PDA

View Full Version : Natty Bodybuilders GTFIH



Jbizzlechizzle
07-03-2014, 12:09 PM
I've had this question pop into my head a couple times, so I figured I'd throw it out there for discussion. I know there are a lot of factors like genetics, workout routine, diet, body type, etc..., but how strong can the average man/woman expect to get with consistent bodybuilding and a good diet without the use of any performance enhancing drugs? I take pride in not taking anything except for protein and a multi on occasion, but I'd like to know what the "limit" is for an average joe that works hard and eats right. I know this is a pretty bad and probably open-ended question that will result in a lot of opinions being thrown around, but I thought it was worth asking. :)

ajdahlheimer
07-03-2014, 12:17 PM
Holding these all-time records in the lifting sports makes Mark Henry arguably one of the Strongest Men in history. Having achieved this at the very young age of 24 while being lifetime drug-free makes it even more impressive. Many experts in the field, including Bill Kazmaier, Jan & Terry Todd, Dr. Robert M. Goldman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Muscle & Fitness magazine and Flex magazine, consider him to be "one of the Strongest Men that ever lived" or even "the most naturally gifted strongman in history".

When asked in September 2003, who the strongest man in the world is today, Bill Kazmaier, considered by many to be the greatest strongman of all time, stated: "It would have to be Mark Henry.... I think he's one of the strongest men in the history of the world, without a doubt."

So with the right genetics, the sky is really the limit even w/o PEDs........

trickyB
07-03-2014, 12:23 PM
People are not honest about being natty or not. I understand why but i can only think of one guy on here who is honest about being on. By constantly training and maintaining a goal oriented diet I will find out what is possible for me.

Karl_Hungus
07-03-2014, 12:30 PM
By constantly training and maintaining a goal oriented diet I will find out what is possible for me.

^^ Yup, the only thing that matters is what is possible for YOU. And there is only one way to find out.

weiss1967
07-03-2014, 12:33 PM
genetics been thrown in here many times. I suspect it is more of a digestion system capacity, your gut an pancreas and liver work overtime to build and support all this muscle. If all those organs are in a good shape then you can progress. Also a mind set of being big, it is a wizardry in its pure form but it works. Think big and you will act big and grow. I am nutty and I entertain the idea of juicing, sometimes just feel it being unfair me being so much smaller with hard work and dedication. But, yesterday I met one helluva lifter who undoubtedly was lifelong juicer, and he is actually not, 57 years old and still going strong. He is well over 250, and the top of his career he was closer to 300, competing powerlifter. I myself tipping 200 lbs with half-decent BF, and I am still growing lately. So, I won't be juicing just so i be like that fella, just so that at old age I could say I am clean and do not blink.

induced_drag
07-03-2014, 12:35 PM
simplest answer.....

All depends on where you fall on the curve.

http://seizethelearningdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/graph-1-01.jpg

frozensparky
07-03-2014, 12:41 PM
It's really going to vary from person to person juicing or not. FLEX could squat a lot more than some guys that juice. Really all depends on a persons goals, discipline and genetics. But like others have said already I only worry about me.

Dr0Scott
07-04-2014, 05:22 AM
Genetics plays a larger part than we give credit, or not as the case may be. There are high responders and low responders to exercise. The same is true of how some people respond to things like creatine etc.

That said, everyone can make a difference.

There are very few true naturals in advertising though. And every single person that I've known compete, in male or female events has used something that would be on the very long Olympic banned list.

Opeth09
07-04-2014, 05:30 AM
Impossible to answer man. All I can share with you is my personal experience.

I first started lifting for physique purposes (not for football in high school, not counting that) in college. The first year consisted of not really knowing what I was doing... and horrible diet. The second year was a lot better as I did loads of research on training and diet.

At the end of that second year, I did my first show and took first. Weighing 155 on stage.

So in two years, one not knowing what I was doing, the second I did know what I was doing... I went from 145 and we will say 12% bodyfat since I was in shape for sports, but not ripped. To 155 on stage contest ready.

I think A LOT of gains can be made naturally for the first 3 years of lifting the right way and the right diet. After the first 3 years or so, it slows down drastically.

