|
i think people who are good at things are generally more likely to stick with them (so genetically strong people are more likely to be gym goers, as people good at singing are more likely to be singers)
it's also very clear that there can be a huge genetic "starting difference" between people, just look at any school class around the age of 16, you got a couple of people who could murder the entire class with 1 hand if they wanted to. and (possibly) ontop of that, sometimes between people of wider genetic background, i've met black people who never went to the gym in their lives who could beat me in an arm wrestle if they were handcuffed to the table
also i think that you should remember that a lot of these athletes have been doing it for a lot longer than you, like since they were 15 and they are 25 now? so that's like a good 5 years on you, even if you were as hardcore as they were for 5 years straight. its the same if you look at guitarists, they might be unbelievable at age 25, but if you go back in time 10 whole years they were a newb once just like you
and lastly, people will have different social backgrounds. they might be nurtured from an early age to be able to deal well with regular gym practice, good sleep and nutrition. or they might be super fucking undisciplined and find things very difficult , and struggle in more ways than just the obvious at strength gaining
|
|
|
I'm 215* {edit} lbs in those photos. What's my bodyfat %? I'm not especially genetically gifted and I don't use steroids. It's just a decade of serious training and eating.
The thing you linked is not a "limit" in any sense of the word. How long have you even lifted seriously without breaks? Talking about stalled progress after a year or two and then saying that that's the natural "limit" is asinine.
You are also way off on the people who "specialize in low reps". People who can lift 495 lbs are way stronger than your "multiple reps" at 355, including at 355.
|
dose palm trees tho 
|
On December 08 2016 07:38 FFGenerations wrote:
i think people who are good at things are generally more likely to stick with them (so genetically strong people are more likely to be gym goers, as people good at singing are more likely to be singers)
it's also very clear that there can be a huge genetic "starting difference" between people, just look at any school class around the age of 16, you got a couple of people who could murder the entire class with 1 hand if they wanted to. and (possibly) ontop of that, sometimes between people of wider genetic background, i've met black people who never went to the gym in their lives who could beat me in an arm wrestle if they were handcuffed to the table
also i think that you should remember that a lot of these athletes have been doing it for a lot longer than you, like since they were 15 and they are 25 now? so that's like a good 5 years on you, even if you were as hardcore as they were for 5 years straight. its the same if you look at guitarists, they might be unbelievable at age 25, but if you go back in time 10 whole years they were a newb once just like you
My opinion is that it doesn't take long to reach close to your maximum. I was a 115lb 5'9" stick, a long distance runner from Grade 8-Grade 10, winning cities in the 3000 meter for my grade. In two years by the end of Grade 12 I was 160-165lbs, one year after that I was 170lbs, one year after that I was 173-175lbs., then I kind of stopped, and got fat, peaked at like 190lbs.
So yeah, I don't think it takes that long, since if you stopped working out, you know how quick it's to lose, and I worked out for like 18 months after reaching a fairly large plateau, with quite little progress. Unless I tried something completely different, with the dedication of 4x~ a week working out that I was putting in, I couldn't see how I could gain more than 5lbs LBM in my entire lifetime.
When I started working out, I started by benching like 95 or 105lbs, so I definitely didn't have some wow base to start on, but I finished with numbers I think are fairly impressive, and not really different from the dedicated gym-goers who've been doing it for 10+ years that I was surrounded by.
205lb bench, 275lb squat, 355lb deadlift, 70-90lb weighted dips, 25lb weighted pulls-ups, 65lb OHDP... Again, speaking only from my experience, those were lifts that were pretty close to what the best people in my gym were doing that were clearly not roided up for many reps and many sets. So I feel like I kind of went from zero to hero, and then I found a wall that I had big trouble progressing from. There were no people that I was surrounded by that were doing significantly larger lifts, unless they simply had a much larger frame than me, or were obvious roid users. So anyway, I felt and still think I have plenty of reason to think that I was reasonably close to my maximum natural potential. That was 2.5 years of constant work btw, and I don't think you need 10+ years to reach your max potential.
