Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 25, 2014, 12:54:15 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Lacour-narural or not?  (Read 15507 times)
The Luke
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3017

What's that in the bushes?


« Reply #50 on: December 16, 2006, 08:27:56 PM »

Just gotta chime in here guys...

La Cour has an FFMI of more than 30?

But Arnold had an FFMI of only 28?


That simply can't be right.

The Luke
Report to moderator   Logged
Casey Butt
Getbig II
**
Posts: 47



WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 16, 2006, 09:04:47 PM »

It's right.

LaCour competed at 232 lbs at a height of 5'10"

Arnold competed between 224 to 235 lbs at a height of 6'2"

LaCour carried more muscle in leaner condition.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #52 on: December 16, 2006, 10:29:04 PM »

There have been several peer-reviewed studies published, all concluding essentially the same thing. I haven't read a FLEX since the early 1990s, so I'm not familiar with what they referenced. Park, Eiferman and Delinger, in particular, carried massive amounts of muscle. Unrealistic expectations are what often lead people to steroid use. I don't think that what anybody has accomplished should be viewed as a "limitation" to anybody, but reality is what it is. If someone is determined to build more balanced muscle without drugs, then more power to them.

Bannister broke the 4-minute mile a week after he received his newly designed lightweight (and spiked) racing flats. Several people broke the 4-minute mile shortly after because they also got such racing shoes. If people today had to run in the pre-Bannister era heavy track shoes of the 1950s, believe me, there'd be a lot less 4-minute miles being run. The motivational speakers always seem to leave that tidbit out when they use the 4-minute mile example. Comparing sports across the eras is not always apples to apples.

LaCour's advice is the advice of a drug-user ...and "proving" that he uses anabolics only takes less than a minute. When drug-users pose as "natural" bodybuilders they do nothing but deceive their fans and create false expectations. That's why it's important to expose these frauds.

I agree 100%. That's probably the truest thing ever written on this board.

How is LaCour's advice that of a drug user? As I've said before, if I had a dime for everyone who supposedly had the goods to "expose" LaCour, I could retire.

Report to moderator   Logged
bigbalddaddy
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2422


« Reply #53 on: December 17, 2006, 12:35:18 PM »

I'll put it to you fellas this way!  If this clown was natural he would do a blood test and post his results for everyone to see!  He's probably one of the most high profile natural guys in the world as far as drug use and speculation goes.  All he can say is that he passed the shows testing criteria!  Which is what a piss test and polygraph?  F*ck, Ronnie, Jay, Ruhl, and anyone else you care to name could pass the natural shows bullsh*t criteria if they REALLY wanted to.  Trust me this guy is no where close to natty or he would prove it and shut the world up!  So you people living in la la land with this false hope that you can look like him need to hit the crack pipe one more time and go in to rehab!  The only time he would take a test is after he's way done competing and down 30-40 lean lbs! 
Report to moderator   Logged
mwbbuilder
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1100

Getbig!


« Reply #54 on: December 18, 2006, 01:31:26 AM »

It's right.

LaCour competed at 232 lbs at a height of 5'10"

Arnold competed between 224 to 235 lbs at a height of 6'2"

LaCour carried more muscle in leaner condition.

First of all, La Cour competed at 205 at 5'11 in 2002 and 2003...when he was most ripped.

It's funny how you use big words and try to sound so scientific--but then you simply say "La Cour carried more muscle in learner condition."

Says who? You? Show us the body fat test taken on Las Cour the day of his shows and Arnold's test too while you're at it.

Pure bullshit talk of science trying to justify your mere opinions.

At least you are impressing yourself.
Report to moderator   Logged
Casey Butt
Getbig II
**
Posts: 47



WWW
« Reply #55 on: December 18, 2006, 06:13:39 AM »

mwbbuilder, well my posts certainly ruffled your feathers. You obviously have some insecurity issues surrounding your lack of academic ability. Displaying your stupidity and your intimidation by what you describe as "bullshit talk of science" does nothing to support your opinion. I've already justified what I have said, but you obviously lack the intelligence to comprehend any of it.

