What are the numbers on maximum muscle gain per year?

[blue4123]

A few years ago, I remember seeing some numbers regarding the maximum muscle mass that can be gained per year. IIRC, it was something like 20-25 lbs (~ 9 - 11 kg) for first year lifters, and then something like 10-15 for second year lifters, and asymptotically approaching zero with years of experience. Does someone have the source for this information?

Also, is there data on the amount of muscle you can expect to lose per year if you stopped lifting but still consumed a lot of protein?

[EliKoehn]

The former question is probably a lot easier to answer than the latter.

Many claim that there is a low ceiling on the amount of muscle that natural trainers can achieve, total: something like 40 pounds, give or take based upon one's height. When you consider that a similar perceived amount of leanness coincides with plenty of actual fat gain in the process of hypertrophy, that might end up looking like 50-60 pounds of muscle gained as the ceiling.

Without reading any literature on this, I do personally conjecture that this is a lowball. Whenever an exception surfaces, someone will inevitably cry steroids with no satiable burden of proof, or genetic freak. (A lot of genetic freaks coincidentally have an insane propensity to work hard, it seems.)

Would also venture to guess that the scientific community may have only considered test subjects who would already fall within their parameters, then nailed the coffin on the question.

[EiFit91]

The former question is probably a lot easier to answer than the latter.

Many claim that there is a low ceiling on the amount of muscle that natural trainers can achieve, total: something like 40 pounds, give or take based upon one's height. When you consider that a similar perceived amount of leanness coincides with plenty of actual fat gain in the process of hypertrophy, that might end up looking like 50-60 pounds of muscle gained as the ceiling.

Without reading any literature on this, I do personally conjecture that this is a lowball. Whenever an exception surfaces, someone will inevitably cry steroids with no satiable burden of proof, or genetic freak. (A lot of genetic freaks coincidentally have an insane propensity to work hard, it seems.)

Would also venture to guess that the scientific community may have only considered test subjects who would already fall within their parameters, then nailed the coffin on the question.

This is why we need mrpb back.

I have been wondering myself what these numbers that you typically see passed around are based on.

http://jasonferruggia.com/how-much-m...ain-naturally/

"Most people have the potential to add a good thirty pounds of muscle to their frames regardless of how ****ty their genetics are. Some can add forty.

And a smaller percentage can add fifty. In my quarter century of training I’ve never seen anyone add more than fifty pounds of muscle to their frame naturally."

"The Rock was 225 in high school. At his peak he weighs 275. That’s a fifty-pound gain in however many years it took.

Arnold was 200 pounds as a teen and competed in the Mr. Olympia at 237. That’s not even a fifty pound gain."

Neither of these were/are naturals.

Your conjecture that it's going to be a lowball is perfectly reasonable, but it could also be an overestimate. People who train for years are probably more likely to be people who experience good results from it. People with bad genetics would be, I conjecture, more likely to opt out early.

It's also weird how all these "genetic freaks" suddenly appeared after steroids were invented.

[EliKoehn]

Considering Arnold was already this far along at 16... https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7kTz6MVrBlY/hqdefault.jpg

I would say he's not the best example.

The whole "Yeah, they're on steroids" talking point I think tends to be an excuse against exhibiting serious dedication and striving for what will be seriously challenging, more often than not. Arnold rode his bike to the gym a long distance as a kid and worked out until he couldn't ride it back without falling off as a 15 year old kid. That level of dedication doesn't tend to coincide with the yielder of the accusation.

[EiFit91]

Considering Arnold was already this far along at 16... https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7kTz6MVrBlY/hqdefault.jpg

I would say he's not the best example.

The whole "Yeah, they're on steroids" talking point I think tends to be an excuse against exhibiting serious dedication and striving for what will be seriously challenging, more often than not. Arnold rode his bike to the gym a long distance as a kid and worked out until he couldn't ride it back without falling off as a 15 year old kid. That level of dedication doesn't tend to coincide with the yielder of the accusation.

Of course they are dedicated, that's why they are on steroids.

Did some digging, cannot find the stats of Arnold's son Joseph Baena from a reliable source. I would think of that as a good example of "natty with GREAT genetics". One source says his height is 6'2'' and weight is about 187 lbs (85 kg). I don't know if that source is reliable. Would put him at a BMI of 24 and very lean already at 23 years old which I find very impressive for a natty with an average bone structure.

[EliKoehn]

Not making a joke at all, but his genetics may not be incredible just because he's Arnold's natural son. His maternal line, for all we know, could have terrible genetics.

My dad's genetics are awesome: he got to a three plate bench in less than one year of lifting, and wasn't obsessing about it either, just worked out in college for fun and got there in a semester. The same accomplishment took me well over three years of benching several times a week, a lot of weight gain and wasn't easy. I only just this past week topped that, at 24 and five years of regularly lifting. He doesn't put on fat as easily as me, either. Older brother got a three plate bench as a teenager and didn't take him very long either. So just because I'm his natural son doesn't mean I have the phenotype sadly...

