2000 years ago when the Greeks carved out their statue's of muscular unbelievably large humans there had to be models to copy from . This goes to show you that there have been muscular people throughout history like the lifters which were presented in today's great video!
Great message brother! We are capable of so much more than people want to believe. It certainly seems quite foolish to just slap an ffmi limit on everyone and call anyone above that enhanced
That's the black and white dualistic nature of some scientists. I'm simply pointing the obvious. Humans have shown time and time again, that we can do incredible things....if we simply just dare to try
Way to go brother. I am a young 71 and was feeling pretty good about my bench press of 225 just the other day but now I feel a little less good. Lol! Keep it up. Now you’ve given me something to shoot for. However it may be too late. Lol.
my record when i was 53 was 351 im 58 now and train differently (higher reps etc) but for an old boy i have always loved that p.b. AND no spotter..but I wouldnt encourage that tbh..
It seems to me that the age at which a man starts training makes a big difference on how muscular and low-fat he can be. I've lived in places where there were a lot of farms, and there were plenty of young lads who had been throwing bales since they were like 12 or 13 and their builds were crazy even without having access to a gym. Maybe hard physical work from the onset of puberty boosts their testosterone.
Interesting - I can relate to this theory. I bought doorway a pull-up bar when I was 12, and have been training ever since. Tried various training modalities (regular gym, powerlifting, kettlebells etc.) but my basis has always been calisthenics. I’m still making (small) gains. So maybe training all through ones teens has some permanent effect. Doesn’t sound illogical. And something in general - there have been very few things in life that provided me solace, pride and a sense of invincible freedom like exercising has. Keep training, but be smart about it.
@Sky Eye I personally come from the middle of nowhere in the midwest where slinging bales is a way of life and ~50% of our male population is massive compared to the rest of the US. The phrase "corn-fed" is associated with us for a reason but it is due more to baling and storing hay than it is with eating it. The test increases isn't documented enough for me to comment on but farm-kids generally have a far more developed physique before puberty ever gets behind the wheel.
Lifestyle is a huge factor but not sure about age. My grandmother only started doing heavy farm work at 60 when she retired. At 70 she was carrying 20kg and heavier bags of rice like they were nothing. Her arms went from string beans to bamboo. Not necessarily huge, but every fiber well-defined and larger than mine at 20 despite hitting the gym 3x a week at the time. 6x a week of several hours of farm work completely annihilated 3 hours a week of weight lifting.
There is no doubt hitting the weights as an early teen makes a huge difference in the lifetime gains, and ability to build back after years of lay offs. Take twin brothers. Get one to start training at 12, have the other brother wait until 20, they will never be the same, assuming training naturally. I lifted off and on in my teens, but sure wish I hit it much more consistently. Still the training I did do paid off. After years of layoff, I can get back to old numbers, in just a few months. Teen years are naturally anabolic, and hitting it hard during that time reaps big rewards.
Seeing this makes me feel significantly better about myself. I currently look shockingly similar to alot of these guys and hit a hard wall about a year ago with about 7 years of lifting under my belt. It's a bittersweet moment to realize that I'm probably at my genetic limit but atleast I no longer feel like I wasted the last year. All about maintaining what I have earned at this point. This comments section is a wonderful place and I (and everyone reading) appreciates it. There was no one saying, "bullshit", there were no derogatory comments, just warranted and honest advice. I appreciate all of you. Keep pushing and always strive for more!
In the LONG term, "maintaining what one has developed" is what natural "no PEDS'" bodybuilding is. I'm, age 67, began bodybuilding in 1971 at age 15. After about five consecutive years of consistent progressive training, proper nutrition and rest/recuperation, and basically a "live-for-bodybuilding" mentality, I'd hit my genetic limits for muscle mass and proportions for about 10-12% bodyfat. From that point (as disappointing as reaching one's maximum natural muscle size potential usually is), my training/nutrition/recuperation has been maintenance. Meaning that, for the 47 years since I reached those hypertrophy limits, my goal has been to maintain the mass I built, as well as to hold a lean, naturally-sustainable-for-six-months-out of-every-year 10% bodyfat. Even at age 67, I continue to work out, now on a planned 10-day schedule, and to eat properly daily, adjusting my calorie intake on a yearly schedule according to whether I want to be down to 10% or as high as 14% bodyfat at specific periods of each year. Aging gradually takes its inevitable toll on the body; you can delay its effects and minimize its effects, but no one can ultimately prevent the gradual erosion which aging causes, even for a lifelong natural bodybuilder. However, the advantage of resistance training is that it can be adjusted and adapted as that gradual erosion occurs. The mindset has to adjust after hitting genetic hypertrophy ceilings . But it is very much possible to remain highly motivated, and to keep training as intensely and thoroughly as before. I've done it by switching from the self-challenge of "how much mass can I build?" to the equally difficult-although-different self-challenge of "can I hold on to what I've built and look as cut as possible?" I know many believe there are no genetic size limits; I certainly wish that was true. The human body is definitely capable of achieving an amazing level of hypertrophy. However, the human body is not an infinite-growth-possible organism; being an organism, it has biological limitations. In my 50+ years of bodybuilding, I've observed many if not more who fail to achieve their maximum hypertrophy genetic potential due to not pushing themselves and to lacking consistency. I've observed that unless a guy devotes at least three or four consecutive years of consistent, intense, intelligent, progressive work and consistent proper nutrition and rest, he won't achieve what's genetically possible for himself. Many complain about genetics when their problem is failure to give it their all for three to four years. But I also know that all the discipline, dedication, determination, deliberated exercise variation, program change-up, and positive-thinking in the cosmos cannot override natural genetic limits; no man can change his genetics for bone diameters, muscle-belly lengths, quantity and distribution of muscle fibers, especially Type 2As, 2Bs and 2Xs, free and total testosterone levels, other natural growth hormones, quantity and distribution of androgen receptors, neural contractile efficiency, or anabolic efficiency, not any more than he can add one inch to the genetic limit for his height. ***success*** to you as you continue on in what is the reality of lifelong bodybuilding, many years and decades of "maintaining what you've achieved".
@joe santus Beautifully said. I couldn't explain it better if I tried. Obviously, highly educated on the topic at hand and literal decades of hard work. You are what I strive to be at 50+. I wish you good health and longevity. Keep on setting goals for us "young" bucks to follow!
The main issue with this formula is the inaccuracies of bodyfat estimations or even measurements. Especially looking at low levels of bodyfat like 5%-10% can definitely mess up the end results making someone be outside the "natty range"
Exactly. There was no bodyfat measurements back then and you can't guess it by looking at old black and white pictures with extreme contrast. And I don't really think any of them was under 7-8%. It was not what they was looking for.
@katsi kadh You're just looking at bodyfat as the issue of whether someone is "natty range" or not. You're oversimplifying it. All FFMI does it tell you your overall health. Back then they didn't do alot of drug testing or at all. We're only looking at FFMI as how bulky they are. NOT a confirmation or denial of whether someone is "natty". Its just one of the indexes that they used back then. The only thing it tells you is how "bulky" someone is and still appear muscular in physique which is what the point of this video is about. Back then FFMI is a good indicator of physical health. The pictures just are proof. Nothing in this video implies that any of those guys are 100% within "natty range".
Exactly. The claims of the guys in 29 or even over 30 in FAT FREE Mass Index are just ridiculous. They are absolutely nowhere near the fat free mass when they were simply smooth. And you can't extrapolate and guess what they would have weight without the extra fat since when they diet down to competing bodybuilder fat levels they will also lose muscle and therefore get a lower FFMI. The only somewhat valid estimation would be of really cut people, IF and only IF, the reported weight is when they were cut which I clearly think is not the case with Eugen Sandow, for example. He was cut, but not with the amount of muscle to have the high estimated FFMI. That weight must have been for a time when he was a bit more bulky. Steeve Reeves is a better estimate, but he wasn't always super cut and even when he was he was perhaps 10% BF at best. So his reported 96 kg at 1.87 m is probably several kg above what his "real" cut weight would have been.
I had to rehab my knees when I was a kid and the doc suggested 10 lb ankle weights to do leg lifts. I did those leg lifts every night in front of the TV my quads got huge after a year. It was all just high reps and multiple sets. A year later the doc suggested I go to higher weights and the results were far less impressive. I think low weight and high reps are the way to go.
Tom Touchstone(a friend of mine)Mr California 1985 use to do 100 rep sets a few times a year. On an exercise he might get 80 reps. Then after a brief rest finish it with another 20. Next workout he might get 92 reps and only have to do another 8. Next workout if he got 100 reps he'd increase the weight by 5 pound or so. Obviously he was on PED's. But I did(35 year old) 5 sets on arms and my goal was 30 reps. Same double progression as Touchstone, and after 3 months my arms shot-up from 17 3/4 to 18 5/8 cold. I went from a slow strict curl with a 50 pound Dumbell and 17-18 reps to using a 70 pounder for 27+. 100% drug-free always. I believe higher reps work regardless if you're drug-free or not as long as the total volume of sets and total time are kept in check and you go to positive failure.
