|
On December 07 2016 21:16 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 13:37 decafchicken wrote:
Lol what the fuck, that chart is retarded. I'm conservatively like 20 pounds over that LBM number. Pretty sure I got there 'naturally'. Same here, 5 7" 190-195 pounds, BF 10-15% top if I had to guess. And Igne is even bigger. TLDR: Table is horsehit, you can get fairly big and strong naturally. From the same article: "I think you can take off a solid 15lb off the genetic muscle potential chart above for your height, and you will still have a great physique when lean. I also believe building too much muscle can be taxing for your entire body, including your organs, but I guess that’s a conversation for another time." From the comments: "Being 190lb and ripped when you are 5’10” is nearly impossible unless you are blessed with 1 in a 1000 genetics. I want to encourage guys to work hard, focus on strength, while losing fat without losing muscle. I’ve seen guys at 160lb, 6 feet tall, who are extremely strong with physiques that any guy would kill for. (huh might aswell skip the gym)" Ignore the author at all cost 
Send me pics man, I think 190lbs at 5'10" is more or less impossible for someone at 6-9% %bf without playing with your hormones, which is what I'd consider ripped percentage.
I personally agree with the taking 15lbs of the muscle chart and still looking good statement. I woiuld say look at MMA fighters in the 145-155lb category, I think this is where the average person falls into. The average one of these fighters walks around 15lbs heavier than their weight category, so 160lbs to 170lbs.
Average lightweight (155lbs) or 170lb walking weight and 5'9.5"... Which is on part with their max ripped weight, but they probably have 5lbs~ more fat than what ripped means when walking around. We can do the exact same thing for featherweight (145lb), seeing the average height of 5'8"... Which has a walking weight of 160lbs~, and the chart also puts them exactly at 160lbs as well for max ripped, but again, add 5-10lbs because they aren't ripped at walking weight.
So in my opinion, MMA fighters have excellent bodies, they do tons and tons of weight training, power endurance training, interval training, and have probably the most comprehensive drug testing out of any sport minus cycling... And these guys are 5-10lbs below their maximum natural potential. Likely they're above average, but we can't know for sure, so let's just say that the 5-10lbs is from not ideal training for muscle gain.
Anyway, these guys look really good (imo), and they are likely 5-10lbs below their maximum natural potential, but things like them taking everything legal that isn't natural, and likely being gifted bumps that differential up even further.
|
MMA Fighters are excellent at passing drug tests. does not mean they are drug free. Holly Holm and Cris Cyborg are huge steroid abusers. Holly has never been caught. Cyborg has.
|
On December 08 2016 03:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 02:54 IgnE wrote:
You are conflating sport specific performance with some kind of pseudo-calvinist platonic ideal, jimmyj. Your commentary is almost completely irrelevant for most people who ask "what are the natural limits for putting on size and strength?" the natural limits for Steph Curry, Allen Iverson, Wayne Gretzky and Brock Lesnar are all different. its a case by case basis that requires extensive testing not some chart and a 1-line answer on here. and if continuing to add "size and strength" causes a marked decrease in athletic performance in sports like basketball, baseball and hockey you're headed for trouble in terms of your long term health. so this is why monitoring your sports performance as you gain muscle is important. and that is why i'm not "conflating". powerlifters are really big and strong. yes they pack on a lot of size and strength... they also die young.
you are neglecting the path dependencies in lesnar vs iverson. if brock had grown up as a long distance runner he'd be far less massive. if iverson had been interested in bodybuilding from the age of 14 he'd be way more massive. also the samples you are using are skewed to the exteme ends of the bell curve. lesnar exists only because of his success in becoming huge. iverson is iverson only because of his singular smallness.
also please provide evidence that powerlifters/muscular people die younger.
