The WeighTrainerYour Maximum Muscular Bodyweight and Measurementsby Casey Butt, Ph.D.DISCLAIMER: The world of popular bodybuilding has always been and probably always will be full of exaggerations, deceptions and, sometimes, outright lies. Unfortunately, those exaggerations often shape people's perceptions of bodybuilders' legitimate measurements. The purpose of the information presented in this article is to provide accurate references and tools so people can form appropriate training expectations based on reality. That said, and depending on how realistic your training expectations presently are, if you're comfortable with your current perception of your bodybuilding potential and think that any threat to that perception might negatively influence your self-image or motivation to train then do not read this article.
For a drug-free bodybuilder trying to develop maximum muscle mass, the knowledge of how much muscle can be developed without the use of anabolic drugs would be a very valuable asset. Unfortunately, because of the achievements of drug-using professional, amateur and recreational bodybuilders, many natural lifters either have no idea of their actual potential, they over-estimate what they can realistically achieve or they adopt a defeatist attitude and set their goals too low. Perspective is needed. The ability to set ambitious, yet realistic, goals is needed. And while there is no doubt that through natural bodybuilding a trainee can develop truly impressive, strong muscles, the chances of a drug-free bodybuilder attaining lean 22" arms are about the same as him sprouting wings.
In the scientific community, Dr. E. M. Kouri, et. al. presented a comparison between the lean body masses of drug-free vs. drug-using lifters based upon their fat-free mass indexes (FFMI) [5]. This formula can be solved for maximum lean body mass at a given height if a maximum FFMI is assumed for drug-free lifters. The problem with doing this, however, is that, again, bone structure is not considered. What's needed is an accurate and precise formula, based on personal bone structure and height, that gives the maximum lean body mass a trainee can achieve without the use of anabolic drugs. Predicting Maximum Muscular BodyweightThe normal adult male serum testosterone level for a man under 40 years of age is between 3 and 10 ng/ml, and decreases with increasing age [6-8]. This imposes a limit on the amount of lean body mass that can be developed and maintained without the use of exogenous anabolic drugs (women's testosterone levels are 10 to 20 times less than this, resulting in less muscle mass potential). Muscular potential is also influenced by muscle belly length, fast-twitch to slow-twitch fiber ratio, etc. So there will be variations in potential between people even of identical bone structures. Consequently, no equation predicting maximum muscular bodyweight will be 100% accurate for everybody. What such an equation can do, however, is establish an upper limit of potential based on the achievements of drug-free bodybuilding champions. These men possess naturally high testosterone levels, full muscle bellies, and the host of structural characteristics that permit the development of world-class physiques - they reflect the upper limit of male drug-free muscular potential. Therefore, a muscular bodyweight prediction equation based on such a group of men provides an estimate as to the maximum muscular size a person of a given structure is likely to achieve without the use of anabolic drugs and while maintaining a "balanced" physique. If you have long muscle bellies, good health and hormone levels, a growth supporting diet and lifestyle, and train according to your needs then you should, in time, be able to reach such a predicted muscular weight. If one of these factors doesn't apply to you then your potential will be less. It has been my experience though - based on over six years of data collection and analysis - that most healthy people can come quite close to what such a formula can predict …if they train correctly for long enough. One must also consider the case where a person's bone structure tapers at the extremities. For instance, the wrist and ankle circumferences could be "small" but the upper legs and torso structures not correspondingly "small". This trait is somewhat common amongst people of African descent. The opposite end of the spectrum is a very slightly built person who has large wrists and ankles. This type of structure also exists. In these cases, it is more difficult to accurately predict muscular potential. I have chosen to present a simplified lean body mass prediction equation, but with the caveat that an adjustment be made for very thinly and thickly built men. Finally, potential lean body mass increases with body fat percentage. Research has found that very heavy Sumo wrestlers actually carry more lean body mass than bodybuilders of the same height [9]. A statistical analysis of off-season vs. contest-condition bodybuilders was performed to account for this in the lean body mass prediction equation. Predicting Maximum Muscular Bodyweight: The EquationBased on an analysis of some 300 class and overall title winning drug-free bodybuilders and strength athletes from 1947 to 2007 the following equation, predicting the maximum lean body mass someone of a given height and bone-structure can achieve without the use of anabolic drugs, was derived. (There is a link at the end of this article to an online calculator based on all of the formulae presented here). 