Most people blame genetics or being natural for why they can't get bigger. Really, its a factor of genetics and diet. I made great gains my first year of lifting even though I didn't know what I was doing and didn't eat for ****. The second year the gains were even better though.

Hope this helps at all

keyboardworkout
07-04-2014, 07:05 AM
Look at the weight the old timers were moving like Sandow, Saxon, etc.

BergMuscle
07-04-2014, 07:29 AM
It more about what you do with what you got. Period.

DuracellBunny
07-04-2014, 07:44 AM
Check the world records for tested competitors and assume that as the limit. I'm not saying that you should be anywhere near the same numbers, but the point is that they are higher than you think.

Do the best you can, make progress and don't worry so much about your limits as very few people ever hit their true limits. Injuries, deficiencies in diet and diet and training and other factors will establish limits lower than any theoretical limit, so just work on reducing those problems.

Tmax55
07-04-2014, 09:05 AM
An average male say 5' 9" 185 pound could probably expect to be able to do 325 bench, 425 squat, and 475 deadlift if they worked at it all lifelong, but everyone is different. Me for instance, Ill never be able to deadlift what I should due to nerve damage in my left hand.

induced_drag
07-04-2014, 10:32 AM
An average male say 5' 9" 185 pound could probably expect to be able to do 325 bench, 425 squat, and 475 deadlift if they worked at it all lifelong, but everyone is different. Me for instance, Ill never be able to deadlift what I should due to nerve damage in my left hand.

I do not think those numbers are realistic. I think they are high. I think you forget what 'average' is. "Average" IQ is 100. If you met a person with a 100 IQ you would probably walk away thinking....boy they are not all that smart. But that is what "average" is.

I think those numbers are very good are at least 1 standard deviation away from the norm. You forget that a small percentage of men can achieve 185lbs at lower body fat naturally like 10% (I know you did not say what bf) That is a highly muscled physique and certainly not the norm when it comes to training response.

Over the years I have had in the gym, I have seen many non-responders or those with poor response to training. The question can not be answered as the answer is as varied as is the population.

Only thing you can do it be better then you were yesterday. If comparing yourself to others is important....fine. But putting too much into that is pretty pointless as none of us are playing with the same deck.

michail71
07-04-2014, 10:50 AM
I do not think those numbers are realistic. I think they are high. I think you forget what 'average' is. "Average" IQ is 100. If you met a person with a 100 IQ you would probably walk away thinking....boy they are not all that smart. But that is what "average" is.

I think those numbers are very good are at least 1 standard deviation away from the norm. You forget that a small percentage of men can achieve 185lbs at lower body fat naturally like 10% (I know you did not say what bf) That is a highly muscled physique and certainly not the norm when it comes to training response.

Over the years I have had in the gym, I have seen many non-responders or those with poor response to training. The question can not be answered as the answer is as varied as is the population.

Only thing you can do it be better then you were yesterday. If comparing yourself to others is important....fine. But putting too much into that is pretty pointless as none of us are playing with the same deck.

I've come to realize I'm a poor responder. I'm lucky to make around 165-170 at 9-10% BF. My strength is growing still but only through micro loading.

The question is where to go when you are a poor responder. Focus on leanness, switch to volume over intensity or just maintain?

Karl_Hungus
07-04-2014, 10:57 AM
I do not think those numbers are realistic. I think they are high. I think you forget what 'average' is. "Average" IQ is 100. If you met a person with a 100 IQ you would probably walk away thinking....boy they are not all that smart. But that is what "average" is. .

I agree with your overall point regarding the distribution of genetic traits... but what makes you think most people here (and the people they surround themselves with) are of consistently above average intelligence? Although 50% of the population is of average intelligence or less, everybody seems to think that they are of above average.

Tmax55
07-04-2014, 12:19 PM
I may be wrong but I've done we'll in excess of those numbers and I was the absolute weakest smallest person when I started training.

I was 6'1" 130 lbs, 4% bodyfat. 95ish bench, 65 ish ohp, 155 ish squat. 185 ish deadlift.

If I can do more than those numbers, I believe anyone can.

I will admit I respond well to training but I am not a naturally strong guy.

Phattso
07-04-2014, 12:43 PM
It more about what you do with what you got. Period.

