Actually, anthropometric measures that are currently being used are very poor, my degree is in ergonomics and me an my colleagues put little weight behind them.
I wouldn't doubt for a moment that anthropometric measures are an insufficient basis for ergonomic design. But formulae for ideal/max development aren't considerate of non-ideal/sub-max levels of development. If the formulae were trying to predict the bodily measurements of everyone then it would be impossible to use limited anthropometrics. But the concern here is not the
average but the
ideal - people with title-winning physiques.
The 50th, 95th and 5th percentile male do not exist. I actually have a scale picture on here somewhere that shows what the 50th percentile male would actually look like and he does not look like any human I know. I will find it for you. Crap, it's gone. Here is an example. Say the 50th percentile male is 5'9". So would someone who is 5'9" with really long legs be any less the 50th percentile male than someone who is 5'9" with stubby legs. If so, which ones legs would be 50th percentile since they both are of 50th percentile height.
I have degrees in pure mathematics (minor in statistics), physics (minor in applied mathematics) and engineering (electrical), I can assure you that the 95th and 5th percentiles have to exist, that is within the definition of the term "percentile". If the 50th percentile didn't exist then there would be no one above average, that is not possible because of the definition of average.
Because population statistics follow a Gaussian distribution, though, I agree that it would be very difficult to isolate clearly-defined percentile boundaries. However, because of this Gaussian distribution, it is also ensured that "outliers" above and below the 95th and 5th percentiles will be very rare. This is part of the reason that the formulae do work for the majority of the population. Of course, if you're a midget or a giant then the formulae will probably not work for you because these groups were not included in the sample used to fit the equations.
Nutrition was dealt with in the article, but not in the formulas. There is no constant or variable in the equation dealing with this.
If your nutrition is inadequate then you won't reach your genetic potential. That doesn't change your potential, just the likelihood that you'll ever get there. Similarly, if your rest and/or training is inadequate then you won't reach your maximum potential.
I do not believe for one moment that today's nutritional practices have lead to natural Bodybuilders carrying more muscle than those of the 1950s. I have yet to see a truly natural Bodybuilder carrying more muscle mass than Jack Delinger did in the late 1940s or Reg Park in the 1950s. In fact, using the fat free mass index (FFMI) as a basis, I have yet to test anybody (that I was confident was drug-free) with a higher FFMI than Delinger. So there is no need to try to incorporate nutrition into the formulae (which would be impossible anyway) any more than there is whether a person uses barbells or dumbbells.
The formulas that are presented in the article only pertain to people who chose to participate in bodybuilding in the 40's or whenever it was since that is the sample they chose and cannot be translated to someone of today.
They did not choose the sample they belonged to - I did. And the human genome has not changed since that time, and drug-free Bodybuilders are no larger today than they were then. So it is irrelevant anyway.
Actually, I
did include several current, supposed, drug-free Bodybuilders in the derivation of those formulae. However, this day in age there is no truly reliable way of verifying a person's drug-free status, so I choose not to include them in the published material. With the exception of a few (most notably Skip LaCour) the prediction equations are accurate. The problem with using today's athletes is that modern "natural" competitions have become largely just competitions to see who can use the most drugs yet still beat the drug test. I have several friends and acquaintances who compete in drug-tested events, yet they are using not only small doses of anabolics but very large ones.
To be quite honest, I think the chances of Skip LaCour being drug-free are about the same as Elton John being straight. He has competed at a competition weight of 231 at 5'10". That gives him an FFMI comparable to the top drug-using Bodybuilders. It also makes him quite larger (based on structure) than Schwarzenegger at his peak. I think about the only thing natural about Mr. LaCour is his ability to pass drug tests.
By the way, I won't be here for a few days, so if you respond I won't be able to get back to you until next week.
).
