Bluecollar’s 3lb/inch is a reasonable goals to shoot for for a natty imo. I would like to see this clarified a bit more. What is the BF%? 10%? less?
For me I would have to get to 205 lbs 10% bf. I was 202 this morning and I would geustimate my bf% at 15 or so. Maybe more. I do have “all abs in” though. This is just for reference.
3lbs/inch for a natty at 10% bf would be extremely impressive. How many have done it? Any pics of natties that have accomplished this in contest shape or at 10%?
My cock can only weigh 9lbs?
:(…
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Bluecollar’s 3lb/inch is a reasonable goals to shoot for for a natty imo. I would like to see this clarified a bit more. What is the BF%? 10%? less?
For me I would have to get to 205 lbs 10% bf. I was 202 this morning and I would geustimate my bf% at 15 or so. Maybe more. I do have “all abs in” though. This is just for reference.
3lbs/inch for a natty at 10% bf would be extremely impressive. How many have done it? Any pics of natties that have accomplished this in contest shape or at 10%?[/quote]
3 lbs per inch is damn impressive…at single digit bf% would be VERY impressive for a natty.
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
My cock can only weigh 9lbs?
:(…[/quote]
Well done, sir. Well done.
I’m not sure how accurate this is, but google is telling me Arnold was 235-240 lbs 6’2 in his top shape at the Olympia, so that’d put him 10-15 lbs over 3 lbs/inch, which seems reasonable. Obviously he wasn’t natty lol
I also like this measurement better than citing a specific number of pounds. 40 pounds of added muscle on a guy 5’6 looks much different than a guy who is 6’6.
alot of the people in that chart were not natural though
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
alot of the people in that chart were not natural though[/quote]
Doesn’t that make the 3lbs per inch thing all the more impressive?
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
Here’s the chart that bluecollar posted in his thread. I’m not sure about the bodyfat % of these guys.[/quote]
Crazy only 2 on that list have arms 18 inches. 18 inch arms on someone under 10% is very impressive and nothing to scoff at.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
alot of the people in that chart were not natural though[/quote]
Doesn’t that make the 3lbs per inch thing all the more impressive?[/quote]
just pointing out that the chart won’t be that useful for a natural if the guys on it are not drug free
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
Here’s the chart that bluecollar posted in his thread. I’m not sure about the bodyfat % of these guys.[/quote]
Crazy only 2 on that list have arms 18 inches. 18 inch arms on someone under 10% is very impressive and nothing to scoff at. [/quote]
who would scoff or not be impressed at 18 inch arms at under 10%
that is fucking huge
so at 5’7 I would need to be 201 lean? Shit, that would be impressive if i was on the sauce let alone natural…
The obsession with being natty on this sub forum is lame as hell, and creates a circlejerk of guys that there physique is some what more impressive then somebody of similar build who used AAS. When in reality a good physique is a good physique end of story.
My goal is 225, and I didn’t even realize that was the golden ratio… I noticed that most of the nfl players with my height at the speed and power positions (wr, rb, db’s, etc) are around 225lbs so thats what I shot for… and really regardless of height they all seem to have 3lbs per inch, so maybe thats ideal for overall athleticism and health.
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
alot of the people in that chart were not natural though[/quote]
Doesn’t that make the 3lbs per inch thing all the more impressive?[/quote]
just pointing out that the chart won’t be that useful for a natural if the guys on it are not drug free
[/quote]
The chart just puts a name and face to the stats. Seeing as how virtually all of the people on the list needed AAS to get to those stats it would seem pretty safe to say that naturals are blowing these numbers put of the water.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
alot of the people in that chart were not natural though[/quote]
Doesn’t that make the 3lbs per inch thing all the more impressive?[/quote]
just pointing out that the chart won’t be that useful for a natural if the guys on it are not drug free
[/quote]
The chart just puts a name and face to the stats. Seeing as how virtually all of the people on the list needed AAS to get to those stats it would seem pretty safe to say that naturals are blowing these numbers put of the water.[/quote]
No 28 to 30 inch thighs there.
The chart is of the Mr. America Champion in the given year, with the exception of that last guy.
I think caliper reading calculations are very flattering, but my reading(7 point) calculated out to 6.2%; which means I believe I was about 8%.
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
alot of the people in that chart were not natural though[/quote]
That’d be a neat trick considering the dates of pretty much every one of those guys listed.
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
alot of the people in that chart were not natural though[/quote]
That’d be a neat trick considering the dates of pretty much every one of those guys listed.[/quote]
I wondered if anybody else noticed this. Steve Stanko really stands out. 223 at 5’11.5? That’s impressive as hell for a natural. No way he was juicing in 1944