One of the best videos you’ve made, so short and simple and to the point. This channel only gets better, Golden era bookworm is probably one of the best resources for bodybuilding training and practical knowledge that I’ve ever come across. Can’t tell you how much I respect and appreciate your work
This guys arms were incredible for any era ! In my opinion… these guys were the real deal ! Improved health and vitality along with a great physical stature .
I saw your conversation with Natty life and it was good. You are very articulate and I'm impressed with the diligence and effort both you guys put into your research. I'm enjoying the content!
Thank you. I enjoyed my conversation with Dante. We both help each other with each other's research. It helps present an accurate picture of the history of the Iron Game
Great video, most people severely lowball what is possible naturally. One quibble: Goerner's peak shape was a lean 242, the 260 figure is from later when he was not as lean, those pictures are probably ~242. However, that still gives him an FFMI comparable to Arnold in his prime. And it is very likely that he never hit his full potential due to shrapnel in his leg making it difficult for him to squat.
Hey Atlas, thanks for pointing that out. I am quoting Prof Jan Todd from the Stark centre. I am pretty sure, that even though she is a highly respected academic, she can also make mistakes as can I. I am getting a few comments as such, that the ffmis are out, but as I said...who cares about the formula. These guys were extraordinary, and so are we...if we just dare to try. God bless bro
All of the above 28 FFMI are way exagerated. They are nowhere near a FAT FREE mass. And even for the people with "cut" photos you have to question if the weight was actually taken when they were at their prime cut (As in contest BB shape if it would have been today). No, I think there is a cutoff point around 26-28 where above that it simply just isn't possible. 30 for sure is not possible at all. People overestimate how cut a person is (or underestimate. I mean Someone saying a person is 5% often means 10-12% in reality)
Thank you for these kinds of videos, currently switched from powerlifting to bodybuilding. Bronze era physiques are most inspiring to me and something I want to achieve as much as I can with my own body.
While not a bodybuilder, Louis Cyr was also incredibly strong, possessing the strength that one might think could only be achieved with the help of steroids.
Really great discussion and observations. I believe you nailed it when discussing genetics plus intense training. There will always be those few very few) that obtained the results some of these bronze era men got. Obviously there were no steroids involved, that is the key point here.
I'm 65 and have been working out for 47 years now. Wasn't always doing the right things,exercises or diet but I've really been growing in the last 4 months. Eating 15 eggs a day. But I'm still gaining muscle!
I am also 65 and have been working out for the same amount of time as you and surprisingly have still made gains on size and strength. No bench pressing anymore just because I read in recent years where Vince Gironda was not high on benching. Everything else is 6 sets of 6 , 5 days a week. Great to hear that people from the 1970s era are still pumping iron. Keep up the great work!
@@johnkelley6278 he preferred the neck press which targets the middle and upper chest supplement that with the Vince gironda dip and you will attain a plate armour chest instead of breasts as most body builders have
Again, at 65 you guys are still gaining muscle...makes me ask again and again...what is the natural limit? Seems that even at more senior years, we still make gains
The lack of processed foods, corn sugar, sugars and just the eating habits back then would contribute to their physique as well. When we compare those from the past to the present we need to remember it's a completely different world now.
True, but attributing their successes to this discounts the fact that they had inferior knowledge of nutrition and most likely didn't pay much attention to it. They were much harder times. We live and eat like kings in comparison...in my opinion, we should be able to surpass these examples...if not, then we have not advanced at all
@@GoldenEraBookworm proper training and programing is the most important thing I know poeple that have gotten big natural eating a decent amount of dog shit food.
I think you can go by eye. Herman Gorners physiqe has a completely different character from post 1940 physiqes. You can immediately tell the natural from enhanced by looking.
I have read that testosterone was much higher in men in that era and before. Testosterone levels have been declining and continue to decline. The garbage food we have today and the containers they come in is wrecking hormones. I have seen photos of common laborers from that time and some of them have very ripped muscular arms and forearms.
This is true, but think of the variety of food we have accessible today...better than the Emperors and Kings from yesteryear....did Bronze era athletes have this accessibility to food? No. To our gyms and equipment? No...yet they achieved magnificence...so can we
Most of the lower testosterone nowadays is a result of shitty sleep habits, inactivity, obesity and laziness. If you put a modern man in the physical lifestyle of a man from 1920 then he'd have test levels very similar
It's not the testosterone it's the environment. Natural Hypertrophy goes into this in detail. People are no where near physically active as they used to be. The environment dictates the hormones needed to get the job done. Kids playing video games all day don't need testosterone so why would the body make it?
there is no way that hermann weighed 260lb at 6ft 1" all of these figures would have been heavily inflated to sell tickets or just inflate ego. as a comparison arnold is 6ft2" and on stage was 235lb and 260lb off season. im pretty sure its easy to see that arnold is carrying at least 20kg of lean tissue over this guy! your calculations are heavily warpped. there ffmi would not be that high if you knew there correct numbers.
so what is their correct weight? because a lot of this guys don't look have much muscle mass but are like 200+ pounds, example is sandow he is 5'8 but like 207lbs thou he doesn't look that big. Maybe i have body dismorphia but i just cant accept he is that weight while that lean. maybe he trained some muscles more maybe legs that's why he is bigger?
Since their average T levels are thought to be at least 3 times higher than our current normal level due to a diet free of processed sugar, flour, and seed oils, with much higher levels of cholesterol I’m not surprised they could get results that now require steroids
We haven't seen the limits of drug-free size. Maybe a glimpse here and there in one area like Arthur's 370-pound bent press, John McWilliams nearly 20 inch arms at under 200 pounds(mine was 18 5/8 cold at 193 at 9-10% bodyfat and by no means a great arm) and had well over that when he was 230. You obviously had Billy Ralph with his incredible arms. You just gotta find what bodypart you have that's acceptable to growth and work the snot out of it, who cares if it's overdeveloped?! You can be the future example of what drug-free size is possible. But no, we haven't seen the total limits.
Drug free hypertrophy is possible...it takes longer, it takes more care and planning...there can be no room for compromise. If you compete, you cannot compete as often as others. Slow and steady progress with laser beam focus will win the day...to hell with others... it's you against you. When people ask why and you say because you love it....stop. You don't have to qualify for anyone but you. You don't owe the masses any sort of explanation. If these people won't stop, change your environment. If your significant other demands you choose between her and you achieving final form...there will be other lovers; go and live your dream. Now...go the distance.
I went and had the ffmi reading done on me, 14 years training always natty and I scored 25.1 but I was 16% bf so not lean by any means... that's access to good gyms and decent diet so I wonder what these guys could achieve with today's equipment and knowledge
I think these guys were so great because they did mostly natural things w/o too much stress, like the Mentzer method and had 3x more testosterone than today´s males because more natural foods, less drugs and medications, better life in general, more self confidence, less societal control, a more free world and life in general. I bet most didn´t need to be giving explanations in a daily basis. A world long gone.
So from actual experience... I have had a DEXA several times (every 6 months for a few years) I think your FFMI calculations are WAY off. You are estimating far too low a body fat percentage. Very few of the examples you showed are even as low as 10%... Most look to be well into the double digits. I will agree that an FFMI of 25 to 27 can be achieved naturally by a VERY small number of genetically gifted and highly motivated individuals but they are definitely unicorns. So very many people think that visible abs is "under 10%"but this is far from fact! Having got into the 7s and with 3 DEXAs under 10 I can tell you that sub 10% is a LOT more shredded than you seem to think.
The question is How is it possible to train like the Bronze Era guys like George Hackenschmidt suggested 6 days a week and build up muscle? I know they trained whole body
It truly isn’t unbelievable as people normally don’t train like those who prove what we know, wrong. This shows that human capabilities are very undervalued and under appreciated these days to where being a natural is difficult to achieve greatness as the standards to follow are outside of today’s knowledgeable standards of natural greatness
Fascinating article. I think there is always a problem between mathematics and excersise and diet. Take BMI for example, it is inaccurate when high levels of muscular development are present. This new formula seems even worse.