H = Height in inches A = Ankle circumference at the smallest point W = Wrist circumference measured on the hand side of the styloid process. (The styloid process is the bony lump on the outside of your wrist.) %bf = The body fat percentage at which you want to predict your maximum lean body mass Very thin ectomorphic men can expect to achieve roughly 94% of the lean body mass that the equation predicts. Likewise, very endo-mesomorphic men, who have disproportionately wide hips, thick torsos, uncharacteristically small joints, and high natural testosterone levels may be able to exceed the prediction by roughly 3%. So, using this equation, for a 5'9" (69 inches) tall bodybuilder at 10% body fat with 7.0" wrists and 8.7" ankles the equation would yield:
To convert maximum lean body mass to maximum bodyweight at any given body fat, use this equation: Using our example bodybuilder, at a lean and healthy 10% body fat his total bodyweight would be: Body weight = (173.7 / (100 - 10) ) x 100 = 193.0 pounds The formula was developed as an amalgamation of data from past and present drug-free bodybuilding champions and anthropometrics data from the U.S. Army, Navy, and several anthropometrics studies done by various organizations throughout the world (for ergonomic designs, etc.). In addition, a comparison was made with the fat-free mass indexes of champion bodybuilders, as presented in the work of Dr. E. M. Kouri, et. al. A mathematical regression was then done to obtain fits based on the heights, wrist sizes and ankle sizes of elite-level drug-free bodybuilding competitors. This regression was later converted to an equation consistent with the well-verified weight-to-height2 relation. Table 1 presents a list of drug-free bodybuilding champions both past and present [1-4,10,11] with their actual weights and the weights predicted by the formula. The current champions are unnamed because of the "sensitive" nature of body weights and measurements to actively competing bodybuilders.
The greatest error in the above predictions is 0.51%, indicating that the equation is quite accurate for this group of bodybuilders. In addition, these lifters are of varying heights and bone structures to further illustrate the validity of the predictions. Comparing these bodyweights to population averages shows that these champions carry 24-26% more lean body mass than the average person of their height and bone structure. A large man such as Reg Park would carry 38-41 pounds more muscle than his average, non-weight training counterpart. A smaller structured man, such as 2006 WNBF World Champion Jon Harris, would carry about 31-34 pounds more muscle than an average, non-weight training man of his height and structure. It is also interesting to note that the absolute level of muscle mass carried by modern drug-tested bodybuilders is not statistically greater than that carried by bodybuilders from the pre-drug era - though modern bodybuilders compete at much lower body fat levels. If you are lifetime drug-free, use this formula to set a realistic and accurate bodyweight goal for yourself. If you achieve the prediction you'll be carrying as much muscle, with respect to your frame size, as an elite-level natural bodybuilder. Predicting Maximum Muscular MeasurementsThere have been several sets of equations presented over the years that attempt to predict maximum muscular measurements based on height or wrist size. The problem is they typically don't consider both, and very few of them consider lower body structure size. Along with several efforts by David P. Willoughby [1-3], a popular set of formulae was presented by bodybuilding author John McCallum in the mid-1960s [12]. McCallum's guidelines were based on wrist size, without the lifter's height taken into consideration. Such an approach can be sufficiently accurate for a lifter of average stature but muscular potential is, to a degree, influenced by height. For instance, a 6'1" tall trainee with an 8" wrist will, generally, have the potential to develop larger muscular measurements than a 5'8" trainee with an 8" wrist. For maximum accuracy, height must be considered when making such predictions. The statistical analysis of the anthropometric measurements of roughly 300 drug-free class-winning and overall title winning bodybuilders and muscularly large strength athletes from 1947 to 2007 resulted in strong-to-moderate correlations between height, wrist girths, ankle girths and muscular measurements. Based on these clear correlations, athletes noted for outstanding body part development were selected on a per body part basis, and bodybuilders with weaknesses in these areas were omitted from the data pool. The following correlations were found:
On the strength of these correlations, data was fit and a set of equations that predict muscular measurements in lean condition was derived. Again, height, ankle circumference and wrist circumference are the determining factors. One caveat is in order: People with uncharacteristically small joints for their frames (notably some people of African descent) may be able to exceed some of these predictions by up to approximately 3%.