Maybe the reason why people are against this discussion is because it's the light at the end of the tunnel of working out. And when you can see the end, it kind of defeats the purpose, at least in some way.
|
@Jimmy & Fiwi - Regardless as to what mcgregor weighed or didn't weight, I don't know why you keep picking people that are in a sport which heavily favors conditioning over muscle mass and have weight classes they need to take into consideration. It's a stupid way to gauge what people can weigh at a given height.
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.
You probably rode out your beginner gains and now it takes more work and better training to keep pushing your strength and size. And a 495 lb deadlift is SIGNIFICANTLY more impressive than someone repping out 355. I could pull 355 for reps as a college freshman, took 2 years of dedicated training to pull 495 for a single after that.
|
yes you do need 10+ years to reach your natural potential without artificial assistance. your experience is limited and flawed. it takes seven years on average just for your skeleton to go through a cycle life. gettjng through plateaus takes deliberate effort, planning, and execution because you are constantly fighting homeostasis. just because you failed does not mean that you hit anything like a "natural limit" except for the limit arbitrarily defined as "how far fiwifaki got that one time before he gave up or lost interest".
|
What height are you Igne? Are you sure you didn't workout before those, because it does look like you have a bit of a pump S:
You look to have fairly large hands and wide wrists for your height, which imo would put you above average genetics for gaining muscle mass, but to me you look like around 11% bf%.
So using the graph and 215lb at 11%bf, if you're at your maximum natural potential, your height should be a tad shy of of 6'4".
Definitely impressive achievement Igne, looks great. I do think you're above average genetics though.
|
as ive said im 5'11". i may have a pump in some of those pictures, what of it? does it decrease my fat % or make me weigh more?
multiple women have made fun of me for having hands that are smaller than theirs. i have trump hands.
|
I'm at 6'1 and 225 lb. Even if we conservatively say I'm at 15% bodyfat, that still puts me at 191 which is 14 pounds over that chart. Sure I have decent genetics but by no means am I near the high end of the scale. I just trained my ass off and paid attention to my diet for years. It easily takes 10+ years to hit your natural plateau.
When I started working out, I started by benching like 95 or 105lbs, so I definitely didn't have some wow base to start on, but I finished with numbers I think are fairly impressive, and not really different from the dedicated gym-goers who've been doing it for 10+ years that I was surrounded by.
205lb bench, 275lb squat, 355lb deadlift, 70-90lb weighted dips, 25lb weighted pulls-ups, 65lb OHDP... Again, speaking only from my experience, those were lifts that were pretty close to what the best people in my gym were doing that were clearly not roided up for many reps and many sets. So I feel like I kind of went from zero to hero, and then I found a wall that I had big trouble progressing from. There were no people that I was surrounded by that were doing significantly larger lifts, unless they simply had a much larger frame than me, or were obvious roid users. So anyway, I felt and still think I have plenty of reason to think that I was reasonably close to my maximum natural potential. That was 2.5 years of constant work btw, and I don't think you need 10+ years to reach your max potential.
These numbers would be on the low end for most of the kids on my high school football team, myself included. Either you have garbage genetics or significantly more room for improvement. I'd expect an experienced lifter training for 10 years to be way over those.
|
On December 08 2016 08:12 decafchicken wrote:I'm at 6'1 and 225 lb. Even if we conservatively say I'm at 15% bodyfat, that still puts me at 191 which is 14 pounds over that chart. Sure I have decent genetics but by no means am I near the high end of the scale. I just trained my ass off and paid attention to my diet for years. It easily takes 10+ years to hit your natural plateau. Show nested quote +
When I started working out, I started by benching like 95 or 105lbs, so I definitely didn't have some wow base to start on, but I finished with numbers I think are fairly impressive, and not really different from the dedicated gym-goers who've been doing it for 10+ years that I was surrounded by.
