3 Pounds/Inch of Height

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[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[/quote]

Eh, I’d say he magnifies the point that the chart needs to be consumed as a whole, not just the first few columns. His 39 inch waist is certainly not impressive, and it pretty much gives away why he weighed as much as he did, and was the only one of the group with 18" arms(hint: he was probably kind of fat).

But ya, dudes from 30’s-early 50’s all juicing, definitely…dotdotdotELLIPSIS

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[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[/quote]

Eh, I’d say he magnifies the point that the chart needs to be consumed as a whole, not just the first few columns. His 39 inch waist is certainly not impressive, and it pretty much gives away why he weighed as much as he did, and was the only one of the group with 18" arms(hint: he was probably kind of fat).

But ya, dudes from 30’s-early 50’s all juicing, definitely…dotdotdotELLIPSIS[/quote]

Hard to say

It looks like his arms are just huge, end of story. I did some digging, apparently he could strict curl 205 and do 3 1-arm chinups, among other things. But most of his pics are vacuum poses so he could be hiding a lot of body fat

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[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[/quote]

Eh, I’d say he magnifies the point that the chart needs to be consumed as a whole, not just the first few columns. His 39 inch waist is certainly not impressive, and it pretty much gives away why he weighed as much as he did, and was the only one of the group with 18" arms(hint: he was probably kind of fat).

But ya, dudes from 30’s-early 50’s all juicing, definitely…dotdotdotELLIPSIS[/quote]

Hard to say

It looks like his arms are just huge, end of story. I did some digging, apparently he could strict curl 205 and do 3 1-arm chinups, among other things. But most of his pics are vacuum poses so he could be hiding a lot of body fat[/quote]

Well it’s certainly not the picture I had in my head. He’s clearly not 10% or anything, but his shoulder and chest definition are much better than I expected. Dude could just have some SERIOUS bone structure.

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[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[/quote]

Eh, I’d say he magnifies the point that the chart needs to be consumed as a whole, not just the first few columns. His 39 inch waist is certainly not impressive, and it pretty much gives away why he weighed as much as he did, and was the only one of the group with 18" arms(hint: he was probably kind of fat).

But ya, dudes from 30’s-early 50’s all juicing, definitely…dotdotdotELLIPSIS[/quote]

why are you unable to read English properly?

i said alot of them were not natural, not all of them.

steroids were around in the 1940s and 50s and being used by some athletes also.

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[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[/quote]

Eh, I’d say he magnifies the point that the chart needs to be consumed as a whole, not just the first few columns. His 39 inch waist is certainly not impressive, and it pretty much gives away why he weighed as much as he did, and was the only one of the group with 18" arms(hint: he was probably kind of fat).

But ya, dudes from 30’s-early 50’s all juicing, definitely…dotdotdotELLIPSIS[/quote]

Hard to say

It looks like his arms are just huge, end of story. I did some digging, apparently he could strict curl 205 and do 3 1-arm chinups, among other things. But most of his pics are vacuum poses so he could be hiding a lot of body fat[/quote]

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[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[/quote]
Eh, I’d say he magnifies the point that the chart needs to be consumed as a whole, not just the first few columns. His 39 inch waist is certainly not impressive, and it pretty much gives away why he weighed as much as he did, and was the only one of the group with 18" arms(hint: he was probably kind of fat).

But ya, dudes from 30’s-early 50’s all juicing, definitely…dotdotdotELLIPSIS[/quote]
why are you unable to read English properly?

i said alot of them were not natural, not all of them.

steroids were around in the 1940s and 50s and being used by some athletes also.[/quote]
Maybe half of those guys were using. “Recreational” (as in, for athletic and/or physique improvement) steroid use was just rolling into gyms in the late '40s, but didn’t become anything close to common i bodybuilding until the mid-to-late '50s.

Anyhow, not only were competitors in those days not trying to get anywhere near as ripped on-stage as guys today, but Stanko did have a solid strength background as the first guy to total over 1,000 pounds (weighing 220) in the then-three Olympic lifts a few years before winning the first Mr. Universe title, so he never really trained “just” for bodybuilding.

[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? [/quote]
I think part of having this benchmark is to mark bodyfat percentages kind of a moot point. If a person reaches the target height/weight/volume/mass and has “all abs in” (probably the easiest visual indicator of relatively-low bodyfat), then the actual bodyfat measurement is essentially meaningless. No?

Not to throw him under the bus or anything, but at 5’8", Stu in offseason/early pre-contest condition is (or rather was, considering the date) only about 10 pounds shy of this mark. The “abs-in” bit is the sticking point, though.