|
On December 08 2016 03:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 03:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 08 2016 02:54 IgnE wrote:
You are conflating sport specific performance with some kind of pseudo-calvinist platonic ideal, jimmyj. Your commentary is almost completely irrelevant for most people who ask "what are the natural limits for putting on size and strength?" the natural limits for Steph Curry, Allen Iverson, Wayne Gretzky and Brock Lesnar are all different. its a case by case basis that requires extensive testing not some chart and a 1-line answer on here. and if continuing to add "size and strength" causes a marked decrease in athletic performance in sports like basketball, baseball and hockey you're headed for trouble in terms of your long term health. so this is why monitoring your sports performance as you gain muscle is important. and that is why i'm not "conflating". powerlifters are really big and strong. yes they pack on a lot of size and strength... they also die young. you are neglecting the path dependencies in lesnar vs iverson. if brock had grown up as a long distance runner he'd be far less massive. if iverson had been interested i. bodybuilding from the age of 14 he'd be way more massive. also the samples you are using are skewed to the exteme ends of the bell curve. lesnar exists only because of his success in becoming huge. iverson is iverson only because of his singular smallness. also please provide evidence that powerlifters/muscular people die younger.
Muscular people 100% definitely die younger than lean people, both who live healthy lives, I thought this was a well known fact.
It's just you can't compare the average person to someone who if muscular but lives a healthy life like not smoking, drinking less... And someone who sits on their butt, doesn't sleep well, is stressed all the time, and doesn't eat well. Extra weight is very taxing for your body.
If your objective is to live as long as possible, then you'd want to be energy deficient all the time to slow down your metabolism, while still getting all the essential nutrients. Life expectancy is very closely correlated to the number of times your cells undergo mitosis, ceteris paribus.
|
The health and fitness industry is full of "well known facts" that are absolutely incorrect, so you'll have to do better than that.
|
On December 08 2016 04:04 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 03:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 08 2016 02:54 IgnE wrote:
You are conflating sport specific performance with some kind of pseudo-calvinist platonic ideal, jimmyj. Your commentary is almost completely irrelevant for most people who ask "what are the natural limits for putting on size and strength?" the natural limits for Steph Curry, Allen Iverson, Wayne Gretzky and Brock Lesnar are all different. its a case by case basis that requires extensive testing not some chart and a 1-line answer on here. and if continuing to add "size and strength" causes a marked decrease in athletic performance in sports like basketball, baseball and hockey you're headed for trouble in terms of your long term health. so this is why monitoring your sports performance as you gain muscle is important. and that is why i'm not "conflating". powerlifters are really big and strong. yes they pack on a lot of size and strength... they also die young. you are neglecting the path dependencies in lesnar vs iverson. if brock had grown up as a long distance runner he'd be far less massive. if iverson had been interested i. bodybuilding from the age of 14 he'd be way more massive. also the samples you are using are skewed to the exteme ends of the bell curve. lesnar exists only because of his success in becoming huge. iverson is iverson only because of his singular smallness. also please provide evidence that powerlifters/muscular people die younger. Muscular people 100% definitely die younger than lean people, both who live healthy lives, I thought this was a well known fact. It's just you can't compare the average person to someone who if muscular but lives a healthy life like not smoking, drinking less... And someone who sits on their butt, doesn't sleep well, is stressed all the time, and doesn't eat well.
the very fact you are using "lean" as an antonym for "muscular" shows you have no idea what you are talkjng about. please provide evidence of this well known non-fact.
|
I have no desire to go look for all the readings I've done in the past, if you guys don't believe it, then I'll just share it as my opinion instead.
