I really like the scientific side of bodybuilding just as much as the actual training. Now i know these thread normally turn to shit really quick, but im hopping to have a decent discussion with minimal flaming.
when these debates come up, the side that is against these findings usually has no solid argument. all they do is make up hypothetical situations or use extreme examples to try and prove their point. yet no one has been able to post a picture of 1 natural bodybuilder who has largely exceeded these charts. so until someone does your arguing nothing but semantics.
above is frank zane 3 times mr O.
stats
height 5ā9
contest weight 185lb
off season weight 205lb
now this is someone with elite genetics and access to just about any drug he wanted of that era. yet we have people on here who claim to have natural powerlifting friends who are 5ā7, 225lb and walk around at 6% bodyfat. FUCKING PLEASEā¦
I completely agree with this type of thinking. Iām not saying people shouldnāt strive to be their very best. Iām just saying that it is absolutely asinine for certain people to think that their very best is likely to exceed that of the legendary Frank Zane. Let alone as natural trainees. Not trying to crush dreams, but, for real. Natties better than Zane. Not a fucking chance.
as you say there are some outliers so dont decide its your limit
the population that trains is so big now that outliers are more common in absolute terms
those who actually gain that level look pretty good
anyone who thinks 40lbs isnt much go buy 40lbs of meat and take a look at the room it takes up
many who self report much larger gains often forget or neglect that they started from a deficit ; underweight or young and still growing anyway regardless of training.
So its interesting stuff but no reason to stop shoukd you get close to these kinds of projected limits
Finally, it shouldnāt really be so contentious either, get there first then think about the next goal seems a reasonable approach
[quote]gswork wrote:
Those reports are good, a few points
as you say there are some outliers so dont decide its your limit
the population that trains is so big now that outliers are more common in absolute terms
those who actually gain that level look pretty good
anyone who thinks 40lbs isnt much go buy 40lbs of meat and take a look at the room it takes up
many who self report much larger gains often forget or neglect that they started from a deficit ; underweight or young and still growing anyway regardless of training.
So its interesting stuff but no reason to stop shoukd you get close to these kinds of projected limits
Finally, it shouldnāt really be so contentious either, get there first then think about the next goal seems a reasonable approach[/quote]
yerp 40lbs is a massive amount of muscle to add. also yes these refer to people who started at average/healthy weight.
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
I completely agree with this type of thinking. Iām not saying people shouldnāt strive to be their very best. Iām just saying that it is absolutely asinine for certain people to think that their very best is likely to exceed that of the legendary Frank Zane. Let alone as natural trainees. Not trying to crush dreams, but, for real. Natties better than Zane. Not a fucking chance. [/quote]
So true on this. I donāt think some people realize how effective gear can actually be especially with some awesome genetics thrown in.
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
I really like the scientific side of bodybuilding just as much as the actual training. Now i know these thread normally turn to shit really quick, but im hopping to have a decent discussion with minimal flaming. [/quote]
40-50lb gain of muscle is intense then couple that with how much more glycogen and water that can take up thatās some crazy gains. You will literally look like a different person.
People love to neglect water and glycogen when thinking about how much they are gaining
People need to compare gains at the same level of bf preferable low competition or at least single digits
Remember its a marathon not a sprint. Enjoy the process but also be realistic in your goals if you are determined to stay natty
I thought this was kinda useful, the different class winners from last yearās WNBF Worlds Championships.
From left to right:
Richard Godzecki ~6ā, heavyweight (>190 lbs)
Brian Whitacre ~5ā9, lightweight (<160 lbs)
Hayzer Cayli - ~5ā10, middlweight (160-176 lbs)
Now, looking at Hayzer for a moment (guy on the right, and eventual overall winner), realize that this is a man with definitely exceptional genetics, who is 100% on top of his training and nutrition every day of the year (itās his job after all), who stands a mere 5ā10 tall, and competes at about 175 lbs onstage.
Obviously this is contest condition (~5-7%). Those more mathematically among you can calculate what his approximate weight would be at 10%, because I see way too many people online (not merely on this site) claiming ridiculous stats of how much they would weigh at such a level of bodyfat, and it does nothing more than illustrate a complete delusion with how this all actually works.
Now, looking at this caliber of athlete, realizing that in person, they are DAMN HUGE (believe me, Iāve stood next to some of the top people in the sport!), should not give anyone any sort of complex where they stop trying (thatās just stupid and completely defeatist), but it SHOULD give them a realistic understanding that maintaining a hell of a lot of ACTUAL MUSCLE (well beyond what the average person would consider āmuscularā), does not require ridiculously exaggerated scale weights if you are truly in possession of lean muscle.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I thought this was kinda useful, the different class winners from last yearās WNBF Worlds Championships.
From left to right:
Richard Godzecki ~6ā, heavyweight (>190 lbs)
Brian Whitacre ~5ā9, lightweight (<160 lbs)
Hayzer Cayli - ~5ā10, middlweight (160-176 lbs)
Now, looking at Hayzer for a moment (guy on the right, and eventual overall winner), realize that this is a man with definitely exceptional genetics, who is 100% on top of his training and nutrition every day of the year (itās his job after all), who stands a mere 5ā10 tall, and competes at about 175 lbs onstage.
