Hugh Jackman Deadlifts 400 pounds

jofjltncb6

If I was his age and paid for a certain look/to do what he does, no way would I be natty. There's simply no compelling argument for him to be. Properly administered and monitored, steroid usage is safer than OTC pain relievers or recreational drinking*.

True story.





(* I made this up...but wouldn't be at all surprised that it's completely true.)

Sarauk2sf

I couldn't care less about how much he deadlifts, whether or not straps/vests are cheating, or "bro science".
What I DO care about is that when I open up a discussion about Hugh Jackman, I want to see lots of pictures of Hugh Jackman. This thread is a miserable failure..

I just got a lady boner....

ninerbuff

If I was his age and paid for a certain look/to do what he does, no way would I be natty. There's simply no compelling argument for him to be. Properly administered and monitored, steroid usage is safer than OTC pain relievers or recreational drinking*.

True story.





(* I made this up...but wouldn't be at all surprised that it's completely true.)

Well to your credit, I've NEVER heard anyone die from steroid overdose. True story.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

dbmata

God knows the only bad result barry bonds had from his use is that he didn't get picked back up by the Giants.

No_Finish_Line

He's absolutely natty. The guy doesn't have a six pack. You know a guy is using roids when he is massive AND he is shredded (i.e. body builders). That's a great accomplishment for any age and it is very attainable for people who don't use steroids.

This maybe poorly worded, but if your over a certain weight at a certain height and body fat %, damn straight there is a good chance your on steroids, or your lucky enough to be part of the 1% or so of the population that is genetically gifted enough to achieve that.

this is a study down on natural bodybuilders and thier average weight at given height and BF %, after training for 10 years:

http://www.builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/

MityMax96

He's absolutely natty. The guy doesn't have a six pack. You know a guy is using roids when he is massive AND he is shredded (i.e. body builders). That's a great accomplishment for any age and it is very attainable for people who don't use steroids.

This maybe poorly worded, but if your over a certain weight at a certain height and body fat %, damn straight there is a good chance your on steroids, or your lucky enough to be part of the 1% or so of the population that is genetically gifted enough to achieve that.

this is a study down on natural bodybuilders and thier average weight at given height and BF %, after training for 10 years:

http://www.builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/

What would those numbers be??

You think Jackman is on roids?

dbmata

Lest someone take that without salt, there is no study there. It's a blog post without substantiation.

No_Finish_Line

He's absolutely natty. The guy doesn't have a six pack. You know a guy is using roids when he is massive AND he is shredded (i.e. body builders). That's a great accomplishment for any age and it is very attainable for people who don't use steroids.

This maybe poorly worded, but if your over a certain weight at a certain height and body fat %, damn straight there is a good chance your on steroids, or your lucky enough to be part of the 1% or so of the population that is genetically gifted enough to achieve that.

this is a study down on natural bodybuilders and thier average weight at given height and BF %, after training for 10 years:

http://www.builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/

What would those numbers be??

You think Jackman is on roids?

i'd post the chart in here but i don't really know how to do it and make it look right. you'll have to open the link to see the numbers.

i don't really know enough about HJ to say he is or he isn't (honestly thought he was short guy, i guess just because he played wolverine), and photos are always doctored anyway

i did echo what another poster was saying; in that i think a lot of male actors who's career is based in any (even small) way on thier physique may be taking some sort of band substance.

MityMax96

i'd post the chart in here but i don't really know how to do it and make it look right. you'll have to open the link to see the numbers.

i don't really know enough about HJ to say he is or he isn't (honestly thought he was short guy, i guess just because he played wolverine), and photos are always doctored anyway

i did echo what another poster was saying; in that i think a lot of male actors who's career is based in any (even small) way on thier physique may be taking some sort of band substance.