Agree.


I've had this question pop into my head a couple times, so I figured I'd throw it out there for discussion. I know there are a lot of factors like genetics, workout routine, diet, body type, etc..., but how strong can the average man/woman expect to get with consistent bodybuilding and a good diet without the use of any performance enhancing drugs? I take pride in not taking anything except for protein and a multi on occasion, but I'd like to know what the "limit" is for an average joe that works hard and eats right. I know this is a pretty bad and probably open-ended question that will result in a lot of opinions being thrown around, but I thought it was worth asking. :)

IMO, effort trumps genetics as far as strength (by a little and at least for me). But genetics play a very large role. I have very poor genetics, and I had to build myself from being very skinny, to a decent 200lbs over many years of never quitting. Last year at 55, I as my strongest and managed to bench 365lbs. Took everything I had and I weighed about 204lbs then. For me, that is strong. For some others, it is nothing. But, my point is that my effort overcame my poor genetics.

Jbizzlechizzle
07-05-2014, 02:52 PM
An average male say 5' 9" 185 pound could probably expect to be able to do 325 bench, 425 squat, and 475 deadlift if they worked at it all lifelong, but everyone is different. Me for instance, Ill never be able to deadlift what I should due to nerve damage in my left hand.Funny you use those numbers because I'm closing in on all of those numbers. My best numbers to date are 310 bp/405 squat/405dl. I'm pretty sure I can squat and dl more, but I'm afraid of injury so I don't push the issue too much on those lifts. I feel like I'm a really good responder to training, so we'll see where I end up. I'm going for an eventual 365bp and 500+dl and squat without any PED's.

Thanks for all of the replies. You guys really know your stuff.

doughnutgut
07-05-2014, 04:32 PM
http://i.imgur.com/zthLZXU.jpg

Oceanside
07-05-2014, 05:12 PM
People are not honest about being natty or not. I understand why but i can only think of one guy on here who is honest about being on.

do tell..

inquiring minds want to know :)

what does a 170 pound "tricky B" really know about who's on and who's not ?

blanket statements are pretty weak...

name some names :)


you won't because you're full of sh*t

trickyB
07-05-2014, 05:36 PM
do tell..

inquiring minds want to know :)

what does a 170 pound "tricky B" really know about who's on and who's not ?

blanket statements are pretty weak...

name some names :)


you won't because you're full of sh*t

Yawn? What?

Oceanside
07-05-2014, 05:49 PM
Yawn? What?
probably about the last thing you wanna say when someone calls your bluff especially when your Credibility's at stake here...

you popped off about knowing who's "on" and now you're fading...

trust me son...this board would have more respect for ya if ya just threw out a few guess's

you're 43 but you have a few years before you actually belong in the O-35 section of this site...

but on a brighter note I honestly think you can go dominate the teen section here at BB.com....

:)

trickyB
07-05-2014, 06:23 PM
People are not honest about being natty or not. I understand why but i can only think of one guy on here who is honest about being on. By constantly training and maintaining a goal oriented diet I will find out what is possible for me.

1. people are not honest about being natty or not. Most people don't openly admit to using IMO. I think most people would agree with this. Not sure what your beef with this statement is. I understand why they don't. In the few years that I have been here I only recall one poster who was open about being on. Perhaps you know more? Not sure how your calling my bluff or how my credibility is at stake. You seem like your just looking for an argument or something. I'm 43 and 170 lbs not sure what that has to do with anything.

weiss1967
07-05-2014, 07:03 PM
http://i.imgur.com/zthLZXU.jpg

??? what

acrawlingchaos
07-05-2014, 09:05 PM
??? whatIt is an estimate of the genetic potential for the average lean mass an individual can acquire at a given height naturally.

induced_drag
07-06-2014, 07:40 AM
It is an estimate of the genetic potential for the average lean mass an individual can acquire at a given height naturally.

Never saw this chart. I would be interested to see who authored it and how it was compiled. If this is the "average" lean mass potential, it might make sense. Casey Butts predicts the MAXIMUM potential for the most gifted. His chart is almost 20lbs heavier for a guy 5'9. I really believe a lot and n the method he used and the numbers his generate.

