Arm Definition

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]Silo101 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Silo101 wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Silo101 wrote:

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
If I could do it over too, as a beginner before lifting weights I would have gotten lean as shit and then entered the gym. [/quote]

No dude, stretch marks… And its actually harder to put decent size on when you’re that lean and small at the same time… rather just keep a decent body fat the whole time and cut to desired weight after.[/quote]

That’s somewhat what he’s saying. He means that if he’d entered the gym lean to begin with, he would’ve had a little more room for error, as it were, and would’ve been less likely to get fat before coming to terms with reality. And yes, I know his background very well, he knows his stuff. [/quote]

Ok, cool. I agree with everything you said, was just trying to stress that I would rather start at 10 or 11% (and keep it under 13) than “lean as shit” which I take to be about 8 or so.[/quote]

Can you explain why?

If you have a guy who’s 6’ tall 185lbs 10%. And a guy 6’ 180 8% (both have roughly 166lbs of LBM), why would you choose the former? Surely the latter would have better insulin sensitivity, even if only theoretically and not that significant in reality. But still, it seems counterintuitive to DESIRE to start a bulk at a higher bf% if the two options are readily available. [/quote]

Those would not be the options. You are considering two different people. If it was the same guy considering first cutting to 8 at a lower bodyweight or staying at 10 or 11 at his current bodyweight before trying to gain muscle then he would likely be wasting time cutting to 8 and just getting smaller. Better to go straight to gaining and keep the diet in check so as not to get over 13% during bulk.

Ps this is now purely hypothetical theory and has nothing to do with Austin[/quote]

I’d have to agree with this. If you’re talking about starting points, at the same time, obviously the leaner guy at about the same weight is at a slightly better starting point. Duh. But if you’re talking about a newb concerned about dieting 1-2% bodyfat down before gaining weight, that would be pretty damn silly for someone with the goal of being really large and strong.

62

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Silo101 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Silo101 wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Silo101 wrote:

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
If I could do it over too, as a beginner before lifting weights I would have gotten lean as shit and then entered the gym. [/quote]

No dude, stretch marks… And its actually harder to put decent size on when you’re that lean and small at the same time… rather just keep a decent body fat the whole time and cut to desired weight after.[/quote]

That’s somewhat what he’s saying. He means that if he’d entered the gym lean to begin with, he would’ve had a little more room for error, as it were, and would’ve been less likely to get fat before coming to terms with reality. And yes, I know his background very well, he knows his stuff. [/quote]

Ok, cool. I agree with everything you said, was just trying to stress that I would rather start at 10 or 11% (and keep it under 13) than “lean as shit” which I take to be about 8 or so.[/quote]

Can you explain why?

If you have a guy who’s 6’ tall 185lbs 10%. And a guy 6’ 180 8% (both have roughly 166lbs of LBM), why would you choose the former? Surely the latter would have better insulin sensitivity, even if only theoretically and not that significant in reality. But still, it seems counterintuitive to DESIRE to start a bulk at a higher bf% if the two options are readily available. [/quote]

Those would not be the options. You are considering two different people. If it was the same guy considering first cutting to 8 at a lower bodyweight or staying at 10 or 11 at his current bodyweight before trying to gain muscle then he would likely be wasting time cutting to 8 and just getting smaller. Better to go straight to gaining and keep the diet in check so as not to get over 13% during bulk.

Ps this is now purely hypothetical theory and has nothing to do with Austin[/quote]

I’d have to agree with this. If you’re talking about starting points, at the same time, obviously the leaner guy at about the same weight is at a slightly better starting point. Duh. But if you’re talking about a newb concerned about dieting 1-2% bodyfat down before gaining weight, that would be pretty damn silly for someone with the goal of being really large and strong. [/quote]

You see that all the time though, or atleast i do. People ask me for advice, then defensively argue that they want to first lose some bf before putting on muscle, because EVERYONE knows you ONLY put on muscle when bulking…Duh…

63

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I just cant think of a reason to WANT to start a bulk at a higher bf if its entirely possible to do it at a lower body fat. I want to hear a reason why he would prefer that because I cant come up with a reason, not because he’s right or wrong. [/quote]

This is not about what you would prefer as a newb. I am sure he would “prefer” to look like a cover model. The reality is that someone with low muscle mass and relatively average body fat should first define their goals.