Not much bigger. The elites would be bigger. BUT without drugs there's no going to be any Lee Haneys or Ronnie Colemans. Ronnie told lies. No way was he natural in 1994. These lies have to stop. Like Mike O trem
I'm age 21 and did gymnastics for 14 years. I'm now not quite 5'10" and my heaviest was 185 lbs after 2 years of serious weight lifting--building quads mostly (growing up in gymnastics I never trained legs for size). I started gymnastics by age 4 and trained year round for 14 years. I got severely beat up before my 17th birthday by older guys who just graduated from my high school. They spent a lot of time holding me in a full nelson and targeted my extremely muscular abs. I focused on growing my abdominal muscles (hypertrophy) but that never added to my weight. I got into heavy leg workouts and hit 2 growth spurts so by age 18 I had transformed a lot. I never used drugs because I wasn't competing for my muscular physique. I just didn't want to be small--being held in a full nelson wearing only gym shorts as bigger and taller athletes were throwing hard punches made me feel tiny. I was a great size for a gymnast but was a small punching bag that night. My body fat as always been in single digits. I'm sure I'm well below the guidelines that says I use steroids. I'm shredded year round but that is my genetics. Watching your video makes me think that guys (I'll stick to guys) have a wide range of genotypes. My genotype made me great for gymnastics. Starting so young developing my body also packed a lot of lean muscle in me from very early. I was doing pull ups and hanging leg raises before age 6. So I think it is having a very muscular genotype plus starting to build lean muscle early makes a huge difference. The guys who don't have such a good genotype but want to the results of those who do (and who have trained hard a long time) will use drugs to try to accomplish the results they want. I never got into bodybuilding. I showed off my physique doing gymnastics and not posing. So I never had the drive to see how HUGE I could be. HUGE was not helpful in gymnastics. I look back now at age 21 and realize that I was probably addicted to some forms of exercising with abdominal training being top of that list (biceps and lats there too). I got praised very early for having an extremely muscular 8 pack by older gymnasts I respected. I started doing some abdominal exercises that older gymnastics couldn't do. But there is a natural limit to hypertrophy with abdominals. After I got severely beat up before my 17th birthday I went into overdrive to develop rock hard abs. That got insane and left me often extremely beat up and by friends in wrestling I trained with. But even then my only drug was ibuprofen. I'm glad I never got into bodybuilding and never had the temptation to get huge.
As with all things human there will always be the, and I mean this as a compliment, genetic freaks...Husain Bolt....Willie Mays...Pele...people we watch do amazing things and yes they work hard but they are also gifted with being in the 1%...
In practical terms, there aren’t limits to muscle development, obviously the more advanced we get the more development slows, but at least small improvements are always possible overtime even for advanced athletes. Also strength can continually improve throughout life particularly grip strength.
While I generally agree with the 25 BMI cut-off we must also be ready to admit that there will always be a long thin tail on the right hand side of the normal curve.
These bronze age bodybuilders were no doubt rare genetic specimens, but I would be very interested to know how they trained and if they knew something we don't.
I'm sorry but there's no way to know exact weight and height of those guys while BF% was not even mesured. I really don't think that those guys were near 5%. They look more between 7 and 10% to me but the old black and white pictures add a lot of contrast.
You're exactly right. When I was growing up (60s & 70s), a man weighing 200 lbs was considered big. (A lot of people probably don't realize that the limit for the "heavyweight" division in boxing was 175 lbs up until around 1979 or 1980.) Unfortunately, people becoming so much heavier (due to both PED use & the population becoming larger as a whole) has led to a skewing of people's perceptions. Some now consider 175 lbs "small" -- which is idiotic.
We also have to remember. They had GREAT food. No processed foods. Very little fried food. Very little salt. 100% organic fresh. I believe that is the big secret everybody forgets about.
Black and white low def photos make people look more impressive than they really are, and being short makes people look bigger in photos than real life. Most of those early 1900s guys were very underdeveloped in the chest due to the overhead press being the main upper body lift at the time. Their lats also aren't even close to what some top natural guys have. FFMI is silly because it doesn't take into consideration frame, muscle bellies, and other factors (wide clavicle, small waist individuals look WAY bigger at the same bodyweight as narrower individuals). Peak natty is probably Ronnie Coleman at NPC nationals. We have way better knowledge and equipment than back then. We also know from research that food quality doesn't affect body composition and testerone levels within the physiological range (whether higher or lower) has no difference on improvements in muscle and strength.
Goerner was not only the strongest of them all, he can also be used as a good indicator towards what is really natural possible. the book written about him: goerner the mighty contains measurements at age 43 done 1934 however he was about 130kg in weight. so we can assume he carried (and the picture from that same time shown in the book also shows that) around about 40kg or even more of just fat storing additional water what fat just does! the measurement of the biceps was 48cm with this overweight state! (page 51 was this form and clearly overweight) so we can assume a fully natural one would be something like 40-42cm at a bodyfat under or at least not more than 20% (what is the only Bodyfat where the body really looks in balance to be muscular and fat reduced into minimum to just add to that look in positive way. go above it and it destroys the illusion of muscle carved. it just gets wobbly and sure strong but not from an aesthetics point of view anymore. go under it and it costs more and more no longer looking that bulky enough, maybe 20%-10% is the best aesthetics realm. above is just fat. under is just veiny and also too skinny with the costs of having to live too poor in nutrients all the time too! not to mention the dehydration problems for it). we can assume even in goerners case and i was happy that the book named a precise measuring of his height as well: 1,84m so we can assume that even at his 120kg best strength time he was at least minimum 30kg overweight in just fat. i would put him therefore with carved looking muscles at around 90kg. maybe a bit less. this means in full balance body size minus 100 as the common thumb of rule when in meters (at his case 84kg due to being 1,84m) would be the lowest fat to muscle ratio point without having to loose muscle. however going a bit higher does not destroy the muscular carved look yet. so 6kg should be a good margin for fat to just add to that look. it will store mostly a bit at chest, back and legs anyway you you look just more in volume due to it without chubby look. but with 90kg it adds to the fact that you can build up about 20kg (some people a few kg more some less ) in pure muscle. everything above that will be fat! so he was also just around 64kg without all his muscle (in other words halve his weight). maybe at his specific case he was able to put up 3kg or so more. so we would land at 23kg in his case. the limitation point for muscle to be build up from zero. there was another good picture of him showing him age 17 that also adds to this fact perfectly in proof. time frame: 1 kg per year in moving average understanding. 23 years this takes. this means as long as someone is not also 2 meters tall. forget about anything over 100kg looking good on that person. it will just be a belly fat guy otherwise, especially at 1,80m - 1,95m. look at modern strong men lifting offically highest weights there. and you see what i mean. but you see poeple training their bodys doing exactly this. trying to go into a weight where you just look fat (kind of an irony). and we can assume the steroid people do look also just fat if the illusion would burst open. but steroids create the illusion that one is no longer able to see that all those additional muscle is in reality just more stored body fat (however difficult to change that if you were born yourself into a world already influenced by that stuff anyway, otherwise your own birth would not have become a reality, so we are all biased anyways). cause its an artificial state inside its own artificial bubble (unfortunately we are all part of that even if someone is not taking roids, cause of the fact that they exist on the planet as an invention from the past). the lie of the invention of the gear. (the scientist back then that did create it paid with is own life because of that we can assume). i am no longer convinced this is muscle mass therefore. its a lie a faked world, that at least we should therefore respect. but that is rooted in still bronze era time! and all the people are on gear just proofing more and more that its not real where they live. that is the biased state as well: staying as low as the bronze limited people just into. or going on gear and access todays modern version of this lie looking more than you really are! i leave it up to the interested reader to answer that question towards himself and i hope it wasnt too complicated to grasp what i was pointing at.
I've just been reading one of Bob Hoffmans books from the 1930's. When these great bodybuilders were training the FLAT BENCH didn't even exist. hat's how limited training equipment was 100 years ago.
Keep in mind that the Milo Company invention of the adjustable Barbell/Dumbell combo which made progression resistance training possble did NOT exists. Let alone rotary variable resistance training machines. Nor an understanding of KETO nutrition. So these specimens were Myostatin Negative Freaks of Nature. NO inherit governors to limit Muscle Growth. I have also seen Bronze Age Women with the same condition. Think about how much further their bodybuilding development would have been with those training and nutrition advances.
To be a great bodybuilder first of all you have to have gifted genetics. This gives you a great frame and shape, lots of thick muscle on those bones and a metablism that does not lay down much fat but lays down (responds quickly to training) protein with ease. I worked in Gyms in the 1970s and found that these individuals are few. I saw one guy who had calves like Chis Dickerson without any training. Others got very strong and trained hard but got mediocre results no matter how much they ate. Food can only build muscle if the stimulus is there first. Food alone will not do it if your training is mediocre or your genetics not freaky. Pure mesomorphs lay down protein easily, others dont. Many trained very hard but were disappointed. Those who took anabolics gained muscle very quickly and surpassed their limited genetics. Small boned guys developed heavy bodies...but some paid for it later with cancers, tumours, liver problems etc.
Great video bro! Good job dispelling that old and outdated thesis! I must say that I have cited this old dogma many times, and I was obviously wrong to do so. ALL of these guys are clearly genetic outliers. 007
Very interesting. The only problem that I would see here is their weights? I'm not saying they're for sure wrong but do you think they might have been a bit inflated to add to the mystery of these weightlifters back then? Kind of how some ufc athletes today have their heights measured a bit too high haha (for whatever reason, as if an inch in height makes a difference, but a lot of them say that it's not accurate at all). But regardless, I think that we don't truly know the limit as what you have to keep in mind, these guys did not have the knowledge and research on the effective training that modern or golden era athletes had while having great physiques! People need to stop caring about the "science" so much. Don't get me wrong, a lot of it is useful, but equally a large part of it is either contradicting another study and limited or very inconclusive, but for whatever reason, as soon as one paper shows up, the science based community goes crazy and discards all the research/experience etc. before it.