If in your mind one different use of terminology is enough to disqualify my from having opinions on the subject, then your loss or whatever. I was comparing two people, one being heavier and one being lighter, assuming they both live healthy lives, the lighter one will live longer. Living healthy and being big generally means having a lot of muscle, living healthy and not having a lot of muscle is someone who is skinny, lean being an alternative term to use, because some basic exercise is necessary, so they'll have some muscle mass too.
|
On December 08 2016 03:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 21:16 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 07 2016 13:37 decafchicken wrote:
Lol what the fuck, that chart is retarded. I'm conservatively like 20 pounds over that LBM number. Pretty sure I got there 'naturally'. Same here, 5 7" 190-195 pounds, BF 10-15% top if I had to guess. And Igne is even bigger. TLDR: Table is horsehit, you can get fairly big and strong naturally. From the same article: "I think you can take off a solid 15lb off the genetic muscle potential chart above for your height, and you will still have a great physique when lean. I also believe building too much muscle can be taxing for your entire body, including your organs, but I guess that’s a conversation for another time." From the comments: "Being 190lb and ripped when you are 5’10” is nearly impossible unless you are blessed with 1 in a 1000 genetics. I want to encourage guys to work hard, focus on strength, while losing fat without losing muscle. I’ve seen guys at 160lb, 6 feet tall, who are extremely strong with physiques that any guy would kill for. (huh might aswell skip the gym)" Ignore the author at all cost Send me pics man, I think 190lbs at 5'10" is more or less impossible for someone at 6-9% %bf without playing with your hormones, which is what I'd consider ripped percentage. I personally agree with the taking 15lbs of the muscle chart and still looking good statement. I woiuld say look at MMA fighters in the 145-155lb category, I think this is where the average person falls into. The average one of these fighters walks around 15lbs heavier than their weight category, so 160lbs to 170lbs. Average lightweight (155lbs) or 170lb walking weight and 5'9.5"... Which is on part with their max ripped weight, but they probably have 5lbs~ more fat than what ripped means when walking around. We can do the exact same thing for featherweight (145lb), seeing the average height of 5'8"... Which has a walking weight of 160lbs~, and the chart also puts them exactly at 160lbs as well for max ripped, but again, add 5-10lbs because they aren't ripped at walking weight. So in my opinion, MMA fighters have excellent bodies, they do tons and tons of weight training, power endurance training, interval training, and have probably the most comprehensive drug testing out of any sport minus cycling... And these guys are 5-10lbs below their maximum natural potential. Likely they're above average, but we can't know for sure, so let's just say that the 5-10lbs is from not ideal training for muscle gain. Anyway, these guys look really good (imo), and they are likely 5-10lbs below their maximum natural potential, but things like them taking everything legal that isn't natural, and likely being gifted bumps that differential up even further.
i normally walk around at 220, 5'11". ive provided plenty of pics this thread that can you search for. ive never taken any steroids. i have admittedly taken supplements like creatine et al. but never anything that to the best of my knowledge would have "potential negative health effects".
|
On December 08 2016 04:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I have no desire to go look for all the readings I've done in the past, if you guys don't believe it, then I'll just share it as my opinion instead.
If in your mind one different use of terminology is enough to disqualify my from having opinions on the subject, then your loss or whatever.
its not a terminology "choice", it belies your lack of knowledge. it wasnt an intentional decision for to use "lean" as an antonym, its just how your brain works because you dont understand what you are talking about. meanings and distinctions are lost on you. when you thinm about fitness its just a disorganized jumble of predigested industry advice divorced from mechanism and old wives tales.
you are flat out wrong on the longevity aspect. lean body mass is consistently negatively correlated with mortality in study after study
|
On December 08 2016 04:15 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 04:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I have no desire to go look for all the readings I've done in the past, if you guys don't believe it, then I'll just share it as my opinion instead.
If in your mind one different use of terminology is enough to disqualify my from having opinions on the subject, then your loss or whatever. its not a terminology "choice", it belies your lack of knowledge. it wasnt an intentional decision for to use "lean" as an antonym, its just how your brain works because you dont understand what you are talking about. meanings and distinctions are lost on you. when you thinm about fitness its just a disorganized jumble of predigested industry advice divorced from mechanism and old wives tales. you are flat out wrong on the longevity aspect. lean body mass is consistently negatively correlated with mortality in study after study
Far more controlled experiments on rats show otherwise.