If those goals involve getting big muscles, worrying about dieting all fat off is a waste of time…which is the main factor I always go into as the main limiting factor as far as your own progress. Bottom line, you don’t have forever to get really really big. That is coming from someone who was skinnier than most I’ve seen here and smaller overall.

The real question is, what is the benefit to being more focused on body fat if it lengthens the time it takes to make significant progress when time is the greatest factor working against you?[/quote]

I dont see how spending 3-4 months ‘getting in shape’ will set a newb in his teens/early 20s back. If youre talking about older guys, then sure, fire away and diet later.

You underestimate the vanity of people who pursue this endeavor. Some people want to look good. Not everyone is comfortable getting fat. As someone who has been in better shape than my peers basically my whole life, I know I would not tolerate getting out of shape. But I also dont have the desire to be 220lbs.

I also think that someone will stay much more committed if they are happy with what they see in the mirror than if they are constantly questioning if they are ‘doing it right’. I think youre approaching this too mechanically, people arent robots.

And I know a thing or two about being skinny as fuck too. Im the same height in both pics. And obviously I dont carry the mass you do, but you dont have me beat on starting off small. Im about 195 in the second pic. Can anyone guess the weight in the first?

edit

For clarity. Im not talking about getting in shape as going from 10% to 8%. Im talking about a bigger difference than that.

64

[quote]Akuma01 wrote:

You see that all the time though, or atleast i do. People ask me for advice, then defensively argue that they want to first lose some bf before putting on muscle, because EVERYONE knows you ONLY put on muscle when bulking…Duh…[/quote]

Well I mean if someone’s looking for an excuse to do an endless “recomp”, yeah that’s pretty silly. In the case of newbs, a “rapid recomp” involves only cleaning up the diet a bit, and actually lifting weights. So yes, for someone that isn’t FAT, being super-concerned about getting really lean before bulking is silly and a waste of time, when instead they could just stop eating twinkies and drinking soda like it’s going out of fashion.

65

[quote]Silo101 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Silo101 wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Silo101 wrote:

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
If I could do it over too, as a beginner before lifting weights I would have gotten lean as shit and then entered the gym. [/quote]

No dude, stretch marks… And its actually harder to put decent size on when you’re that lean and small at the same time… rather just keep a decent body fat the whole time and cut to desired weight after.[/quote]

That’s somewhat what he’s saying. He means that if he’d entered the gym lean to begin with, he would’ve had a little more room for error, as it were, and would’ve been less likely to get fat before coming to terms with reality. And yes, I know his background very well, he knows his stuff. [/quote]

Ok, cool. I agree with everything you said, was just trying to stress that I would rather start at 10 or 11% (and keep it under 13) than “lean as shit” which I take to be about 8 or so.[/quote]

Can you explain why?

If you have a guy who’s 6’ tall 185lbs 10%. And a guy 6’ 180 8% (both have roughly 166lbs of LBM), why would you choose the former? Surely the latter would have better insulin sensitivity, even if only theoretically and not that significant in reality. But still, it seems counterintuitive to DESIRE to start a bulk at a higher bf% if the two options are readily available. [/quote]

Those would not be the options. You are considering two different people. If it was the same guy considering first cutting to 8 at a lower bodyweight or staying at 10 or 11 at his current bodyweight before trying to gain muscle then he would likely be wasting time cutting to 8 and just getting smaller. Better to go straight to gaining and keep the diet in check so as not to get over 13% during bulk.

Ps this is now purely hypothetical theory and has nothing to do with Austin[/quote]

Im saying those are the two options. In a vacuum. Same person. Started lifting on the same day, just in alternate universes.

I didnt realize you meant that cutting to 8% was unproductive. It sounded like you meant that just being at 8% was less desireable than being at 10%. I see what youre saying.

66

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I just cant think of a reason to WANT to start a bulk at a higher bf if its entirely possible to do it at a lower body fat. I want to hear a reason why he would prefer that because I cant come up with a reason, not because he’s right or wrong. [/quote]

This is not about what you would prefer as a newb. I am sure he would “prefer” to look like a cover model. The reality is that someone with low muscle mass and relatively average body fat should first define their goals.

