The genetic limit on attaining natural muscle.

S

Snarky91

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
315
Location
Washington DC
I was always interested in this question. I used to think that it was normal to weigh over 200 lbs, given enough years of training. My favorite bodybuilder in recent times, dexter jackson, came in contest shape at over 230 lbs; his height is 5'6. Based on his achievements, I reasoned that it wouldn't be hard for me to get to 200 lbs at 5'7 with about 10% body fat. One day I searched google on this topic and came across an interesting link:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

A lot of people, me included at one point, have illusory expectations about how much they can weigh with good conditioning. Hell, according to this site, I shouldn't ever hope to eclipse 180 lbs in near peak shape. Barring the use of steroids, a 6 foot person can't even expect to weigh more than 200 lbs in any decent shape. This is pretty flabbergasting, I'm sure most will agree. Since steroids can only help add muscle temporarily, and that added muscle will surely atrophy in short order without more steroids, my net conclusion is that 180 lbs is far more muscular than I thought before. Most people won't reach 50% of their natural genetic potential, so I think it's pretty sobering how many people tip the scale at over 200 lbs (in good shape) with the help of steroids. What would these people weigh if they were natural and at a low body fat and how much of the muscle that they walk around with is natural, underneath it? Is it fair to say that steroids are a quick fix if they can help a mediocre person add comparable amounts of muscle to an expert level natural bodybuilder? Have steroids overshadowed what it really means to have a top notch physique? Thoughts?
 
I'm sorry if this shits all over your thread, but I am strongly opposed to "lab coat bodybuilders" who make retarded conjectures like this using math problems and then try to factor it in to bodybuilding. That's not to say I support broscience either. I do what works.

Eat a fuckton. Lift heavy and don't pay attention to brad pitt looking fags who just want beach muscles. Give it time and put that work in. I promise you will achieve amazing things when natural.

Your first cycle is your best. If a 150lb kid gets on gear, they will never look better than someone who started gear at a healthy 200. You have to remember that bone mass plays a huge role. Believe it or not, you can be 5'6 160lb and look like you're 200lb. Just like the opposite is also true. Look at Layne Norton for fucks sake. Imagine if he ran a few cycles. I can't imagine why he wouldn't get on gear considering the natty size he's already at, but it's his decision not to, just like it's an IFBB pro's decision to run 5 grams of Test in a week.

Gear is to be used to jump genetic barriers. NOT get big quick with size that could have easily been added naturally. And no, a 6' guy at 200lb is not at his genetic potential. I don't give a fuck who he is.
 
Last edited:
Did you even bother checking out the link? Do you realize that all those calculations are based on observations of the best elite, world-class, drug free bodybuilders we have ever known? Or do you think you're better than these athletes who've became famous for their accomplishments? A word of thanks for demonstrating the delusional thinking I was referring to.
 
Snarky91 said:
Did you even bother checking out the link? Do you realize that all those calculations are based on observations of the best elite, world-class, drug free bodybuilders we have ever known? Or do you think you're better than these athletes who've became famous for their accomplishments? A word of thanks for demonstrating the delusional thinking I was referring to.
Click to expand...

I read it, it was interesting, but take it with a grain of salt. I can see it coming now:

"Some bullshit study says I'm gonna top out at 6' 180lb at 8% bodyfat anyway so why don't I just stack on the Drol and Test so I don't waste time."
 
Voxide said:
I'm sorry if this shits all over your thread, but I am strongly opposed to "lab coat bodybuilders" who make retarded conjectures like this using math problems and then try to factor it in to bodybuilding. That's not to say I support broscience either. I do what works.

Eat a fuckton. Lift heavy and don't pay attention to brad pitt looking fags who just want beach muscles. Give it time and put that work in. I promise you will achieve amazing things when natural.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, sick of listening to bro-building like it's some mathematic algorithm. I prefer to think of it as an art, not a science.
 
Voxide said:
I read it, it was interesting, but take it with a grain of salt. I can see it coming now:

"Some bullshit study says I'm gonna top out at 6' 180lb at 8% bodyfat anyway so why don't I just stack on the Drol and Test so I don't waste time."
Click to expand...

Actually, the information at that link supports a different conclusion. Some study, based on empirical evidence of the top natural bodybuilders in the world, says that 6' 190 lbs at 10% bodyfat is very impressive as far as statistics go. That's a lean body mass of 171 lbs ! Since I weigh 200 lbs at something like 25% bodyfat, which is only a lean body mass of 150 lbs, I ought to train for a few more years before I even consider using anabolic steroids.

But, let's take your example. Does this person's faulty reasoning make the study's results any less convincing? No. It should serve as a guide for what is normal in the world of bodybuilding. It should serve to illustrate that most of us are nowhere near our potential. On the other hand, it probably wouldn't be hard to find two people on steroids who scoff at the credibility of this research. No one wants to think that his adjusted progress (to take into account natural statistics) is far less impressive when expressed in real terms and compared to others' success, accordingly.
 
i just think being taller you have to eat loads and the really heavy foods too, as well as high proteins.

Tall active people need a high calorie intake every day... can cost quite a bit
 
Martin Berkham says contest ready @5.5% bf you can weigh about as much as your height. so 1M80cm is 80kg 5.5 % max potential
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top