I don't trust human studies enough, having been in academia, and seeing how things like this are frequently approached. I think that you are going to struggle to take into account all the lifestyle factors, and I think that LBM vs life expectancy is more of a correlation than causation. Same idea as how research has shown that vegetarians have an average life expectancy of like 7-10 years longer than other people. It's not because they don't eat any meat (though surely some portion of it is), the larger effect is likely due to them living healthier in other ways.
So I'll be honest, I haven't looked at too many of these studies, and I much prefer animal studies for the above reasons, and those I did look at extensively.
|
Our inability to control for variables in human trials doesn't somehow avoid the inherent issue in applying animal studies to human phenomena. You are looking at admittedly flawed data, discounting it on the basis of the flaws, and then opting for data that brings other, almost certainly more troubling issues into play. This is not a good idea. You don't really have a good basis for your beliefs in fitness, and while that's hardly unique, this "I've done research" handwaving alongside poorly conceived of rules-of-thumb is an endemic problem in fitness and is a big reason why I quit personal training
|
Hyrule19202 Posts
fiwi, this is some US Politics Megathread level shitposting you're doing here
|
On December 08 2016 04:49 tofucake wrote:
fiwi, this is some US Politics Megathread level shitposting you're doing here
Wasn't my intention, this thread just wasn't ready for it. But yeah, I'm done.
|
On December 08 2016 02:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 01:03 decafchicken wrote:On December 07 2016 21:16 GoTuNk! wrote:"Being 190lb and ripped when you are 5’10” is nearly impossible unless you are blessed with 1 in a 1000 genetics. I want to encourage guys to work hard, focus on strength, while losing fat without losing muscle. I’ve seen guys at 160lb, 6 feet tall, who are extremely strong with physiques that any guy would kill for. (huh might aswell skip the gym)" Ignore the author at all cost Having been 6' and 160 lb, I looked like a fucking stick figure that desperately needed a cheeseburger and directions to the nearest squat rack. its pretty much a case by case basis. you can't generalize especially without a thorough physical examination and extensive testing. the "eye test" provides a very small amount of information. allen iverson and wayne gretzky did just fine weighing under 160 lbs and appearing to be "skinny as hell" next to competitors who outweighed them and out-sized them. Could guys like Conor Mcgregor, Wayne Gretzky, etc find a way to get themselves up to 185 lbs? sure. are they performing at their peak at 185 lbs? not at all. some layperson might say "wow man u r huge ... u r amazing".. they would just be appealing to some uneducated ill-informed archie bunker layperson opinion. for some people 6 feet tall and less than 160 lbs is perfect. if Brock Lesnar weighed what Steph Curry weighed he'd probably be near death.
You realize conor mcgregor trains at ~175 lbs when competing at 145, right? And that's someone who's 90% of their working out is cardio related, which means he could easily put on more weight if he wasn't so focused on having world class conditioning. And Wayne Gretzky was 185 lbs. Again, another athlete who's training focuses much more on conditioning, speed, and skill.
On December 08 2016 03:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 02:54 IgnE wrote:
You are conflating sport specific performance with some kind of pseudo-calvinist platonic ideal, jimmyj. Your commentary is almost completely irrelevant for most people who ask "what are the natural limits for putting on size and strength?" I think one place that the table doesn't consider well at all is that LBM is going to depend on your BF%. Like at 6%, it's just not possible to have the muscle mass you'd have at 15%, because the body is always trying to catabolize itself for energy. So I'm sure of most of you were to try and get really ripped, you'd be losing a hefty amount of muscle mass too. Also, I would think that many of you are at or very close to your natural limit. Like Gotunk, you said yourself, it's become too draining to train for a whole year to increase the weight lifted by 10lbs on an exercise, and Decaf, you've seemed to be at a roughly similar point for quite some time, it's fighting for that slight PR here and there, but it seems to me like that's 95% way there. Sure, you might get better at some other exercise, but then you neglect a different one, and then you come back to say you have a shitty bench, you know? I don't mean any of this in an offense way, but none of you guys are like, this is pretty much as far as I will be able to go?