If those goals involve getting big muscles, worrying about dieting all fat off is a waste of time…which is the main factor I always go into as the main limiting factor as far as your own progress. Bottom line, you don’t have forever to get really really big. That is coming from someone who was skinnier than most I’ve seen here and smaller overall.

The real question is, what is the benefit to being more focused on body fat if it lengthens the time it takes to make significant progress when time is the greatest factor working against you?[/quote]

I dont see how spending 3-4 months ‘getting in shape’ will set a newb in his teens/early 20s back. If youre talking about older guys, then sure, fire away and diet later.

You underestimate the vanity of people who pursue this endeavor. Some people want to look good. Not everyone is comfortable getting fat. As someone who has been in better shape than my peers basically my whole life, I know I would not tolerate getting out of shape. But I also dont have the desire to be 220lbs.

I also think that someone will stay much more committed if they are happy with what they see in the mirror than if they are constantly questioning if they are ‘doing it right’. I think youre approaching this too mechanically, people arent robots.

And I know a thing or two about being skinny as fuck too. Im the same height in both pics. And obviously I dont carry the mass you do, but you dont have me beat on starting off small. Im about 195 in the second pic. Can anyone guess the weight in the first?[/quote]

just wondering, how tall are you? you look pretty fucking big for 195lbs, jeez.

67

Not tall. 5’7. I also have carbon fiber prosthetics below the knees. Very light weight.

68

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I just cant think of a reason to WANT to start a bulk at a higher bf if its entirely possible to do it at a lower body fat. I want to hear a reason why he would prefer that because I cant come up with a reason, not because he’s right or wrong. [/quote]

This is not about what you would prefer as a newb. I am sure he would “prefer” to look like a cover model. The reality is that someone with low muscle mass and relatively average body fat should first define their goals.

If those goals involve getting big muscles, worrying about dieting all fat off is a waste of time…which is the main factor I always go into as the main limiting factor as far as your own progress. Bottom line, you don’t have forever to get really really big. That is coming from someone who was skinnier than most I’ve seen here and smaller overall.

The real question is, what is the benefit to being more focused on body fat if it lengthens the time it takes to make significant progress when time is the greatest factor working against you?[/quote]

I dont see how spending 3-4 months ‘getting in shape’ will set a newb in his teens/early 20s back. If youre talking about older guys, then sure, fire away and diet later.

You underestimate the vanity of people who pursue this endeavor. Some people want to look good. Not everyone is comfortable getting fat. As someone who has been in better shape than my peers basically my whole life, I know I would not tolerate getting out of shape. But I also dont have the desire to be 220lbs.

I also think that someone will stay much more committed if they are happy with what they see in the mirror than if they are constantly questioning if they are ‘doing it right’. I think youre approaching this too mechanically, people arent robots.

And I know a thing or two about being skinny as fuck too. Im the same height in both pics. And obviously I dont carry the mass you do, but you dont have me beat on starting off small. Im about 195 in the second pic. Can anyone guess the weight in the first?

edit

For clarity. Im not talking about getting in shape as going from 10% to 8%. Im talking about a bigger difference than that. [/quote]

Wait…do I have to pull out the Urkle picture again? LOL. I think if I have Kingbeef beat on the skinny nerdiness, I got you too.

Either way, I think you answered it with “you not wanting to be 220”. I do and bigger. The tactics someone takes to do that are completely different.

I agree that it is motivational knowing you look good.

You want to know what else is? Being skinny as fuck and watching yourself get way bigger and stronger…even if abs aren’t there.

Further, this isn’t about what you want alone…because your body is the other factor here…and its goal is to keep you alive, not looking like an extra from Baywatch. It may not ALLOW you to make progress like that while staying very lean.

Mine would not. Therefore, instead of sitting in one place wishing about a preference, I did what needed to be done.

69

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Not tall. 5’7. I also have carbon fiber prosthetics below the knees. Very light weight. [/quote]

shit. im 5’7 too and 185lbs and i dont look nearly as big as you. fuck my life.

70

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I agree that it is motivational knowing you look good.

You want to know what else is? Being skinny as fuck and watching yourself get way bigger and stronger…even if abs aren’t there.

[/quote]

For sure.

Different people have different tolerances and expectations for how they look. Doesnt make one way the right or wrong way.

