuur

Adding 21 lbs of lean mass to a 5 8' frame is A HUGE amount of muscle.

Originally Posted by GoOrange

Once you get there, then you can worry about it. Until then, quit worrying and get back to eating right and training hard.

True. I think it's better I think of this as a milestone than a limit.

Originally Posted by mavrick77

... everyones genetics are differnt, and you will never know untill you push that envelop

I have genetics plus a sleep disorder to contend with. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sulking about it but rather trying to find a way around the problem. Seeing the specialist again is a very expensive way of finding out what I already know (been there done that). One thing I do know is, when untreated, this illness robs you of testosterone release during the night. The cruel irony is a testosterone blood test will generally show that test levels are at least 'nominal', however insufficient levels are there when it's most needed - during sleep. Either way I have an appointment with the doc soon to find out what my latest levels are. My problem isn't untreated however, and I'd be very interested in hearing from others who share this problem, as few as we may be.

Casey Butt, fatdaddy67, thanks for your replies to the said website article (and for those who added to this discussion). Much appreciated.

Originally Posted by KyleAaron

"You will only ever get to look like Steve Reeves."
"Oh noes! Now I shoot myself."

Originally Posted by Chris_T

Yeah, that would really suck.

Gents! Sarcasm does not build muscle!

[Casey Butt]

Originally Posted by groink

HaHa

These guys are funny....

Gotta love "experts"

Actually, it's the clueless people who think they know better that amuses me.

[groink]

Originally Posted by Casey Butt

Actually, it's the clueless people who think they know better that amuses me.

I just perused you website. very informative but nothing revelatory there.

You are the typical analytical, intellectual trainer who thinks his knowledge is superior, and he automatically knows better.

I don't put half as much thought into it as you do yet somehow I've managed to attain "unattainable" results according to your little chart there

[silverlightning]

I go by experience and science, not studies. mostly experience, trial and error though.