I only judge myself on my squats, snatch, and clean & jerk. Playing rugby 9 months a year and sustaining multiple injuries has stagnated my progress for a couple years. I make more progress in my 3 months of off season than I do the other 9 months combined, if I were to focus on lifting full time I'd obviously see a lot more progress.
|
when life actuaries start altering their projections based on some of the studies' results about weight//muscle-mass//fat//bone-density and mortality that have been done the past 40 years i recommend paying careful attention at that point. it'll be as close to 100% fact as you can get.
On December 08 2016 05:15 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 02:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 08 2016 01:03 decafchicken wrote:On December 07 2016 21:16 GoTuNk! wrote:"Being 190lb and ripped when you are 5’10” is nearly impossible unless you are blessed with 1 in a 1000 genetics. I want to encourage guys to work hard, focus on strength, while losing fat without losing muscle. I’ve seen guys at 160lb, 6 feet tall, who are extremely strong with physiques that any guy would kill for. (huh might aswell skip the gym)" Ignore the author at all cost Having been 6' and 160 lb, I looked like a fucking stick figure that desperately needed a cheeseburger and directions to the nearest squat rack. its pretty much a case by case basis. you can't generalize especially without a thorough physical examination and extensive testing. the "eye test" provides a very small amount of information. allen iverson and wayne gretzky did just fine weighing under 160 lbs and appearing to be "skinny as hell" next to competitors who outweighed them and out-sized them. Could guys like Conor Mcgregor, Wayne Gretzky, etc find a way to get themselves up to 185 lbs? sure. are they performing at their peak at 185 lbs? not at all. some layperson might say "wow man u r huge ... u r amazing".. they would just be appealing to some uneducated ill-informed archie bunker layperson opinion. for some people 6 feet tall and less than 160 lbs is perfect. if Brock Lesnar weighed what Steph Curry weighed he'd probably be near death. You realize conor mcgregor trains at ~175 lbs when competing at 145, right? And that's someone who's 90% of their working out is cardio related, which means he could easily put on more weight if he wasn't so focused on having world class conditioning. And Wayne Gretzky was 185 lbs. Again, another athlete who's training focuses much more on conditioning, speed, and skill. Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 03:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On December 08 2016 02:54 IgnE wrote:
You are conflating sport specific performance with some kind of pseudo-calvinist platonic ideal, jimmyj. Your commentary is almost completely irrelevant for most people who ask "what are the natural limits for putting on size and strength?" I think one place that the table doesn't consider well at all is that LBM is going to depend on your BF%. Like at 6%, it's just not possible to have the muscle mass you'd have at 15%, because the body is always trying to catabolize itself for energy. So I'm sure of most of you were to try and get really ripped, you'd be losing a hefty amount of muscle mass too. Also, I would think that many of you are at or very close to your natural limit. Like Gotunk, you said yourself, it's become too draining to train for a whole year to increase the weight lifted by 10lbs on an exercise, and Decaf, you've seemed to be at a roughly similar point for quite some time, it's fighting for that slight PR here and there, but it seems to me like that's 95% way there. Sure, you might get better at some other exercise, but then you neglect a different one, and then you come back to say you have a shitty bench, you know? I don't mean any of this in an offense way, but none of you guys are like, this is pretty much as far as I will be able to go? I only judge myself on my squats, snatch, and clean & jerk. Playing rugby 9 months a year and sustaining multiple injuries has stagnated my progress for a couple years. I make more progress in my 3 months of off season than I do the other 9 months combined, if I were to focus on lifting full time I'd obviously see a lot more progress.