Obviously this is contest condition (~5-7%). Those more mathematically among you can calculate what his approximate weight would be at 10%, because I see way too many people online (not merely on this site) claiming ridiculous stats of how much they would weigh at such a level of bodyfat, and it does nothing more than illustrate a complete delusion with how this all actually works.
Now, looking at this caliber of athlete, realizing that in person, they are DAMN HUGE (believe me, Iāve stood next to some of the top people in the sport!), should not give anyone any sort of complex where they stop trying (thatās just stupid and completely defeatist), but it SHOULD give them a realistic understanding that maintaining a hell of a lot of ACTUAL MUSCLE (well beyond what the average person would consider āmuscularā), does not require ridiculously exaggerated scale weights if you are truly in possession of lean muscle.
S[/quote]
That is insane.
Do you know how much Richard weighed in that photo?
All three of those guys looks amazing.
Hey Stu, how much confidence do you have in those top dogs actually being natty? How stringent are the WNBFās testing methods? I have no clue, but canāt image that they have enough funding to do extensive testing. Out-of-competition testing?
ps: I think I have to alter my statement slightly regarding natties and legs in the other thread.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I thought this was kinda useful, the different class winners from last yearās WNBF Worlds Championships.
From left to right:
Richard Godzecki ~6ā, heavyweight (>190 lbs)
Brian Whitacre ~5ā9, lightweight (<160 lbs)
Hayzer Cayli - ~5ā10, middlweight (160-176 lbs)
Now, looking at Hayzer for a moment (guy on the right, and eventual overall winner), realize that this is a man with definitely exceptional genetics, who is 100% on top of his training and nutrition every day of the year (itās his job after all), who stands a mere 5ā10 tall, and competes at about 175 lbs onstage.
Obviously this is contest condition (~5-7%). Those more mathematically among you can calculate what his approximate weight would be at 10%, because I see way too many people online (not merely on this site) claiming ridiculous stats of how much they would weigh at such a level of bodyfat, and it does nothing more than illustrate a complete delusion with how this all actually works.
Now, looking at this caliber of athlete, realizing that in person, they are DAMN HUGE (believe me, Iāve stood next to some of the top people in the sport!), should not give anyone any sort of complex where they stop trying (thatās just stupid and completely defeatist), but it SHOULD give them a realistic understanding that maintaining a hell of a lot of ACTUAL MUSCLE (well beyond what the average person would consider āmuscularā), does not require ridiculously exaggerated scale weights if you are truly in possession of lean muscle.
S[/quote]
That puts a lot of stuff in perspective. Iām 5ā10 and cutting at the moment hoping to come in at soemwhere between 165-180, think i would be tiny, but looking at those guys they look damn impressive as hell.
I donāt know his exact weight, but Kurt Weidner is 6ā and competes around an even 200. If I had to guess, Richard looks maybe 215, 220 tops (and this man is unquestionably one of the genetic elite, even at his height). Puts an interesting slant when you hear people much shorter with more average frames and genetics claiming that theyād weigh more doesnāt it?
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I donāt know his exact weight, but Kurt Weidner is 6ā and competes around an even 200. If I had to guess, Richard looks maybe 215, 220 tops (and this man is unquestionably one of the genetic elite, even at his height). Puts an interesting slant when you hear people much shorter with more average frames and genetics claiming that theyād weigh more doesnāt it?
S[/quote]
He does have unfortunate talk man genetics when it comes to arms. Or his chest is just ungodly large
Remember that this is just one pose. Thatās why you can only get so much of an impression of someoneās physique from one shot. The quarter turns and mandatories are chosen to give a complete picture of someoneās build. Thatās why you can never truly trust the āone magic photoā that some people throw up online. Itās always (intentionally) deceptive to some degree.
(Iām saying this as someone who has judged bodybuilding contests, as well as being a competitive Pro myself. I always do my best in every pose to flaunt a perceived strength and hide a perceived weakness!)
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Remember that this is just one pose. Thatās why you can only get so much of an impression of someoneās physique from one shot. The quarter turns and mandatories are chosen to give a complete picture of someoneās build. Thatās why you can never truly trust the āone magic photoā that some people throw up online. Itās always (intentionally) deceptive to some degree.
(Iām saying this as someone who has judged bodybuilding contests, as well as being a competitive Pro myself. I always do my best in every pose to flaunt a perceived strength and hide a perceived weakness!)
S[/quote]
Very true. Dude is a beast non the less. Fantastic physique
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I thought this was kinda useful, the different class winners from last yearās WNBF Worlds Championships.
From left to right:
Richard Godzecki ~6ā, heavyweight (>190 lbs)
Brian Whitacre ~5ā9, lightweight (<160 lbs)
Hayzer Cayli - ~5ā10, middlweight (160-176 lbs)
S[/quote]
Thanks Stu. Now I know I need to be roughly less than 160 to look like that at that height. Looks like I have a long way to go
On a serious note, I like this thread. No nonsense civilized discussion.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Hey Stu, how much confidence do you have in those top dogs actually being natty? How stringent are the WNBFās testing methods? I have no clue, but canāt image that they have enough funding to do extensive testing. Out-of-competition testing?
ps: I think I have to alter my statement slightly regarding natties and legs in the other thread.[/quote]
Was that statement regarding āstringy legsā by any chance? I looked at the picture and cracked a smile when I remembered someone here had said that.
