The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Bodybuilding
 
Maximum Muscular Bodyweight
 

gregron
Level 4

Join date: Oct 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 13490

the_bradguy wrote:
This is quite an interesting read.

It seems that people have become so accustomed to seeing so many chemically-enhanced bodies in the media that people don't even know what a great natural physique at 10% bodyfat even looks like anymore.
People nowadays think the great legends don't have enough mass even though they're clearly the upper limit of muscularity at 10% bodyfat.

Hey, these 300 outstanding gifted specimens were all trying to build maximum lean muscle with low bodyfat, and they all topped out, what's the problem?

It's a bit comical (and a bit sad too) to see so many big beefy macho guys getting so irate over this calculator.
The truth clearly hurts sometimes.
Why not lose that roll on your stomach and put up some pictorial proof that you've actually outdid the calculator? Don't bull$#!t us (nor yourself) with exaggerated numbers neither, put up the truth.
I see angry people refuting and condemning Dr. Butt's scientific instrument, but no one offering a shred of documented proof that they've outdid this calculator naturally.

Quit deluding yourself that you're at 10% bodyfat.

...or face the truth and get on the juice if you want to look like the IFBB Pros (and have massive health problems at relatively young ages like the IFBB Pros too).



^^^says the 6' 164lb guy. lol

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

hungry4more
Level 2

Join date: Nov 2007
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 6698

DON'T FEED THE FUCKING TROLL!!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

BONEZ217
Level 2

Join date: Feb 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 11473

Are you people retarded?

His avatar is a fucking treasure troll doll.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

DixiesFinest
Level 1

Join date: Mar 2009
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 7751

the_bradguy wrote:
That Professor dude is huge. Massive arms. Clearly loads of work, perseverance, and dedication in the gym, and of course good genetics for building muscle, but where's the abs shot showing the ripped 6 pack, serratus, and intercostals?
They're a terrific indicator of adipose levels.



sigh...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

BONEZ217
Level 2

Join date: Feb 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 11473

He's not even doing a good job at trolling at all.

He's simply restating things that have already been said in this thread. His posts are actually cliff notes of the posts made by the calculator supporters. Come on.

HUGE trolling fail.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

BlueCollarTr8n
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 2824

Whether you agree with the calculator or not; it appears that if your goal is to be a competitive natural bodybuilder (or maybe you just need a job) and you exceed the calculated measurements; you should have an easy time becoming the National Natural Champion and cashing in with endorsement contracts and the like! If you have chosen the alternative path; and I'm not judging; then it wouldn't apply to you anyhow!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

olympiclifting
Level

Join date: Jan 2011
Location:
Posts: 21

Casey Butt wrote:
I did not say anything even implying that it is not possible for anyone to drastically change their lean body mass or body composition. I myself was once 55% bodyfat at over 320 pounds. I then went down to 160 pounds at 15% bodyfat, then back up to 175 at 9% body fat. That was a gain of 23 pounds of lean body mass or a 17% increase. The changes in my appearance were quite noticeable.

If you really do carry 50 pounds more lean body mass than an average person of your height and bone structure then you have almost doubled the accomplishments of the greatest drug-free bodybuilders of all time.

Many people who believe that are comparing themselves to when they were teenagers and just began training. That is not accurate because most people are naturally heavier in their twenties than they were at age 16 or 17 ...regardless of weight training.

Realism has nothing to do with defeatism. How people choose to interpret reality is completely up to themselves. Of course, accepting "limitations" requires some maturity that most young bodybuilders don't have, but that is itself influenced by people's skewed perceptions.

I agree that people should not mentally defeat themselves because of some information that they interpret in a negative fashion. But I really don't see how that article is negative in any way. The only way it is negative is if people have unrealistic expectations in the first place.

I think after 10 years of hard, drug-free training and plateauing around where the equations predict, most people will come to "accept" that article much quicker than the younger crowd.

The statistics are accurate, the analysis was accurate. There's really nothing else to it than that. I did nothing other than analyze and formulate the existing data. Kouri E.M., Pope H.G. Jr., Katz D.L. and Oliva P. independently came to the same conclusions as myself.

Of course people have choices of how they deal with the information. If they're concerned about it planting self-defeatist attitudes in their heads they can: 1) Simply not read the article. 2) Just ignore it. 3) Adjust their unrealistic expectations. 4) Get mad at the drug-free champions for not setting a more positive example by being bigger. 5) Get mad at drug-users for raising the bar to a level which is unattainable without drugs.



