Page 1 of 2
Maximum Muscular Bodyweight
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:50 am
An interesting article. I was wondering what everyone else here thinks of it. It seems to be stirring up controversy.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 7:00 am
I'm not sure how valid the article is. Interesting, yes, valid, questionable. The two references are over 10 years old and with the emasculation of the American male, you would have thought if it was true, then more people would have heard about it. The second reason I question the validity, and this might be hard to validate, is the data. Did he find people that fit the data? That might be hard to argue because how many people are actually at their peak.
At bear minimum, file the information away as intersting.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:40 pm
According to this article, I must be using.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:42 pm
Either that or I don't exist. :-)
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:06 pm
I used there calculations as given in the writeup before I looked at the bottom of the page and saw the calculator. The calculator gives a heavier number. try the calculator. The body parts calculated the same.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:10 pm
Do any of the people here think there is a physiological limit the the amount of lean mass a person can carry at a certain bodyfat percentage?
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:01 pm
Based on the measurements, I had reached/exceded my natural limits by about age 16 or 17.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:18 pm
My point is not to brag, but to proove a point. Nobody peaks at 17 unless they get lazy and stop training (or maybe get hit by a bus). Meanwhile, I don't think even elite atheletes ever really reach their full potential. They do eventually peak when the years start catching up with them, but that's not really the same thing.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:27 pm
For example, I'm pretty strong for someone my age (25). But how much stronger could I be by now, had I known at 15 everything I now know about strength training. Likewise, if I hadn't of slacked off in college I might be benching 435 lbs today instead of 335 lbs. Fortunately for me, as long as I take care of myself and stay healthy, I should still have a lot of years left to keep improving before I have to start taking it easy.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 5:41 pm
Matt, how does your actual LBM compare to the calculated LBM? Are the body proportions in line or out of whack?
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:41 pm
The calculations are more accurate in the 6 to 12 % range. Matt, what does it calculate your max weight to be at your current % and what is it actually?
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 8:10 am
Hmmm ... I'm not sure my exact lean body mass. However, I'm 5'6" tall and between 220 and 225 lbs, at which I estimate I'm about 15-20 lbs overweight. I don't have "six-pack", but I don't have a keg either.
I haven't taken measurements recently, but I know my biceps are at least 17", my forearms are at least 13", my calves are at least 18" and my upper legs are something like 28-29," while my wrist is under 7".
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 10:06 am
Matt it sounds like you're a genetic freak. You've got someone elses legs. Seriously though, your arms seem to fit the model. It's just your legs that are oversized. It's not really possible to judge the weight without knowing your BF%. Certainly the legs would increase your weight a lot.
Cut to 10% Bf the calculator suggests you would be:
Height: 66 in Wrist: 7 in Ankle: 9 in
Your estimated maximum muscular bodyweight at ~10% bodyfat is: 183.1 lbs
Your estimated maximum muscular measurements (@ ~8%-10% bodyfat) are:
Chest: 45.3 in Biceps: 16.2 in
Forearms: 12.9 in Neck: 15.8 in
Thighs: 24.1 in Calves: 16.1 in
Realistically, I think this calculator was designed for bodybuilders who were trying to achieve proportion according to the classic model. Powerlifters don't care about that and often have huge legs because they train them harder than bodybuilders. I think if the designers of this calculator had looked at powerlifters, they would have come up with a different calculation.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 1:24 pm
Did mine and the expected value is first, actual is second
Neck pred. 18, actual 19.25
Bicep pred 18 actual 19.75
Thighs pred 27, actual 29.675
Chest pred 50.5, actual 54
Those are some big f-n legs Matt. What brand jeans are you wearing? Mine are getting uncomfortably tight in the legs so your have to be killing you (I'm 6-2 280).
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 5:33 pm
Hmmm ... If memory serves, I measured my upper leg near the base with my quads flexed. Standing relaxed, midway between the hip and knee (as described in the article) it comes to 27".
chest - measured relaxed (not expanded), arms at sides, tape under armpits = 46.5"
biceps - flexed, at largest point = 17"
forearms - fist clenched, hand out straight, measured at largest point = 12.5"
neck - below Adam's apple at smallest point = 17"
calves - standing relaxed, at largest point = 17.75"
wrist = 6.75"
ankle = 10"