205lb bench, 275lb squat, 355lb deadlift, 70-90lb weighted dips, 25lb weighted pulls-ups, 65lb OHDP... Again, speaking only from my experience, those were lifts that were pretty close to what the best people in my gym were doing that were clearly not roided up for many reps and many sets. So I feel like I kind of went from zero to hero, and then I found a wall that I had big trouble progressing from. There were no people that I was surrounded by that were doing significantly larger lifts, unless they simply had a much larger frame than me, or were obvious roid users. So anyway, I felt and still think I have plenty of reason to think that I was reasonably close to my maximum natural potential. That was 2.5 years of constant work btw, and I don't think you need 10+ years to reach your max potential.
These numbers would be on the low end for most of the kids on my high school football team, myself included. Either you have garbage genetics or significantly more room for improvement. I'd expect an experienced lifter training for 10 years to be way over those.
Oh, I went a bit higher, that's what I reached in 6-8 months.
I think most kids who went to the football team were naturally bigger in most cases. At 5'9" I was shorter than most people on the football team, and had less fat, which makes it harder to keep the muscle on. My average lift increased by what, 5-10% of that? Also, keep in mind, in 2007, a 21 year old won the worlds strongest man competition. Which goes to show that a person can be in their peak physical condition at age 21... And what, the average age of your football team is 17-18? So it's not like they're far away from reaching their prime age for being strongest.
So by not being the weakest in the group as someone with average genetics, in a group of people with above average genetics... In a group of people who possibly took this thing more seriously than me, at a point where I was 19? That's not so bad.
The concept of a plateau over that many years is odd to me, because the hormone levels in your body change so much in that time. If you treat it like a first response system with a formula of: weight = max - e^-t, you asymptotically reach that value, while at the same time, there's going to be a bias to decrease that value due to lower testosterone levels among other things. You have diminishing returns, so I'm treating it as once you're 95% there or whatever, that's natural potential.
I never tested this formula I originally posted, so maybe it's off, but it seemed to be somewhat popular, so I thought there would be some basis for it. Maybe this natural limit is when working out is limited to x amount of hours during the week (since I'm sure you could get stronger and bigger by focusing on getting stronger 24/7), maybe the table is wrong, maybe your genetics really are that much better, idk.
|
you know what they say about a man with small hands
|
that 21 year old was a genetic freak who was on gear and probably started lifting way before age 19. i imagine he started lifting seriously by age 16 and went on steroids with top attention to diet and training by age 18 or 19.
but strongmen all die young anyway so why are we talking about them?
edit: mariusz pudzianowski won in 2007 and he wasn't 21.
|
On December 08 2016 08:31 IgnE wrote:
that 21 year old was a genetic freak who was on gear and probably started lifting way before age 19. i imagine he started lifting seriously by age 16 and went on steroids with top attention to diet and training by age 18 or 19.
but strongmen all die young anyway so why are we talking about them?
edit: mariusz pudzianowski won in 2007 and he wasn't 21.
Opps, I fucked up, sorry. I google'd youngest world's strongest man, and it said:
Kevin Nee. Kevin Nee (born August 21, 1985) is an American professional Strongman athlete. He is notable as being the youngest person ever to reach the finals in the World's Strongest Man in 2007 at age 21.
I thought it was youngest person to win it, but that was youngest person to reach it.
I was just trying to use an example of how strong and large people don't need years to reach their genetic potential, though in this case obviously not natural. There's other cases, like Djokovic winning from his early 20s, Serena Williams winning in her teens, Sydney Crosby being one of the best in the NHL when he was like what, 21? etc... I follow weird sports like UFC and Cycling, so I apologize that I don't have the best examples to give.
So being 18 and being stronger than someone who is 30 isn't necessarily more impressive (or at least unexpected).
Also, genetic freak or not, we would expect a shitty genetics person and a genetics freak to peak at the same time.
|
i'll clarify and boil down my thinking.
there exists a limit whereby adding muscle mass is detrimental to your long term health due to the extra work your organs must do to maintain that extra weight. life actuaries overgeneralize this using very old science because the "new science" is not reliable. They state every lb of weight gained beyond a certain average (x) results in a lower life expectancy. Clearly, the initial gain of muscle occurring at the very start of a person's first ever strength training program is either benificial or benign. i highly suspect it improves life expectancy. Clearly, any new muscle Eddie Guerrero was adding to his body in the last 2 years of his life was a bad mistake and had he paid attention to his body he might be alive today.
you will get a warning sign you are approaching the too much muscle mass area when your performance in every other sport ( baseball, basketball , hockey, rugby, lacrosse) you play declines and continues to decline many months after u've added the new muscle mass in question. if you play a variety of sports and performance in every sport is declining 6+ months after you've added new mass you've gone too far.