On a more "friendly" note. You know, it isn't too late for you to educate yourself. It's a long road, but the sooner you start the sooner you'll succeed. You can obviously read, and your post was grammatically well-constructed, so you do have some potential. Nothing I've said is difficult to understand. You just need to sit down and think about it, or get someone to help you. If the math is a problem just review your grade 9 books. It's all in there.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hedgehog
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19481


It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.


WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 18, 2006, 08:33:01 AM »



LaCour's advice is the advice of a drug-user ...and "proving" that he uses anabolics only takes less than a minute. When drug-users pose as "natural" bodybuilders they do nothing but deceive their fans and create false expectations. That's why it's important to expose these frauds.



LaCour recommends Max-OT, which has training volume that could be tolerated by a natural athlete.

I do believe that for it to be 100% effective for a natural athlete, perhaps it would need to be cut down to three training days a week and also further, not having the athlete going all out on all sets all the time, having both medium and heavy workouts.

Another thing I disagree with is the short rest between sets, doesn't allow for all the muscle fibers to recover.

But still, Max-OT is eons better than any traditional bodybuilding layout IMO.

-Hedge
Report to moderator   Logged

As empty as paradise
mwbbuilder
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1100

Getbig!


« Reply #57 on: December 18, 2006, 11:48:14 AM »

mwbbuilder, well my posts certainly ruffled your feathers. You obviously have some insecurity issues surrounding your lack of academic ability. Displaying your stupidity and your intimidation by what you describe as "bullshit talk of science" does nothing to support your opinion. I've already justified what I have said, but you obviously lack the intelligence to comprehend any of it.

On a more "friendly" note. You know, it isn't too late for you to educate yourself. It's a long road, but the sooner you start the sooner you'll succeed. You can obviously read, and your post was grammatically well-constructed, so you do have some potential. Nothing I've said is difficult to understand. You just need to sit down and think about it, or get someone to help you. If the math is a problem just review your grade 9 books. It's all in there.

Nice deflection.

Now how about answering the question.

What facts do you have that La Cour competed with more muscle muscle than Arnold?

How was La Cour tested to support your science?

You said he competed at a ripped 232. When was that? What was his body fat percentage when he competed at 232?

How do you address the fact that he at 205 at 5'11 when he won the Team Universe in 2002 and 2003?

What was Arnold's body fat percentage when he competed at 235?

Obviously, you need those acts and figures to plug into your scientic calculations, don't you?

You are an educated man,as you say. Please educated my "insecure" mind in your "well constructed" sentences why you, such a brilliant man, don't need those FACTS to plug into your science?

What? Could it be the you are just "eye balling" photos?

What kind of "science" is that?

One thing I do know about science, Einstein, is that when you plug in faulty data, your findings will be faulty as well.
Report to moderator   Logged
The Luke
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3017

What's that in the bushes?


« Reply #58 on: December 18, 2006, 11:52:37 AM »

Okay... okay... let's keep it civil children.


The Luke
Report to moderator   Logged
mwbbuilder
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1100

Getbig!


« Reply #59 on: December 18, 2006, 11:55:21 AM »

LaCour recommends Max-OT, which has training volume that could be tolerated by a natural athlete.

I do believe that for it to be 100% effective for a natural athlete, perhaps it would need to be cut down to three training days a week and also further, not having the athlete going all out on all sets all the time, having both medium and heavy workouts.

Another thing I disagree with is the short rest between sets, doesn't allow for all the muscle fibers to recover.

But still, Max-OT is eons better than any traditional bodybuilding layout IMO.

-Hedge

Hedge. You consider three minute rest in between sets to be short? Just asking.
Report to moderator   Logged
mwbbuilder
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1100

Getbig!


« Reply #60 on: December 18, 2006, 02:29:12 PM »

Several years ago researchers (primarily Dr. Harrison Pope) began doing some research with drug-using and drug-free bodybuilders and lifters. They did a regression based on lean body mass and height. The equation they fit calculates a number called the fat-free mass index (FFMI). Essentially, the FFMI is similar to the BMI, but lean body mass is used instead of body weight.

In that research, and since then, it has been determined that most genetically average people cannot surpass a FFMI of about 24-25 without drugs. A FFMI of 25-26 is a typical "natural" physique champion. It's thought that no champion bodybuilder in history has surpassed a FFMI of 27 without the use of drugs.

