World Class Bodybuilding   Forum

BulkSupplements Egg Whites International A1Supplements.com i-Supplements Strength.com VitaSprings Myprotein Beyondsupplements
Go Back   World Class Bodybuilding Forum > Articles By Author > Lyle McDonald Articles




Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-08-2011, 04:31 PM
MR. BMJ's Avatar
MR. BMJ MR. BMJ Is online now
Administrator

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 11,014
Thanks: 6,434
Thanked 2,581 Times in 1,985 Posts
Rep Power: 2842
MR. BMJ has a reputation beyond reputeMR. BMJ has a reputation beyond reputeMR. BMJ has a reputation beyond reputeMR. BMJ has a reputation beyond reputeMR. BMJ has a reputation beyond reputeMR. BMJ has a reputation beyond reputeMR. BMJ has a reputation beyond reputeMR. BMJ has a reputation beyond reputeMR. BMJ has a reputation beyond reputeMR. BMJ has a reputation beyond reputeMR. BMJ has a reputation beyond repute
Whatís My Genetic Muscular Potential?

Whatís My Genetic Muscular Potential?
BY LYLE MCDONALD


A question that comes up with some frequency on forums and message boards, usually from newbie lifters is along the lines of ďWhat is my maximum muscular potential?Ē Invariably this leads to a repetitive and pointless argument between those who believe that there are genetic limits to such things as muscular gains and athletic performance and those who believe that anything can be accomplished if you just try hard enough or have the right work ethic.

Now, it should go without saying that nobody can really say upfront what someones genetic potential actually is. Until we live in the world of Gattaca where we can do a full genetic scan and know what it means, nobody can say ahead of time what someone can or canít achieve. Well, not unless you look at some pretty ludicrous extremes (youíre not going to see someone at 400 pounds ripped any time soon for example).

And, of course, worrying about such things before you even start training is sort of missing the point in my opinion. At a fundamental level, trainees should train and eat properly and let the cards fall where they may. Worrying abut what you might or might not accomplish is putting the cart far before the horse. But thatís another topic for another day. And, of course, doesnít really answer the question in the title of this article.

Iíd note that while I do believe trainees should simply get into proper training and not worry up front what they may or may not accomplish, I also believe that there are genetic limits set by underlying biology (again, modulated by behavioral choices and patterns). Thatís just reality and recognizing them can save people from a lot of mental anguish about what they think they should be able to or could be able to accomplish if they just worked hard enough.

Which is a long way of introducing the topic of todayís article, what is the maximum amount of muscle that someone can gain over a career of proper lifting and nutrition. Iím going to look at it from a few different perspectives but I think youíll find that, on average, they all end up with pretty similar results.

Iíd note that most of what Iím going to talk about applies to male lifters, data on females being much more difficult to come by. Just realize that the average female potential for muscle mass gains is even lower than that in males.




The McDonald Model

Iím not sure if I came up with this idea on my own or stole it from somewhere else (probably a combination of the two) but, in a slightly different context (how quickly can someone gain muscle), I have often thrown out the following values for rates of muscle gain.

Year of Proper Training......................Potential Rate of Muscle Gain per Year
1................................................. ..20-25 pounds (2 pounds per month)
2................................................. ..10-12 pounds (1 pound per month)
3................................................. ...5-6 pounds (0.5 pound per month)
4+................................................ .2-3 pounds (not worth calculating)


Again, these values are for males, females would use roughly half of those values (e.g. 10-12 pounds in the first year of proper training).

Please note that these are averages and make a few assumptions about proper training and nutrition and such. As well, age will interact with this; older individuals wonít gain as quickly and younger individuals may gain more quickly. For example, itís not unheard of for underweight high school kids to gain muscle very rapidly. But they are usually starting out very underweight and have the natural anabolic steroid cycle called puberty working for them.

Year of training also refers to proper years of training. Someone who has been training poorly for 4 years and gained squat for muscle gains may still have roughly the Year 1 potential when they start training properly.

Now, if you total up those values, you get a gain of roughly 40-50 pounds of total muscle mass over a lifting career although it might take a solid 4+ years of proper training to achieve that. So if you started with 130 pound of lean body mass (say in high school you were 150 pounds with 12% body fat), you might have the potential to reach a level of 170-180 pounds of lean body mass after 4-5 years of proper training. At 12% body fat, that would put you at a weight of 190-200 pounds.

Again, thatís a rough average, you might find some who gain a bit more and some who gain a bit less. And there will be other factors that impact on the above numbers (e.g. age, hormones, etc.).