chest - measured relaxed (not expanded), arms at sides, tape under armpits biceps - flexed, at largest point forearms - fist clenched, hand out straight, measured at largest point neck - below Adam's apple at smallest point thighs - standing relaxed, midway between hip and knee calves - standing relaxed, at largest point * For all measurements tape should be snug but not compressing the flesh. For our 5'9" trainee with 7.0" wrists and 8.7" ankles we have:
biceps = 1.2033 x 7.0 + 0.1236 x 69 = 17.0" forearms = 0.9626 x 7.0 + 0.0989 x 69 = 13.6" neck = 1.1424 x 7.0 + 0.1236 x 69 = 16.5" thighs = 1.3868 x 8.7 + 0.1805 x 69 = 24.5" calves = 0.9298 x 8.7 + 0.1210 x 69 = 16.4" Clearly, these predictions are not comparable to what some drug-using bodybuilders are claiming and/or achieving. But, realistically, those numbers represent the maximum measurements that such a natural trainee is likely to achieve without drugs, while still maintaining balanced measurements throughout the body. In reality, any trainee who reaches the measurements predicted by these equations will be an impressive physical specimen ...he would have the size and proportions of the bodybuilding legends listed above and of the current drug-free bodybuilding champions. As an illustration, Table 2 shows how the old-timers and some drug-free elite competitors from 2003-2006 "measured up", along with the predictions of the equations. The actual measurements were taken from a variety of sources deemed credible, and were taken at body fat levels of approximately 8-10%.
Again, the predictions are quite accurate, but they also help illustrate certain points. For instance, you'll notice that many of these bodybuilders have calves smaller than the predicted values, whereas Steve Reeves and World Champion "B" exceed the predicted values. What you are seeing there is the fact that the calves are a notoriously difficult body part to develop, whereas these competitors were genetically blessed with great calves that responded well to training. Another thing these equations can reflect are outstanding body parts. For instance, all the bodybuilders above who exceed the arm prediction - even slightly - are known for their arm development. ConclusionWhat these equations give you is the heaviest lean body mass and largest lean measurements that a natural bodybuilder of the given structure is likely to achieve while maintaining balance throughout the muscle groups of the body. That isn't to say that a bodybuilder won't have a genetically gifted body part(s) that exceeds these predictions, or that he can't surpass these predictions by specializing, perhaps inappropriately, on certain muscle groups. However, it is very unlikely that the rest of the physique, as a whole, would reach that standard. If you have body parts that can exceed the predictions then you'll probably always have to "take it easy" on those muscles or they'll grow out of balance with the rest of your physique. (And if your outstanding body part is a large muscle group like legs or back this can cause your bodyweight to exceed the prediction given by the bodyweight equation.) In this regard, these equations should be viewed more as maximum guidelines than as limitations. On the other hand, perhaps you would like your biceps a little oversized with respect to the rest of your physique. Also, keep in mind that achieving these measurements doesn't necessarily mean that your body will be "perfect". Measurements don't tell the full story - things such as muscle shape, symmetry, separation and definition can make all the difference. You may find yourself achieving these measurements yet your physique still lacking in certain aspects. Most commonly, if a person reaches these predictions, yet still doesn't appear muscularly impressive, then he's simply too fat - keep in mind that these equations describe a lean condition. On the other hand, if your measurements are significantly under what the equations predict, you've probably got the potential for further growth (baring some medical/physiological condition prohibiting this). In reality, it will take years of dedicated, productive training for most genetically typical trainees to even approach these predictions. Most people, including champions, will never achieve this level of development throughout all of their muscle groups - and measurements taken at higher body fat levels do not reflect true muscular development. If you reach 95% of most of these predictions - in lean condition - you will stand out in almost any gym. In fact, 95% represents good lifetime goals for most genetically typical, drug-free trainees. At a lean 90% you'd look like a fitness model.
Online calculator based on the formulae presented above: Your Maximum Muscular Bodyweight and Measurements Calculator The material in this article was based on the "body weights and measurements of elite-level drug-free bodybuilders" sections (2.1 and 2.2) of the e-book YOUR MUSCULAR POTENTIAL: HOW TO PREDICT YOUR MAXIMUM MUSCULAR BODYWEIGHT AND MEASUREMENTS, but it by no means tells the full story. For a much more comprehensive and detailed estimation of your personal muscular potential, as well as that of top-level natural bodybuilders, bodybuilding "freaks", strongmen and strength athletes, see...
References
|