Well that is one point I try and make in the video. I am a scientist, and it's very easy to get caught up in theory and formula...that's what I love about Prof Todd's discussion, she just lists a bunch of FFMI's from some Bronze Era athletes that were as high as steroid users...which demonstrates that these formula's cant be relied on. I am not however saying that Naturals can add as much mass as a genetically gifted enhanced athlete...no way in the world, but hey, as a natural, we can be impressive as hell.
There are a number of omissions in your video with respect to the interpretation of the implications of the formula its value in the steroid vs natural discussion. 1. There is a second graph (not shown in your video) that normalises FFMI to the 1.80m tall man, which reaches 28.0-28.9 on the normalised FFMI scale and creates a much better distribution. 2. The sample size is small, and by the author's admission, the non-user group selection was not ideal, which limits the extrapolations one can make about the calculated value of the FFMI interpretation. 3. It demonstrates, fairly conclusively that there is both a substantial difference in the user vs non-user population in terms of FFMI distribution and that there is also considerable overlap. 4. This would naturally allow us to conclude that the false positive (assuming we label users as positive) rate and the false negative rate would be fairly high, especially in the 26-29 range on the normalised scale, but the confidence increases at the extremes. 5. Confidence here is not guaranteed. It represents the possibility of outcomes, governed by the samples that are represented in the study. So in principle the probability of someone scoring a 30 on the normaised FFMI scale, that is a non-user, is very low (not impossible). This would be a function of the combined probability of the number of modern bodybuilders that do not use steroids (which I can make a case is in the minority), and the probability of being a complete genetic elite. There is a caveat, in that strength sports and bodybuilding do select for genetic elites, so there is a bit of survivorship bias, but still, the study does indeed, in its own description, provide a valuable screening method for steroid use. You have provided a very layman understanding of the specific scientific literature.
I remember hearing about this FFMI and thinking to myself that "this may end up losing some credibility in the future". Lol. Is there truly a limit? 🤷🏻♂️
I keep asking myself the same question....there surely is, but I do not think we have reached it. The closest we have got to it is the physiques from the 1920s to the late 1940s/early 1950s
1:55 Interesting to note that the largest group of non-users clustered around a FFMI of 20 - 22.9. This is actually not that big. For example, a 1.8m tall man with 15% body fat would roughly weigh between 77kg and 82kg if my math is correct.
Those guys in the study were athletes not bodybuilders, 20 FFMI is more like athletic skinny than jacked though something like 22 FFMI can look big on a guy with a light structure see Igor Opeshansky for example
Keep in mind that the Milo Company invention of the adjustable Barbell/Dumbell combo which made progressive resistance training possible did NOT exists. Let alone rotary variable resistance training machines. Nor an understanding of KETO nutrition. So these specimens were Myostatin Negative Freaks of Nature. NO inherit governors to limit Muscle Growth. I have also seen Bronze Age Women with the same condition. Think about how much further their bodybuilding development would have been with those training and nutrition advances.
Yo if George Hackenschmidt is the Limits of Natural Hypertrophy i am fine with that. This Guy has amazing Triceps and Shoulders. I am willing to Train Natural for 10 years to achieve that. There are SOO MANY was to increase T Naturally. Lifting Heavy, Going out in the Sun, Eating Eggs and Beef regularly.
I think a good thing too note is that this means that that is still not the limit of natural bodybuilding. They attainted those phisiques without PED's but that also means that they did it without the scientifcally proven information we know now about cardio, nutrition and optimal muscle regime for muscle growth. Imagine Billy Ralph with optimal leg and lat training and he would almost be Jeff Seid-esque. Even though being a good starting point, these phisique are not a correct indicator of what modern natural bodybuilding is capable of and who is on PED and who is not. + black people didn't compete.
I personally think these numbers are flawed. Eugene Sandow is listed as having a FFMI of over 28 and that is where Arnold lies on the scale, too. Arnold dwarfs Sandow. What's more likely, there is either errors in the calculations, measurements or exaggerations, or these guys have the same FFMI as guys clearly much larger. Also, some of them have higher bodyfat which skews the numbers. I am not saying a person cannot reach very nice numbers, but some of these guys are not impressive and some are in certain areas of their body, but not other areas. Sandow's chest is very lacking.
Absolutely. I guess that the reported weights are when they were at their bulkiest (to make it look impressive) not when the photos were taken. And besides even when they are "cut" it is nowhere near FAT FREE mass since 7-8% is still several kg above the fat free mass. A good estimation is when to weight a bodybuilder when he is dry and not "loaded" with carbs before a competition. If a person weights around his height in cm minus 100 then he probably is close to his limits. Ie if a person is 180 cm tall he is then 80 kg. When at stage he could be 84 kg... And 4kg above the persons height-100 used to be the limit for "Classic Physic" competitions. Now that limit has been raised though...
I by no means look like any of these guys but last night i was brushing my teeth and i looked in the mirror and I looked so big that i was shocked LOL finally after three years of lifting
You are WAY under estimating the FAT PERCENTAGE many people can have CLEARLY defined ABS at 15 percent body fat. NONE OF THESE GUYS WERE PICTURED IN SINGLE DIGIT BODY FAT 🤦
I think these guys were doing it pure strength not for looks , i m hitting gym for 5 months and I have wider shoulders and better chest and tight waist
"If you have great genes,youll like like youve been training for 10 years after 6 months.If you have poor genes youll look like youve been training for 6 months, after 10 years" -Arthur Jones.
2000 years ago when the Greeks carved out their statue's of muscular unbelievably large humans there had to be models to copy from . This goes to show you that there have been muscular people throughout history like the lifters which were presented in today's great video!
I agree 100% Back then, these forms were not figments of their imaginations, there had to be some people that looked like that
Milo of Croton was doing weighted carries with live bulls for months at a time. You don't see that at strongman competitions period.
Of course there were muscular people thousands of years ago. Do people think resistance training was invented last century or something?
Exactly mate well said
Lol, yeah - muscle existed before the advent of steroids and PED's, quite obviously.
Great message brother! We are capable of so much more than people want to believe. It certainly seems quite foolish to just slap an ffmi limit on everyone and call anyone above that enhanced
That's the black and white dualistic nature of some scientists. I'm simply pointing the obvious. Humans have shown time and time again, that we can do incredible things....if we simply just dare to try
68 years old, trained for 43 years, recently did a 300lb bench or so I thought , turned out to be 299.2 lb 136kilos.
We’ll give you a pace on the .8 lbs. really nice. Hope we can all match you at a young 68.
Way to go brother. I am a young 71 and was feeling pretty good about my bench press of 225 just the other day but now I feel a little less good. Lol! Keep it up. Now you’ve given me something to shoot for. However it may be too late. Lol.
Wow thats crazy.
my record when i was 53 was 351 im 58 now and train differently (higher reps etc) but for an old boy i have always loved that p.b. AND no spotter..but I wouldnt encourage that tbh..
Dont be obsessed with WHAT you can lift. That's EGO. Be concerned about maintaining a healthy functional body into later life.
It seems to me that the age at which a man starts training makes a big difference on how muscular and low-fat he can be. I've lived in places where there were a lot of farms, and there were plenty of young lads who had been throwing bales since they were like 12 or 13 and their builds were crazy even without having access to a gym. Maybe hard physical work from the onset of puberty boosts their testosterone.
Interesting - I can relate to this theory. I bought doorway a pull-up bar when I was 12, and have been training ever since. Tried various training modalities (regular gym, powerlifting, kettlebells etc.) but my basis has always been calisthenics. I’m still making (small) gains. So maybe training all through ones teens has some permanent effect. Doesn’t sound illogical.
And something in general - there have been very few things in life that provided me solace, pride and a sense of invincible freedom like exercising has.
Keep training, but be smart about it.
Not just a theory, but a studied and proven fact! www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3445252/
@Sky Eye I personally come from the middle of nowhere in the midwest where slinging bales is a way of life and ~50% of our male population is massive compared to the rest of the US. The phrase "corn-fed" is associated with us for a reason but it is due more to baling and storing hay than it is with eating it. The test increases isn't documented enough for me to comment on but farm-kids generally have a far more developed physique before puberty ever gets behind the wheel.
Lifestyle is a huge factor but not sure about age. My grandmother only started doing heavy farm work at 60 when she retired. At 70 she was carrying 20kg and heavier bags of rice like they were nothing. Her arms went from string beans to bamboo. Not necessarily huge, but every fiber well-defined and larger than mine at 20 despite hitting the gym 3x a week at the time. 6x a week of several hours of farm work completely annihilated 3 hours a week of weight lifting.
There is no doubt hitting the weights as an early teen makes a huge difference in the lifetime gains, and ability to build back after years of lay offs. Take twin brothers. Get one to start training at 12, have the other brother wait until 20, they will never be the same, assuming training naturally.
