Instigator / Pro

1417

rating

debates

24.07%

won

Topic

#4640

Arnold Schwarzenegger's physique is naturally achievable

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!

Tags

Arnold Schwarzenegger

bodybuilding

Parameters

Publication date: 06.28.2023 12:36AM
Last updated date: 07.13.2023 01:49PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: One week
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Sir.Lancelot

1587

rating

182

debates

55.77%

won

Description

This is not a debate on whether Arnie was natty - as he was not natty and was never natty. This debate is about whether or not his peak physique is naturally achievable.

important terms:

natty: Someone whose muscle gains are natural and not aided by the use of anabolic steroids, HGH, insulin, clenbuterol, or any other anabolic PED.

This debate is split into 3 parts:
1. FFMI/Objective muscularity(how objectively muscular he was)
2. body shape(Arnie's exact body shape)
3. Exact proportions. (exact proportions/

Now I am pro, but this doesn't mean I'm gonna blindly defend my points and will likely concede

Also do not commit any logical fallacies.

Round 1

Conservallectual

07.01.2023 04:01PM

Pro

FFMI:

Arnold reached his peak in 1974. At this year he weighed 237 lbs. Arnie's height is 6'2[2] - this makes him the tallest Mr Olympia winner. The usual body fat of bodybuilders of his day was 6-8%[3]. I am going to assume the lowest value at 6%.

So these are the stats

weight: 237 lbs

height: 6'2

bodyfat: 6%

so lets plop them into the ffmi equation and we get a value of: 28.16

Now it is considered that an ffmi of about 25 is the the blurry natty limit and that going higher is likely impossible but bodybuilders from the silver era of bodybuilding(a time of which their is no evidence of steroid use as PED) have achieved similar FFMIs. Just look at Jack Deligner in the 1949 mr America here[1]. He managed to reach above 25 ffmi(28.0 to be specific) this is before the first use of Steroids as PEDs by the russian weight lifting team. Steroids did exist since 1935 but they were used and advertised to treat old men with urinary problems and men with depression(Something that a young healthy and strong man of the time - especially a bodybuilder - wouldn't take interest in)[4]. Their anabolic properties were not yet known very well. Steve Reeves nor any bodybuilder of the silver era ever claimed to use steroids[5].

Body shape:

This is about the body shape - not exact muscularity.

Any man can train to look like arnie he just has to:

* Put the heaviest emphasis on the chest

* Train the upper body more than the lower body.

* Have terrible traps and calves

* Train your arms heavily

* Barely train your waist

* Put mild emphasis on the abs

* go to a low body fat percentage

* Check your mirror and compare yourself to this photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arnold_Schwarzenegger_1974.jpg

Just like him, I have a naturally huge chest - so does most males in my family.

Exact proportions:

This is about trying to get at his exact proportions:

Well if you are as tall as arnie - as most men in my family are - well then tough luck as I don't know if this is possible. Jack Deligner was 5'6 - with less height, then there is less space to fill with muscle - this is why bodybuilders are usually short.

Proportions according to https://fitnessvolt.com/14662/arnold-schwarzenegger-biography/

Arms: 22″ (56 cm)

Chest: 57″ (145 cm)

Waist: 34″ (86 cm)

Thighs: 28,5″ (72 cm)

Calves: 20″ (51 cm)

Arms: 22 inch arms aren't really that impossible. In the silver era, Leroy Colbert achieved 21 inch arms[7] And he existed before roids became popular in Bodybuilding.

Chest: Arnold's chest is 57 inches. If you have good chest genetics - like Arnold - getting near is much easier. Reeve's chest was 52 inches[6]. I don't know if this is naturally possible.

Waist: Aronld's waist was his biggest weakpoint. Steve Reeve's waist was 29 inches[6] - and he was also natural[5]. So not only can you get to Arnie's waist size naturally but you can do even better.

Thighs: Leroy Colbert had 28 inch thighs https://www.greatestphysiques.com/male-physiques/leroy-colbert/

Calves: Again I don't know, but Steve Reeve's Calves were 18.5 inches. But modern training methods can allow someone to do even better than the silver era dudes.

1. http://gregnuckols.com/2016/12/11/ffmi/

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger

3. https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-body-fat-percentage-of-Arnold-Schwarzenegger-at-the-peak-of-his-bodybuilding-career-compare-to-that-of-todays-bodybuilders

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MupFMhiSlJk

5. https://thebodybuildingarchive.com/was-steve-reeves-natural/

6. https://www.greatestphysiques.com/male-physiques/steve-reeves/

7. https://www.armyourbody.com/leroy-colbert-arm-workout.html

Sir.Lancelot

07.01.2023 06:07PM

Con

Since we already know Arnold Schwarzenegger was on steroids during the year of 1974, then I suppose that part is irrelevant.

Most bodybuilders consider Arnold's 1974 physique to be the ultimate standard of perfection and most bodybuilders train in Good Faith for a lifetime and never reach it. (Training in Good Faith means they never cheat or abuse any illegal substance.) The fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger, someone who perhaps had one of the best genetics in terms of bodybuilding potential HAD to use steroids just to get to that level says all you need to know.

So if Arnold's physique is unattainable even for professional bodybuilders who are considered experts in their field, then that same logic probably applies to amateur or even non-competitive bodybuilders. And it is certainly true for the average person. It's possible that few may achieve it, but this requires an exception. An exception neither breaks nor changes the rules.

Resolution Kritik:

Despite what others say, Arnold's peak was not 1974. (In Competitive Bodybuilding perhaps.) His physical peak would not be at least for another decade.

