I suspect I might get hit for this, but I think it might be useful to put some things in perspective. We can post contest ready and offseason bodybuilders or just freaks who like(d) being big.
We can see what “not fat” 250 to 300 pound behemoths look like.
I’ll start with my favorite, “The Shadow”, Dorian Yates.
What a not-fat 300 pounds looks like.
Feel free to post a natural who can be assumed to have gained 80 to 100 pounds as well.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Feel free to post a natural who can be assumed to have gained 80 to 100 pounds as well. [/quote]
I like where this is going.
BRB getting my popcorn!
A low fat offseason 275 pounds, guest posing, with monstrous thighs, reasonably to be assumed 28 or more inches.
Mike Francois
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Feel free to post a natural who can be assumed to have gained 80 to 100 pounds as well. [/quote]
I like where this is going.
BRB getting my popcorn![/quote]
Don’t forget your green tea or coffee and protein shake!
Paul Dilett, lampin’!
Thighs!
Tom Prince
Perhaps not an 80 to 100 pound muscular gain, but one of my favorites, the infamous Venice Beach lady killer and adonis Dennis Newman.
Definitely over the natural (ahem, cough, sigh) “limit” of 50 pounds (or so).
28 inch not-fat thighs!
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[/quote]
Nice thread! Any of these fellas natural?
I agree with your premise, but I think the limit would better be stated as what the top natural bodybuilders have done at your height and bodyfat for one training naturally and that well covers 3 standard deviations or more for what is possible with the human body and serves as a good guideline for trainers in not letting themselves get carried away with a bulk(like that guy you mentioned bulking up to 400 lb just to cut down to 189lb) thinking it will get them more muscle. I prefer this definition to the 50lb limit because someone will always try to bring up absurd examples of a 17 year old 5’10 boy who started at 110 lbs and then decided to get to body build and gets to a lean 190 lb in his 30s(just as an example I didn’t do the math).
I think defining a limit is a good thing as it can make some expectations more realistic for trainers starting out and can be used as a guide. No one should really care what’s possible outside 3 standard deviations as a limit or guideline because it would be useless(if myostatin deficiency boy decided to get into the hobby of bodybuilding or compete naturally in the future its possible that he may exceed what other naturals have done in the past but it wouldn’t matter as no one else known has myostatin deficiency).
Now I do think one can hold onto more muscle if they get fatter but to what extent I’m not sure. Also just because one can hold onto more muscle at a higher body fat I don’t think that translates into them being able to hold onto that extra mass when they get leaner.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I agree with your premise, but I think the limit would better be stated as what the top natural bodybuilders have done at your height and bodyfat for one training naturally and that well covers 3 standard deviations or more for what is possible with the human body and serves as a good guideline for trainers in not letting themselves get carried away with a bulk(like that guy you mentioned bulking up to 400 lb just to cut down to 189lb) thinking it will get them more muscle. I prefer this definition to the 50lb limit because someone will always try to bring up absurd examples of a 17 year old 5’10 boy who started at 110 lbs and then decided to get to body build and gets to a lean 190 lb in his 30s(just as an example I didn’t do the math).
I think defining a limit is a good thing as it can make some expectations more realistic for trainers starting out and can be used as a guide. No one should really care what’s possible outside 3 standard deviations as a limit or guideline because it would be useless(if myostatin deficiency boy decided to get into the hobby of bodybuilding or compete naturally in the future its possible that he may exceed what other naturals have done in the past but it wouldn’t matter as no one else known has myostatin deficiency).
Now I do think one can hold onto more muscle if they get fatter but to what extent I’m not sure. Also just because one can hold onto more muscle at a higher body fat I don’t think that translates into them being able to hold onto that extra mass when they get leaner.[/quote]
Good post.
However, my main premise for this thread is to depict actual people who we can reasonably assume or know gained 80 to 100 pounds of muscle or who sport 28+ inch thighs! I’ve gotten so much flack for stating it’s impossible to sport these stats without drugs. And here we have people who took drugs to achieve those stats. And we’re talking about “not fat” 250 to 300 pound behemoths.