If the chart posted predicts the 'average', I am thinking it would be a more difficult data set to compile. I think the chart above is on the conservative side but again....if it is 'average' maybe it closer then I would think....

DuracellBunny
07-06-2014, 09:17 AM
Never saw this chart. I would be interested to see who authored it and how it was compiled. If this is the "average" lean mass potential, it might make sense. Casey Butts predicts the MAXIMUM potential for the most gifted. His chart is almost 20lbs heavier for a guy 5'9. I really believe a lot and n the method he used and the numbers his generate.

If the chart posted predicts the 'average', I am thinking it would be a more difficult data set to compile. I think the chart above is on the conservative side but again....if it is 'average' maybe it closer then I would think....

There are inherent issues with how you gather the data. They always look at competition ready people and project backwards from there, so I would assume the max LBM listed in that chard is for those at competition levls of bodyfat. You will see the rationale used that yes there are 270lb people out there but they are 30% BF, which isn't actually true. If you took thing sto the extreme you could look at sumo wrestlers and you would find people with 350lbs LBM.

A huge inherent flaw in the datasets used is that they sample competitive BB'ers, so people who aren't focused on max LBM, but on proportion, seperation etc too. Using people who aren't purely focused on LBM and using them as the premise for max LBM is disingenuous at best. These studies often cite the bodyweights of the top naturals, but being the most successful bodybuilder isn't the same thing as having the most LBM. There will be people out there with awful v-tapers 'cause they have very thick midsections who do awfully in BB competitions, but who are carrying more LBM.

You will find multiple naturals just on this board that have 220lbs+ LBM, but who aren't at comp level BF and do not have competition proportions/aesthetics (think 280lbs at 20-22%). In my avi I had over 20lbs more LBM than that chart lists for my height (240lbs at ~ 15%) and I've been both heavier and leaner than that.

paolo59
07-06-2014, 09:46 AM
http://i.imgur.com/zthLZXU.jpg


This chart is interesting, and a little disheartening. Ha! I'm one pound over the max ripped weight for my height. LOL I seem to hover right around that weight, regardless of how hard I try to add more mass. :( Eat! Eat!! Eat!!!

induced_drag
07-06-2014, 09:54 AM
There are inherent issues with how you gather the data. They always look at competition ready people and project backwards from there, so I would assume the max LBM listed in that chard is for those at competition levls of bodyfat. You will see the rationale used that yes there are 270lb people out there but they are 30% BF, which isn't actually true. If you took thing sto the extreme you could look at sumo wrestlers and you would find people with 350lbs LBM.

A huge inherent flaw in the datasets used is that they sample competitive BB'ers, so people who aren't focused on max LBM, but on proportion, seperation etc too. Using people who aren't purely focused on LBM and using them as the premise for max LBM is disingenuous at best. You will find multiple naturals just on this board that have 220lbs+ LBM, but who aren't at comp level BF and do not have competition proportions/aesthetics. In my avi I had over 20lbs more LBM than that chart lists for my height (240lbs at ~ 15%) and I've been both heavier and leaner than that.

Yes, I agree. But as an example I cited, Casey Butts predictor (which uses actual real world samples over decades of top level data) is a full 20lbs lbm greater for a guy 5'9 at 10%bf. (predicting 195lbs at 10% or ever greater with larger joints as his calc factors joint size into the equation). I dont believe that a guy would lose 20lbs lean mass getting the last 4-5% fat off to get in contest shape.

That chart may just be predicting the "average" rather then the top level. That is what it would seem like to me.

But it also brings up how silly it is for people to even refer to these as very very few will ever see contest shape on here (myself included). Truth is most here are in total denial of the amount of fat they carry. They refuse to believe how much of what they think is "big" is just plain fat. You can start referring to these calcs when your waist is in the low 30's and chest is close to 50. THAT is when the numbers will apply.

People get so hung up on charts and predictors. An easier one is train seriously for 3 years and eat appropriately, and that is within 90% of your overall genetic potential. I went from 145 to 190 in my first three years of training from 18-21. (yes 100% natural and even eating poorly and partying too much ;)) Here I am 10 more training years later (with a break in between) and I am only 10lbs heavier (and no longer considered 100% nattie).