The Alan Aragon Model

In discussing this topic with Alan Aragon, whoís book Girth Control should be read by anyone interested in this topic. In his monthly Research Review, he addressed the issue of rates of muscle gain a bit differently although the results end up being pretty similar. He has found that that the following rates of muscle gain are roughly achievable for natural lifters. Note that this ignores things like creatine loading or temporary glycogen supercompensation which can cause rapid changes in Ďlean body massí but donít represent actual skeletal muscle tissue.




Category.................................................Rate of Muscle Gain
Beginner.......................................... ..1-1.5% total body weight per month
Intermediate...................................... 0.5-1% total body weight per month
Advanced.........................................0 .25-0.5% total body weight per month


So a 150 pound beginner might be able to gain 1.5-2.25 pounds of muscle per month (18-27 pounds per year). After a year, heís now an intermediate at 170 pounds and might be capable of gaining 0.85-1.7 lbs per month (10-20 pounds per year; Iíd consider 20 lbs. an exceptional gain). After another year, heís an advanced lifter at 180 and might only gain 0.5-1 lb per month (a true 1 lb/month gain in muscle mass for an advanced athlete would be pretty rare).

So he might top out at 190-200 pounds or thereabouts after another year or two of training, at 10% body fat, heíd have 170-180 pounds of lean body mass. Pretty much identical to my model even if we got there by a slightly different path.


Casey Buttís Frame Size Model

Of course, both my and Alanís model for maximum muscle growth are pretty simplified and donít take into account some of the other factors that can go into determining maximum muscular potential. One that has been argued to impact on overall size and strength gain potential is frame size, usually assessed by wrist and/or ankle size (or other measurements).

Natural bodybuilder and all-around smart guy Casey Butt has done an exhaustive analysis of top level natural bodybuilders and developed a calculator that will predict maximum muscular potential based on height, ankle and wrist size along with goal body fat percentage. Heís also written an extensive, math heavy book showing how he came up with his model. You can find it here: The WeighTrainer - Maximum Muscular Bodyweight and Measurements Calculator


Casey Buttís Maximum Muscular Potential Calculator

Iíve run a lifter of different heights with a 7″ wrist and 8.75″ ankle through the calculator to show his predicted body weights (at 10% body fat) and lean body mass.




Height...................Weight at 10% Body Fat..................Lean Body Mass 5′8″................................189 lbs.......................................170 lbs.
5′10″..............................198 lbs.....................................178 lbs.
6′...................................206lbs....... ..............................185 lbs.


Of course, variations in ankle and wrist will change the numbers but you can go plug in your own numbers. Iíd note that Caseyís calculations end up being a bit more conservative than mine or Alanís but they are all at least within shooting distance of one another. Youíd need to be towards the taller end of things to reach the highest levels suggested by my or Alanís method.

And while some might argue that frame size has nothing to do with this, there is research to support the idea (Iíd mention again that Caseys analysis is based on examination of real-world bodybuilders, arguably the group that youíd expect to surpass any supposed limits if it were possible).

At least one study showed that light framed individuals gained less muscle mass compared to heavier framed individuals on the same training program and, at a more basic level, hormones such as testosterone/etc. impact on things like bone growth and frame size. So there is a biologically potential link between frame size and hormone levels that would contribute to trainability and ultimate gains in muscle mass.

Itís also no accident that top strength athletes typically have large frames and robust joints (or that those with relatively smaller frames tend to be drawn/succeed in endurance sports). Some of this is simply so they can handle the level of training needed to succeed at their sport; but some of it is probably indicative of overall hormonal status as well.




Martin Berkhanís Model


Martin Berkhan of Leangains.com has a somewhat simpler model than Caseyís, also based on his observation of top level natural bodybuilding competitors who are contest lean (e.g. 4-5% body fat).

His equation is:

Height in centimeters Ė 100 = upper limit of weight in kilograms in contest shape.


So take your height in inches and multiply by 2.54, thatís your height in centimeters. Subtract 100 and thatís your predicted maximum weight in contest shape (which is 5% body fat or less for males) in kilograms. Multiply that value by 2.2 to get pounds. So letís look at body weight at 10% body fat using the same heights I used for Caseyís calculator. Iíve also calculated out lean body mass at 10% body fat.




Height.....Weight at 5% Body Fat......Weight at 10% Body Fat.....Lean Body Mass
5′8″................160 lbs.............................170 lbs...........................153 lbs.
5′10″..............171 lbs.............................180 lbs...........................162 lbs.
6′...................182 lbs.............................192 lbs...........................173 lbs.




