Arms, shoulders, traps, a little cardio - boom, you’ve got this physique. Nothing overly impressive, IMO.
[quote]Majin wrote:
ApplCobbler wrote:
I never understooad why people would get pissed off at the idea of wanting a body like Daniel Craig or Brad Pitt in Fight Club (or, even better, Snatch). Daniel Craig looks like a (physically attainable) beast, and Brad Pitt is cut as hell.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting that body per se, but this a BODYBUILDING FORUM. Where people SHOULD want to be 300lbs.[/quote]
You should be sure to label it a modern, competitive bodybuilding forum then. Because for the first 50 years of the sport, the goal was to look like a Greek or renaissance statue… like Michelangelo’s “David”, albeit with a bigger penis. 
And there are plenty of people today who feel that focus on symmetry, balance-- even presentation and pose are more important than size. That’s not to say that size isn’t important. Just that it doesn’t automatically exclude someone from being a bodybuilder if that isn’t their main focus.
It’s weird that Thibs said he takes the lifting very seriously, because I’ve seen him in interviews where he says he doesn’t like lifting at all and just does it for the role then stops as soon as he can. Maybe he changes his mind a bit?
[quote]Level 0 wrote:
don’t be surprised if, after 10 years (+) of extreme lifting and nutrition (training to achieve a Coleman physique), you end up looking like Daniel Craig (if you’re lucky).
[/quote]
Bullshit.
If you can’t get to the ruffles picture within a couple of years, you are doing something very fucking wrong. Fucking lol at lucky to look like that after 10 years. I would chew on a 9mm if I wasted ten years of “extreme lifting and nutrition” to look like someone who is just entering the intermediate stage.
Daniel Craig is not fucking extreme lifting and nutrition by any stretch of the imagination. Unless we are talk a year (12 months) worth.
[quote]andrewe123 wrote:
It’s weird that Thibs said he takes the lifting very seriously, because I’ve seen him in interviews where he says he doesn’t like lifting at all and just does it for the role then stops as soon as he can. Maybe he changes his mind a bit?[/quote]
I’ve read that about Christian Bale, perhaps you are confusing the two?
[quote]andrewe123 wrote:
It’s weird that Thibs said he takes the lifting very seriously, because I’ve seen him in interviews where he says he doesn’t like lifting at all and just does it for the role then stops as soon as he can. Maybe he changes his mind a bit?[/quote]
Yeah, I read an interview where he stated that after casino royale he just stopped training, starting smoking again and eating crap… but maybe you are right, perhaps he is more into fitness now.
Just train to get stronger and in better shape, and adjust your calories to be teh weight you want to be.
[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
HypertroPHd wrote:
1st if u do not want to get big
Now I get the “facepalm” type comments. Lol. I have no worries about me getting big. For me personally, I only have about 5 hours per week I can dedicate to training, including cardio. And I don’t have the money for more than a basic whey protein from Costco or the better nutrition, nor the free time to rest as much as I would need to get huge results. So I’m definitely trying to get as big and as strong as possible given my circumstances.
I’m just trying to understand the different methods people use to reach different goals. In other words, I am a noob, not an intentional troll.
[/quote]
i dont train more then 6 hours a week and i only take whey protein also, as i dont have much disposable income either. that isnt an excuse not to do something. if your goal was to get as big as possible with those constraints you would find a way. plus you are not going to get ‘big’ in 3-6 months, that takes years of hard heavy training.
but in response to your training. i would say full body split, hypertrophy based 3 times a week. making up the rest of your 5 hours with cardio. follow a low carb, high protein, mod fat diet. should put some size on you, but not make you ‘big’, and lean you out so you can show off that tight, taut, beach body.
seth
[quote]ApplCobbler wrote:
I never understooad why people would get pissed off at the idea of wanting a body like Daniel Craig or Brad Pitt in Fight Club (or, even better, Snatch). Daniel Craig looks like a (physically attainable) beast, and Brad Pitt is cut as hell.
Some people don’t want to be 6’ and weighing 250 pounds, and unless you’re a bodybuilder or performance athlete, it doesn’t have that much point aside from bragging rights.
A trainer complimented my physique a couple months ago saying I was very Daniel Craig-like, and I did in fact take it as a compliment.[/quote]
Well rooty toot toot for you. Too bad looking like a stuffed hollywood pissworm is not BODYBUILDING. This is a BODYBUILDING FORUM. This is not fitness made simple.
[quote]optheta wrote:
Alcar wrote:
Im pretty sure daniel was bigger then that in 007 he was at least rocken 17-18 biceps fairly lean
[/quote]
PFFFF HAHAHAHAHHAA!!!11
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
ApplCobbler wrote:
I never understooad why people would get pissed off at the idea of wanting a body like Daniel Craig or Brad Pitt in Fight Club (or, even better, Snatch). Daniel Craig looks like a (physically attainable) beast, and Brad Pitt is cut as hell.