I lifted off and on in my teens, but sure wish I hit it much more consistently. Still the training I did do paid off. After years of layoff, I can get back to old numbers, in just a few months.
Teen years are naturally anabolic, and hitting it hard during that time reaps big rewards.
Seeing this makes me feel significantly better about myself. I currently look shockingly similar to alot of these guys and hit a hard wall about a year ago with about 7 years of lifting under my belt. It's a bittersweet moment to realize that I'm probably at my genetic limit but atleast I no longer feel like I wasted the last year. All about maintaining what I have earned at this point.
This comments section is a wonderful place and I (and everyone reading) appreciates it. There was no one saying, "bullshit", there were no derogatory comments, just warranted and honest advice. I appreciate all of you. Keep pushing and always strive for more!
Look up Alex Leonidas video “how I keep getting bigger”
You're not at your limit after 7 years.
Your situation probably warrants a significant change of training modalities to continue progression.
In the LONG term, "maintaining what one has developed" is what natural "no PEDS'" bodybuilding is.
I'm, age 67, began bodybuilding in 1971 at age 15.
After about five consecutive years of consistent progressive training, proper nutrition and rest/recuperation, and basically a "live-for-bodybuilding" mentality, I'd hit my genetic limits for muscle mass and proportions for about 10-12% bodyfat.
From that point (as disappointing as reaching one's maximum natural muscle size potential usually is), my training/nutrition/recuperation has been maintenance. Meaning that, for the 47 years since I reached those hypertrophy limits, my goal has been to maintain the mass I built, as well as to hold a lean, naturally-sustainable-for-six-months-out of-every-year 10% bodyfat. Even at age 67, I continue to work out, now on a planned 10-day schedule, and to eat properly daily, adjusting my calorie intake on a yearly schedule according to whether I want to be down to 10% or as high as 14% bodyfat at specific periods of each year.
Aging gradually takes its inevitable toll on the body; you can delay its effects and minimize its effects, but no one can ultimately prevent the gradual erosion which aging causes, even for a lifelong natural bodybuilder. However, the advantage of resistance training is that it can be adjusted and adapted as that gradual erosion occurs.
The mindset has to adjust after hitting genetic hypertrophy ceilings . But it is very much possible to remain highly motivated, and to keep training as intensely and thoroughly as before. I've done it by switching from the self-challenge of "how much mass can I build?" to the equally difficult-although-different self-challenge of "can I hold on to what I've built and look as cut as possible?"
I know many believe there are no genetic size limits; I certainly wish that was true. The human body is definitely capable of achieving an amazing level of hypertrophy. However, the human body is not an infinite-growth-possible organism; being an organism, it has biological limitations.
In my 50+ years of bodybuilding, I've observed many if not more who fail to achieve their maximum hypertrophy genetic potential due to not pushing themselves and to lacking consistency. I've observed that unless a guy devotes at least three or four consecutive years of consistent, intense, intelligent, progressive work and consistent proper nutrition and rest, he won't achieve what's genetically possible for himself. Many complain about genetics when their problem is failure to give it their all for three to four years.
But I also know that all the discipline, dedication, determination, deliberated exercise variation, program change-up, and positive-thinking in the cosmos cannot override natural genetic limits; no man can change his genetics for bone diameters, muscle-belly lengths, quantity and distribution of muscle fibers, especially Type 2As, 2Bs and 2Xs, free and total testosterone levels, other natural growth hormones, quantity and distribution of androgen receptors, neural contractile efficiency, or anabolic efficiency, not any more than he can add one inch to the genetic limit for his height.
***success*** to you as you continue on in what is the reality of lifelong bodybuilding, many years and decades of "maintaining what you've achieved".
@joe santus Beautifully said. I couldn't explain it better if I tried. Obviously, highly educated on the topic at hand and literal decades of hard work. You are what I strive to be at 50+.
I wish you good health and longevity. Keep on setting goals for us "young" bucks to follow!
The main issue with this formula is the inaccuracies of bodyfat estimations or even measurements. Especially looking at low levels of bodyfat like 5%-10% can definitely mess up the end results making someone be outside the "natty range"
Exactly. There was no bodyfat measurements back then and you can't guess it by looking at old black and white pictures with extreme contrast. And I don't really think any of them was under 7-8%. It was not what they was looking for.
Agreed. Though that at 3:12 when he said guy was 5% body fat
@katsi kadh
You're just looking at bodyfat as the issue of whether someone is "natty range" or not.
You're oversimplifying it. All FFMI does it tell you your overall health. Back then they didn't do alot of drug testing or at all. We're only looking at FFMI as how bulky they are. NOT a confirmation or denial of whether someone is "natty". Its just one of the indexes that they used back then.
The only thing it tells you is how "bulky" someone is and still appear muscular in physique which is what the point of this video is about. Back then FFMI is a good indicator of physical health. The pictures just are proof. Nothing in this video implies that any of those guys are 100% within "natty range".
@@zlonewolf "NOT a confirmation or denial of whether someone is "natty"
Dude, can you read the TITLE of the video please?
Exactly. The claims of the guys in 29 or even over 30 in FAT FREE Mass Index are just ridiculous. They are absolutely nowhere near the fat free mass when they were simply smooth.
And you can't extrapolate and guess what they would have weight without the extra fat since when they diet down to competing bodybuilder fat levels they will also lose muscle and therefore get a lower FFMI.
The only somewhat valid estimation would be of really cut people, IF and only IF, the reported weight is when they were cut which I clearly think is not the case with Eugen Sandow, for example. He was cut, but not with the amount of muscle to have the high estimated FFMI. That weight must have been for a time when he was a bit more bulky.
Steeve Reeves is a better estimate, but he wasn't always super cut and even when he was he was perhaps 10% BF at best. So his reported 96 kg at 1.87 m is probably several kg above what his "real" cut weight would have been.
I had to rehab my knees when I was a kid and the doc suggested 10 lb ankle weights to do leg lifts. I did those leg lifts every night in front of the TV my quads got huge after a year. It was all just high reps and multiple sets. A year later the doc suggested I go to higher weights and the results were far less impressive. I think low weight and high reps are the way to go.
That's the Light Dumbbell System for you
Tom Touchstone(a friend of mine)Mr California 1985 use to do 100 rep sets a few times a year. On an exercise he might get 80 reps. Then after a brief rest finish it with another 20. Next workout he might get 92 reps and only have to do another 8. Next workout if he got 100 reps he'd increase the weight by 5 pound or so. Obviously he was on PED's.
But I did(35 year old) 5 sets on arms and my goal was 30 reps. Same double progression as Touchstone, and after 3 months my arms shot-up from 17 3/4 to 18 5/8 cold. I went from a slow strict curl with a 50 pound Dumbell and 17-18 reps to using a 70 pounder for 27+. 100% drug-free always.
I believe higher reps work regardless if you're drug-free or not as long as the total volume of sets and total time are kept in check and you go to positive failure.
How do leg raises build your quads?
@@Juggernaut-fg2up th-cam.com/video/zo2pqw794B0/w-d-xo.html I don’t know how but it worked
@@pclathrop that's just working your hip flexor the quad is holding the knee statically but that's not going to cause quad growth
One of the best videos you’ve made, so short and simple and to the point. This channel only gets better, Golden era bookworm is probably one of the best resources for bodybuilding training and practical knowledge that I’ve ever come across. Can’t tell you how much I respect and appreciate your work
This video is incredibly inspiring. Thank you for all of your hard work carlos.
Glad you enjoyed it!
This guys arms were incredible for any era ! In my opinion… these guys were the real deal ! Improved health and vitality along with a great physical stature .
I saw your conversation with Natty life and it was good. You are very articulate and I'm impressed with the diligence and effort both you guys put into your research. I'm enjoying the content!
Thank you. I enjoyed my conversation with Dante. We both help each other with each other's research. It helps present an accurate picture of the history of the Iron Game
Great video, most people severely lowball what is possible naturally.
One quibble:
Goerner's peak shape was a lean 242, the 260 figure is from later when he was not as lean, those pictures are probably ~242. However, that still gives him an FFMI comparable to Arnold in his prime. And it is very likely that he never hit his full potential due to shrapnel in his leg making it difficult for him to squat.
Hey Atlas, thanks for pointing that out. I am quoting Prof Jan Todd from the Stark centre. I am pretty sure, that even though she is a highly respected academic, she can also make mistakes as can I. I am getting a few comments as such, that the ffmis are out, but as I said...who cares about the formula. These guys were extraordinary, and so are we...if we just dare to try. God bless bro
All of the above 28 FFMI are way exagerated. They are nowhere near a FAT FREE mass. And even for the people with "cut" photos you have to question if the weight was actually taken when they were at their prime cut (As in contest BB shape if it would have been today).
No, I think there is a cutoff point around 26-28 where above that it simply just isn't possible. 30 for sure is not possible at all. People overestimate how cut a person is (or underestimate. I mean Someone saying a person is 5% often means 10-12% in reality)
It’s like the BMI index, doesn’t tell you the full story.