LaCour has competed with a FFMI of over 30. Not only is that impossible without drugs, fairly "heavy" drug-use would be necessary. For example, Schwarzenegger competed at a FFMI of about 28.

I'd estimate that LaCour's drug-use was similar to bodybuilders of the early 1980s ...but compared to bodybuilder's of his era he could claim to be "relatively natural". He also mastered how to beat drug tests -- as did Ronnie Coleman, who also claimed to be drug-free for years during his early pro career.





Dr. Harrison Pope, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital

He did research on marijuana and the Adonis Complex in men

Body fat mass index doesn't seem to be his area of expertise

I didn't see his studies about drug free bodybuilding champions anywhere.

Can to point them out to me?

I call BULLSHIT
Report to moderator   Logged
Casey Butt
Getbig II
**
Posts: 47



WWW
« Reply #61 on: December 18, 2006, 03:17:49 PM »

My posts were sufficiently clear. Re-explaining things to someone incapable of understanding is a waste of time. LaCour's stats over the course of his career are readily available. Harrison Pope's papers on the "fat free mass index" were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals -- they are not difficult for even a person with your Google "skills" to find.

Researchers very often publish in several different fields at once. In fact, over the course of a career, research focus tends to change many times. I've been publishing for the past 6 years and my reseach field has changed, albeit not too dramatically, three times. That's part of the academic profession, of which you clearly have no understanding.

Why would you post a photo of Harrison Pope??? Why don't you post a photo of yourself along with your real name?

You are making a fool of yourself ...but the anonymity of your username allows that.

To any moderators reading this:

I joined this board a short time ago because I was looking for a place to maturely discuss drug-free lifting with like-minded people. As well, I joined to help less experienced people with my many years of lifting experience, publishing history with several bodybuilding magazines (both under my name and a pen name), and familiarity with many accomplished people in this area.

Quite obviously, this place has more than it's share of juvenile behaviour, immaturity and hostility. I managed a web board several years ago (at around the same time as "getbig" was just starting, BTW) and I can offer these suggestions:

My first suggestion is that you not allow members to join this board unless they post under their real names ...that will give some degree of accountability to the members. I strongly suspect that many of the more hostile members here are teenagers with very little lifting experience and very little perspective on the many aspects of bodybuilding. It appears that I am being badgered by such a character at the moment ...and I have no desire to correspond with or assist such people.

My second suggestion is that you strictly enforce the rules of this board. Disrepectful, hostile posters do nothing to help this board and only serve to reduce it to another childish internet forum that people with a legitimate interest in, and knowledge of, bodybuilding would not want to be a part of. There are enough such boards around, you don't need to be another one.
Report to moderator   Logged
mwbbuilder
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1100

Getbig!


« Reply #62 on: December 18, 2006, 03:56:50 PM »

Quit crying, baby.

All I asked you to do was tell me is how La Cour and Arnold muscle mass, total body weight, and body fat levels were tested to support your claims.

You would need to know that information to plug into any mathemtical equation, wouldn't you? Even you and Dr. Comb-over would need them to figure out a FFMI, wouldn't you?

You don't have them, do you?
Report to moderator   Logged
The Luke
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3017

What's that in the bushes?


« Reply #63 on: December 18, 2006, 04:59:37 PM »

I've taken the time to go back and reread this thread from the start.

mwbuilder has raised some interesting points, and has yet to see them properly addressed. Hedgehog has also made some good points.

Casey Butt seems like the kind of poster/member we need more of; thoughtful, knowledgable, experienced and articulate. However the following post of his seems to be the juncture at which the discussion diverged from heated debate into the trading of insults: 

mwbbuilder, well my posts certainly ruffled your feathers. You obviously have some insecurity issues surrounding your lack of academic ability. Displaying your stupidity and your intimidation by what you describe as "bullshit talk of science" does nothing to support your opinion. I've already justified what I have said, but you obviously lack the intelligence to comprehend any of it.

On a more "friendly" note. You know, it isn't too late for you to educate yourself. It's a long road, but the sooner you start the sooner you'll succeed. You can obviously read, and your post was grammatically well-constructed, so you do have some potential. Nothing I've said is difficult to understand. You just need to sit down and think about it, or get someone to help you. If the math is a problem just review your grade 9 books. It's all in there.