Some people don’t want to be 6’ and weighing 250 pounds, and unless you’re a bodybuilder or performance athlete, it doesn’t have that much point aside from bragging rights.
A trainer complimented my physique a couple months ago saying I was very Daniel Craig-like, and I did in fact take it as a compliment.
Well rooty toot toot for you. Too bad looking like a stuffed hollywood pissworm is not BODYBUILDING. This is a BODYBUILDING FORUM. This is not fitness made simple.
[/quote]
In all honesty fitness made simple is a bodybuilding program… on I can’t fully evaluate because I’d never do it based on principal. Bodybuilding forum… people keep saying that… define that term for us oh masterful one. Because I’m pretty sure Daniel Craig or anyone aforementioned guy in these past posts commited at least a modicum of time to a bodybuilding program. You throwing out words ilke “stuff hollywood pissworm” just shows your ignorance.
It’s my understanding that this is the definition of bodybuilding: “The goal of Bodybuilding is to increase definition and appearance of muscles and not necessarily to gain strength.” By that very definition that’s EXACTLY what these actors are doing is it not?
I really don’t understand how people want to go for size and symmetry rather than that ‘huge freaky look’, when they’re missing the first section of their goal…
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
This is a BODYBUILDING FORUM.[/quote]
Since when did Professor X get a new user name?
[quote]yusef wrote:
seth.ewan wrote:
humanjhawkins wrote:
HypertroPHd wrote:
1st if u do not want to get big
Now I get the “facepalm” type comments. Lol. I have no worries about me getting big. For me personally, I only have about 5 hours per week I can dedicate to training, including cardio. And I don’t have the money for more than a basic whey protein from Costco or the better nutrition, nor the free time to rest as much as I would need to get huge results. So I’m definitely trying to get as big and as strong as possible given my circumstances.
I’m just trying to understand the different methods people use to reach different goals. In other words, I am a noob, not an intentional troll.
i dont train more then 6 hours a week and i only take whey protein also, as i dont have much disposable income either. that isnt an excuse not to do something. if your goal was to get as big as possible with those constraints you would find a way. plus you are not going to get ‘big’ in 3-6 months, that takes years of hard heavy training.
but in response to your training. i would say full body split, hypertrophy based 3 times a week. making up the rest of your 5 hours with cardio. follow a low carb, high protein, mod fat diet. should put some size on you, but not make you ‘big’, and lean you out so you can show off that tight, taut, beach body.
seth
I don’t agree. More carbs, more lifting, and sack the cardio.
[/quote]
i disagree. on a calorie restricted diet he is going to run a high chance of over training/injury/burnout by my training. plus the carbs will fuck with insulin. if he is looking for a sure fire way to lean out low carb is the way to go.
I usually avoid this topic because its one that breads the most atomicity on the forum, but when the fuck did body building turn into a game of quantity over quality? Body building, at its core, is about setting and accomplishing goals for your own body. It is not about weighing 300 pounds( unless that is YOUR individual goal), its not about needing your wife to help you comb your hair, and its not about crushing your penis between your quads. Its about sculpting your body the way that YOU want.
I have a huge respect for the people that have striven and succeeded in their pursuit of great size, but shut the fuck up about everyone who doesn’t share the same bodybuilding goals being retarded and un-dedicated. Some people want nothing more than to have a strong, attainable and aesthetically pleasing male physique, and that’s OK too. And yes, it is still bodybuilding, not COMPETITIVE bodybuilding but bodybuilding non the less.
[quote]Level 0 wrote:
It is not uncommon for a life long natural bodybuilder with good genetics to get to 230 after many years of hard work, then diet down to single digits and find themselves shredded and muscular at 190. These are bodybuilders who did everything they could to look like Coleman.
In short, every bodybuilder should do all they can to get as big as Ron Coleman. Even females. For those that say they don’t want to be big like Coleman, don’t be surprised if, after 10 years (+) of extreme lifting and nutrition (training to achieve a Coleman physique), you end up looking like Daniel Craig (if you’re lucky). This is reality, but it may not be your reality. You will never know unless you train to get as big as Ron Coleman.
[/quote]
put the crackpipe down. You honestly think you have to train 10 years aspiring to be Ronnie Coleman and be lucky to end up as Daniel Craig after cutting 40lbs. Don’t be stupid. Even if you did cut 40lbs and end up at 190 after 10 years training, that would be a very very lean 190 not some barely visible abs 190 like daniel craig. No offense to the guy, he cares about his physique, but all these people calling him ripped need to stay the fuck outa the bodybuilding section and go back to article discussion where you can discuss how Chris Shugart knows best.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
If you can’t get to the ruffles picture within a couple of years, you are doing something very fucking wrong.