"new muscle" will sometimes make ur performance worse for a short time but eventually it should benefit your athletic performance. as soon as "new muscle" stops improving your athletic performance... its probably time to quit trying to add new muscle unless you make a living professionally as a power lifter.
the big key in all this : pay attention to the signals your body gives you; don't over complicate things. if u r always slow and lethargic.. pay attention to it. OTOH if you are slam dunking the ball with ease and flying all over the court and extending your shooting range and abso-fucking-lultely kicking ass.. the decision to put on mass was a great one.
|
I agree with the conclusion Jimmy, but my impression is that by having more body mass, it means that your heart has to work more, your lungs have to work more, your liver, everything, since your body does more work.
By doing more work, your cells need to be repaired and duplicated more, which in the end is what ends up killing you.
There's certainly trade-offs, like having to move a lot of blood, versus having clogged arteries, and where exactly the sweetspot is. Too many variables to control for, but I think the skinny guy who goes for a run here and there, and will go play a sport with his friend recreationally has the best odds for living the longest assuming the other stuff in his life is in order. I'm talking about someone who if 5'9" would weigh like 120-135lbs.
Same idea as why women live longer than men, and no, more men smoking, drinking, and hurting themselves doesn't explain the whole story, female monkeys live longer than males as well.
Again, it's a reasonably well established fact of science, but I'm merely sharing it as my opinion to relieve me of my responsibility to justify it.
|
women live longer than men coz everything that men die of kills them at earlier stages of life than what women die of.
men are big leaders in death by alcohol, road accidents, heart disease, suicide, liver disease, miscellaneous injuries
women are big leaders in death by alzeimers (with an average onset around 80 years and kills you slowly)
both genders are roughly equal in other causes of death
if you look at the numbers, i think (feel free to correct me) that it's very fair to say that women are less effected by issues of alcohol, road accidents, heart disease, suicide, liver disease and miscellaneous injuries, and that just a 3 year difference in life expectancy is ultimately pretty narrow (apparently its a 13 year age difference if you're russian though, go figure)
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-age-and-gender
|
On December 08 2016 08:48 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I agree with the conclusion Jimmy, but my impression is that by having more body mass, it means that your heart has to work more, your lungs have to work more, your liver, everything, since your body does more work.
By doing more work, your cells need to be repaired and duplicated more, which in the end is what ends up killing you.
There's certainly trade-offs, like having to move a lot of blood, versus having clogged arteries, and where exactly the sweetspot is. Too many variables to control for, but I think the skinny guy who goes for a run here and there, and will go play a sport with his friend recreationally has the best odds for living the longest assuming the other stuff in his life is in order. I'm talking about someone who if 5'9" would weigh like 120-135lbs.
Same idea as why women live longer than men, and no, more men smoking, drinking, and hurting themselves doesn't explain the whole story, female monkeys live longer than males as well.
Again, it's a reasonably well established fact of science, but I'm merely sharing it as my opinion to relieve me of my responsibility to justify it.
A recent, very large meta-analysis has shaken the epidemiological community by showing that the lowest inflection point for the BMI–mortality curve (its nadir) lays in the overweight range (62).
From The NLM. Tell me more about this well-established science.
|
Canada8157 Posts
On December 08 2016 08:25 FFGenerations wrote:
you know what they say about a man with small hands
small in some places, bigger in others
i got tiny girly hands too
|
On December 08 2016 09:46 Jer99 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 08:25 FFGenerations wrote:
you know what they say about a man with small hands small in some places, bigger in others i got tiny girly hands too
yeah me too they're microscopic
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IICuaK5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AvBiNJh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bOc4w5j.jpg?1)