...there is nothing nwbuilder posted previous to that point that could be read as unambiguously hostile or accusatory.

However, Mr Butt has raised some very interesting points regarding the tone of some these debates. It is true that several of these discussions degrade into name calling... and teenage rhetoric often labels the instigators for what they are. His suggestions regarding naming/identifying members are definately on point as anyone who has witnessed the damage done to the G&O boards by the slew of gimmick accounts generated by Sarcasm and True Adonis can attest.

My gut feeling in this instance is that Mr Butt's point of view would be best served by his taking a more patient Socratic approach: he could give a brief history of his experience in the iron game and/or any relevent educational qualifications he possess and then EXPLAIN how he arrived at his conclusion rather than dictate his opinion. In doing so he has the opportunity to not only persuade mwbuilder, but everyone of similar belief.

I myself, have been very interested in the idea of a maximum natural muscle mass (FFMI) and as a physicist I'd be very interested in a (brief) outlining of the protocols utilised in devising such.

Now, play nice children (or I'll moderate your asses),
The Luke
Report to moderator   Logged
mwbbuilder
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1100

Getbig!


« Reply #64 on: December 18, 2006, 05:25:54 PM »

Luke

I disaggree that we "need" people like Mr. Butt. He is one of those people whose opinions are really based on EMOTION and BELEIFS--yet he bullshits us all trying to use big words and science he makes up as he goes along.

There is absolutely no way in hell there was a study done with "natural bodybuilding champions" like Mr. Butts says. None. Zero.

Who would they be? And who decalres them to be natural? I don't care who you put in some natural bodybuilding champion study group, some if not most will be questioned on if they are truly drug free or not; if they are lifetime drug free or not.

Who was in this study? Dave Goodin? John Hansen? Jeff Willet? Tito Raymond? Jose Raymond? Derik Farnsworth? Layne Norton? Who? They are natural bodybuilding champions. Surely at lest one of them would be in this study, wouldn't they? Please tell us who these champion were that he mentioned as he stated his case.

There were no studies on natural bodybuilding champions like he posted.

He is full of bullshit--using opinions, make believe facts (or at least inaccurate) and emotions to support his beliefs. It's no different when a supplement company manipulates "science" to bullshit us that their products will help us gain 287% more muscle. "More" muslce? More than what? You notice they never tell you that. Why? Because no one even questions that statement.

We want people like him here?

Report to moderator   Logged
The Luke
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3017

What's that in the bushes?


« Reply #65 on: December 18, 2006, 05:58:07 PM »

There was such a study done.

It was flawed,but it was done...

Take some time, he gave you all the details necessary to look it up. I recommend you do so BEFORE you attack.


Your posts in this thread remind me of a public lecture I attended.

It was given by the Nobel Prize winner who first made significant quantities of Bose-Einstein Condensates.... anyway, during the questions from the audience section I asked whether a B-E-Condensate diffracts around an atom isolated from the body of the condensate either through high energy proton transmutation or by means of laser induced excitation, or whether the transmutation/excitation would be spread over all the atoms comprising the condensate due to the non-localisation of the atoms caused by the overlap of their DeBroglie wavelengths.

The audience was split into physicists mumbling "hmmmm" and Joe Public mumbling "ehhhhh".

The lecturer said that it was a very interesting question, that investigation of this aspect of B-E-Condensate behaviour comprised the bulk of his current research and that he would explain it to me after the lecture.

The next guy who asked a question wanted to know how physics could contend that a weight dropped in an aeroplane would drop straight down even when the plane was moving.

The audience was split into physicists sighing and some members of the public sighing very loudly.

The lecturer said that it was a very interesting question... but he was cut off by a guy with a very flimsy grasp of basic physics shouting "Prove it! Prove it!"

And the moral of the story is......

Most of us who are interested are well aware of the conclusions of Dr Pope, he's an acknowledged expert in the field... although I feel pschiatrists should avoid venturing into anatomy; physiology; biology or other such HARD sciences as it exposes the weaknesses in their own methodologies.