McG weighed in for two 170lb-max//WW fights at 168 and cut exactly 0 lbs for both fights. 168 is as high as Conor gets. Conor has not fought at 145 in a year and was stripped of the 145 lb belt because there are no plans in place for him to fight at 145.
|
Well from this chart I'm elite, so that's something .......
|
On December 08 2016 05:50 JimmyJRaynor wrote:when life actuaries start altering their projections based on some of the studies' results about weight//muscle-mass//fat//bone-density and mortality that have been done the past 40 years i recommend paying careful attention at that point. it'll be as close to 100% fact as you can get. Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 05:15 decafchicken wrote:On December 08 2016 02:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 08 2016 01:03 decafchicken wrote:On December 07 2016 21:16 GoTuNk! wrote:"Being 190lb and ripped when you are 5’10” is nearly impossible unless you are blessed with 1 in a 1000 genetics. I want to encourage guys to work hard, focus on strength, while losing fat without losing muscle. I’ve seen guys at 160lb, 6 feet tall, who are extremely strong with physiques that any guy would kill for. (huh might aswell skip the gym)" Ignore the author at all cost Having been 6' and 160 lb, I looked like a fucking stick figure that desperately needed a cheeseburger and directions to the nearest squat rack. its pretty much a case by case basis. you can't generalize especially without a thorough physical examination and extensive testing. the "eye test" provides a very small amount of information. allen iverson and wayne gretzky did just fine weighing under 160 lbs and appearing to be "skinny as hell" next to competitors who outweighed them and out-sized them. Could guys like Conor Mcgregor, Wayne Gretzky, etc find a way to get themselves up to 185 lbs? sure. are they performing at their peak at 185 lbs? not at all. some layperson might say "wow man u r huge ... u r amazing".. they would just be appealing to some uneducated ill-informed archie bunker layperson opinion. for some people 6 feet tall and less than 160 lbs is perfect. if Brock Lesnar weighed what Steph Curry weighed he'd probably be near death. You realize conor mcgregor trains at ~175 lbs when competing at 145, right? And that's someone who's 90% of their working out is cardio related, which means he could easily put on more weight if he wasn't so focused on having world class conditioning. And Wayne Gretzky was 185 lbs. Again, another athlete who's training focuses much more on conditioning, speed, and skill. On December 08 2016 03:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On December 08 2016 02:54 IgnE wrote:
You are conflating sport specific performance with some kind of pseudo-calvinist platonic ideal, jimmyj. Your commentary is almost completely irrelevant for most people who ask "what are the natural limits for putting on size and strength?" I think one place that the table doesn't consider well at all is that LBM is going to depend on your BF%. Like at 6%, it's just not possible to have the muscle mass you'd have at 15%, because the body is always trying to catabolize itself for energy. So I'm sure of most of you were to try and get really ripped, you'd be losing a hefty amount of muscle mass too. Also, I would think that many of you are at or very close to your natural limit. Like Gotunk, you said yourself, it's become too draining to train for a whole year to increase the weight lifted by 10lbs on an exercise, and Decaf, you've seemed to be at a roughly similar point for quite some time, it's fighting for that slight PR here and there, but it seems to me like that's 95% way there. Sure, you might get better at some other exercise, but then you neglect a different one, and then you come back to say you have a shitty bench, you know? I don't mean any of this in an offense way, but none of you guys are like, this is pretty much as far as I will be able to go? I only judge myself on my squats, snatch, and clean & jerk. Playing rugby 9 months a year and sustaining multiple injuries has stagnated my progress for a couple years. I make more progress in my 3 months of off season than I do the other 9 months combined, if I were to focus on lifting full time I'd obviously see a lot more progress. McG weighed in for two 170lb-max//WW fights at 168 and cut exactly 0 lbs for both fights. 168 is as high as Conor gets. Conor has not fought at 145 in a year and was stripped of the 145 lb belt because there are no plans in place for him to fight at 145.