[/quote]
Dude. The ruffles picture is clearly an unflattering picture of Craig while he was not in his best shape. I can’t comment onn you because maybe you are perfect. But I would be willing to bet that most of us around here have a picture like that somewhere in our history.
(Jesus… have you seen the one of Arnold at the beach in speedos recently… Horrible!)
There are plenty of other pictures of Craig that show he puts some work in. No need to hate a guy just because he’s lucky and handsome.
[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
If you can’t get to the ruffles picture within a couple of years, you are doing something very fucking wrong.
Dude. The ruffles picture is clearly an unflattering picture of Craig while he was not in his best shape. I can’t comment onn you because maybe you are perfect. But I would be willing to bet that most of us around here have a picture like that somewhere in our history.
(Jesus… have you seen the one of Arnold at the beach in speedos recently… Horrible!)
There are plenty of other pictures of Craig that show he puts some work in. No need to hate a guy just because he’s lucky and handsome.[/quote]
- Arnold Pics were discovered to be fake (good photoshop bad subject).
- You honestly think Arnold went this long in his life with his dedication to the gym and nutrition to just say screw it I quit working out… HAHAHA no. Plus he’s over 60 years old.
- I’m not perfect but I can tell that the ruffles pic in question is probably about 8-12 weeks away from being in better condition than most of us… aesthetics wise
- LUCK has nothing to do with it, he didn’t get handed his muscle, he still put the effin work in.
- You saying you think he is handsome… well I guess I’ll leave that alone…
[quote]mpenix wrote:
humanjhawkins wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
If you can’t get to the ruffles picture within a couple of years, you are doing something very fucking wrong.
Dude. The ruffles picture is clearly an unflattering picture of Craig while he was not in his best shape. I can’t comment onn you because maybe you are perfect. But I would be willing to bet that most of us around here have a picture like that somewhere in our history.
(Jesus… have you seen the one of Arnold at the beach in speedos recently… Horrible!)
There are plenty of other pictures of Craig that show he puts some work in. No need to hate a guy just because he’s lucky and handsome.
- Arnold Pics were discovered to be fake (good photoshop bad subject).
- You honestly think Arnold went this long in his life with his dedication to the gym and nutrition to just say screw it I quit working out… HAHAHA no. Plus he’s over 60 years old.
- I’m not perfect but I can tell that the ruffles pic in question is probably about 8-12 weeks away from being in better condition than most of us… aesthetics wise
- LUCK has nothing to do with it, he didn’t get handed his muscle, he still put the effin work in.
- You saying you think he is handsome… well I guess I’ll leave that alone…
[/quote]
On #1, if you are right that’s cool to hear. On #2, I think a guy who suddenly finds himself responsible for the state and economy of California might start staying up all night working on economic plans and such, and might stop making time for the gym. Thus I thought it was believable. But again, it’s nice to hear the photos might have been faked.
On #3 and #4, I’m in agreement with you. I never said he didn’t work hard. Quite the opposite. But it takes hard work AND luck to succeed in Hollywood. I was writing that in response to a guy who was basically calling Craig a loser. He’s not a loser. He works hard and he’s done some good things for bodybuilding. I was just responding to say it’s lame to hate him for his luck and appearance.
On #5, i’m not so insecure in my sexuality that I can’t admit when a guy is handsome. Repressed a little?
[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
If you can’t get to the ruffles picture within a couple of years, you are doing something very fucking wrong.
Dude. The ruffles picture is clearly an unflattering picture of Craig while he was not in his best shape. I can’t comment onn you because maybe you are perfect. But I would be willing to bet that most of us around here have a picture like that somewhere in our history. [/quote]
What the fuck does that have anything to do with what I said? Was I speaking to you? Did I say your goals were wrong? NO. I said bullshit to the guy who said it takes ten years of “extreme diet and training” to look like that.
[quote]
(Jesus… have you seen the one of Arnold at the beach in speedos recently… Horrible!)
There are plenty of other pictures of Craig that show he puts some work in. No need to hate a guy just because he’s lucky and handsome.[/quote]
Here is the problem, and why you may want to not post about a subject you know nothing about. You said: [quote]puts some work in.[/quote] You know what? I agree with you, SOME work in. He looks like an intermediate lifter. No more. You put a tee shirt on him and no one knows he lifts weights.
If someone thinks it takes ten years to look like that, then that says a lot about their work ethic.
And I’m not hating on him. Jesus Christ. I am saying his physique is nothing fucking special though, and very much attainable, very much faster than ten years.