The bronze era had the most masculine physiques
I think the term masculine is very appropriate here. They used nothing but their blood and guts determination.
Thank you for these kinds of videos, currently switched from powerlifting to bodybuilding. Bronze era physiques are most inspiring to me and something I want to achieve as much as I can with my own body.
Enjoyvthe journey...there is much to learn from the Bronze Era
While not a bodybuilder, Louis Cyr was also incredibly strong, possessing the strength that one might think could only be achieved with the help of steroids.
Outstanding info as always Carlos!! I love to watch right away
Awesome, thank you!
Really great discussion and observations. I believe you nailed it when discussing genetics plus intense training. There will always be those few very few) that obtained the results some of these bronze era men got. Obviously there were no steroids involved, that is the key point here.
Yes, key points...Genetic marvels exist. Hard work will result in phenomenal gains when effort is consistently applied. Formulas cannot define us!
I'm 65 and have been working out for 47 years now. Wasn't always doing the right things,exercises or diet but I've really been growing in the last 4 months. Eating 15 eggs a day. But I'm still gaining muscle!
I am also 65 and have been working out for the same amount of time as you and surprisingly have still made gains on size and strength. No bench pressing anymore just because I read in recent years where Vince Gironda was not high on benching. Everything else is 6 sets of 6 , 5 days a week. Great to hear that people from the 1970s era are still pumping iron. Keep up the great work!
@@johnkelley6278 he preferred the neck press which targets the middle and upper chest supplement that with the Vince gironda dip and you will attain a plate armour chest instead of breasts as most body builders have
Well done, and eggcellent commitment 👏 👍
Again, at 65 you guys are still gaining muscle...makes me ask again and again...what is the natural limit? Seems that even at more senior years, we still make gains
@@johnkelley6278 I don't bench press either. I've been doing 10×10. Vince girondas style
The lack of processed foods, corn sugar, sugars and just the eating habits back then would contribute to their physique as well.
When we compare those from the past to the present we need to remember it's a completely different world now.
Exactly lots of protein and dairy as the main staples.
True, but attributing their successes to this discounts the fact that they had inferior knowledge of nutrition and most likely didn't pay much attention to it. They were much harder times. We live and eat like kings in comparison...in my opinion, we should be able to surpass these examples...if not, then we have not advanced at all
@@GoldenEraBookworm proper training and programing is the most important thing I know poeple that have gotten big natural eating a decent amount of dog shit food.
@@MAJIC2044Noob gains or genetic freaks. Not for everyone.
@@michelrood2966 eveybody has noob gains
I'm 69 and have been naturally resistance training for 46 years. I have often been accused of not being natural. My videos will explain that.
I think you can go by eye. Herman Gorners physiqe has a completely different character from post 1940 physiqes. You can immediately tell the natural from enhanced by looking.
I have read that testosterone was much higher in men in that era and before. Testosterone levels have been declining and continue to decline. The garbage food we have today and the containers they come in is wrecking hormones. I have seen photos of common laborers from that time and some of them have very ripped muscular arms and forearms.
This is true, but think of the variety of food we have accessible today...better than the Emperors and Kings from yesteryear....did Bronze era athletes have this accessibility to food? No. To our gyms and equipment? No...yet they achieved magnificence...so can we
Most of the lower testosterone nowadays is a result of shitty sleep habits, inactivity, obesity and laziness. If you put a modern man in the physical lifestyle of a man from 1920 then he'd have test levels very similar
It's not the testosterone it's the environment. Natural Hypertrophy goes into this in detail. People are no where near physically active as they used to be. The environment dictates the hormones needed to get the job done. Kids playing video games all day don't need testosterone so why would the body make it?
@@the.natural.guy. So true 🙏
@@the.natural.guy. facts
incredible and inspiring
I hoped it would be, thanks for watching
Good ol' Hackenschmidt. It would have been a heckuva thing to see that man wrestle.
Who calculated those ffmi? a clown? there is no way in hell any of those guys was 5% barely one bellow 10%
Great entry!!
there is no way that hermann weighed 260lb at 6ft 1" all of these figures would have been heavily inflated to sell tickets or just inflate ego. as a comparison arnold is 6ft2" and on stage was 235lb and 260lb off season. im pretty sure its easy to see that arnold is carrying at least 20kg of lean tissue over this guy! your calculations are heavily warpped. there ffmi would not be that high if you knew there correct numbers.
so what is their correct weight? because a lot of this guys don't look have much muscle mass but are like 200+ pounds, example is sandow he is 5'8 but like 207lbs thou he doesn't look that big. Maybe i have body dismorphia but i just cant accept he is that weight while that lean. maybe he trained some muscles more maybe legs that's why he is bigger?
That's just one picture. There are others. Also, his measurements were massive. His feats, competitions, and performances are still unreal.
Since their average T levels are thought to be at least 3 times higher than our current normal level due to a diet free of processed sugar, flour, and seed oils, with much higher levels of cholesterol I’m not surprised they could get results that now require steroids
We haven't seen the limits of drug-free size. Maybe a glimpse here and there in one area like Arthur's 370-pound bent press, John McWilliams nearly 20 inch arms at under 200 pounds(mine was 18 5/8 cold at 193 at 9-10% bodyfat and by no means a great arm) and had well over that when he was 230. You obviously had Billy Ralph with his incredible arms. You just gotta find what bodypart you have that's acceptable to growth and work the snot out of it, who cares if it's overdeveloped?! You can be the future example of what drug-free size is possible.
But no, we haven't seen the total limits.
I agree, this video serves to simply point out that we as humans have incredible capabilities, only if we dare to try
@@GoldenEraBookworm Exactly.
DARYL GUBERMAN Discusses His Life Up To The Mr.America Bodybuilding Championship. th-cam.com/video/dQo5OP88lj8/w-d-xo.html
Drug free hypertrophy is possible...it takes longer, it takes more care and planning...there can be no room for compromise. If you compete, you cannot compete as often as others. Slow and steady progress with laser beam focus will win the day...to hell with others... it's you against you. When people ask why and you say because you love it....stop. You don't have to qualify for anyone but you. You don't owe the masses any sort of explanation. If these people won't stop, change your environment. If your significant other demands you choose between her and you achieving final form...there will be other lovers; go and live your dream. Now...go the distance.
Final form like that
I went and had the ffmi reading done on me, 14 years training always natty and I scored 25.1 but I was 16% bf so not lean by any means... that's access to good gyms and decent diet so I wonder what these guys could achieve with today's equipment and knowledge
I think these guys were so great because they did mostly natural things w/o too much stress, like the Mentzer method and had 3x more testosterone than today´s males because more natural foods, less drugs and medications, better life in general, more self confidence, less societal control, a more free world and life in general. I bet most didn´t need to be giving explanations in a daily basis. A world long gone.
Superb video. Thanks!
Facts! The Bronze Era demonstrates it's truly impossible to know what the natural limit is. Hard work & discipline can't be put into an equation 💪
Your videos are always interesting. Thanks!
these are high disciplined sigma men that pushes the limits every single day like there is no tomorrow
So from actual experience... I have had a DEXA several times (every 6 months for a few years) I think your FFMI calculations are WAY off.
You are estimating far too low a body fat percentage.
Very few of the examples you showed are even as low as 10%... Most look to be well into the double digits.
I will agree that an FFMI of 25 to 27 can be achieved naturally by a VERY small number of genetically gifted and highly motivated individuals but they are definitely unicorns.
So very many people think that visible abs is "under 10%"but this is far from fact!
Having got into the 7s and with 3 DEXAs under 10 I can tell you that sub 10% is a LOT more shredded than you seem to think.
Of course, he is delusional.
But how did they all train as far as volume, intensity and frequency? That would tell us a lot about their physique’s.
These guys were early documentations of myostatin deficient athletes.
No way of knowing if this is true or not, but perhaps one or two of them were
@@GoldenEraBookworm in any case, I totally agree with you, they were outstanding bodybuilding specimens.
The bronze era men work hard to obtain that kind of muscular body. Which today few dare to venture and sadly take short cuts with steroids.
Very true, and how impressive they were, not just in form, but in function
The question is How is it possible to train like the Bronze Era guys like George Hackenschmidt suggested 6 days a week and build up muscle? I know they trained whole body
Wow! Natural body building is awesome
It truly isn’t unbelievable as people normally don’t train like those who prove what we know, wrong.
This shows that human capabilities are very undervalued and under appreciated these days to where being a natural is difficult to achieve greatness as the standards to follow are outside of today’s knowledgeable standards of natural greatness
Fascinating article. I think there is always a problem between mathematics and excersise and diet. Take BMI for example, it is inaccurate when high levels of muscular development are present. This new formula seems even worse.
