Rate of Drug-Free Muscle Gain

[BigFiveFive]

Originally Posted by Wlfdg

How bad would it suck to be stuck with physiques like these?

^ Soft. And you think things will be the exact same in 40-60 more years from NOW!?

LULZ!




One of the greatest pictures displaying changes in physiques over the years.


But naa brah, bodybuilding/physiques hasn't changed one bit in 60+ YEARS!

.....DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRP

God I need some carbs...

[BigFiveFive]

Originally Posted by Wlfdg

You don't design programs?

Yes I do, pretty basic stuff most of its practice and learning how to lift.

And you're getting off topic real quick buddy. You're taking my comment about nutritional data, science, and research and turning it into an issue concerning workout plans. Go talk to any Joe Schmoe trainer that works in a gym and trains fat old ladies and gets paid 80-150 an hour and ask him if he has any clue about data/research/studies concerning metabolic breakdowns, genetics, or nutritional science. You're heading in a direction that requires degrees and opinions (in general)

And by saying "I don't do data" I don't mean I don't read the shit and know the info. Means I'm not going to throw it in your face, because many people don't know that info or how to interpret it.

[Abaddon]

In my estimation, the guys in the b&w pics and the guys in the current pics are pretty much the same mass, with a significant difference in body fat - say as much as 5-10%!

BUT both before and after pics are of guys who have amazing physiques, and are admirable to a broad cross section of society... and you could even argue that the pinnacle of BBing now is so extreme that it excludes a wider audience by virtue of it's inaccessibility. it's incredible degree of perfection; whether natural or otherwise.

I guess I'm trying to say that the pics here compliment each other, and illustrate the linear narrative of bodybuilding; they aren't at odds with one another. There's a only a 10% BF difference tops (and colour photography) separating the two.

[Carl1174]

FWIW I think physiques AND bodybuilding has changed in the last 50+ years. There is more emphasis on chest (in general) now than there used to be and the condition of the competitor (so how low the bf is) is much more relevant now than it was.

However i dont think the genetic potential of a human being has changed enough in that time to make the charts unreliable. We may be more educated now, have better nutrition, supplements etc etc, but IMO the ultra shreaded guys arent carrying that much more muscle than the guys in the Reeves era and I dont know whether they are as strong to be honest.

The amount of muscle mass that the body can carry has not evolved to point where someone is gonna be (naturally) 10lbs above the potential on the charts and body parts dont seem (from data and pictures provided) to be any bigger in general either. Someone may have a lb of 2 over the charts or 1/2 and inch here or there, but i dont think any of the naturals in the pictures are massively different (other than a much lower body fat) than the old time guys.

just my 2p worth and the thoughts of a rank outsider

Carl.

[BigFiveFive]

All thoughts appreciated, and still backing my point.


CHANGE

Did I ever say we were going to walk around at 250lbs, 5% BF, naturally... nope.

Thank you, thank you.

[glwanabe]

Originally Posted by BigFiveFive

But naa brah, bodybuilding/physiques hasn't changed one bit in 60+ YEARS!

Big,

What is being discussed is physiology, not physique shape.

Human physiology has not really changed very much in thousands of years.

The differance in physique shapes from the 1950's and today is indeed much different. That is not what is being discussed.

Changes in physique shape can be looked at across a broad spectrum of different sports that require strength, and a well developed physique.

Lets look at a few, Olympic lifters, Gymnast, and Bodybuilders. Each of these sports involves strength training. Yet each physique from the different sport exhibits very similer characteristics among those who practice it.


These two gentlemen are top level gymnast. The first man is Yuri Van Gelder. He specializes in performing rings. The second gymnast is Raj Bhavsar, he is an all around competitor. While Yuri is carrying more upper body mass in general due to his speciality, both exhibit similer body physiques common to gymanst.





Here are two Olympic lifters that we often see. They share a physique that is very common to Olympic lifters. They don't look like the gymnast from the previous pictures in their physique shape.





As far as bodybuilding pictures. The sport has changed in overall judging criteria as far as what the judges look for. The pictures youposted show this very well.

In the golden age, the ultra ripped look was not what was looked for. Today the judging criteria places a HUGE amount of importance on being ultra shredded. That one aspect alone will change how a physique looks.

Then there is also the aspect of the muscle groups themselves and what is being worked. Ripped glutes were not a big concern many years ago, now it is a sign of being well worked.

Many aspects of how the body is being worked have changed, but human physiology as to how much muscle a natural frame can hold, and how fast that mass can be earned has not changed.

The human DNA code has not changed very much in thousands of years, yet alone in the last 60.

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by BigFiveFive

^

But naa brah, bodybuilding/physiques hasn't changed one bit in 60+ YEARS!

You're missing the point.

Natural potential hasn't changed one bit in 60 years - meaning lean body mass. This hasn't changed one bit. Never will.

Standards and body emphasis will always changed. No one is arguing that.

[BendtheBar]

Please take any further debates on this topic to the bodybuilding forum.

This forum is here to help those who better want to understanding natural bodybuilding and gains curves.

If anyone is interested in debating, please give the subject it's proper due by reading the materials available on the topic and posting a debate thread in the bodybuilding sub-section.

Bumping this....


Let me break this down as simply as possible:

--300 natural champions from the last 60 years were analyzed.
--These lifters are the genetic gold standard.
--From this extensive study, an incredibly accurate formula was derived that can provide natural lifters with a genetic ceiling to shoot for.

No natural champion that I know of has exceeded their potentials by more than an extremely trivial amount of weight.

Over the last 60 years there has been NO improvement in how much muscle naturals are capable of carrying.

Natural potential is not a function of performance, meaning that it can't be changed by hard work. The best naturals of all time have tried and failed. Natural potential is a function of physiology, and no amount of performance/training can alter this reality.

Whether you want to choose to ignore this information is your choice. Some condemn it as limiting. It is not presented as such. It is meant to provide a goal to shoot for. If you achieve this goal you will be one of the greatest naturals of all time.

[Fazc]

Yep.

There's really not much to add to the above summary in these debates. They're not wild theories or hardgainer hocus pocus, they are merely the facts relayed to answer the question of natural potential.

Any argument which questions these facts should at least have the strength to be grounded in fact, not promises or predictions.

[Reinaldo.Gomes]

"From this extensive study, an incredibly accurate formula was derived"


Are there any of these formulaes which could be applied to women's potential?