Your Maximum Muscular Bodyweight and Measurements

by Casey Butt, Ph.D.

For a drug-free bodybuilder trying to develop maximum muscle mass, the knowledge of how much
muscle can be developed without the use of anabolic drugs would be a very valuable asset.
Unfortunately, because of the achievements of drug-using professional, amateur and recreational
bodybuilders, many natural lifters either have no idea of their actual potential, they over-estimate what
they can realistically achieve or they adopt a defeatist attitude and set their goals too low.
Perspective is needed. The ability to set ambitious, yet realistic, goals is needed. And while there is
no doubt that through natural bodybuilding a trainee can develop truly impressive, strong muscles,
the chances of a drug-free bodybuilder attaining lean 22" arms are about the same as him sprouting
wings.

Maximum muscular bodyweight and size potential are positively correlated with a person's height and
bone-structure [1-4]. Simply put, naturally large-structured men generally have the potential to
develop larger muscles than slightly built men. Reflecting that, there are several formulae in popular
use that predict a person's maximum muscular weight based on these variables (with bone-structure
size typically estimated by measuring the circumference of the wrist).

Bodybuilding legend Steve Reeves presented simple formulas for calculating what he considered to
be ideal muscular weight. He suggested starting with a base of 160 pounds and adding 5 pounds for
every inch of height above 5'5". For people above 6'0", he suggested starting with 200 pounds and
adding 10 pounds per inch. Using these formulae, a person 5'9" would have an ideal muscular
weight of 180 pounds. A person 6'1" would weigh 210 pounds. The problem with these predictions is
that they do not consider bone structure size.

In his book, Beyond Brawn, Stuart McRobert also proposed a method of estimating maximum
muscular bodyweight. The suggestion is to start with 5'0" as a base height and 100 pounds as a
base weight. Then add 10 pounds for every inch of height above 5'0" for a medium bone structure, 8
pounds for a small structure, and 12 pounds for a large structure. Above 5'9" add only half those
amounts. A person of 5'9" with a medium structure would weigh 190 pounds. A person of 6'1" with a
large structure would weigh 232 pounds. This is a worthwhile refinement of the simple linear
approach, but becomes inaccurate when dealing with very large and/or very small structured people.

In the scientific community, Dr. E. M. Kouri, et. al. presented a comparison between the lean body
masses of drug-free vs. drug-using lifters based upon their fat-free mass indexes (FFMI) [5]. This
formula can be solved for maximum lean body mass at a given height if a maximum FFMI is assumed
for drug-free lifters. The problem with doing this, however, is that, again, bone structure is not
considered.

What's needed is an accurate and precise formula, based on personal bone structure and height, that
gives the maximum lean body mass a trainee can achieve without the use of anabolic drugs.

Predicting Maximum Muscular Bodyweight

The normal adult male serum testosterone level for a man under 40 years of age is between 3 and 10
ng/ml [6-8]. This imposes a limit on the amount of lean body mass that can be developed and
maintained without the use of exogenous anabolic drugs (women's testosterone levels are 10 to 20
times less than this, resulting in less muscle mass potential). Muscular potential is also influenced by
muscle belly length, fast-twitch to slow-twitch fiber ratio, etc. So there will be variations in potential
between people even of identical bone structures. Consequently, no equation predicting maximum
muscular bodyweight will be 100% accurate for everybody.

1
What such an equation can do, however, is establish an upper limit of potential based on the
achievements of drug-free bodybuilding champions. These men possess naturally high testosterone
levels, full muscle bellies, and the host of structural characteristics that permit the development of
world-class physiques they reflect the upper limit of male drug-free muscular potential. Therefore, a
muscular bodyweight prediction equation based on such a group of men provides an estimate as to
the maximum muscular size a person of a given structure is likely to achieve without the use of
anabolic drugs and while maintaining a balanced physique.

If you have long muscle bellies, good health and hormone levels, a growth supporting diet and
lifestyle, and train according to your needs then you should, in time, be able to reach such a predicted
muscular weight. If one of these factors doesn't apply to you then your potential will be less. It has
been my experience though based on over six years of data collection and analysis that most
healthy people can come quite close to what such a formula can predict if they train correctly for
long enough.

One must also consider the case where a person's bone structure tapers at the extremities. For
instance, the wrist and ankle circumferences could be small but the upper legs and torso structures
not correspondingly small. This trait is somewhat common amongst people of African descent. The
opposite end of the spectrum is a very slightly built person who has large wrists and ankles. This type
of structure also exists. In these cases, it is more difficult to accurately predict muscular potential. I
have chosen to present a simplified lean body mass prediction equation, but with the caveat that an
adjustment be made for very thinly and thickly built men.