Yeah I thought he was shorter as well....prolly due to the fact he played Wolverine as well (about 5'6" in comics)....
So I was shocked when I saw him listed at 6'2"

I opened the link and read the chart.....I do LeanGains myself, and read that article from Martin about LBM potential, and forgot all about it.
I got a ways to go before I am at the top end of my BW potential....but good to know that where I want to be is possible.

No_Finish_Line

Lest someone take that without salt, there is no study there. It's a blog post without substantiation.

well here is one with references if it makes you feel better.

if you'd perfer to think that your only limited by how much you train, and genetics is an after thought that doens't produce a natural bell curve, then dont bother reading

http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html

harribeau2012

I was so disappointed to not see a picture of the delicious Mr Hugh raaaow Jackson at the start of this thread. just saying.

dbmata

That one might actually have some relevance.

However, there isn't a single current study referred to.

Although, what was interesting is that lean gains says I can't put on more than 160, Dr. Butt says 200#.

That's a significant variance that's essentially as accurate as using a dart board to find an answer.

ninerbuff

I was so disappointed to not see a picture of the delicious Mr Hugh raaaow Jackson at the start of this thread. just saying.

Who's Hugh Jackson?

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

dbmata

Bo Jackson during his needle days?

ninerbuff

I've been to many natural bodybuilding contests and have rarely seen a "shredded" bodybuilder over 180lbs.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

dbmata

n=1, but my strength coach is a natty fitness model competitor, and he's ripped at 205, his brother is a natty BB and a 220# monster. He's cutting for a competition in September and he's shredded, already at competition weight.

_errata_

To those of you calling my comments absurd... try getting huge and maintaining a six pack and see how it works out for you. There is a reason why powerlifters and strongmen aren't cut and bodybuilders are shredded. When you cut, you lose muscle mass. Period. The only way to get HUGE (not natty huge) and be shredded is to use steroids.



**Edit**: Also, Hugh Jackman isn't that big.

Lol, one doesn't have to be huge if taking steroids. Stallone and others have taken them for years and aren't HUGE. And if you don't think competitive power lifters or Olympic lifters don't juice just because they don't display 6 pack abs.......
Competitive bodybuilders don't ONLY use steroids too. There's a myriad of drugs besides them that they take which I won't mention on here, but take a ride over to any bodybuilding site and PED's a regular conversation.
Shredded abs comes down to one thing..........low body fat and that has more to do with intake/output of calories than anything else.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I think several people are misunderstanding me. It boils down to simple logic. There are two components to my statement that can have true/false values: 1) Body Fat percentage 2) Muscle Mass.

My claim is effectively that you can tell when someone is on roids when two criteria have been met: 1) Low Body fat % and 2) A lot of muscle mass. In logic, it is as follows:

If a person has low body fat % and high muscle mass, then person is on roids (If p AND q, then r). The contrapositive, or logically equivalent statement to that is "If a person is not on roids, they either do not have a low body fat% or do not have a lot of muscle mass (or both) (If not r, then not p or not q). Translation, my comment didn't preclude the possibility of someone being fat or not having muscle and being on roids.

The only way to know for sure if someone is on roids is if they are HUGE and CUT. Obviously you can pump roids all day and be a fat blob, but since we are talking about Hugh Jackman, I figured that was basically irrelevant. Given that, it is possible to criticize my comments since technically it is still possible for him to be on roids given the logic I outlined. I guess the larger point I am trying to make is that his physique is something that is definitely attainable WITHOUT roids. Does that technically mean he is not on roids? Nope.

My bad.

Also, let me qualify my statements regarding "huge". When I am talking about HUGE, I am talking like Ronnie Coleman and Jay Cutler huge... where you are over 250+ lbs with a 3% body fat percentage at the time of your contest. That kind of physique is hard to obtain without roids. You can definitely get shredded at 220 lbs as a natty ( See Tom Venuto). It's hard to do, but it is definitely possible.

For most people though, the general rule of if huge and cut then roids is absolutely true. Obviously there are exceptions, but that rule is true more often than not.