There are people talking about 80 pound muscular gains and 30 inch non fat thighs as if they ain’t no thing but a chicken wing!
all natural
Platz said his legs were 30 inches apparently, but that the shape of them made a big difference
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I agree with your premise, but I think the limit would better be stated as what the top natural bodybuilders have done at your height and bodyfat for one training naturally and that well covers 3 standard deviations or more for what is possible with the human body and serves as a good guideline for trainers in not letting themselves get carried away with a bulk(like that guy you mentioned bulking up to 400 lb just to cut down to 189lb) thinking it will get them more muscle. I prefer this definition to the 50lb limit because someone will always try to bring up absurd examples of a 17 year old 5’10 boy who started at 110 lbs and then decided to get to body build and gets to a lean 190 lb in his 30s(just as an example I didn’t do the math).
I think defining a limit is a good thing as it can make some expectations more realistic for trainers starting out and can be used as a guide. No one should really care what’s possible outside 3 standard deviations as a limit or guideline because it would be useless(if myostatin deficiency boy decided to get into the hobby of bodybuilding or compete naturally in the future its possible that he may exceed what other naturals have done in the past but it wouldn’t matter as no one else known has myostatin deficiency).
Now I do think one can hold onto more muscle if they get fatter but to what extent I’m not sure. Also just because one can hold onto more muscle at a higher body fat I don’t think that translates into them being able to hold onto that extra mass when they get leaner.[/quote]
Good post.
However, my main premise for this thread is to depict actual people who we can reasonably assume or know gained 80 to 100 pounds of muscle or who sport 28+ inch thighs! I’ve gotten so much flack for stating it’s impossible to sport these stats without drugs. And here we have people who took drugs to achieve those stats. And we’re talking about “not fat” 250 to 300 pound behemoths.
There are people talking about 80 pound muscular gains and 30 inch non fat thighs as if they ain’t no thing but a chicken wing! [/quote]
???
you’ve gotten flack for stating a useless limit that can’t be applied by anyone here because apparently your idea of normal is a 185 lean dorian yates
and the other poster, yeah it’s so absurd to assume people have different height,weight, so very absurd…
lets just keep talking about a 50 lb limit… then up it to 80-100 when you’re wrong.
can’t state it as total LBM/height or something more useful and accurate. Got to make useless statements that no one can apply, then wonder why you get flack
statements of this fashion are just not acceptable in Narnia
[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I agree with your premise, but I think the limit would better be stated as what the top natural bodybuilders have done at your height and bodyfat for one training naturally and that well covers 3 standard deviations or more for what is possible with the human body and serves as a good guideline for trainers in not letting themselves get carried away with a bulk(like that guy you mentioned bulking up to 400 lb just to cut down to 189lb) thinking it will get them more muscle. I prefer this definition to the 50lb limit because someone will always try to bring up absurd examples of a 17 year old 5’10 boy who started at 110 lbs and then decided to get to body build and gets to a lean 190 lb in his 30s(just as an example I didn’t do the math).
I think defining a limit is a good thing as it can make some expectations more realistic for trainers starting out and can be used as a guide. No one should really care what’s possible outside 3 standard deviations as a limit or guideline because it would be useless(if myostatin deficiency boy decided to get into the hobby of bodybuilding or compete naturally in the future its possible that he may exceed what other naturals have done in the past but it wouldn’t matter as no one else known has myostatin deficiency).
Now I do think one can hold onto more muscle if they get fatter but to what extent I’m not sure. Also just because one can hold onto more muscle at a higher body fat I don’t think that translates into them being able to hold onto that extra mass when they get leaner.[/quote]
Good post.
However, my main premise for this thread is to depict actual people who we can reasonably assume or know gained 80 to 100 pounds of muscle or who sport 28+ inch thighs! I’ve gotten so much flack for stating it’s impossible to sport these stats without drugs. And here we have people who took drugs to achieve those stats. And we’re talking about “not fat” 250 to 300 pound behemoths.
There are people talking about 80 pound muscular gains and 30 inch non fat thighs as if they ain’t no thing but a chicken wing! [/quote]
???
you’ve gotten flack for stating a useless limit that can’t be applied by anyone here because apparently your idea of normal is a 185 lean dorian yates
and the other poster, yeah it’s so absurd to assume people have different height,weight, so very absurd…
lets just keep talking about a 50 lb limit… then up it to 80-100 when you’re wrong.
can’t state it as total LBM/height or something more useful and accurate. Got to make useless statements that no one can apply, then wonder why you get flack
statements of this fashion are just not acceptable in Narnia[/quote]
Instead of being argumentative, can you prove Brick wrong?