Strength on the other hand, does continue to improve, but improvements in technique and form always has a lot to do with that. I really dont know if I am significantly stronger in each individual muscle group, or if I just apply it all better now. My isolation movements are essentially still done with the same weights for years......I have just learned to move the weights more efficiently.

trickyB
07-06-2014, 10:09 AM
I would like to see this study anyone have a link to the full text version. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7496846

DuracellBunny
07-06-2014, 10:18 AM
Strength on the other hand, does continue to improve, but improvements in technique and form always has a lot to do with that. I really dont know if I am significantly stronger in each individual muscle group, or if I just apply it all better now. My isolation movements are essentially still done with the same weights for years......I have just learned to move the weights more efficiently.

That's partly down to tendon strength. Tendons take a LOT longer to strengthen than muscles do and barring aberration your body will not recruit a high enough % of muscle fibres to exceed the tolerances of your tendons (that's partly why "users" have higher injury rates due to an increased disparity between muscle and tendon strength) out of self preservation. You can see the converse of this with PCP users as all the fibres get recruited and they trash tendons, bones etc whilst high.

Karl_Hungus
07-06-2014, 10:24 AM
That's partly down to tendon strength. Tendons take a LOT longer to strengthen than muscles do and barring aberration your body will not recruit a high enough % of muscle fibres to exceed the tolerances of your tendons (that's partly why "users" have higher injury rates due to an increased disparity between muscle and tendon strength) out of self preservation. .

Also, "users" sometimes have some tendon degeneration caused by their use.

DuracellBunny
07-06-2014, 10:35 AM
Also, "users" sometimes have some tendon degeneration caused by their use. I've heard that. I heard that it varies depending on the flavour of the "creatine" too, but as with all these things, 2nd and 3rd hand anecdotal evidence is difficult to judge. One thing in particular does seem to hold true though and that's the difference in the incidence of pec tears between the 2 groups.

induced_drag
07-06-2014, 10:43 AM
I would like to see this study anyone have a link to the full text version. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7496846

In that study, it clearly says the top level (using 20 Mr Americas of the pre-steroid era) was 25.4. That would make a man of 5'9 have a 171lb lbm. (within 3-4 lbs of what casey butts model predicts). Casey's model takes into account joint size in it's predictions.

As I said, looks like the chart you posted would be the "average" level of LBM that can be expected to be achieved by "average" people. It is far from the top as can be seen easily. The problem with a little bit of bad info, is people use charts like the one you posted to claim almost everyone is 'on'.

As I said....give it 3 years and that is what you can expect. Heck, even the majority of the gains will be in the first 18months. I gained 70% of my 45lbs in the first year of training. It is why I have giant zipper 1/2" wide plus stretch marks still 20 years later across my chest, my armpits, and my thighs.

You will never know your training response till you expose your body to the stimulus. If after a year, you are not 10-15lbs heavier....well, you are not blessed with good genes for training. You can either give up, or just make what you have the best you can.

I dont hear guys complaining that they could be in the NBA if only they were 7' tall. I dont know why every person feels they should be a good responder to training. What is even worse is the haters that come out of the woodwork against others who respond better.

DuracellBunny
07-06-2014, 10:47 AM
I would like to see this study anyone have a link to the full text version. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7496846

Not me; although on first inspection it would seem to have the same limitations as previously mentioned, as they are looking at lower bodyfat individuals and things will work differently at higher BF levels. For track athletes, weight restricted lifters etc it might work as a red flag yardtsick, but for super-heavyweight lifters, throwers, defensive linemen etc it would break down.

ntrllftr
07-06-2014, 11:36 AM
Interesting replies.
I believe anyone who trains consistently and properly should be able to pull a 2.5 or 3x bodyweight deadlift. It all comes down to hard work!

The chart Doughnutgut posted is spot on for myself in contest weight and a couple other people that I know at that height. So yes, it can be disheartening when seeing those numbers but also remember.... A person may weigh that much but to the "normal" person they think you are much more than that. :)

paolo59
07-06-2014, 11:58 AM
Interesting replies.
I believe anyone who trains consistently and properly should be able to pull a 2.5 or 3x bodyweight deadlift. It all comes down to hard work!

