Does bone structure have anything to do with muscle potential.

**Toenail Juice Z** · 11-27-2002, 07:00 PM

Lately, I have had quite a few people coming to me and saying that they would make great bodybuilders because of their thick bone structure (that thicker bones mean better genetics)

Is this true?

I once heard however, that Flex Wheelers success in achieving the best looking muscular physique was because he had a thin bone structure.

(I mean just look at how thin his wrists are compared to other bb'ers)

I'm confused on this one. Please enlighten me!
ectomorph mesomorph endomorph?

**sicilian40** · 11-27-2002, 09:13 PM

well i would imagine the thicker bones someone does have the less prone he is to injury in a way and maybe he could sustain more mass but i dont know about better genetics....

**CarbonCopy** · 11-27-2002, 09:36 PM

I think when people say someone would make a good bb it has more to do with the size and amount of muscle compaired to the bone structure. Flex isn't the biggest guy, but for his size he has a lot of muscle and thickness. Just my .02.

Peace,
CC

**Full Intensity** · 11-27-2002, 10:15 PM

I think this is more a matter of opinion then fact, but I know that b/c I just said that someone will post some medical evidence saying otherwise LOL!

...
look at the pics of Lee Priest at 16, he was 130 or something like that, really skinny, now loook at how much mass that body can hold

And besides this sport isn't about how much mass your body can hold, but more so har far you can push your body to hold more mass!

**BigGreen** · 11-27-2002, 10:46 PM

If you give me your ankle and wrist circumference, as well as your height (all in inches), I can give you your predicted upper-limit natural bodyweight at a bodyfat % of 8% (what, it is purported by the creator of the formula i use, top level competitors competed at in the 50's). I'm not even quite sure what I think of its accuracy, but it's been shown to correlate at well over 90% with many of the world's best extremely-likely natural bodybuilders (ie, those guys training before d-bol was even invented). So, yes, according to this formula, anyway, bone structure is very much a factor in your potential.

**Full Intensity** · 11-27-2002, 11:03 PM

I remember seeing a link to that calculator...do you have it? It would be interesting to see the results

**BigGreen** · 11-27-2002, 11:22 PM

PM me your email address, since i have it saved as an Excel spreadsheet, I can't post it and that's been the only way i can reliably get it to those who've asked as an attachment.

**sparky24** · 11-28-2002, 12:18 AM

bump.

**Full Intensity** · 11-29-2002, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by BigGreen
PM me your email address, since i have it saved as an Excel spreadsheet, I can't post it and that's been the only way i can reliably get it to those who've asked as an attachment.

Tis done, let me know when you've sent it, and they're better not be any sneaky marco's in that excel sheet

**Prot** · 11-30-2002, 10:43 AM

Some of the best bodybuilders had small joints...Robby Robinson and Serge Nubret for two. Many others can be found.

According to calculations of ankle and wrist size I should weigh no more than 175...I weigh about 240. But in gaining weight my wrist size has increased as has my feet. Bones grow to support work and weight.

And all of my size came as a mature adult...

muscle insertions are another matter

**BigGreen** · 12-02-2002, 09:52 PM

To all who have requested the sheet: ziplip sometimes has problems with attachments, so if it doesn't go through correctly, just let me know.

To prot and others with similar concerns: I will try to find the exact article from which I got this formula, in which the author does concede that there will invariably be those that stand as exceptions to this rule. However, of the nearly 75 people who have requested the sheet on this board, as well as friends, and fellow gym-goers throughout my area, I have been nothing short of shocked at the general accuracy this formula appears to yield. Also, recall that this formula refers specifically to *natural* limits (ie, even <a href="http://www.allsportsnutrition.com/listproducts.php?style=category&value=CREATINE" target="_blank">creatine</a> , quite possibly, could skew the measurements) at a (1950's) contest level condition. I am currently more than ten pounds over my predicted weight as well, but it isn't in contest shape to be sure. I will post the link if i find it.

EDIT: here it is...gotta love file cabinets and my desire to save every article i print out.

http://weightrainer.virtualave.net/e...potential.html

**BigGreen** · 12-02-2002, 10:01 PM

actually, here are the links to some of the calculators, that way you don't have to rely on my spreadsheet or my email timeliness...enjoy:

http://www.weightrainer.com/meascalc.html

http://www.weightrainer.com/weightcalc.html

**thegame01** · 12-02-2002, 11:07 PM

mesomorphs have the best genetics .Eventhough there is no such thing as a pure meso .There is always a combination .
I do beleive bigger bones may mean more size not necesarilly a " great"
bodybuilder .

Then there is the other side of the argument which makes me laugh all the time .When you hear some people say " i have big bones" but yet they are really fat .There is a diference .

I have seen guy's think they were big and after losing tons of weight there's actually nothing left .

Anyways thats all i have for ya bro
GZ

**BigGreen** · 12-04-2002, 02:52 PM

I'm just bumping this up a bit higher for all the people who've been PM'ing and emailing me trying (in vain given ziplip's unwillingess to attach the spreadsheet) in an attempt to get their hands on the calculator. Of course, it's only after I slaved away writing excel formulas (and trying to get the parantheses right) that I find they provide a link at the bottom of their page (the one where I found the formula)...oh well.