Finally, potential lean body mass increases with body fat percentage. Research has found that very
heavy Sumo wrestlers actually carry more lean body mass than bodybuilders of the same height [9].
A statistical analysis of off-season vs. contest-condition bodybuilders was performed to account for
this in the lean body mass prediction equation.

Predicting Maximum Muscular Bodyweight: The Equation

The equation below predicts the maximum lean body mass someone of a given height and bone-
structure can achieve without the use of anabolic drugs (there is a link at the end of this article to an
online calculator based on all of the formulae presented here).

W A %bf
Maximum lean body mass = H
1.5
1
22.6670 17.0104 224

where,
H = Height in inches
A = Ankle circumference at the smallest point
W = Wrist circumference measured on the hand side of the styloid process.
(The styloid process is the bony lump on the outside of your wrist.)
%bf = The body fat percentage at which you want to predict your maximum lean body mass

Very thin ectomorphic men can expect to plateau at less than 94% of the lean body mass that the
equation predicts. Likewise, very endo-mesomorphic men, who have disproportionately wide hips,
thick torsos, uncharacteristically small joints, and high natural testosterone levels may be able to
exceed the prediction by roughly 3%.

Using this equation for a 5'9" (69 inches) tall bodybuilder at 10% body fat with 7.0" wrists and 8.7"
ankles yields:

7.0 8.7 10
Maximum lean body mass = 69
1.5
1 = 173.7 pounds.
22.6670 17.0104 224

2
To convert maximum lean body mass to maximum bodyweight at any given body fat, use this
equation:
Body weight = (Lean body mass / (100 %body fat) ) x 100

Using our example bodybuilder, at a lean and healthy 10% body fat his total bodyweight would be:

Body weight = (173.7 / (100 10) ) x 100 = 193.0 pounds

The formula was developed as an amalgamation of data from past and present drug-free
bodybuilding champions and anthropometrics data from the U.S. Army, Navy, and several
anthropometrics studies done by various organizations throughout the world (for ergonomic designs,
etc.). In addition, a comparison was made with the fat-free mass indexes of champion bodybuilders,
as presented in the work of Dr. E. M. Kouri, et. al. A mathematical regression was then done to obtain
fits based on the heights, wrist sizes and ankle sizes of elite-level drug-free bodybuilding competitors.

Table 1 presents a list of drug-free bodybuilding champions both past and present [1-4,10,11] with
their actual weights and the weights predicted by the formula. The current champions are unnamed
because of the sensitive nature of body weights and measurements to actively competing
bodybuilders.
Table 1: Bodybuilding Champions
Bodybuilder Actual Weight Predicted Weight
Clarence Ross 198 198.1
John Farbotnik 195 195.4
George Eiferman 195 194.0
Reg Park 214 214.3
John Grimek 203 203.8
Jack Delinger 195 194.9
Steve Reeves 214 214.0
Current World Champion "A" 170 170.0
Current World Champion "B" 168 167.5
st
Current National 1 Place "A" 190 190.4
st
Current National 1 Place "B" 185 185.3

The greatest error in the above predictions is less than 1.2%, indicating that the equation is quite
accurate for this group of bodybuilders. In addition, these lifters are of varying heights and bone
structures to further illustrate the validity of the predictions.

Comparing these bodyweights to population averages shows that these champions carry about 26%
more lean body mass than the average person of their height and bone structure. A large man such
as Reg Park would carry roughly 41 pounds more muscle than his average, non-weight training
counterpart. A smaller structured man, such as 2006 WNBF World Champion Jon Harris, would carry
about 34 pounds more muscle than an average, non-weight training man of his height and structure.
It is also interesting to note that the absolute level of muscle mass carried by modern drug-tested
bodybuilders is not statistically greater than that carried by bodybuilders from the pre-drug era
though modern bodybuilders compete at much lower body fat levels.

If you are lifetime drug-free, use this formula to set a realistic and accurate bodyweight goal for
yourself. If you achieve the prediction you'll be carrying as much muscle, with respect to your frame
size, as an elite-level natural bodybuilder.