While not identical, these values are certainly right in line with Caseyís calculator. I would note that contest lean bodybuilders are often highly dehydrated and may be glycogen depleted and this will tend to lower the measurement of lean body mass. We might realistically add 5-10 pounds of lean body mass to the above values to account for dehydration/etc. With that adjustment, they are more or less identical to Caseyís values.


A Final Reality Check

As I noted in the introduction, a lot of lifters get fairly angry or upset over the above types of estimations, assuming that they donít take into account individual differences in motivation, work ethic, etc. To that I say nonsense.

Both Casey and Martinís equations are based on top level natural bodybuilders, the group that youíd expect to surpass such limits if they existed (and whoís dedication and work ethic is pretty hard to question). Mine and Alanís are based on years of experience in the field. If a massive number of exceptions to the above existed, someone would have seen them by now.

Now I think part of this has to do with exceedingly skewed ideas about whatís achievable, a problem driven by pro-bodybuilding. After seeing a pro-bodybuilder stepping on stage at 260 pounds or more and shredded, the idea that a natural may top out at 180-190 pounds of lean body mass (if that) can be disheartening.

Of course, to the general public, an individual at a lean 180-190 pounds is still pretty enormous. Itís just that compared to the absurd size of a pro bodybuilder, it seems absolutely tiny. But it is reality.

People forget that Arnold Schwarzenegger competed at perhaps 230 pounds (assuming 5% body fat, thatís only 220 pounds of lean body mass) and that was with (admittedly low doses) of anabolic steroids in the mixture.

The simple real-world fact, which can be verified by going to any natural bodybuilding show is that you simply donít see naturals coming into contest shape much above 200 pounds (the exceptions can usually be counted on one hand) and few even achieve that level of size. Itís always the lighter classes (e.g. 165 lb class) that have the most competitors at natural shows with fewer and fewer coming in at the heavier weights, especially in contest shape.

Now, some guys on stage may weigh more than 200 pounds but they usually arenít lean enough. At even 10% body fat, a guy at 220 pounds only has 200 pounds of lean body mass. By the time you got him contest lean, heíd likely come in with less than that.

Even when people point to large natural strength athletes who might be 270-280 lbs. natural, by the time you figure in 28-30% body fat, that still puts them right back at a maximum lean body mass of 189-196 lbs. Certainly near the higher end of things but not by that much.

And while many will argue that improvements in training methods and nutrition should change the above values, that simply doesnít seem to be the case. Human genetics have not changed and you still donít see natural bodybuilders or other athletes coming in with more lean body mass than would be predicted by the above models. They might get there a bit faster but the overall size of natural bodybuilders doesnít seem to have changed much, if at all, in decades.

To quote from Caseyís site:

Quote:
Over the years Iíve also received many emails full of unsubstantiated claims, hostile remarks and even personal attacks because of the information presented here. But in that time, though many have told me theyíre easily going to surpass these predictions, I haven Ďt received any legitimate, verifiable statistics that significantly exceed the results of the equations presented above Öincluding correspondence with some of todayís top-ranked drug-free bodybuilders upon which the equations were partially based.

I anticipate a similar response in the comments section of this article and Iíd just refer you to what Casey wrote above.

Iíd finish by only saying that Iím not writing this in an attempt to be negative in any way shape or form, as I noted in the introduction, I would rather see people put their energy into their training and nutrition than worrying ahead of time about what they might or might not accomplish. And while I certainly wish that everyone reading this is the lone exception to the values calculated above, wellÖthatís not what an exception is.

At the same time, a failure to recognize that there are genetic limitations can lead people to do some very silly things in terms of their training or diet. Folks nearing their genetic limits, in an attempt to gain muscle at a rate that simply not achievable will put on enormous amounts of fat in hopes that it will net them a ton of muscle gain. And that just doesnít ever end up being the case.

Iíd only note in closing that the above calculations also has some real-world implications in terms of diet (e.g. what kind of weekly or daily surplus should be attempted to maximize muscle gain without excessive fat gains) but that will have to wait for a future article.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Get your liquid egg whites here at EGG WHITES INTERNATIONAL

  #2  
Old 04-09-2011, 02:21 AM
VG1979's Avatar
VG1979 VG1979 Is Off Line
TWISTED STEEL
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Painville
Posts: 136
Thanks: 48
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Rep Power: 107
VG1979 is on a distinguished road
Good information. I think half the fun is watching your potential increase.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 AM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
follow worldclassbodybuilding at facebook follow worldclassbodybuilding at pinterest follow worldclassbodybuilding at twitter