Great comparison...too many variables to consider in the human body and its external environment to create a one size fits all formula
Imagine how big the bronze era African American bodybuilders would've been if given the chance to train and eat
A bunch of mini Ronnie Coleman’s
Not much bigger. The elites would be bigger. BUT without drugs there's no going to be any Lee Haneys or Ronnie Colemans. Ronnie told lies. No way was he natural in 1994. These lies have to stop. Like Mike O trem
I don't believe most of these stated weights. Sandow at 5'8 couldn't have been more than 185 pounds looking like that.
I'm age 21 and did gymnastics for 14 years. I'm now not quite 5'10" and my heaviest was 185 lbs after 2 years of serious weight lifting--building quads mostly (growing up in gymnastics I never trained legs for size). I started gymnastics by age 4 and trained year round for 14 years. I got severely beat up before my 17th birthday by older guys who just graduated from my high school. They spent a lot of time holding me in a full nelson and targeted my extremely muscular abs. I focused on growing my abdominal muscles (hypertrophy) but that never added to my weight. I got into heavy leg workouts and hit 2 growth spurts so by age 18 I had transformed a lot. I never used drugs because I wasn't competing for my muscular physique. I just didn't want to be small--being held in a full nelson wearing only gym shorts as bigger and taller athletes were throwing hard punches made me feel tiny. I was a great size for a gymnast but was a small punching bag that night. My body fat as always been in single digits. I'm sure I'm well below the guidelines that says I use steroids. I'm shredded year round but that is my genetics. Watching your video makes me think that guys (I'll stick to guys) have a wide range of genotypes. My genotype made me great for gymnastics. Starting so young developing my body also packed a lot of lean muscle in me from very early. I was doing pull ups and hanging leg raises before age 6. So I think it is having a very muscular genotype plus starting to build lean muscle early makes a huge difference. The guys who don't have such a good genotype but want to the results of those who do (and who have trained hard a long time) will use drugs to try to accomplish the results they want. I never got into bodybuilding. I showed off my physique doing gymnastics and not posing. So I never had the drive to see how HUGE I could be. HUGE was not helpful in gymnastics. I look back now at age 21 and realize that I was probably addicted to some forms of exercising with abdominal training being top of that list (biceps and lats there too). I got praised very early for having an extremely muscular 8 pack by older gymnasts I respected. I started doing some abdominal exercises that older gymnastics couldn't do. But there is a natural limit to hypertrophy with abdominals. After I got severely beat up before my 17th birthday I went into overdrive to develop rock hard abs. That got insane and left me often extremely beat up and by friends in wrestling I trained with. But even then my only drug was ibuprofen. I'm glad I never got into bodybuilding and never had the temptation to get huge.
DARYL GUBERMAN Discusses His Life Up To The Mr.America Bodybuilding Championship. th-cam.com/video/dQo5OP88lj8/w-d-xo.html
The one thing that separates bronze Era from the rest is their emphasis on isometrics. They really knew how to control their muscles
What is your ffmi score gold book worm , measurements, height , weight , body fat , age and your strength level. Do a video of it
As with all things human there will always be the, and I mean this as a compliment, genetic freaks...Husain Bolt....Willie Mays...Pele...people we watch do amazing things and yes they work hard but they are also gifted with being in the 1%...
In practical terms, there aren’t limits to muscle development, obviously the more advanced we get the more development slows, but at least small improvements are always possible overtime even for advanced athletes. Also strength can continually improve throughout life particularly grip strength.
What an eyeopening video🙌🙌🙌..at 5'10" i can dream of bulkimh upto 220 lbs naturally💪💪💪
While I generally agree with the 25 BMI cut-off we must also be ready to admit that there will always be a long thin tail on the right hand side of the normal curve.
great video, thanks man
These bronze age bodybuilders were no doubt rare genetic specimens, but I would be very interested to know how they trained and if they knew something we don't.
Some very jacked men there.True titans of the time.Very impressive.
Indeed, I like that we can scientifically prove that these guys are truly the a realistic representation of the natural limits
I'm sorry but there's no way to know exact weight and height of those guys while BF% was not even mesured. I really don't think that those guys were near 5%. They look more between 7 and 10% to me but the old black and white pictures add a lot of contrast.
Extraordinary Men do extraordinary things !
Anyone nearing or at 200lbs is a heavy weight imo.
You're exactly right. When I was growing up (60s & 70s), a man weighing 200 lbs was considered big. (A lot of people probably don't realize that the limit for the "heavyweight" division in boxing was 175 lbs up until around 1979 or 1980.) Unfortunately, people becoming so much heavier (due to both PED use & the population becoming larger as a whole) has led to a skewing of people's perceptions. Some now consider 175 lbs "small" -- which is idiotic.
@@TruthTellert63 agree
Did they have very narrow shoulders or is that the way they posed?
We also have to remember. They had GREAT food. No processed foods. Very little fried food. Very little salt. 100% organic fresh. I believe that is the big secret everybody forgets about.
Black and white low def photos make people look more impressive than they really are, and being short makes people look bigger in photos than real life. Most of those early 1900s guys were very underdeveloped in the chest due to the overhead press being the main upper body lift at the time. Their lats also aren't even close to what some top natural guys have. FFMI is silly because it doesn't take into consideration frame, muscle bellies, and other factors (wide clavicle, small waist individuals look WAY bigger at the same bodyweight as narrower individuals). Peak natty is probably Ronnie Coleman at NPC nationals. We have way better knowledge and equipment than back then. We also know from research that food quality doesn't affect body composition and testerone levels within the physiological range (whether higher or lower) has no difference on improvements in muscle and strength.
Eugene Sandow was bigger than Frank Zane? I'm honestly trying to figure out how that makes sense
Goerner was not only the strongest of them all, he can also be used as a good indicator towards what is really natural possible.
the book written about him: goerner the mighty
contains measurements at age 43 done 1934
however he was about 130kg in weight. so we can assume he carried (and the picture from that same time shown in the book also shows that) around about 40kg or even more of just fat storing additional water what fat just does!
the measurement of the biceps was 48cm with this overweight state! (page 51 was this form and clearly overweight)
so we can assume a fully natural one would be something like 40-42cm at a bodyfat under or at least not more than 20% (what is the only Bodyfat where the body really looks in balance to be muscular and fat reduced into minimum to just add to that look in positive way. go above it and it destroys the illusion of muscle carved. it just gets wobbly and sure strong but not from an aesthetics point of view anymore. go under it and it costs more and more no longer looking that bulky enough, maybe 20%-10% is the best aesthetics realm. above is just fat. under is just veiny and also too skinny with the costs of having to live too poor in nutrients all the time too! not to mention the dehydration problems for it).
we can assume even in goerners case and i was happy that the book named a precise measuring of his height as well: 1,84m
so we can assume that even at his 120kg best strength time he was at least minimum 30kg overweight in just fat.
i would put him therefore with carved looking muscles at around 90kg. maybe a bit less.
this means in full balance body size minus 100 as the common thumb of rule when in meters (at his case 84kg due to being 1,84m)
would be the lowest fat to muscle ratio point without having to loose muscle.
however going a bit higher does not destroy the muscular carved look yet. so 6kg should be a good margin for fat to just add to that look. it will store mostly a bit at chest, back and legs anyway you you look just more in volume due to it without chubby look.
but with 90kg it adds to the fact that you can build up about 20kg (some people a few kg more some less ) in pure muscle. everything above that will be fat!
so he was also just around 64kg without all his muscle (in other words halve his weight). maybe at his specific case he was able to put up 3kg or so more. so we would land at 23kg in his case. the limitation point for muscle to be build up from zero. there was another good picture of him showing him age 17 that also adds to this fact perfectly in proof.
time frame: 1 kg per year in moving average understanding. 23 years this takes.
this means as long as someone is not also 2 meters tall. forget about anything over 100kg looking good on that person. it will just be a belly fat guy otherwise, especially at 1,80m - 1,95m.
look at modern strong men lifting offically highest weights there. and you see what i mean.
but you see poeple training their bodys doing exactly this. trying to go into a weight where you just look fat (kind of an irony).
and we can assume the steroid people do look also just fat if the illusion would burst open. but steroids create the illusion that one is no longer able to see that all those additional muscle is in reality just more stored body fat (however difficult to change that if you were born yourself into a world already influenced by that stuff anyway, otherwise your own birth would not have become a reality, so we are all biased anyways).
cause its an artificial state inside its own artificial bubble (unfortunately we are all part of that even if someone is not taking roids, cause of the fact that they exist on the planet as an invention from the past). the lie of the invention of the gear. (the scientist back then that did create it paid with is own life because of that we can assume).
i am no longer convinced this is muscle mass therefore. its a lie a faked world, that at least we should therefore respect. but that is rooted in still bronze era time!
and all the people are on gear just proofing more and more that its not real where they live.
that is the biased state as well: staying as low as the bronze limited people just into. or going on gear and access todays modern version of this lie looking more than you really are!
i leave it up to the interested reader to answer that question towards himself and i hope it wasnt too complicated to grasp what i was pointing at.