Don't you think as an FYI this was done with the help of "supplements" because you are giving people realistic goals.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

duls
Level

Join date: Dec 2010
Location:
Posts: 6

My view of this sort of calculations is that if you are not there or are begining then its a goal or target to be achieved. Because if you as a person wants to be lets say 250 pounds and the calculation says you can get to 200 pounds and you currently weigh 170 pounds. Then you first need to get to 200 before you can get to 250. With me I recently got back to training after rugby injuries and a fasting period, I'm currently under my normal weight of 165lb weighing in at 158 up from 149, although my heaviest has been 172lb. The calculation says I can get to about 200lb, so I still got grounds to grow.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

BONEZ217
Level 2

Join date: Feb 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 11473

BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Whether you agree with the calculator or not; it appears that if your goal is to be a competitive natural bodybuilder (or maybe you just need a job) and you exceed the calculated measurements; you should have an easy time becoming the National Natural Champion and cashing in with endorsement contracts and the like! If you have chosen the alternative path; and I'm not judging; then it wouldn't apply to you anyhow!




semicolon fail

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ebomb5522
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2008
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 3973

I'm not at all saying that people take this calculator as the gospel, but I think that something needs to be said about the fact that this is determining natural mass and also at a body fat of 8-10 percent. 8-10 percent is much leaner than I think most believe it is, and if you haven't been down to around 8 percent, it's tough to say that you have exceeded your limitations because you ultimately don't actually know if you have.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

the_bradguy
Level

Join date: Mar 2010
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 13

gregron wrote:

^^^says the 6' 164lb guy. lol



Actually in my best ever condition, I used to look quite a bit like the Before picture in that old Brian Eastman Impossible muscle ad that used to be in comic books...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

the_bradguy
Level

Join date: Mar 2010
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 13

Apparently my max weight at 10% bodyfat is 195.4 lbs.

That's 35.4 lbs higher than present, WOO HOO!!!

Although Dr. Butt says 95% of the max is more realistic for most dudes unless one has the genes of Steve Reeves, John Grimek..

That brings me down to 185.63 lbs.
25 and a half lbs of quality beef.

185 lbs at 10% fat would be pretty awesome.

I got all the way up to 175 lbs one time, but it was for damn sure at more than 10% body-fat.
Once I stopped force-feeding myself and had to take a break from working out, (blew a pec, surgery was in Ottawa, Ontario), I rapidly went back down to my regular weight of 160 lbs.

My lower back is a bit fucked too though from a hack squat in 1997.
Something blew then too, ambulance ride for that one.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Jab1
Level

Join date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 1585

the_bradguy wrote:
gregron wrote:

^^^says the 6' 164lb guy. lol



Actually in my best ever condition, I used to look quite a bit like the Before picture in that old Brian Eastman Impossible muscle ad that used to be in comic books...

Erm... I don't look far off that after a year and a half total training time... Not sure why you would want to use that as some sort of defense - it's not impressive.

It's a frikken "before" picture!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

evo2008
Level

Join date: Feb 2008
Location:
Posts: 105

The main reason people hate this equation is in my opinion because they think 200lbs and over = being 'big', when big is completely contextual on body fat and height (I won't get in to 'assisted' potential because that's totally irrelevant when we are talking about natural potential).

If you look at it another way, and look at the loads being lifted at these 'pussy' 180lbs lean body weights then is perhaps looks a bit better. For example, I'd say the average framed 5' 9 guy at maximum calculated lean body weight 8% would probably have the following lifts in the big 3:

220-250kg deadlift
200kg squat (below parallel)
150kg bench press

Yeah ok, not record breaking, but that is STRONG and remember that is also really LEAN.

Now, I know a lot of guys 15%+ body fat (who think they are 12% or less in most cases) and they do not put up these lifts and yet they are 200lbs and so it's all good. Of course, they could (will) easily beat the LBM equation one day!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Rational Gaze
Level 2

Join date: Jul 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2032

Jab1 wrote:
the_bradguy wrote:
gregron wrote:

^^^says the 6' 164lb guy. lol



Actually in my best ever condition, I used to look quite a bit like the Before picture in that old Brian Eastman Impossible muscle ad that used to be in comic books...