The chart Doughnutgut posted is spot on for myself in contest weight and a couple other people that I know at that height. So yes, it can be disheartening when seeing those numbers but also remember.... A person may weigh that much but to the "normal" person they think you are much more than that. :)

LOL Bodyweight can be deceptive. I guess it's not how much you weigh, but how much proportioned muscle you carry on your frame. Ha! Regardless, I want to be bigger! :)

trickyB
07-06-2014, 12:03 PM
Like Carlman pointed out I didn't post that table DG did. I was interested to see the full text version of that article because the devil is in the details. No matter. Frankly I don't care who is on and who isn't. I train for me, I do my thing and stay consistent. Based on my stat's and that table I'm about where I can expect to be at this point.

acrawlingchaos
07-06-2014, 12:05 PM
There are inherent issues with how you gather the data. They always look at competition ready people and project backwards from there, so I would assume the max LBM listed in that chard is for those at competition levls of bodyfat. You will see the rationale used that yes there are 270lb people out there but they are 30% BF, which isn't actually true. If you took thing sto the extreme you could look at sumo wrestlers and you would find people with 350lbs LBM.

A huge inherent flaw in the datasets used is that they sample competitive BB'ers, so people who aren't focused on max LBM, but on proportion, seperation etc too. Using people who aren't purely focused on LBM and using them as the premise for max LBM is disingenuous at best. These studies often cite the bodyweights of the top naturals, but being the most successful bodybuilder isn't the same thing as having the most LBM. There will be people out there with awful v-tapers 'cause they have very thick midsections who do awfully in BB competitions, but who are carrying more LBM.Except for extreme outliers, I would wager that those numbers are accurate


You will find multiple naturals just on this board that have 220lbs+ LBM, but who aren't at comp level BF and do not have competition proportions/aesthetics (think 280lbs at 20-22%). In my avi I had over 20lbs more LBM than that chart lists for my height (240lbs at ~ 15%) and I've been both heavier and leaner than that.My experience is that individuals grossly underestimate their fatty mass.

DuracellBunny
07-06-2014, 12:27 PM
My experience is that individuals grossly underestimate their fatty mass.

Yes they do, but lets look at somebody who is 6'1" 300lbs; according to the chart the max LBM is 177lbs, so if they are anything under 40% BF, then they are over that limit. We all know that the lower BF gets, the more LBM we lose when trying to drop BF, which is why I would accept the numbers for sub 10%, but at 15%+ it's a different ballgame.

Bo_Flecks
07-06-2014, 12:50 PM
http://i.imgur.com/zthLZXU.jpg

FWIW, I weighed 174lbs in the pic below in contest condition. From my point of view, I could definitely stand to have more than 3lbs of muscle mass added to my legs.

http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l443/bo_flecks/GatewayNaturals2_zps3e788c04.jpg (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/bo_flecks/media/GatewayNaturals2_zps3e788c04.jpg.html)

doughnutgut
07-06-2014, 01:13 PM
FWIW, I weighed 174lbs in the pic below in contest condition. From my point of view, I could definitely stand to have more than 3lbs of muscle mass added to my legs.

http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l443/bo_flecks/GatewayNaturals2_zps3e788c04.jpg (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/bo_flecks/media/GatewayNaturals2_zps3e788c04.jpg.html)

Steve. I was merely chucking it in here as an observation to the replies in the thread.

Also to see the reactions. Been lurking most of the time. I like to see such a table as a challenge. No doubt we are all different. I am,on my phone but will try to find the link from the site I grabbed it from when I get home.

Great pic btw.

Bo_Flecks
07-06-2014, 01:27 PM
Steve. I was merely chucking it in here as an observation to the replies in the thread.

I really wasn't trying to crap on the chart, Leigh. That's why I threw in the "FWIW" disclaimer.

Like has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread, I believe most guys overestimate the amount of lean mass they have and underestimate the amount of body fat they carry. A contest prep will bear that out every time.

When I prepped for my first contest, I had delusions of stepping on stage at 180lbs. When I got to that weight, it was very clear I still had several weeks of cutting to do.

It was a good thing I did a two stage cut, or I would have had to get very drastic in the final weeks of the prep.

