avg natural potential
- Thread starter jwbond
- Start date
ZeroAkarui
New Member
I definatly think it's possible. You can get pretty big without juice. It may take you a while to get there though, that'd probably be the only thing Id say.
I don't think it is that likely, unless you have a large bone structure. I am 6'1 and according to most estimations, I can only reach 200 lbs at 8%, though granted I have somewhat small bones. It's not unheard of though - Steve Reeves was 215 lbs at similar height, though I'm not sure what sort of bodyfat he was walking around with. Still, it is unlikely. I would expect to get around 210 lbs naturally, while lean before you turn to steroids.
Have you used that genetic potential formula that was posted a while ago?
Have you used that genetic potential formula that was posted a while ago?
I
imported_dkm1987
Guest
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/maximum-size-calculator.html[b said:
I am by no means an expert, however, it seems to me that steroids cannot help accomplish the impossible. If one's genetic potential is 215 pounds at 6% bodyfat, then nothing, steroids and training included, will get one to 225 at 6% BF.
As far as I know about steroids, they will help only reach one's genetic potential, not beyond. I think if it is within your genetic potential, then one can accomplish it without steroids.
As far as I know about steroids, they will help only reach one's genetic potential, not beyond. I think if it is within your genetic potential, then one can accomplish it without steroids.
Your understanding of steroids is a bit flawed then, unless your idea of genetic potential means how far someone can go using drugs... because yeah, even with drugs there is a certain point where you can't go any further.
But it is clear that steroids allow you to put on more muscle mass than you could naturally. Just look at the fat free mass of steroid users versus non-steroid users. Also look at what happens to natural trainees when they try to cut down versus steroid users trying to cut down.
My estimated genetic max is 200 lbs at 8%. I am currently almost 190 lbs at about 10% bodyfat. Just one successful testosterone cycle could potentially push me beyond the amount of lean mass I would need gain to reach my max (about 13 pounds more) if I did it right.
That's why you see guys walking around at 240 lbs ripped when they are only 5'9. To be that way naturally, they'd have to have wrists the size of telephone poles.
But anyway... with regards to the genetic max calculator - don't be discouraged if it gives you smaller estimates than you originally wanted. Some of us have had our expectations skewed by modern bodybuilding... besides, the idea behind that calculator is to give you some goals to achieve.
Besides, who knows, maybe you will surpass those estimates. You never know.
But it is clear that steroids allow you to put on more muscle mass than you could naturally. Just look at the fat free mass of steroid users versus non-steroid users. Also look at what happens to natural trainees when they try to cut down versus steroid users trying to cut down.
My estimated genetic max is 200 lbs at 8%. I am currently almost 190 lbs at about 10% bodyfat. Just one successful testosterone cycle could potentially push me beyond the amount of lean mass I would need gain to reach my max (about 13 pounds more) if I did it right.
That's why you see guys walking around at 240 lbs ripped when they are only 5'9. To be that way naturally, they'd have to have wrists the size of telephone poles.
But anyway... with regards to the genetic max calculator - don't be discouraged if it gives you smaller estimates than you originally wanted. Some of us have had our expectations skewed by modern bodybuilding... besides, the idea behind that calculator is to give you some goals to achieve.
Besides, who knows, maybe you will surpass those estimates. You never know.
I'm in full agreement with Totentanz on this one. Honestly, I like the numbers it puts forth for me. 7 inch wrist, 9 inch ankle, 71 inches - bam. 197.6 LBM, so at 8% bodyfat, I'd weigh about 213 lbs. It's nice seeing the reality of a situation, so you know what to shoot for.
I don't see anything on the chart that indicates at what body fat the results that they give you are at.
Aaron F,
I think I read that you said you are around 260 lbs. You also said that your lean tissue is about 210 pounds. This would put you roughly at 20% bf. Hypothetically if you were able to get down to 8% bf without losing any muscle at all (which would be impossible right?) You would weigh 230 lbs. I may be off, but if you were to cut down 30 lbs. of fat you have to assume you will lose atleast 10 lbs of muscle? So do you think that your genetic potential is really about 220 lbs. at 8 percent? This is how you figured that you lbm is 20 lbs over what they projected?
I am sort of trying to figure out that for myself...I'm gonna have to get a tape measure in order to figure out what they say my potential is first...
Sorry if that was ridiculously confusing,
Joe G
BTW I agree with you Aaron that the chart probably isn't that accurate.