Erm... I don't look far off that after a year and a half total training time... Not sure why you would want to use that as some sort of defense - it's not impressive.

It's a frikken "before" picture!


It is a fucking troll, morons.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Bricknyce
Level 1

Join date: Nov 2002
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 5068

evo2008 wrote:
The main reason people hate this equation is in my opinion because they think 200lbs and over = being 'big', when big is completely contextual on body fat and height (I won't get in to 'assisted' potential because that's totally irrelevant when we are talking about natural potential).

If you look at it another way, and look at the loads being lifted at these 'pussy' 180lbs lean body weights then is perhaps looks a bit better. For example, I'd say the average framed 5' 9 guy at maximum calculated lean body weight 8% would probably have the following lifts in the big 3:

220-250kg deadlift
200kg squat (below parallel)
150kg bench press

Yeah ok, not record breaking, but that is STRONG and remember that is also really LEAN.

Now, I know a lot of guys 15%+ body fat (who think they are 12% or less in most cases) and they do not put up these lifts and yet they are 200lbs and so it's all good. Of course, they could (will) easily beat the LBM equation one day!



I agree.

1.5 x BW bench, 2 x BW squat, and 2.5 x BW deadlift are NOT groundbreaking, but they are very good, and can be accomplished by anyone with even mediocre genetics.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

hungry4more
Level 2

Join date: Nov 2007
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 6698

evo2008 wrote:
The main reason people hate this equation is in my opinion because they think 200lbs and over = being 'big', when big is completely contextual on body fat and height (I won't get in to 'assisted' potential because that's totally irrelevant when we are talking about natural potential).

If you look at it another way, and look at the loads being lifted at these 'pussy' 180lbs lean body weights then is perhaps looks a bit better. For example, I'd say the average framed 5' 9 guy at maximum calculated lean body weight 8% would probably have the following lifts in the big 3:

220-250kg deadlift
200kg squat (below parallel)
150kg bench press

Yeah ok, not record breaking, but that is STRONG and remember that is also really LEAN.

Now, I know a lot of guys 15%+ body fat (who think they are 12% or less in most cases) and they do not put up these lifts and yet they are 200lbs and so it's all good. Of course, they could (will) easily beat the LBM equation one day!



Holy fuck if this isn't under-achieving I don't know wtf is.

With (competition, not gym) lifts of 661 in DL, 496 squat, and 341 bench at 191 and 189 lbs, I've KILLED that deadlift by over 100 lbs, the squat by almost 50 lbs, and the bench by a bit over 10 lbs....and I've only been lifting around 5 years, and am only 22 years old.

Now I realize I've got pretty good leverages for powerlifting, but those goals are NOT hard to achieve at all with just a little bit of intelligence, some intensity, and consistency. Stop limiting yourself people!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

hungry4more wrote:
evo2008 wrote:
The main reason people hate this equation is in my opinion because they think 200lbs and over = being 'big', when big is completely contextual on body fat and height (I won't get in to 'assisted' potential because that's totally irrelevant when we are talking about natural potential).

If you look at it another way, and look at the loads being lifted at these 'pussy' 180lbs lean body weights then is perhaps looks a bit better. For example, I'd say the average framed 5' 9 guy at maximum calculated lean body weight 8% would probably have the following lifts in the big 3:

220-250kg deadlift
200kg squat (below parallel)
150kg bench press

Yeah ok, not record breaking, but that is STRONG and remember that is also really LEAN.

Now, I know a lot of guys 15%+ body fat (who think they are 12% or less in most cases) and they do not put up these lifts and yet they are 200lbs and so it's all good. Of course, they could (will) easily beat the LBM equation one day!



Holy fuck if this isn't under-achieving I don't know wtf is.

With (competition, not gym) lifts of 661 in DL, 496 squat, and 341 bench at 191 and 189 lbs, I've KILLED that deadlift by over 100 lbs, the squat by almost 50 lbs, and the bench by a bit over 10 lbs....and I've only been lifting around 5 years, and am only 22 years old.

Now I realize I've got pretty good leverages for powerlifting, but those goals are NOT hard to achieve at all with just a little bit of intelligence, some intensity, and consistency. Stop limiting yourself people!



I had hit 405 on bench press by your age. The problem is very average people with very average work capacity and drive are now calling themselves "bodybuilders". This used to attract a more hardcore crowd.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

mch60360
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 569

Did you smash the competition with a deadlift of 661?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

mch60360 wrote:
Did you smash the competition with a deadlift of 661?



