As much as everyone will disagree, I still think it's possible to be 200+ and lean.
You're absolutely right, it is.
If you're willing to use anabolics.
FWIW, the study I posted actually compared the FFMI of the pre-steroid bodybuilders, along with the (ample) sampling of both users and non-users of anabolics. That was included in the abstract.
BUT DONT LET SOME STUDY TELL YOU IT CANT BE DONE!!! IF U WERK HARD IT CAN BE URS!!
Ok now I've got a full LOL.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
I think its definitely possible to be 200 pounds and lean, although not much more than that.
By "lean" I mean around 8-10%. Not exactly bodybuilding contest shape or anything. 200lb at 8-10% is definitely achievable, although it's probably pretty close to most peoples genetic limits.
I'll say it one more time for the slow amongst you.
If you're only 5'9 and holding over around 175-180 lbs of LBM, you are not natural. As in, you are using steroids.
You can strawman this and play semantics games all day long, but it is reality.
The fact of the matter is that it's still possible to have a FFMI value greater than 25. You have to be genetically gifted, however. Also, you have to be very accurate with height, weight, and bodyfat percentages for FFMI to work. I'm just skeptic that they took the Mr. America winners from 1939-59 accurately. Everyone knows measurements are embellished every now and then in the bodybuilding world.
The fact of the matter is that it's still possible to have a FFMI value greater than 25. You have to be genetically gifted, however.
If by "genetically gifted" you mean "using steroids", I agree 100%.
Quote:
Also, you have to be very accurate with height, weight, and bodyfat percentages for FFMI to work. I'm just skeptic that they took the Mr. America winners from 1939-59 accurately. Everyone knows measurements are embellished every now and then in the bodybuilding world.
I see, so embellished measurements lead to a lower FFMI than confirmed users of anabolics.
I like how data is awesome, until it disagrees with your viewpoint. Then it's wrong.
That's another LOL for me in this thread.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
We calculated fat-free mass index (FFMI) in a sample of 157 male athletes, comprising 83 users of anabolic-androgenic steroids and 74 nonusers. FFMI is defined by the formula (fat-free body mass in kg) x (height in meters)-2. We then added a slight correction of 6.3 x (1.80 m - height) to normalize these values to the height of a 1.8-m man. The normalized FFMI values of athletes who had not used steroids extended up to a well-defined limit of 25.0. Similarly, a sample of 20 Mr. America winners from the presteroid era (1939-1959), for whom we estimated the normalized FFMI, had a mean FFMI of 25.4. By contrast, the FFMI of many of the steroid users in our sample easily exceeded 25.0, and that of some even exceeded 30. Thus, although these findings must be regarded as preliminary, it appears that FFMI may represent a useful initial measure to screen for possible steroid abuse, especially in athletic, medical, or forensic situations in which individuals may attempt to deny such behavior.
***
If you're going to ignore this, you have to make a better case than "but I want it bad!" or "my dad's 200 is he juicing lol"
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Well it says "mean", so the mean FFMI was 25.4. So you calculated that to be about 175-180lbs for somebody 5"9 tall, 185lbs of LBM isn't that much of a stretch from the average they found, so even according to this study, it would be possible, just better than average.
Well it says "mean", so the mean FFMI was 25.4. So you calculated that to be about 175-180lbs for somebody 5"9 tall, 185lbs of LBM isn't that much of a stretch from the average they found, so even according to this study, it would be possible, just better than average.
I'll know more when I get the full paper and can see the data set, but a mean of 25.4 from a sample of 20, along with their conclusions, does not lead me to believe they found any significant statistical outliers here.
Really this is grasping at straws.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
do you have a link where i could see that whole study? im interested to see how they normalized values then determined, from normalized values this 'well defined' limit. Im shit at stats so im having trouble understanding how they did this.
I'll know more when I get the full paper and can see the data set, but a mean of 25.4 from a sample of 20, along with their conclusions, does not lead me to believe they found any significant statistical outliers here.
Really this is grasping at straws.
Geee, another 5lbs isn't thaaat significant lol!
But going by this study, that means that if a Mr. America winner during that period was about 5'"9, his LBM was about 180lbs?
I didn't see any information about how it was calculated so I can't go and do that myself now.
didnt see the previous post, makes sense.. but i wouldn't be surprised. There is, without a doubt in my mind, natural people out there above 25. Like I said, im pretty sure i am, but I dont know my bf%, if its under 23% then i would be.
also, i wonder how they got the ffm of the old bodybuilders who are like around 5-6% on the stage i would think? who knows, would be interesting to see.
__________________
"The strongest steel goes through the hottest fires."-Anonymous
"When you begin to believe nothing is heavy, all weights become light." -Rossbow
"Just remember, somewhere there is a little Chinese girl warming up with your max."-Jim Convroy
"It's a round hole, dammit. Everyone fits."--Anonymous Mod at Strengthmill
Calculator gave me 199.2lbs at 10% BF, so 179.28lbs of LBM.
The article also says some people may be able to exceed this by about 3%, that would give 205.176lbs at 10% BF with 184.6584.
Which is about 5lbs over 180lbs of LBM. 205lbs bodyweight at 10% BF is where I'd eventually like to be. Even if I can't get that extra 3%, at 205lbs I'd just be at 12% instead of 10% hah.
Clearly fat-asses. Hackenschmidt usually stayed around 220, and Saxon stayed around 200-220. As much as everyone will disagree, I still think it's possible to be 200+ and lean.
Both of these guys have way more fat on them then a pro today would. The first guy is easily at 16% and the 2nd guy just looks skinny fat to me. The first one would have to drop 20-30 to show I would guess which would put him well under your 200 mark. How tall are these men?
I have a friend who just won some shows here in Portland. He is 203 lbs at 6'2" and he looks awesome as can be. Why do you 5'6" peeps have this idea that 200 lbs is a good weight to strive for anyway?
Good catch Manny, I was thinking about this at the gym.
It also correlates w/ the FFMI conclusions as well.
It's interesting also because Sporto over on BR, who's about as legitimate of a natural bodybuilding freak as you'll find, competes at <200 lbs at over 6' tall. He looks spectacular, is strong as shit, and even he doesn't violate these boundaries.
To think you can just randomly exceed it, drug-free, because you want it is wishful thinking.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
As far as the debate you guys were having, I am 5'7", my wrist is 6.75, ankle is 9. Extremely small joints, and I have bulked up to 201 with relative ease well under 20% bf, bout 17 to be exact. To say I could never reach 200 at 8% within the next 10 years without touching a needle is like pissing on my forehead and telling me its raining.
Linear Mode