...if you haven't heard of Pope's conclusions: www.googlescholar.com

No offence intended,
The Luke
Report to moderator   Logged
mwbbuilder
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1100

Getbig!


« Reply #66 on: December 18, 2006, 06:33:18 PM »

Ok Luke.

Answer this question.

To make a statement that La Cour has more muscle and was leaner than Arnold AND base that statement on science.

Would La Cour have to be weighed with his body fat tested on contest day?

Looking at a picture and making those conclusion would NOT be science.

So, if he doesn't know the stats, he has no scientic argument--especially state that La Cour numbers are "out of range."

Tell me where I'm off.
Report to moderator   Logged
Casey Butt
Getbig II
**
Posts: 47



WWW
« Reply #67 on: December 18, 2006, 06:42:55 PM »

mwbbuilder, people like you amaze me. Your posts demonstrate ignorance, childishness and hostility; you haven't posted one fact in any of your posts, merely opinions (i.e. "There is absolutely no way in hell there was a study done with "natural bodybuilding champions"') ...yet you accuse me of not backing my statements and posting from emotion. I gave you numbers for everything I presented and the name of who did some of the research. You are not even familiar with any of this research and yet you feel qualified to dispute it???

The fact that you are unable to properly research a reference is not my problem. And I won't waste my time responding to you any longer.

However, for the other, more mature, people reading this...

Skip LaCour's heaviest competition weight was at the NPC Team Nationals in 1996. He weighed 234 lbs at a height of 5'10" (according to LaCour's own website).

At an estimated bodyfat of 6% that gives him a corrected fat-free mass index (FFMI) of 31.6.
Even if he came in at a very smooth 10% bodyfat (which he did not), his FFMI would be 30.3.
Hence my statement that LaCour had a "FFMI of more than 30". For him to achieve this without drugs is a practical impossibility.

Arnold Schwarzenegger weighed 235 at a height of 6'2" at the 1973 Mr. Olympia. By his own estimation he was 9% bodyfat. That gives him a corrected FFMI of 28.1. Even if he was a ripped 6% bodyfat (which he was not), his FFMI would still only be 29.

Hence my statement "LaCour carried more muscle in leaner condition."

I suspect that LaCour's contest weight began to drop as drug-testing methods became more sophisticated ...and yes, that is merely an opinion, but it is a quite justifiable one.

As far as I am aware, the fat-free mass index was first presented in the following reference, though this is not the only paper which has presented such research:

Kouri E.M., Pope H.G. Jr., Katz D.L., Oliva P., "Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids", Clinincal Journal of Sport Medicine, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 223-8, Oct. 1995.

The Luke, you may consider my post as the first confrontational post made, however, I did, and do, take exception to this statement made initially by "mwbbuilder":  "Pure bullshit talk of science trying to justify your mere opinions. At least you are impressing yourself."

I don't take the FFMI as "gospel" either, and practically all studies and papers are flawed to some extent, but it does serve as a starting point, and it has been a useful reference for me in the formulation of my own regressions of lean body mass vs. structure. Five years ago I made my first attempt at such a fit and it's been an ongoing process since then ...that's how I told a poster in a different thread what his maximum muscular potential without drugs would approximately be.

Since you asked for my credentials:  I have degrees in Physics (minor in biochemistry), Mathematics and Statistics and Engineering (including a PhD). I have published in several international peer-reviewed scientific journals, and I currently teach undergraduate students at an accredited University. I held the largest national scholarship available for a graduate PhD student. ...but I do admit, my physics degree was quite a few years ago and DeBroglie is a little "wavy" to me now, pardon the pun Wink.

I have been bodybuilding, powerlifting and Olympic Weightlifting for over 18 years. I haved trained with beginners up to national level athletes. When I began training I weighed over 320 pounds and my best ever "bodybuilding" weight was 175 at 8% bodyfat (roughly the condition of my avatar). I have written on numerous occasions for several bodybuilding/strength training/fitness magazines (which will remain nameless as I have no desire to drag them into this sort of conversation - people who know my writing can verify this, and references are not hard to find). I have published under my own name and a pen-name. In fact, I have had articles published as far as Russia and Italy (these can also be found on the 'net).
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #68 on: December 18, 2006, 06:51:20 PM »