JontheAtheist
07-06-2014, 01:33 PM
I think everyone has their own natural blue print of how much they will grow. Look how much the Rock has grown during his entire life- helps that his old man was a pro wrestler too so I think a lot of that accounts for genetics.

ntrllftr
07-06-2014, 01:34 PM
I really wasn't trying to crap on the chart, Leigh. That's why I threw in the "FWIW" disclaimer.

Like has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread, I believe most guys overestimate the amount of lean mass they have and underestimate the amount of body fat they carry. A contest prep will bear that out every time.

When I prepped for my first contest, I had delusions of stepping on stage at 180lbs. When I got to that weight, it was very clear I still had several weeks of cutting to do.

It was a good thing I did a two stage cut, or I would have had to get very drastic in the final weeks of the prep.

I truly don't think he was saying it in that manner Steve. I do believe that most do have delusional expectations about what they will weigh in a contest.
Bottom line is that you end up where you end up. Playing that number game will really F a person up. It is really humbling once a person achieves true contest shape as you know.

acrawlingchaos
07-06-2014, 01:38 PM
Yes they do, but lets look at somebody who is 6'1" 300lbs; according to the chart the max LBM is 177lbs, so if they are anything under 40% BF, then they are over that limit. We all know that the lower BF gets, the more LBM we lose when trying to drop BF, which is why I would accept the numbers for sub 10%, but at 15%+ it's a different ballgame.Agreed... I think 15-20% bf would were you would see numbers above the chart.

Of course, all taken with a grain of salt. I am 167, so I still have a ways to go before I even have to consider it.

ironwill2008
07-06-2014, 01:50 PM
I would like to see this study anyone have a link to the full text version. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7496846


http://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/toc/1995/10000

Scroll down to the 'Editorial' header; the second item below it is the study in question. Click on 'PDF' under that study, and you'll have the option of opening it or saving it.

acrawlingchaos
07-06-2014, 02:06 PM
That chart may just be predicting the "average" rather then the top level. That is what it would seem like to me.True as well and you are right. It's of scholarly interest alone. We have no idea which side of the genetic scale we sit on. When considering outliers on both ends of the spectrum, the range becomes rather large.

cmoore
07-06-2014, 03:05 PM
I like the FFMI as a rule for the "how do I stack up" and "how far can I go?"

http://www.naturalphysiques.com/28/fat-free-mass-index-ffmi

Best I've EVER been able to score was 24.7 (currently 24.1 if I believe the friendly calipers).

trickyB
07-06-2014, 03:15 PM
http://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/toc/1995/10000

Scroll down to the 'Editorial' header; the second item below it is the study in question. Click on 'PDF' under that study, and you'll have the option of opening it or saving it.

Thanks IW, I appreciate it!

Bo_Flecks
07-06-2014, 03:46 PM
Best I've EVER been able to score was 24.7 (currently 24.1 if I believe the friendly calipers).

Fuuuu. I would only have been at 23.3 in that^^^^contest pic. Currently sitting right at 22. Yep. I've gone backwards.

cmoore
07-06-2014, 03:51 PM
Fuuuu. I would only have been at 23.3 in that^^^^contest pic. Currently sitting right at 22. Yep. I've gone backwards.

IMHO anything over 22 gets the general public in "finger pointing mode."

OzChops
07-06-2014, 04:44 PM
To add (hopefully) to the discussion, Lyle McDonald has an article on his site that discusses a couple of the models and he even suggests some of his own ideas on estimating potential:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

This includes some discussion of the model ID refers to in his posts.

GuyJin
07-06-2014, 05:13 PM
Good discussion. Casey Butts' ideas are usually on the money. Thing is, though, when he talks about potential--and I agree with his stats, by and large--while he talks about bone structure, that says nothing about the number of muscle cells a trainee might have. As an example, count the number of threads on "How do I build my upper chest?" You usually get a lot of guys saying "Do incline flyes and presses, do decline presses, ditch flat presses and dips" and so on. Yet, if you don't have the requisite number of cells there, no matter what you do you won't build that upper (pec minor) area. That's genetics.