Literally first result from googling connor mcgegor walking around weight reports him at 177 the week of UFC 196, which means he'd already been cutting down at that point.
https://www.sportsjoe.ie/mma/this-is-the-weight-conor-mcgregor-is-walking-around-at-right-now/66615
|
Why is it shitposting? And it may not be the absolute limit but it might be something good for a casual to shoot for.
|
On December 08 2016 06:44 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 05:50 JimmyJRaynor wrote:when life actuaries start altering their projections based on some of the studies' results about weight//muscle-mass//fat//bone-density and mortality that have been done the past 40 years i recommend paying careful attention at that point. it'll be as close to 100% fact as you can get. On December 08 2016 05:15 decafchicken wrote:On December 08 2016 02:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On December 08 2016 01:03 decafchicken wrote:On December 07 2016 21:16 GoTuNk! wrote:"Being 190lb and ripped when you are 5’10” is nearly impossible unless you are blessed with 1 in a 1000 genetics. I want to encourage guys to work hard, focus on strength, while losing fat without losing muscle. I’ve seen guys at 160lb, 6 feet tall, who are extremely strong with physiques that any guy would kill for. (huh might aswell skip the gym)" Ignore the author at all cost Having been 6' and 160 lb, I looked like a fucking stick figure that desperately needed a cheeseburger and directions to the nearest squat rack. its pretty much a case by case basis. you can't generalize especially without a thorough physical examination and extensive testing. the "eye test" provides a very small amount of information. allen iverson and wayne gretzky did just fine weighing under 160 lbs and appearing to be "skinny as hell" next to competitors who outweighed them and out-sized them. Could guys like Conor Mcgregor, Wayne Gretzky, etc find a way to get themselves up to 185 lbs? sure. are they performing at their peak at 185 lbs? not at all. some layperson might say "wow man u r huge ... u r amazing".. they would just be appealing to some uneducated ill-informed archie bunker layperson opinion. for some people 6 feet tall and less than 160 lbs is perfect. if Brock Lesnar weighed what Steph Curry weighed he'd probably be near death. You realize conor mcgregor trains at ~175 lbs when competing at 145, right? And that's someone who's 90% of their working out is cardio related, which means he could easily put on more weight if he wasn't so focused on having world class conditioning. And Wayne Gretzky was 185 lbs. Again, another athlete who's training focuses much more on conditioning, speed, and skill. On December 08 2016 03:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:On December 08 2016 02:54 IgnE wrote:
You are conflating sport specific performance with some kind of pseudo-calvinist platonic ideal, jimmyj. Your commentary is almost completely irrelevant for most people who ask "what are the natural limits for putting on size and strength?" I think one place that the table doesn't consider well at all is that LBM is going to depend on your BF%. Like at 6%, it's just not possible to have the muscle mass you'd have at 15%, because the body is always trying to catabolize itself for energy. So I'm sure of most of you were to try and get really ripped, you'd be losing a hefty amount of muscle mass too. Also, I would think that many of you are at or very close to your natural limit. Like Gotunk, you said yourself, it's become too draining to train for a whole year to increase the weight lifted by 10lbs on an exercise, and Decaf, you've seemed to be at a roughly similar point for quite some time, it's fighting for that slight PR here and there, but it seems to me like that's 95% way there. Sure, you might get better at some other exercise, but then you neglect a different one, and then you come back to say you have a shitty bench, you know? I don't mean any of this in an offense way, but none of you guys are like, this is pretty much as far as I will be able to go? I only judge myself on my squats, snatch, and clean & jerk. Playing rugby 9 months a year and sustaining multiple injuries has stagnated my progress for a couple years. I make more progress in my 3 months of off season than I do the other 9 months combined, if I were to focus on lifting full time I'd obviously see a lot more progress. McG weighed in for two 170lb-max//WW fights at 168 and cut exactly 0 lbs for both fights. 168 is as high as Conor gets. Conor has not fought at 145 in a year and was stripped of the 145 lb belt because there are no plans in place for him to fight at 145. Literally first result from googling connor mcgegor walking around weight reports him at 177 the week of UFC 196, which means he'd already been cutting down at that point. https://www.sportsjoe.ie/mma/this-is-the-weight-conor-mcgregor-is-walking-around-at-right-now/66615
ya, and according to google wayne gretzky is 6 feet tall and 185 lbs. ROFLMAO. Talk to any beat reporter from the Gretzky era and they peg him at 5'9" 1/2 and 155 lbs at most. even for the 80s when hockey players were much much smaller.... he was tiny.