In 1974, his hypertrophy/muscular development was the largest and his bodily proportions were the most symmetrical, but his peak year was 1981. The same year that Terminator 2 was filmed.

While Arnold may have had the best physique in 1974 and gotten less smaller over the years and had the worst physique in 80's. The year 1981 was when his strength and lifting ability was at its highest. So while Arnold's muscles atrophied, his strength developed significantly. So despite being smaller, he was actually a lot stronger than he was in 1974.

https://www.muscleandstrength.com/workouts/arnold-schwarzenegger-volume-workout-routines

Round 2

Conservallectual

07.06.2023 01:36PM

Pro

"Most bodybuilders consider Arnold's 1974 physique to be the ultimate standard of perfection and most bodybuilders train in Good Faith for a lifetime and never reach it. (Training in Good Faith means they never cheat or abuse any illegal substance.) The fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger, someone who perhaps had one of the best genetics in terms of bodybuilding potential HAD to use steroids just to get to that level says all you need to know."

Arnold may have had the greatest physique, but I think saying he has the best genetics is going way too far. His waist was crap, his abs were crap - heck he had to find ways to distract attention from his abs. He had a waist of 34 inches(Stevie Reevie(Steve Reeves but this nickname is a joke) had a waist of 29 inches - and he was natural). Also just look at his abs - they suck. His legs are rather small. He has great genetics but not the best.

https://generationiron.com/arnold-bad-genetics/

Also Jack Delinger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Delinger

"So if Arnold's physique is unattainable even for professional bodybuilders who are considered experts in their field, then that same logic probably applies to amateur or even non-competitive bodybuilders. And it is certainly true for the average person. It's possible that few may achieve it, but this requires an exception. An exception neither breaks nor changes the rules."

So you just conceded.

"Despite what others say, Arnold's peak was not 1974. (In Competitive Bodybuilding perhaps.) His physical peak would not be at least for another decade." Look at this source: https://www.muscleandfitness.com/athletes-celebrities/body-work-complete-evolution-arnold/#:~:text=But%20many%20bodybuilding%20pundits%20agree,was%20Arnold's%20most%20impressive%20showing).

"In 1974, his hypertrophy/muscular development was the largest and his bodily proportions were the most symmetrical, but his peak year was 1981. The same year that Terminator 2 was filmed."

Technically he retired in 1980

"While Arnold may have had the best physique in 1974 and gotten less smaller over the years and had the worst physique in 80's. The year 1981 was when his strength and lifting ability was at its highest. So while Arnold's muscles atrophied, his strength developed significantly. So despite being smaller, he was actually a lot stronger than he was in 1974."

He may have been stronger but I think most men would rather want to live in his 1974 body. This debate is about muscularity, not necessarily strength.

You didn't really deal with any of my points and also what about Delinger - he was a genetic freak.

Sir.Lancelot

07.06.2023 01:49PM

Con

Arnold may have had the greatest physique, but I think saying he has the best genetics is going way too far. His waist was crap, his abs were crap - heck he had to find ways to distract attention from his abs. He had a waist of 34 inches(Stevie Reevie(Steve Reeves but this nickname is a joke) had a waist of 29 inches - and he was natural). Also just look at his abs - they suck. His legs are rather small. He has great genetics but not the best.

He didn’t train each muscle group as much as he should’ve.

The reason he was underdeveloped before touching a weight for the first time ever is because of inadequate nutrition.

Categorically, most experts consider Schwarzenegger a Mesomorph.:

A human somatotype(physical type) that is marked by greater than average muscular development, as determined by the since-discredited physique-classification system developed in the 1940s by American psychologist W.H. Sheldon.

Conservallectual

07.06.2023 01:40PM

-->

@Barney

I am not claiming anybody is natural. I am just claiming their physique is naturally achievable. Liver king had all the signs of fake natty, including being extremely muscular in his 40s-50s and also having bubble gut.

Barney

07.01.2023 06:41PM

Interesting topic. If it was to go longer, it would benefit from a section on mutants. Michael Phelps for example has mutations which gave him an advantage; would that be considered naturally achievable?

Thankfully, we all know that we can /naturally archive/ the same results as The Liver King. You just need to /naturally/ be injected with a ton of steroids and other performance enhancers, then act like a one dimensional cartoon villain.

Conservallectual

07.01.2023 04:02PM

-->

@Sir.Lancelot

I could, if I had more passion in my arguments. But I do not and expect me to concede more often.

Sir.Lancelot

06.28.2023 12:45AM

-->

@Conservallectual

Could you change this to Rated and extend the rounds to maybe 3, 4, or 5?

RationalMadman

06.28.2023 12:39AM

The thing is you have to use steroids to 'break out' the body pumped look but once you'd done that in 2 or 3 bursts, you no longer need to use steroids to maintain it, you just have to keep exercising often enough.

Conservallectual

06.28.2023 12:37AM

I'm no fan or idolizer of Arnold - as the governator he was a cowardly RINO. This is purely scientific. I also don't think everyone can achieve this physique naturally, only a couple of freaks with godlike genetics can achieve it.

Best.Korea

07.06.2023 02:05PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

"It's possible that few may achieve it..."

It seems that both Pro and Con agree on this point.

Now, I am not sure if this debate is about:

"All men can achieve it"

"Most men can achieve it"

"Half of men can achieve it"

"Some men can achieve it"

Because only the last one gives win to Pro. Since the topic is unclear about which of these is being discussed, I cannot make a vote properly. Therefore, I leave it as a tie in order to not make a voting mistake.