I'll put it to you fellas this way!  If this clown was natural he would do a blood test and post his results for everyone to see!  He's probably one of the most high profile natural guys in the world as far as drug use and speculation goes.  All he can say is that he passed the shows testing criteria!  Which is what a piss test and polygraph?  F*ck, Ronnie, Jay, Ruhl, and anyone else you care to name could pass the natural shows bullsh*t criteria if they REALLY wanted to.  Trust me this guy is no where close to natty or he would prove it and shut the world up!  So you people living in la la land with this false hope that you can look like him need to hit the crack pipe one more time and go in to rehab!  The only time he would take a test is after he's way done competing and down 30-40 lean lbs! 

No, he wouldn't "shut the world up". LaCour could pass every type of drug test from here to the heavens and back, and there'd STILL be somebody who'd claim that their uncle's cousin's baby mama's best friend (twice removed) sold him anabolics.


Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #69 on: December 18, 2006, 06:56:12 PM »

Luke

I disaggree that we "need" people like Mr. Butt. He is one of those people whose opinions are really based on EMOTION and BELEIFS--yet he bullshits us all trying to use big words and science he makes up as he goes along.

There is absolutely no way in hell there was a study done with "natural bodybuilding champions" like Mr. Butts says. None. Zero.

Who would they be? And who decalres them to be natural? I don't care who you put in some natural bodybuilding champion study group, some if not most will be questioned on if they are truly drug free or not; if they are lifetime drug free or not.

Who was in this study? Dave Goodin? John Hansen? Jeff Willet? Tito Raymond? Jose Raymond? Derik Farnsworth? Layne Norton? Who? They are natural bodybuilding champions. Surely at lest one of them would be in this study, wouldn't they? Please tell us who these champion were that he mentioned as he stated his case.

There were no studies on natural bodybuilding champions like he posted.

He is full of bullshit--using opinions, make believe facts (or at least inaccurate) and emotions to support his beliefs. It's no different when a supplement company manipulates "science" to bullshit us that their products will help us gain 287% more muscle. "More" muslce? More than what? You notice they never tell you that. Why? Because no one even questions that statement.

We want people like him here?



The study (or at least, one of the studies) I saw was in the October 1995 issue of FLEX magazine. Again, they used Mr. America champions between the 1930s and 1960s, presumed to be drug-free. They also compared with some current drug-free champions (though the guys were not named).

As I asked before, where's the motivation to train and do your best drug-free, if the best you can do is look like Mr. America winners from the 1940s. No disrespect to the old school, but that doesn't get most people fired up to hit the iron.

Plus, lost in that aspect is that, back in the day, bodybuilders actually got MARKED DOWN for appearing too ripped in contests. For that reason, I don't think you can put too much stock in bodyfat levels being higher then than now.
Report to moderator   Logged
Casey Butt
Getbig II
**
Posts: 47



WWW
« Reply #70 on: December 18, 2006, 07:06:18 PM »

No disrespect to the old school, but that doesn't get most people fired up to hit the iron.

Plus, lost in that aspect is that, back in the day, bodybuilders actually got MARKED DOWN for appearing too ripped in contests.

I think that's part of the reason that Park lost to Reeves in 1950.

On the other hand, Park displayed some serious muscle. As did Delinger and Eiferman ...even Farbotnik at times. When they got ripped they truly were impressive. I think the magazines actually shyed away from publishing such pics because even the "bodybuilding" fans, in general, did not accept it.

I'll see if I can get some "rare" photos linked.

On a modern note: Brit natural bodybuilder Jon Harris has an "inspiring" physique. He's the current WNBF Pro Champ. But, incidently, he's no larger than the drug-free bodybuilders of the 1950s ...just much more ripped. Fittingly, at 5'7" and 170 lbs at ~5% bodyfat his FFMI is less than 25.
Report to moderator   Logged
mwbbuilder
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1100

Getbig!


« Reply #71 on: December 18, 2006, 07:46:25 PM »

what would be the index for someone 5'10" and 205? At what you would consider "normal" natural bodybuilder body fat level?
Report to moderator   Logged
The Luke
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3017

What's that in the bushes?


« Reply #72 on: December 18, 2006, 08:15:07 PM »

Casey,

I'd be interested in your opinions regarding the failings of the FFMI...