Strawng is a geneticist or at least has studied it in a professional capacity IIRC. Maybe he could chime in on this.

[air2fakie]

Considering Arnold was already this far along at 16... https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7kTz6MVrBlY/hqdefault.jpg

I would say he's not the best example.

The whole "Yeah, they're on steroids" talking point I think tends to be an excuse against exhibiting serious dedication and striving for what will be seriously challenging, more often than not. Arnold rode his bike to the gym a long distance as a kid and worked out until he couldn't ride it back without falling off as a 15 year old kid. That level of dedication doesn't tend to coincide with the yielder of the accusation.

I think you're underestimating how much of a diff there is in anyone's physique even lifting the exact same weights between naturally or with extra help - whether good or bad genetics, good or bad program, dedication or lack thereof. Obviously results can be that much more impressive if genetics, program and dedication are in order too. Not making a moral judgement - it just is what it is.

[EiFit91]

Not making a joke at all, but his genetics may not be incredible just because he's Arnold's natural son. His maternal line, for all we know, could have terrible genetics.

My dad's genetics are awesome: he got to a three plate bench in less than one year of lifting, and wasn't obsessing about it either, just worked out in college for fun and got there in a semester. The same accomplishment took me well over three years of benching several times a week, a lot of weight gain and wasn't easy. I only just this past week topped that, at 24 and five years of regularly lifting. He doesn't put on fat as easily as me, either. Older brother got a three plate bench as a teenager and didn't take him very long either. So just because I'm his natural son doesn't mean I have the phenotype sadly...

Strawng is a geneticist or at least has studied it in a professional capacity IIRC. Maybe he could chime in on this.

But that's the reason why I picked Baena out of Arnold's two sons. He's the one who inherited the bodybuilding genetics.

At some primal level, Arnold saw that the maid would provide him the alpha son he always wanted.

[EliKoehn]

Honestly I don't think she was bad looking, all things considered.

[EiFit91]

Honestly I don't think she was bad looking, all things considered.

I now suspect you have been eating too much saturated fat, elevating your testosterone and lowering your standards.

[air2fakie]

Honestly I don't think she was bad looking, all things considered.

Strong, broad shoulders if I recall correctly.

[EliKoehn]

I'm partial to the buxom look myself and don't mind a little bit of chubbiness. Delicate/petite has just never been my type.

[Tommy W.]

How much can be gained is a question that is not answerable. There are way too many factors that makes answering impossible. Here's how to find out though:

Be on the proper diet, be on the proper training program, be consistent with both and what you get is what you get.

[desslok]

I could make up lots of numbers. Whether you would hit them is a different story. Is this for a school project or something?

[EiFit91]

How much can be gained is a question that is not answerable. There are way too many factors that makes answering impossible. Here's how to find out though:

Be on the proper diet, be on the proper training program, be consistent with both and what you get is what you get.

How many years of proper training did it take for you to hit your genetic limit?

Would be interesting to see how a guy with decades of experience compares to these tables that people throw around.

[Mrpb]

This is why we need mrpb back.

Thanks. I'm not gone but I may participate a lot less. If the discussion is about science I'm more inclined to participate.

As for the questions raised by OP, I haven't read much science about either question. I think you're already aware of the article by Lyle?

https://bodyrecomposition.com/muscle...ular-potential

[EiFit91]

Thanks. I'm not gone but I may participate a lot less. If the discussion is about science I'm more inclined to participate.

As for the questions raised by OP, I haven't read much science about either question. I think you're already aware of the article by Lyle?

https://bodyrecomposition.com/muscle...ular-potential

I found this quote interesting:

"As I noted in the introduction, a lot of lifters get fairly angry or upset over the above types of estimations, assuming that they don’t take into account individual differences in motivation, work ethic, etc. To that I say nonsense.

Both Casey and Martin’s equations are based on top level natural bodybuilders, the group that you’d expect to surpass such limits if they existed (and who’s dedication and work ethic is pretty hard to question). Mine and Alan’s are based on years of experience in the field. If a massive number of exceptions to the above existed, someone would have seen them by now.

Don’t get me wrong, they certainly exist. As I examined in my series on Fat Free Mass Index, there are the occasional elite bodybuilders or athletes who exceed these levels. But exceptions are just that. Usually these athletes started big and muscular and just got bigger and more muscular. And you aren’t them."

So for the average person starting strength training, these estimates should probably be regarded as overestimates, as the numbers have been derived from experience with a self-selected group of people who have been training for years and are probably more likely to have an above-average response to strength training. This includes a lot of variables of course. And if the rate of non-naturals in this population is larger than zero it will lead to an even more skewed estimate.