3
Predicting Maximum Muscular Measurements

There have been several sets of equations presented over the years that attempt to predict maximum
muscular measurements based on height or wrist size. The problem is they typically don't consider
both, and very few of them consider lower body structure size. Along with several efforts by David P.
Willoughby [1-3], a popular set of formulae was presented by bodybuilding author John McCallum in
the mid-1960s [12]. McCallums guidelines were based on wrist size, without the lifter's height taken
into consideration. Such an approach can be sufficiently accurate for a lifter of average stature but
muscular potential is, to a degree, influenced by height. For instance, a 6'1" tall trainee with an 8"
wrist will, generally, have the potential to develop larger muscular measurements than a 5'8" trainee
with an 8" wrist. For maximum accuracy, height must be considered when making such predictions.

Using a similar procedure as was used in deriving the bodyweight formula, a set of equations that
predict muscular measurements in lean condition was derived. Again, height, ankle circumference
and wrist circumference are the determining factors. One caveat is in order: People with
uncharacteristically small joints for their frames (notably some people of African descent) may be able
to exceed some of these predictions by up to approximately 3%.

Maximum Muscular Measurements

chest = 1.6817W + 1.3759A + 0.3314H

biceps = 1.2033W + 0.1236H
forearms = 0.9626W + 0.0989H
neck = 1.1424W + 0.1236H
thighs = 1.3868A + 0.1805H
calves = 0.9298A + 0.1210H
see the Measurement Procedure section
at the end of this paper for instruction on
how measurements should be taken

For our 5'9" trainee with 7.0" wrists and 8.7" ankles we have:

chest = 1.6817 x 7.0 + 1.3759 x 8.7 + 0.3314 x 69 = 46.6"

biceps = 1.2033 x 7.0 + 0.1236 x 69 = 17.0"
forearms = 0.9626 x 7.0 + 0.0989 x 69 = 13.6"
neck = 1.1424 x 7.0 + 0.1236 x 69 = 16.5"
thighs = 1.3868 x 8.7 + 0.1805 x 69 = 24.5"
calves = 0.9298 x 8.7 + 0.1210 x 69 = 16.4"

Clearly, these predictions are not comparable to what some drug-using bodybuilders are claiming
and/or achieving. But, realistically, those numbers represent the maximum measurements that such
a natural trainee is likely to achieve without drugs, while still maintaining balanced measurements
throughout the body. In reality, any trainee who reaches the measurements predicted by these
equations will be an impressive physical specimen ...he would have the size and proportions of the
bodybuilding legends listed above and of the current drug-free bodybuilding champions.

As an illustration, Table 2 shows how the old-timers and some drug-free elite competitors from 2003-
2006 measured up, along with the predictions of the equations. The actual measurements were
taken from a variety of sources deemed credible, and were taken at body fat levels of approximately
8-10%.

4
 Table 2: Measurements of Drug-free Bodybuilders
Chest Biceps Forearms Neck Quads Calves
Bodybuilder actual/pred actual/pred actual/pred actual/pred actual/pred actual/pred
George Eiferman 47.5 / 47.9 16.7 / 17.1 13.4 / 13.7 16.5 / 16.7 25.0 / 25.5 16.0 / 17.1
Reg Park NA / 50.5 18.5 / 18.5 NA / 14.8 18.0 / 18.0 26.5 / 26.4 17.5 / 17.7
John Grimek 49.9 / 49.8 18.1 / 18.1 14.5 / 14.5 17.7 / 17.6 25.7 / 26.1 17.3 / 17.5
Jack Delinger 47.5 / 47.9 17.2 / 17.4 13.8 / 13.9 16.8 / 17.0 25.0 / 25.1 16.6 / 16.8
Steve Reeves 49.5 / 49.6 18.0 / 18.0 14.5 / 14.4 17.5 / 17.6 26.0 / 26.1 17.9 / 17.5
World Champion "B" NA / 44.3 16.8* / 16.2 NA / 12.9 15.5 / 15.7 23.0 / 23.2 16.0 / 15.6
st
National 1 Place "A" 47.3 / 48.9 17.5 / 17.7 NA / 14.2 17.8 / 17.3 25.5 / 25.8 16.5 / 17.3
st
National 1 Place "B" NA / 46.9 17.2 / 17.1 NA / 13.7 17.0 / 16.6 24.5 / 24.6 15.5 / 16.5
* pumped

Again, the predictions are quite accurate, but they also help illustrate certain points. For instance,
you'll notice that many of these bodybuilders have calves smaller than the predicted values, whereas
Steve Reeves and World Champion "B" exceeded the predicted values. What you are seeing there is
the fact that the calves are a notoriously difficult body part to develop, whereas these competitors
were genetically blessed with great calves that responded well to training. Another thing these
equations can reflect are outstanding body parts. For instance, all the bodybuilders above who
exceed the arm prediction even slightly are known for their arm development.

