Muscle mass and bone structure
Moderators: Boss Man, cassiegose
Muscle mass and bone structure
I would like anyones views on how much bone structure, that is skeletal size determines overall muscle mass.I've read that large wrist size etc determines how much overall muscle mass you can expect to develop.How can one determine with diet and muscle training how much one can hope to achieve. Example Frank Zane compared to Lou Ferrigno two different size bodybuilders I assume one much lighter than the other.How does the indivual then determine what may be a realistic goal in amateur bodybuilding.
If you're talking realistic Am BB goals, don't use Zane or Ferrigno as examples, the guys were on Anabolics, plain and simple.
I have not heard of any link between Skeletal size, and muscle size, as the Skeleton is mostly stengthened through things like Collagen, Calcium, Vit D, and of course weight training can help.
Muscle is developed of course via things like Protein, which do contain the Aminos Lycine and Proline. Lycine has a connection to Calcium, I think it boosts the bodies utilisation of Calcium, and Proline has an effect on the Joints, as one of its benefits, so Protein could be argued for Skeletal condition.
Though Muscle mass is determinate in part, to things like Metabolic Function, whether you're Ectomorphic, Endomorphic, or Mesomorphic, Diet, condtioning work etc etc. I don't know of any specific link, regards what your Bone Density would be, in determining Muscle Mass potential.
That's not to say there might not be one, but I can't say if there is, exactly what it would be.
I have not heard of any link between Skeletal size, and muscle size, as the Skeleton is mostly stengthened through things like Collagen, Calcium, Vit D, and of course weight training can help.
Muscle is developed of course via things like Protein, which do contain the Aminos Lycine and Proline. Lycine has a connection to Calcium, I think it boosts the bodies utilisation of Calcium, and Proline has an effect on the Joints, as one of its benefits, so Protein could be argued for Skeletal condition.
Though Muscle mass is determinate in part, to things like Metabolic Function, whether you're Ectomorphic, Endomorphic, or Mesomorphic, Diet, condtioning work etc etc. I don't know of any specific link, regards what your Bone Density would be, in determining Muscle Mass potential.
That's not to say there might not be one, but I can't say if there is, exactly what it would be.
bone structure and muscle size
When I speak of bone structure I am refering to the fact that I always believed that your wrist size had a determining factor to your physical body size. son is lucky to have inherited from his mother a solid bone structure and thick wrists, which gives him naturally (without muscle training)large forearms and good size arms.His potential would be greater to achieve more muscle mass than I,who unfortunately has small wrists and I assume a lighter bone structure.Using this as an example can a general guide be derived as to what reasonable muscle size(without steroids) can be achieved with a good workout and diet routine.Also does age have a determining factor in achievable results.
thick wrists will naturally give him good arms as stated but how about his calves / ankles? are they the same? he probably doesn't perfect genetics all over...and all his strong arms will do isd overshadow his back and chest because they do the brunt of the work so as i said, whoever trains the hardest and the SMARTEST, will get there...what is his age, , wt an % now?
-
grainsinwood
I've read an article in a book published by Bob that a man standing 5'7" should weigh in at 157 or 160 pounds.Add or subtract 5 pounds for every inch above or below that height for HWP. (height weight proportionate) Yet if you calculate your body mass index it states you'd be considered overweight at 160.Confusing stuff.I've been working out as part of regular weekly routine and none of what I've read seems to apply to people who have gained muscle mass threw natural bodybuilding.(without the assistance of drugs).Is a 32" waist out of proportion on a 5'7" 160 pounds?
I'm 6ft 2" close on 160, and I lift more than many in gym, though less than some, and about 3 years ago, I went to doctors with a small eye infection, and I was offered a minor medical at if I wanted it, so I took it, and I was perfectly okay.
Height to weight ratio fine, blood pressure normal, activity levels considered fine, Caffiene intake apart from a few diet cokes, low, Fatty intake low, Alcohol intake ZERO
so I am definitely not in an unhealthy state, which if someone of 5ft 7" 160 is supposed to be okay, I technically being about the same weight, and 7" taller should make me a risk, or borderline anorexic in some peoples eyes, and I'm anything but.
Think of it this way, the guys supposed revelation that 5ft 7" 160lbs is overweight, is bollocks.
What if you had two people the same height and weight, but one had 10% less bf%, which is perfectly possible, are they both overweight?
Of course they're not, and depending on the first guys bf%, he might not be either, so the other guy definitely wouldn't be.
So for your height and weight, you're only going to have a real problem possibly if your bf% is roughly 25+. In such an instance, you could reduce that to anything up to 15% lower, and replace the Fat weight with muscle weight, so then you'd still be the same weight, but different body composition.
Height to weight ratio fine, blood pressure normal, activity levels considered fine, Caffiene intake apart from a few diet cokes, low, Fatty intake low, Alcohol intake ZERO
so I am definitely not in an unhealthy state, which if someone of 5ft 7" 160 is supposed to be okay, I technically being about the same weight, and 7" taller should make me a risk, or borderline anorexic in some peoples eyes, and I'm anything but.Think of it this way, the guys supposed revelation that 5ft 7" 160lbs is overweight, is bollocks.
What if you had two people the same height and weight, but one had 10% less bf%, which is perfectly possible, are they both overweight?
Of course they're not, and depending on the first guys bf%, he might not be either, so the other guy definitely wouldn't be.
So for your height and weight, you're only going to have a real problem possibly if your bf% is roughly 25+. In such an instance, you could reduce that to anything up to 15% lower, and replace the Fat weight with muscle weight, so then you'd still be the same weight, but different body composition.