Joe G
Aaron F,
I think I read that you said you are around 260 lbs. You also said that your lean tissue is about 210 pounds. This would put you roughly at 20% bf. Hypothetically if you were able to get down to 8% bf without losing any muscle at all (which would be impossible right?) You would weigh 230 lbs. I may be off, but if you were to cut down 30 lbs. of fat you have to assume you will lose atleast 10 lbs of muscle? So do you think that your genetic potential is really about 220 lbs. at 8 percent? This is how you figured that you lbm is 20 lbs over what they projected?
I am sort of trying to figure out that for myself...I'm gonna have to get a tape measure in order to figure out what they say my potential is first...
Sorry if that was ridiculously confusing,
Joe G
BTW I agree with you Aaron that the chart probably isn't that accurate.
Joe G
There are many factors to consider when comparing a guy on steroids to one who isn't and because of those uncontrollable factors, it is difficult at best to be able to determine whether the one on steroids has gone beyond his genetic limits as a natural lifter.
Again, I am not an expert, however, one clear advantage with steroids is the time it takes to reach a certain level of LBM. This is partly due, as Bryan has pointed out, to the fact that RBE is not a factor (at least not nearly as much as a factor). That does not mean the individual has somehow surpassed his genetic potential as a natural lifter.
I think with proper training one could get just as big being natural as he could with steroids, although it would take longer because there is RBE which requires SD every 8 or so weeks.
I think if you have a man who's estimated maximum LBM is 250 lbs, then steroids will help get him there faster, but not beyond that. If he goes beyond that, then the estimated LBM was wrong.
Again, I am not an expert, however, one clear advantage with steroids is the time it takes to reach a certain level of LBM. This is partly due, as Bryan has pointed out, to the fact that RBE is not a factor (at least not nearly as much as a factor). That does not mean the individual has somehow surpassed his genetic potential as a natural lifter.
I think with proper training one could get just as big being natural as he could with steroids, although it would take longer because there is RBE which requires SD every 8 or so weeks.
I think if you have a man who's estimated maximum LBM is 250 lbs, then steroids will help get him there faster, but not beyond that. If he goes beyond that, then the estimated LBM was wrong.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree. Look at pre-steroid era bodybuilders and compare them to more modern guys. There is a clear cut difference. You cannot attribute modern bb'ers much larger size to 'modern training techniques' or better diets. It is obviously the drugs.[b said:
No matter how hard you train or how much you eat, eventually you will no longer be able to put on more muscle mass naturally without carrying around a significant amount of fat along with it.
If your theory was true, then steroid users who have surpassed their genetic max would not have to run future cycles to keep their gains. They would be able to sustain their muscle mass simply through proper diet and exercise.
This is not the case. These folks have to run cycles regularly to keep all that extra mass.
And I still say there is no way a guy can walk around at 5'9, 240 lbs and only 8% bodyfat naturally.
"There is a clear cut difference. You cannot attribute modern bb'ers much larger size to 'modern training techniques' or better diets. It is obviously the drugs."
Yes there are obvious differences, however, you neglect other factors such as the esthetics of the day, the fact most were involved in weight class athletics and despite being very strong, even by modern standards, they did not have the scientific knowledge of things like RBE.
"No matter how hard you train or how much you eat, eventually you will no longer be able to put on more muscle mass naturally without carrying around a significant amount of fat along with it."
Yes for some, but the extra fat can be dieted off slowly.
"These folks have to run cycles regularly to keep all that extra mass."
The reason is more likely because they used steroids to attain the mass. Had they done so naturally, then proper exercise and diet would maintain.
"And I still say there is no way a guy can walk around at 5'9, 240 lbs and only 8% bodyfat naturally."
If someone has the genetic potential, then I believe with HST principals, someone can. I just don't believe that when the genes say "18 inch arms" that with steroids you can go to 20. When the gene's say 18 inches there's probably no natural/steroid distinction.
Yes there are obvious differences, however, you neglect other factors such as the esthetics of the day, the fact most were involved in weight class athletics and despite being very strong, even by modern standards, they did not have the scientific knowledge of things like RBE.
"No matter how hard you train or how much you eat, eventually you will no longer be able to put on more muscle mass naturally without carrying around a significant amount of fat along with it."
Yes for some, but the extra fat can be dieted off slowly.
"These folks have to run cycles regularly to keep all that extra mass."
The reason is more likely because they used steroids to attain the mass. Had they done so naturally, then proper exercise and diet would maintain.
"And I still say there is no way a guy can walk around at 5'9, 240 lbs and only 8% bodyfat naturally."
If someone has the genetic potential, then I believe with HST principals, someone can. I just don't believe that when the genes say "18 inch arms" that with steroids you can go to 20. When the gene's say 18 inches there's probably no natural/steroid distinction.