WW fighters only weigh 170 lbs for an hour. then they load up. Fighters never ever show up 2 lbs under the max weight unless that is their walking around weight. Conor weighed in at 2 lbs under because he was 168 lbs for a long time before and after his WW fights.
in fact, these were not title fights so Conor could've come in at 171 so he cuts down 3 lbs below limit. never happens man. if his true weight is substantially over 171 lbs then he cuts weight to barely make weight.
|
You're picking the huge anomaly Decaf. Conor McGregor cuts more weight than most, there's been champions like Frankie that simply didn't cut any weight.
McGregor at 177lbs with 12% BF with one week before competition sounds possible, which is fairly reasonable is right at the natural potential. This is for an athelete that spends 6 hours in the gym every day for the last 10 years.
Look at people like Jon Jones, 6'4"... His maxed ripped body mass would be 205lbs, which is what he has to get to during his weight cut, pretty spot on imo. Jon Jones fights at 220lbs with roughly 10-11% body fat, right on the natural potential, in training he's a bit chubbier, and hence he weighs as much as 230-240lbs. Again, these are the largest talents in the sport, so they have better genetics that most people.
Anyway, my opinion is:
1) People heavily overestimate what's possible without hormones steroids
2) People tend to underestimate their body fat %
3) People are discrediting the table more than they should, there's other factors that aren't internalized there, but all things considered, it's fairly accurate.
Why would these people just make numbers up like this, between many different people who have explored this? To satisfy their egos when they plateau or what? It's to inform people, because like I said, I had plenty of misconceptions when I started working out. Initially I made huge progress quickly (like 205lb bench, 275lb squat, and 355lb deadlift for 5-8 reps and 3-5 sets)... I was at 170lbs (at a tad above 5'9") and like 12%, so roughly at 150lbs LBM. And then I just couldn't progress. I tried to change almost everything, sleeping eating, different exercise structure, I think I eventually peaked out at like 175lbs at maybe 13% (nowadays I'm at like 15-17% at 172lbs).
I never took any supplements like creatine, those fancy proteins, just classic whey... No steroids or anything, and my progress just got very very slow, after getting to those numbers I've listed there in like 6-8 months of extensive working out. Often times it can be deceiving seeing people's strength, because they specialize with low rep stuff, so even though they post a video of a 495lb deadlift, and you can do 355lbs for reps for multiple sets... It's not necessarily that much more impressive. Anyway, I think it's a real thing, and most people can't come to accept it.
As someone decided to go criticize my testosterone levels last time when I posted this, I got them checked in my last yearly full physical, and they were 820, which is fairly normal for a low-mid 20s type of person. I have somewhat smaller wrists/ankles, so I suppose genetically I'm not some perfect person to get huge, but most people aren't. And just by seeing how people reacted in this thread, the "no it's can't be real" type of perspective... It just validates the theory I had about how people think about these things.
Also, it should go without saying, but outside of laboratory conditions, all statements need to be taken very carefully, since someone might be heavier than what it says here (and people would like to brag about that)... It's possible to call them out on being really bad at estimating their bf%... But you can't call them out on taking steroids with any certainty. So when someone tells me they are a 200lb lb 5'10" with 6-8% bf, I might say hey, good job, you're an anomaly, but all things considered, and statistics considered, the odds of that are next to nill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