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[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[/quote]
Eh, I’d say he magnifies the point that the chart needs to be consumed as a whole, not just the first few columns. His 39 inch waist is certainly not impressive, and it pretty much gives away why he weighed as much as he did, and was the only one of the group with 18" arms(hint: he was probably kind of fat).

But ya, dudes from 30’s-early 50’s all juicing, definitely…dotdotdotELLIPSIS[/quote]
why are you unable to read English properly?

i said alot of them were not natural, not all of them.

steroids were around in the 1940s and 50s and being used by some athletes also.[/quote]
Maybe half of those guys were using. “Recreational” (as in, for athletic and/or physique improvement) steroid use was just rolling into gyms in the late '40s, but didn’t become anything close to common i bodybuilding until the mid-to-late '50s.

Anyhow, not only were competitors in those days not trying to get anywhere near as ripped on-stage as guys today, but Stanko did have a solid strength background as the first guy to total over 1,000 pounds (weighing 220) in the then-three Olympic lifts a few years before winning the first Mr. Universe title, so he never really trained “just” for bodybuilding.[/quote]

sure steroids were not common in the 40s and 50s.

but im sure nationally known bodybuilders and strength athletes will have known about them by and large.

also “maybe half” of that list being on drugs is an awful lot if the premise of the thread is “let’s looks at natty goals”

the whole chart just doesn’t seem to fit the goal of the thread well at all.

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
I think part of having this benchmark is to mark bodyfat percentages kind of a moot point. If a person reaches the target height/weight/volume/mass and has “all abs in” (probably the easiest visual indicator of relatively-low bodyfat), then the actual bodyfat measurement is essentially meaningless. No?
[/quote]

I agree.
There is to much variance between individuals to use a specific BF%. We are dicussing a cosmetic standard.

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
the whole chart just doesn’t seem to fit the goal of the thread well at all.[/quote]

I’m confused yolo…is your position that 3 pounds per inch of height ‘lean’ is not a realitic goal for a lifetime natural lifter? or that some men on that list do not represent the accomplishment of that goal?

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
the whole chart just doesn’t seem to fit the goal of the thread well at all.[/quote]

I’m confused yolo…is your position that 3 pounds per inch of height ‘lean’ is not a realitic goal for a lifetime natural lifter? or that some men on that list do not represent the accomplishment of that goal? [/quote]

my point is that the thread seems to be about naturals but the chart is about non-naturals.

that is all really - it just does not make sense.

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
the whole chart just doesn’t seem to fit the goal of the thread well at all.[/quote]

I’m confused yolo…is your position that 3 pounds per inch of height ‘lean’ is not a realitic goal for a lifetime natural lifter? or that some men on that list do not represent the accomplishment of that goal? [/quote]

my point is that the thread seems to be about naturals but the chart is about non-naturals.

that is all really - it just does not make sense. [/quote]

I see…FWIW…the last man listed on the chart is a lifetime natural lifter and compares favorably with the other lifters that may or may not have been. It is possible for many lifetime naturals to reach this level of development just like there are many natties that can squat & deadlift 2-1/2 to 3 x/BW and bench 1-1/2 to 2.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
the whole chart just doesn’t seem to fit the goal of the thread well at all.[/quote]

I’m confused yolo…is your position that 3 pounds per inch of height ‘lean’ is not a realitic goal for a lifetime natural lifter? or that some men on that list do not represent the accomplishment of that goal? [/quote]

my point is that the thread seems to be about naturals but the chart is about non-naturals.

that is all really - it just does not make sense. [/quote]

I see…FWIW…the last man listed on the chart is a lifetime natural lifter and compares favorably with the other lifters that may or may not have been. It is possible for many lifetime naturals to reach this level of development just like there are many natties that can squat & deadlift 2-1/2 to 3 x/BW and bench 1-1/2 to 2. [/quote]

i had to go back and check cos i thought the last guy was Bill Pearl i was think Pearl a lifetime natural???

haha

i still like the chart in general - i really like grimek and alot of the old guys

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
the whole chart just doesn’t seem to fit the goal of the thread well at all.[/quote]

I’m confused yolo…is your position that 3 pounds per inch of height ‘lean’ is not a realitic goal for a lifetime natural lifter? or that some men on that list do not represent the accomplishment of that goal? [/quote]

my point is that the thread seems to be about naturals but the chart is about non-naturals.

that is all really - it just does not make sense. [/quote]

I see…FWIW…the last man listed on the chart is a lifetime natural lifter and compares favorably with the other lifters that may or may not have been. It is possible for many lifetime naturals to reach this level of development just like there are many natties that can squat & deadlift 2-1/2 to 3 x/BW and bench 1-1/2 to 2. [/quote]

i still like the chart in general - i really like grimek and alot of the old guys[/quote]

x2 they have a fantastic look.