I personally feel that it is as woefully misleading as the BMI; being that it doesn't allow for differences in bone structure, frame size, pelvis depth, clavicle width. Although, it does at least begin an effort to quantise scientifically the mishmash of art, pseudoscience and quackery that passes for bodybuilding these days.

Regarding the first verbal punch thrown; if you look carefully you will see that:
"Pure bullshit talk of science trying to justify your mere opinions. At least you are impressing yourself"
...is not quite that personal; or at least it could be construed as little more than superfluous expletives. Your post was decidedly more personal, and NOT in any way ambiguous... we have to allow for the fact that no one has a bravado font; a sarcasm font or a tongue-in-cheek font.

The Luke
Report to moderator   Logged
Casey Butt
Getbig II
**
Posts: 47



WWW
« Reply #73 on: December 18, 2006, 09:51:48 PM »

I agree. The biggest fault of the FFMI is that is does not take into account the skeletal structure. However, all they really attempted to do was say, "This is how much lean mass a person of a given height can develop without drug-use". Naturally, that upper limit would be the more heavily built mesomorphs. Ectomorphs would never reach the higher FFMIs (24 up to the mid-25s), that they identified as the maximum without drugs. However, that means that drug-using ectomorphs could still be under the FFMI maximum, and therefore not seem "suspect" with regards to drug-use.

Over the past 6 years or so I've attempted to include bone structure based on wrist and ankle measurements into a regression. The fit is a surprisingly linear function of height and joint circumferences (it's actually not quite linear, but close enough for a decent approximation), with ectomorphs being able to achieve roughly 97% of what an ideal mesomorph would achieve if they had the same joint circumferences (but that's misleading because a mesomorph would, implied by definition, have a heavier bone structure). What it seems to come down to is that the "average Joe" can achieve 97% of the lean body mass that a genetically gifted person could - if they both had the same height and joint circumferences. Very large endomorphs seen to be able to build about 3% more lean body mass than an ideal mesomorph if they had the same joint circumferences. And overall, maximum potential lean body mass is fairly predictably correlated with height and joint circumferences. Of course, such estimations are merely that -- estimations based on population statistics. But I've found that they're rarely off by more than a few pounds.

For example, according to the fit, I should be able to achieve a maximum lean body mass of about 160 without drugs. In reality, after 15 years of very serious training, I'm about 97% of that (155 lbs lean body mass) and I would consider myself to have a less than average natural ability to build muscle. But I also believe that with the right training and nutrition "dedication" I can get pretty close to that 160. Maybe, maybe not, but I will nonetheless. Smiley An experienced "ectomorph" on the board came it at the same percentage in a thread yesterday (or the day before).

Another example, I just checked Jon Harris tonight (the current WNBF Champ). Given his height of 5'7" and assuming he has a wrist between 7" and 7.25" in circumference (which would be average for his height) he should have a lean body mass of about 160-164 lbs. That would put him at about 170 lbs at ~5% bodyfat and 180 lbs at ~10% bodyfat. That agrees perfectly with his contest and off-season weights that he lists on his website.

The fit really isn't meant to be a limitation, or a dictation as to how much muscle a person can build. But it does give you an idea of how much muscle you should expect to be able to develop without drugs. I think that is extremely valuable information for a drug-free bodybuilder. How many people at 5'7" would think that 180 pounds would be a "bodybuilder's" ideal weight for them? Most beginners would probably have the unrealistic expectation that they should be over 200 lbs. However, show them a picture of Jon Harris (at "only" 170 even) and they'd probably think they'd never get that big without drugs. So it does put things into the proper perspective.

When I'm a little more confident with the fit I'll write it up for one of the magazines or a book or something.
Report to moderator   Logged
The Luke
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3017

What's that in the bushes?


« Reply #74 on: December 19, 2006, 12:48:06 AM »

Very interesting...

let's not forget to consider the other option: la Cour adds 20 lbs to his bodyweight the way I add 20 lbs to my top lifts.


Work it out for me:
5'5'' tall
7.25'' wrist
Very robust bone structure
214 lbs this morning
22-24% bf (could that be right?)


Thanks,
The Luke
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!