Was this aimed at me? I don't deadlift. What was the point of the question?

You should be asking why we have so many fucking people on this forum who have supposedly been lifting for years but less than 20 seem to actually LOOK LIKE IT.

It's been ten years. If even 51% of the people here were serious about this shit on any level near the guys who stand out here, this whole website would have a different attitude.

Instead, we get guys worried about their LIMITS before they get anywhere near them.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

mch60360
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 569

No I meant that for H4M. His lifts are impressive. And was wondering how well he did in comps with those numbers.

I agree, calculating limits early in the game (maybe even ever, although I love to over think that stuff) is counter productive if they don't reach the first stepping stone.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Bricknyce
Level 1

Join date: Nov 2002
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 5068

Professor X wrote:
mch60360 wrote:
Did you smash the competition with a deadlift of 661?



Was this aimed at me? I don't deadlift. What was the point of the question?

You should be asking why we have so many fucking people on this forum who have supposedly been lifting for years but less than 20 seem to actually LOOK LIKE IT.

It's been ten years. If even 51% of the people here were serious about this shit on any level near the guys who stand out here, this whole website would have a different attitude.

Instead, we get guys worried about their LIMITS before they get anywhere near them.



I don't think people on here are "worrying" about their limits. I think most are just mentally masturbating (which is the most common activity for most on this board, as I've said hundreds of times).

Why do we have people on here with mediocre or insignificant progress in years? We've gone over it before, with the biggest culprit being plain old INEPTITUDE.

There are also people who do love the sport of bodybuilding - working out, following it in the same way they follow other sports [eg, baseball or basketball or whatever] - but will NEVER EVER take it to the level that you, MODOK, hungry4more, Steely D, Cephalic Carnage, BONEZ, Holy Macaroni, and a few others have, simply becuse THEY DON'T WANT TO or THEY CAN'T!

For whatever reason: lifestyle, conflicting goals in life, genetics, ineptitude, indiscipline, and so on.

Not only will most make no progress, but they will NOT even remotely live ANY sort of fitness or bodybuilding lifestyle in another ten years from now.

I made good progress for some time and now I'm not because for a variety of reasons. Above all, I simply choose not to do what it takes for stellar progress. However, I still like following bodybuilding in the same way I follow other things. I'm probably going to attend the NY Pro and Atlantic States this coming Spring and Summer - and I'm going regardless of whether I'm hardcore or not.

At this point it's impossible to change an entire attitude of this site. There are other boards with heavyweights and allstars (figurative and literal references) posting. (I can't mention competitors' websites here). I like your postings here, but I'm surprised someone like you isn't posting in those sorts of forums.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Bricknyce
Level 1

Join date: Nov 2002
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 5068

I don't see how looking at calculations or ANYTHING limits someone if they intend on working their ass off regardless of what they read.

But then again, most on here like THINKING more than exercising and eating. So maybe you people are right.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

Bricknyce wrote:
I don't see how looking at calculations or ANYTHING limits someone if they intend on working their ass off regardless of what they read.

But then again, most on here like THINKING more than exercising and eating. So maybe you people are right.



Dude, look at this thread. If they were simply saying, "Gee, a list of body weights that some old bodybuilders reached in the 50's, how interesting", this thread would not exist. This thread exists because Butt Ryders are claiming that these body weights from the 50's mean this is the most a natural bodybuilder can ever reach TODAY.

The whole "your wrists never grow" issue despite many of us noticing our wrists growing is another issue as well.

They turned this from a simple list of some measurements that don't mean much into some absolute limit so they can say what everyone else can or can not do.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

hungry4more
Level 2

Join date: Nov 2007
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 6698

Bricknyce wrote:
I don't see how looking at calculations or ANYTHING limits someone if they intend on working their ass off regardless of what they read.

But then again, most on here like THINKING more than exercising and eating. So maybe you people are right.


Pretty much this. As X has said REPEATEDLY, why the hell would anybody worry about getting TOO BIG and strong? That will NEVER help ANYBODY in the pursuit of muscle or strength, so what the fuck is the point? It's a self-limiting attitude that invites excuse after excuse for why people are small and weak, and does nothing positive for them.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
Topic is Locked
This thread has reached its maximum number of replies. Click HERE to start a new topic.