And genetics do count for more than people want to believe. No question about it. As the bell curve indicates, you'll have some outliers with the propensity for getting big, some guys who are just average, and those who are poor responders. Just the way it is. There shouldn't be any hate directed at those who respond better...but I've also noticed a disturbing trend among the 'haves' who display a kind of superior attitude and say "I maxed out my potential, why haven't you?" So it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

As for those here (or on other forums) who are on TRT or larger doses, you'll get guys who ARE on, who lie about it, or who downplay the effects of said TRT/'roids. To me, if they're BS-ing about using, then they're only kidding themselves. It has no bearing on my life whether they use or not. That's their decision. I just dislike people lying about it is all.

The bottom line for me is, as always, keep training.

JRT6
07-06-2014, 05:51 PM
Posting so no one thinks I'm juiced.

SteveWright1
07-06-2014, 07:49 PM
Posting so no one thinks I'm juiced.

I will echo that
and in my case, if nothing else, it will give people an opportunity to LOL

bradandblake
07-06-2014, 07:56 PM
http://i.imgur.com/zthLZXU.jpg

I'm hoping this is not a limit chart. I'm natural. Completely. This says I have 40+ pounds of fat. No.

Karl_Hungus
07-06-2014, 07:57 PM
Posting so no one thinks I'm juiced.

Whew! I was worried there for a second.

GuyJin
07-06-2014, 08:22 PM
Someone neg SteveWright1 for me, please.

:D

acrawlingchaos
07-06-2014, 08:32 PM
I'm hoping this is not a limit chart. I'm natural. Completely. This says I have 40+ pounds of fat. No.No... this is an average of the upper limit.

bradandblake
07-06-2014, 08:37 PM
No... this is an average of the upper limit.

Ok. Phew. I just tested using caliper method again. This is what I got.

http://i57.tinypic.com/3zr83.png

Tmax55
07-06-2014, 08:39 PM
I like the FFMI as a rule for the "how do I stack up" and "how far can I go?"

http://www.naturalphysiques.com/28/fat-free-mass-index-ffmi

Best I've EVER been able to score was 24.7 (currently 24.1 if I believe the friendly calipers).

I must be missing something. I'm 6'1" 215 @ about 16ish% and it has me close to where you score?

I'd have to melt to get anywhere close to your level of cut.

I must be higher than 16.

bradandblake
07-06-2014, 08:44 PM
I must be missing something. I'm 6'1" 215 @ about 16ish% and it has me close to where you score?

I'd have to melt to get anywhere close to your level of cut.

I must be higher than 16.

Yeah I wonder what he lists his bf% at. Going by caliper it puts me at 26+.

cmoore
07-06-2014, 09:02 PM
Yeah I wonder what he lists his bf% at. Going by caliper it puts me at 26+.

7%.

scullin
07-06-2014, 09:04 PM
Everyone's "natty limit" is going to be different. Just do the best you can. Enter some local powerlifting contests to find out how you stack up (some feds are drug tested).

scullin
07-06-2014, 09:07 PM
I'm hoping this is not a limit chart. I'm natural. Completely. This says I have 40+ pounds of fat. No.Ya me too. lol Fuk that chart!

bradandblake
07-06-2014, 09:29 PM
Ya me too. lol Fuk that chart!

Agreed. It's just a general upper limit. We are freaks I guess.

Karl_Hungus
07-06-2014, 11:50 PM
I must be missing something. I'm 6'1" 215 @ about 16ish% and it has me close to where you score?
.

You are missing something -- Namely that it is easier to hold on to fat free mass when you have a higher bodyfat percentage. So it should not be shocking to you that you may have an equal amount of lean mass to somebody at single-digit bodyfat levels.


Ya me too. lol Fuk that chart!


Agreed. It's just a general upper limit. We are freaks I guess.

LOL ... OK.

I have seen some good physiques in this forum, but I have yet to see one so great that the word "freak" comes to mind.

lunchbreak
07-07-2014, 01:10 AM
Oh man, I feel even fatter now. :(

Guinea-pig
07-07-2014, 03:40 AM
Everyone's "natty limit" is going to be different. Just do the best you can. Enter some local powerlifting contests to find out how you stack up (some feds are drug tested).

Lots of moral issues in drug tested events.