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[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[/quote]
Eh, I’d say he magnifies the point that the chart needs to be consumed as a whole, not just the first few columns. His 39 inch waist is certainly not impressive, and it pretty much gives away why he weighed as much as he did, and was the only one of the group with 18" arms(hint: he was probably kind of fat).

But ya, dudes from 30’s-early 50’s all juicing, definitely…dotdotdotELLIPSIS[/quote]
why are you unable to read English properly?

i said alot of them were not natural, not all of them.

steroids were around in the 1940s and 50s and being used by some athletes also.[/quote]
Maybe half of those guys were using. “Recreational” (as in, for athletic and/or physique improvement) steroid use was just rolling into gyms in the late '40s, but didn’t become anything close to common i bodybuilding until the mid-to-late '50s.

Anyhow, not only were competitors in those days not trying to get anywhere near as ripped on-stage as guys today, but Stanko did have a solid strength background as the first guy to total over 1,000 pounds (weighing 220) in the then-three Olympic lifts a few years before winning the first Mr. Universe title, so he never really trained “just” for bodybuilding.[/quote]

sure steroids were not common in the 40s and 50s.

but im sure nationally known bodybuilders and strength athletes will have known about them by and large.

also “maybe half” of that list being on drugs is an awful lot if the premise of the thread is “let’s looks at natty goals”

the whole chart just doesn’t seem to fit the goal of the thread well at all.[/quote]

I could be wrong about some of these details, but from what I understand the first anabolic compound that could be synthesized was just testosterone. It was never used until the middle of WWII as a way to treat malnourished soldiers and help them gain weight. Only military personnel would have had first hand knowledge of it and it would trickle into the gyms via them. Word didn’t get around as easily back then.

Therefore I think its highly doubtful John Grimek would have had a chance to use steroids before 1940 and he came damn near 3lbs per inch. I think its certainly an attainable goal, with all the modern supplements and nutrition we have today

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
Therefore I think its highly doubtful John Grimek would have had a chance to use steroids before 1940 and he came damn near 3lbs per inch. I think its certainly an attainable goal, with all the modern supplements and nutrition we have today[/quote]
Not sure if this will help, hinder, or confuse the issue, but in the 1930s, Grimek bulked up to around 250 (when he was in his 20s) before he eventually dropped weight to start competing in weightlifting and, later, bodybuilding.

He worked with Mark Berry, one of the first people to advocate squats 'n milk way back when. There’s your fun fact for the day.

I was under the impression that steroids were basically limited to Eastern Bloc lifters and medical use in the military, and then US Olympic athletes(specifically weightlifters countering the use of the previously noted Eastern Bloc competition), and then D-Bol’s ‘release’ in the late 50’s to the public. If this is incorrect than it’s possible more on the list could be assisted than I first thought(aka: the ones on the list that were US Olympic Lifters).

I wonder how well that ratio really applies to taller guys, or if they could bump over 3? It does seem like the taller guys on the chart are getting closer to 3.0, on average.

I’m 76.5", 217, which gives a ratio of 2.83 (abs “all in”). And, I’m really NOT that big; I would hope that I’m not approaching my max weight. My lifting partner has the same ratio, but is much shorter (186 at 66"). He’s built like a house compared to me. It seems like the most accurate ratio would scale the pounds-per-inch by height, so the taller you get the bigger the ratio?

Something like: inches/24 = your max ratio.

So, the taller you are the more pounds per inch. Makes sense if you picture making the jolly green giant an inch taller; could support more than three pounds with that extra inch.

[quote]red04 wrote:
I was under the impression that steroids were basically limited to Eastern Bloc lifters and medical use in the military, and then US Olympic athletes(specifically weightlifters countering the use of the previously noted Eastern Bloc competition), and then D-Bol’s ‘release’ in the late 50’s to the public. If this is incorrect than it’s possible more on the list could be assisted than I first thought(aka: the ones on the list that were US Olympic Lifters).[/quote]

Agreed, although serious use would still be limited to post WWII. The ones that stand out as users are steve reeves and bill pearl, etc. I still think john grimek can be ruled out, and maybe steve stanko.

I guess I don’t know what your thoughts are on the question of 3lbs/in but I think its a reasonable goal for a natural

SANDOW’S MEASUREMENTS
At age 35 (1902)

height: 5’9 1/4"
weight: 202 lbs.

If this is an accurate measurement, it would put Sandow pretty close to 3lb per inch.