Conclusion

What these equations give you is the heaviest lean body

mass and largest lean measurements that a natural
bodybuilder of the given structure is likely to achieve while
maintaining balance throughout the muscle groups of the
body. That isn't to say that a bodybuilder won't have a
genetically gifted body part(s) that exceeds these
predictions, or that he can't surpass these predictions by
specializing, perhaps inappropriately, on certain muscle
groups. However, it is very unlikely that the rest of the
physique, as a whole, would reach that standard. If you
have body parts that can exceed the predictions then you'll
probably always have to take it easy on those muscles or
they'll grow out of balance with the rest of your physique.
(And if your outstanding body part is a large muscle group
like legs or back this can cause your bodyweight to exceed
the prediction given by the bodyweight equation.) In this
regard, these equations should be viewed more as
maximum guidelines than as limitations. On the other
hand, perhaps you would like your biceps a little oversized
with respect to the rest of your physique.

Also, keep in mind that achieving these measurements

doesn't necessarily mean that your body will be perfect.
Measurements don't tell the full story things such as
muscle shape, symmetry, separation and definition can
make all the difference. You may find yourself achieving
Reg Park

5
these measurements yet your physique still lacking in certain aspects. Most commonly, if a person
reaches these predictions, yet still doesn't appear muscularly impressive, then he's simply too fat
keep in mind that these equations describe a lean condition. On the other hand, if your
measurements are significantly under what the equations predict, you've probably got the potential for
further growth (baring some medical/physiological condition prohibiting this).

In reality, it will take years of dedicated, productive training for most genetically typical trainees to
even approach these predictions. Most people, including champions, will never achieve this level of
development throughout all of their muscle groups and measurements taken at higher body fat
levels do not reflect true muscular development. If you reach 95% of most of these predictions in
lean condition you will stand out in almost any gym. In fact, 95% represents good lifetime goals for
most genetically typical, drug-free trainees. At a lean 90% you'd look like a fitness model.

In closing, I want to stress that although these formulae present lofty, but realistic, goals for most
drug-free trainees, they are not meant to represent limitations. But you also must realize that in the
process of surpassing these predictions you are also surpassing the development of drug-free world
champions. Very few people will have the genetic gifts to accomplish that. What the formulae give
you is the lean body mass and full-body measurements that you'd need to achieve to be on an equal
footing, size-wise, with current drug-free champions and the greats of the drug-free era. I'm not
saying that no one can surpass that, but to put it in perspective, you'd need to be carrying more
muscle (with respect to your skeletal frame size) than a prime Reg Park in order to do it.

Online calculator based on the formulae presented above: http://www.weightrainer.net/bodypred.html

Measurement Procedure
chest measured relaxed (not expanded), arms at sides, tape under armpits
biceps flexed, at largest point
forearms fist clenched, hand out straight, measured at largest point
neck below Adam's apple at smallest point
thighs standing relaxed, midway between hip and knee
calves standing relaxed, at largest point
* For all measurements tape should be snug but not compressing the flesh.

References
1. Willoughby, D.P., What the Champions Measured, Muscle Builder, January 1954.
2. Willoughby, D.P., The Super Athletes, New York: A.S. Barnes and Company, 1970.
3. Willoughby, D.P., Weaver G., The Complete Guide to Muscular Measurements, Montreal: Weider Publications Company,
1947.
4. Rasch P.I., Weight Training, Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1982.
5. Kouri E.M., Pope H.G. Jr., Katz D.L., Oliva P., Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic
steroids, Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 223-8, 1995.
6. MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Testosterone. (2006). Retrieved 14 Feb. 2008, from the National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health Website: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003707.htm
7. Vermeulen, A., Kaufman J.M., Diagnosis of hypogonadism in the aging male, Aging Male, vol. 5, pp. 170176, 2002.
8. Bhasin S., Woodhouse L, Casaburi R et al., Testosterone dose-response relationships in healthy young men, Am J
Physiol Endocrinol Metab, vol. 281, pp. E1172-E1181, 2001.
9. Kondo M., Abe T., Ikegawa S., Kawakami Y., Fukunaga T., Upper limit of fat-free mass in humans: A study on Japanese
Sumo wrestlers, American Journal of Human Biology, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 613-18, 1994.
10. Todd, T., Anabolic Steroids: The Gremlins of Sport, Journal of Sport History, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 87-107, 1987.
11. World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, September 2007, <http://www.wnbf.net>.
12. McCallum, John. Your Measurements, Strength and Health, November 1964.

Copyright 2008 Casey Butt

www.WeighTrainer.net
All rights reserved