I suspect that a randomized trial that drew a random sample from the general population and followed them over 5 years on a proper training program and proper diet would arrive at lower numbers than the above numbers. And I think this is relevant as so many people new to lifting look to these numbers as a guideline and they may end up getting disappointed and stop training.

I don't like "upper limit" particularly much as there will always be some very unusual exceptions to a rule and that could be used to refute said hypothetical upper limit, but I like to think in terms of averages. The average of a random sample of the population would have lower muscle building potential than the average of a selected sample of lifters who are likely to be self-selected precisely because they have favorable genetics, favorable motivation, lower likelihood of getting injured etc. The individuals motivating the numbers in the above article are already to some degree exceptions (probably), and there will be more extreme exceptions. But for most people these numbers will probably be overestimates.

[Heisman2]

Studies show a wide spectrum of responders and nonresponders. Nonresponders probably do respond to higher volume, but there is lots of emerging data showing how influential genetics can be. Example (published last month): https://journals.physiology.org/doi/...ics.00154.2020

Point is, there is no way to give a definite answer to a single person. Genetics plays too large of a factor.

[Tommy W.]

How many years of proper training did it take for you to hit your genetic limit?

Would be interesting to see how a guy with decades of experience compares to these tables that people throw around.

I started at 19 and by 35 that was about it as far as size. From 50-56 I had time to start hitting it hard again and all the muscle came back plus some then had to scale back training at 58.in my gallery photos the pic of me holding the green wine glass was at 63 or so.

Anecdotally build as much when you’re young to set up the mononuclei count then through life it will be a question of how much time and energy you have to devote to training and if your body will allow you to train hard enough later on. Don’t totally anahiliate yourself going super heavy for too long as that may come back to bite you later on. If you’re in it for the long haul pace yourself.

[Makana214]

quite a lot

[EliKoehn]

I started at 19 and by 35 that was about it as far as size. From 50-56 I had time to start hitting it hard again and all the muscle came back plus some then had to scale back training at 58.in my gallery photos the pic of me holding the green wine glass was at 63 or so.

Anecdotally build as much when you’re young to set up the mononuclei count then through life it will be a question of how much time and energy you have to devote to training and if your body will allow you to train hard enough later on. Don’t totally anahiliate yourself going super heavy for too long as that may come back to bite you later on. If you’re in it for the long haul pace yourself.

You might have been training for physique without chasing a strength goal, but mind sharing your max powerlifting total?

[EiFit91]

I started at 19 and by 35 that was about it as far as size. From 50-56 I had time to start hitting it hard again and all the muscle came back plus some then had to scale back training at 58.in my gallery photos the pic of me holding the green wine glass was at 63 or so.

Anecdotally build as much when you’re young to set up the mononuclei count then through life it will be a question of how much time and energy you have to devote to training and if your body will allow you to train hard enough later on. Don’t totally anahiliate yourself going super heavy for too long as that may come back to bite you later on. If you’re in it for the long haul pace yourself.

Thanks, I highly appreciate this advice. Your physique at late 50s and early 60s looks insane and way better than most guys in their 20s.

I have noticed that my approach to training has shifted a lot (I am 30 now) compared to when I was in my 20s and (particularly) my teens. I started at 16 and had a long break from lifting between 18 and 24. Looking back I was training like a moron a lot of the time. I think much more in terms of «can I keep doing this for years» now and some of your posts about how to play the long game have been very helpful in that respect.

[Tommy W.]

You might have been training for physique without chasing a strength goal, but mind sharing your max powerlifting total?

Yes for physique. Hitting big numbers was never a big goal. I trained at Zuvers back in the early 70's which was predominantly a power gym I can't remember my numbers but they weren't comparable with the bigger, older guys but I DO remember pullups for reps with 2 plates on my belt. I was 5-11 and 165. The big guys thought that was pretty cool

[EliKoehn]

Yes for physique. Hitting big numbers was never a big goal. I trained at Zuvers back in the early 70's which was predominantly a power gym I can't remember my numbers but they weren't comparable with the bigger, older guys but I DO remember pullups for reps with 2 plates on my belt. I was 5-11 and 165. The big guys thought that was pretty cool

Respect. That is a heavy pull.

[blue4123]

Thanks. I'm not gone but I may participate a lot less. If the discussion is about science I'm more inclined to participate.

As for the questions raised by OP, I haven't read much science about either question. I think you're already aware of the article by Lyle?

https://bodyrecomposition.com/muscle...ular-potential

I might have read this when I was a teenager. It's been a long time since I read anything. I'll take a look. Thanks.

[Tommy W.]

I might have read this when I was a teenager. It's been a long time since I read anything. I'll take a look. Thanks.

excerpt from article:


I’d note that while I do believe trainees should simply get into proper training and not worry up front what they may or may not accomplish, I also believe that there are genetic limits set by underlying biology (again, modulated by behavioral choices and patterns).