And as a guy who is not tall, I cant tolerate being too big in the middle. That pic up there is as bulky as I get. I just think claiming that someone made the wrong choice because they decidd to get in shape before getting big is going too far

71

[quote]wannabebig25 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Not tall. 5’7. I also have carbon fiber prosthetics below the knees. Very light weight. [/quote]

shit. im 5’7 too and 185lbs and i dont look nearly as big as you. fuck my life.[/quote]

Its mostly sarcoplasm and I have gigantic testicles.

72

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]wannabebig25 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Not tall. 5’7. I also have carbon fiber prosthetics below the knees. Very light weight. [/quote]

shit. im 5’7 too and 185lbs and i dont look nearly as big as you. fuck my life.[/quote]

Its mostly sarcoplasm and I have gigantic testicles. [/quote]

how do i acquire the sarcoplasmz?

73

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
I like diet drinks more now anyways.
[/quote]

To anyone that thinks this won’t happen to them it will. You do acquire a taste for diet drinks.

I have nothing else to add here.

Well…

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Im about 195 in the second pic. Can anyone guess the weight in the first?

[/quote]

hmm… At 5’7"?

130-140lbs?

Also, X deffo has you on nerdyness… Sorry man, lol

74

Okay I have more pointless shit to post, I thank god for two things when I see this thread

  1. My lack of chest hair, that shit is nasty

  2. Fuck #2

75

Just started bulking again and then I read in here a bunch of the vets hating on dairy (drinking half gallon of milk a day) and weight gainers (just started one a couple days ago). FML. haha

Lol at the first few pages of discussion with the guy calling Stu an idiot and arguing with H4M AND Ebomb.

76

[quote]Blaze_108 wrote:
Just started bulking again and then I read in here a bunch of the vets hating on dairy (drinking half gallon of milk a day) and weight gainers (just started one a couple days ago). FML. haha

Lol at the first few pages of discussion with the guy calling Stu an idiot and arguing with H4M AND Ebomb.
[/quote]

If your body handles it well, milk is fine…I’m not the leanest guy here, but at 5’10 230 lbs I still have a 32 inch waist drinking about 2 gallons every 3 days.

77

Wow, The OP asks about acquiring a bit more definition, I toss out a simple reply before going to bed, and wake up to this!-lol

At least it turned into some type of real discussion, I don’t know much about HintonShawn88, but the few threads where I’ve seen him chime in, it seems he always wants to display how much he knows. Based on his posts, though, I get the distinct impression that it’s not as much as he seems to think.

-Did I really need to explain that ‘losing weight’ means ‘losing fat’ to someone who obviously trains, but their diet isn’t supporting their lean weight?
-Was there really an argument about density affecting perceived leanness? I’m pretty sure muscle SIZE and bf% are a bit more important to visual effect.
-Was my snippet of advice actually called ‘stupid’? (really?! I’m pretty sure I’ve walked the walk a hell of a lot more than the majority of people who are quick to criticize).

Okay, I’m done,… I usually skip there s-storm threads, but having someone who hardly looks like they’ve seen the inside of a gym, hands out advice that seems gleamed from an old M&F magazine and has disagreed with me in other threads before dismiss my simple advice as stupid got me a bit riled.

Carry On :slight_smile:

S

78

Wow - this thread really took off…

79

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Your body likely was just taking in too many carbs and overall calories.
[/quote]

Something to note here…it seems like MANY people ignore the carbs in milk. I’ve found myself treating it (mentally) as a low/no-carb calorie source, despite the obvious fact that it has about 50% more carbs than protein. Those macros sure add up. [/quote]

Yup - shitload of carbs in milk. One bowl of sugar free/fat free jello pudding made with 2 cups milk has 72 carbs! : )

And as far as building a considerable amount of muscle while losing fat - certainly possible for a newb, or an experienced lifter who’s overfat and de-trained - but barring those 2 scenarios - not so much. : )

80

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

Something to note here…it seems like MANY people ignore the carbs in milk. I’ve found myself treating it (mentally) as a low/no-carb calorie source, despite the obvious fact that it has about 50% more carbs than protein. Those macros sure add up. [/quote]

QFT

Just reading through thread but had to agree with this comment!