I've just been reading one of Bob Hoffmans books from the 1930's. When these great bodybuilders were training the FLAT BENCH didn't even exist. hat's how limited training equipment was 100 years ago.
Keep in mind that the Milo Company invention of the adjustable Barbell/Dumbell combo which made progression resistance training possble did NOT exists. Let alone rotary variable resistance training machines. Nor an understanding of KETO nutrition. So these specimens were Myostatin Negative Freaks of Nature. NO inherit governors to limit Muscle Growth. I have also seen Bronze Age Women with the same condition. Think about how much further their bodybuilding development would have been with those training and nutrition advances.
To be a great bodybuilder first of all you have to have gifted genetics. This gives you a great frame and shape, lots of thick muscle on those bones and a metablism that does not lay down much fat but lays down (responds quickly to training) protein with ease. I worked in Gyms in the 1970s and found that these individuals are few. I saw one guy who had calves like Chis Dickerson without any training. Others got very strong and trained hard but got mediocre results no matter how much they ate. Food can only build muscle if the stimulus is there first. Food alone will not do it if your training is mediocre or your genetics not freaky. Pure mesomorphs lay down protein easily, others dont. Many trained very hard but were disappointed. Those who took anabolics gained muscle very quickly and surpassed their limited genetics. Small boned guys developed heavy bodies...but some paid for it later with cancers, tumours, liver problems etc.
Fantastic physiques that stands the time. 😎😎💪💪
Yes it does!
Great video bro!
Good job dispelling that old and outdated thesis! I must say that I have cited this old dogma many times, and I was obviously wrong to do so.
ALL of these guys are clearly genetic outliers.
007
Very interesting. The only problem that I would see here is their weights? I'm not saying they're for sure wrong but do you think they might have been a bit inflated to add to the mystery of these weightlifters back then? Kind of how some ufc athletes today have their heights measured a bit too high haha (for whatever reason, as if an inch in height makes a difference, but a lot of them say that it's not accurate at all). But regardless, I think that we don't truly know the limit as what you have to keep in mind, these guys did not have the knowledge and research on the effective training that modern or golden era athletes had while having great physiques!
People need to stop caring about the "science" so much. Don't get me wrong, a lot of it is useful, but equally a large part of it is either contradicting another study and limited or very inconclusive, but for whatever reason, as soon as one paper shows up, the science based community goes crazy and discards all the research/experience etc. before it.
Well that is one point I try and make in the video. I am a scientist, and it's very easy to get caught up in theory and formula...that's what I love about Prof Todd's discussion, she just lists a bunch of FFMI's from some Bronze Era athletes that were as high as steroid users...which demonstrates that these formula's cant be relied on. I am not however saying that Naturals can add as much mass as a genetically gifted enhanced athlete...no way in the world, but hey, as a natural, we can be impressive as hell.
You can see the difference in natural vs test or one based juicers that claim natty 🤔
There are a number of omissions in your video with respect to the interpretation of the implications of the formula its value in the steroid vs natural discussion.
1. There is a second graph (not shown in your video) that normalises FFMI to the 1.80m tall man, which reaches 28.0-28.9 on the normalised FFMI scale and creates a much better distribution.
2. The sample size is small, and by the author's admission, the non-user group selection was not ideal, which limits the extrapolations one can make about the calculated value of the FFMI interpretation.
3. It demonstrates, fairly conclusively that there is both a substantial difference in the user vs non-user population in terms of FFMI distribution and that there is also considerable overlap.
4. This would naturally allow us to conclude that the false positive (assuming we label users as positive) rate and the false negative rate would be fairly high, especially in the 26-29 range on the normalised scale, but the confidence increases at the extremes.
5. Confidence here is not guaranteed. It represents the possibility of outcomes, governed by the samples that are represented in the study.
So in principle the probability of someone scoring a 30 on the normaised FFMI scale, that is a non-user, is very low (not impossible). This would be a function of the combined probability of the number of modern bodybuilders that do not use steroids (which I can make a case is in the minority), and the probability of being a complete genetic elite. There is a caveat, in that strength sports and bodybuilding do select for genetic elites, so there is a bit of survivorship bias, but still, the study does indeed, in its own description, provide a valuable screening method for steroid use.
You have provided a very layman understanding of the specific scientific literature.
I remember hearing about this FFMI and thinking to myself that "this may end up losing some credibility in the future". Lol. Is there truly a limit? 🤷🏻♂️
I keep asking myself the same question....there surely is, but I do not think we have reached it. The closest we have got to it is the physiques from the 1920s to the late 1940s/early 1950s
Thanks 👏🎉🥳💪
1:55 Interesting to note that the largest group of non-users clustered around a FFMI of 20 - 22.9. This is actually not that big. For example, a 1.8m tall man with 15% body fat would roughly weigh between 77kg and 82kg if my math is correct.
Those guys in the study were athletes not bodybuilders, 20 FFMI is more like athletic skinny than jacked though something like 22 FFMI can look big on a guy with a light structure see Igor Opeshansky for example
we lived in a world of agriculture. using muscles and getting big i am sure was part of life.
Interesting 👍
Keep in mind that the Milo Company invention of the adjustable Barbell/Dumbell combo which made progressive resistance training possible did NOT exists. Let alone rotary variable resistance training machines. Nor an understanding of KETO nutrition. So these specimens were Myostatin Negative Freaks of Nature. NO inherit governors to limit Muscle Growth. I have also seen Bronze Age Women with the same condition. Think about how much further their bodybuilding development would have been with those training and nutrition advances.
Yo if George Hackenschmidt is the Limits of Natural Hypertrophy i am fine with that. This Guy has amazing Triceps and Shoulders. I am willing to Train Natural for 10 years to achieve that.
There are SOO MANY was to increase T Naturally. Lifting Heavy, Going out in the Sun, Eating Eggs and Beef regularly.
I guess you never heard the term outliers
agrree 500% ty for this:)
When was really this period?
I think a good thing too note is that this means that that is still not the limit of natural bodybuilding.
They attainted those phisiques without PED's but that also means that they did it without the scientifcally proven information we know now about cardio, nutrition and optimal muscle regime for muscle growth.
Imagine Billy Ralph with optimal leg and lat training and he would almost be Jeff Seid-esque.
Even though being a good starting point, these phisique are not a correct indicator of what modern natural bodybuilding is capable of and who is on PED and who is not.
+ black people didn't compete.
I'm not as defined but with a decent fat ratio I gained nearly 18 inch arms 😇
But I worked hard for them
I personally think these numbers are flawed. Eugene Sandow is listed as having a FFMI of over 28 and that is where Arnold lies on the scale, too. Arnold dwarfs Sandow. What's more likely, there is either errors in the calculations, measurements or exaggerations, or these guys have the same FFMI as guys clearly much larger. Also, some of them have higher bodyfat which skews the numbers. I am not saying a person cannot reach very nice numbers, but some of these guys are not impressive and some are in certain areas of their body, but not other areas. Sandow's chest is very lacking.
Absolutely. I guess that the reported weights are when they were at their bulkiest (to make it look impressive) not when the photos were taken. And besides even when they are "cut" it is nowhere near FAT FREE mass since 7-8% is still several kg above the fat free mass. A good estimation is when to weight a bodybuilder when he is dry and not "loaded" with carbs before a competition. If a person weights around his height in cm minus 100 then he probably is close to his limits. Ie if a person is 180 cm tall he is then 80 kg. When at stage he could be 84 kg...
And 4kg above the persons height-100 used to be the limit for "Classic Physic" competitions. Now that limit has been raised though...
Bobby Pandour has one of the best physiques for his time imo.
I really think Prime sized Arnold is possible fully natural. Including the strenght
I by no means look like any of these guys but last night i was brushing my teeth and i looked in the mirror and I looked so big that i was shocked LOL finally after three years of lifting
no in order to see the true limits they need to be on the Aajonus Vonderplanitz diet. Doubtful they knew back then
Functional training over bodybuilding training back than.
I think that you're massively underestimating the body fat on some of these guys (especially the bigger guys) which would bring the FFMI right down.
Estimated body fat percentage? This cannot be seriously counted on
Steve Reeves, The Greatest Bodybuilder Of All Time, OG Hercules.
You are WAY under estimating the FAT PERCENTAGE many people can have CLEARLY defined ABS at 15 percent body fat. NONE OF THESE GUYS WERE PICTURED IN SINGLE DIGIT BODY FAT 🤦
Don't tell us FFMI is a joke, it makes me feel elite, even though I am 52 and haven't done a mass build in 26 years.
I think these guys were doing it pure strength not for looks , i m hitting gym for 5 months and I have wider shoulders and better chest and tight waist
Are you shure about the weighting of these dude's?? To me they all look a lot lighter than you said...
"If you have great genes,youll like like youve been training for 10 years after 6 months.If you have poor genes youll look like youve been training for 6 months, after 10 years" -Arthur Jones.
🥇
Has to be the diet as well. But we have natural freaks today as well.
You have no idea if their reported body weights are accurate plus some of you BF % estimates are almost certainly too low.