JoRocka

I've been to many natural bodybuilding contests and have rarely seen a "shredded" bodybuilder over 180lbs.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

think my friend ticked in around 200 natural- and he took home 5th for his first comp. but he's tall- pushing 6 something. I'm pretty sure it can happen- but it's the exception not the rule.

explosivedonut

To those of you calling my comments absurd... try getting huge and maintaining a six pack and see how it works out for you. There is a reason why powerlifters and strongmen aren't cut and bodybuilders are shredded. When you cut, you lose muscle mass. Period. The only way to get HUGE (not natty huge) and be shredded is to use steroids.



**Edit**: Also, Hugh Jackman isn't that big.

Lol, one doesn't have to be huge if taking steroids. Stallone and others have taken them for years and aren't HUGE. And if you don't think competitive power lifters or Olympic lifters don't juice just because they don't display 6 pack abs.......
Competitive bodybuilders don't ONLY use steroids too. There's a myriad of drugs besides them that they take which I won't mention on here, but take a ride over to any bodybuilding site and PED's a regular conversation.
Shredded abs comes down to one thing..........low body fat and that has more to do with intake/output of calories than anything else.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I think several people are misunderstanding me. It boils down to simple logic. There are two components to my statement that can have true/false values: 1) Body Fat percentage 2) Muscle Mass.

My claim is effectively that you can tell when someone is on roids when two criteria have been met: 1) Low Body fat % and 2) A lot of muscle mass. In logic, it is as follows:

If a person has low body fat % and high muscle mass, then person is on roids (If p AND q, then r). The contrapositive, or logically equivalent statement to that is "If a person is not on roids, they either do not have a low body fat% or do not have a lot of muscle mass (or both) (If not r, then not p or not q). Translation, my comment didn't preclude the possibility of someone being fat or not having muscle and being on roids.

The only way to know for sure if someone is on roids is if they are HUGE and CUT. Obviously you can pump roids all day and be a fat blob, but since we are talking about Hugh Jackman, I figured that was basically irrelevant. Given that, it is possible to criticize my comments since technically it is still possible for him to be on roids given the logic I outlined. I guess the larger point I am trying to make is that his physique is something that is definitely attainable WITHOUT roids. Does that technically mean he is not on roids? Nope.

My bad.

Also, let me qualify my statements regarding "huge". When I am talking about HUGE, I am talking like Ronnie Coleman and Jay Cutler huge... where you are over 250+ lbs with a 3% body fat percentage at the time of your contest. That kind of physique is hard to obtain without roids. You can definitely get shredded at 220 lbs as a natty ( See Tom Venuto). It's hard to do, but it is definitely possible.

For most people though, the general rule of if huge and cut then roids is absolutely true. Obviously there are exceptions, but that rule is true more often than not.

You can also be much smaller and still be on roids. Christian Bale is (or at least was) totally on juice. That is the only explanation for his remarkable transformation from The Machinist to The Dark Knight.

Also, a ton of powerlifters are on juice. They might have a lot of fat mass, but they also have a lot of muscle mass. That's actually how they get so big. The guy who plays The Mountain is on a ton of gear, and he has a lot of fat mass. Your statement (If p AND q, then r) is just false. You are starting with the r, and trying to find cases of it fitting both p and q, while ignoring figures that don't fit those three.

No_Finish_Line

That one might actually have some relevance.

However, there isn't a single current study referred to.

Although, what was interesting is that lean gains says I can't put on more than 160, Dr. Butt says 200#.

That's a significant variance that's essentially as accurate as using a dart board to find an answer.

the actual numbers are besides the point.

I just wanted to defend the guy who really stated something thats basically common sense and everyone bashed him for.

There is a genetic limit, most of us fall in the average range (obviously)... so if your 5'8'', 300 lbs (total exaggeration obviouly) and are at 8% bf... then i'm not suprised if people point fingers at said person.