There should be a natural bodybuilding and steroid bodybuilding thread on this site. A physique like Craigs’ is asking for abuse from non-natural trainers. I’m not saying his physique is incredible and I’d like to see bond with 20lbs more muscle. People have different definitions of bodybuilding - half the guys who write articles for T-Nation have more mainstream physiques than ‘bodybuilder physiques’.
If less than 220lbs @ 5 10" is for pussies and not worthy of respect - then you’re either genetic freaks, on steroids or think carrying 15% fat looks good. I know that many people on here like to oppose the good old ‘maximum muscular body weight equation’ but if you get to your predicted weight (genuinely at 8% body fat NOT 15%!!) then the genetically average guy will have one heck of a physique.
This place really has become a joke. It’s a sad state of affairs when we have people here in awe of Daniel Craig’s physique.
This has nothing to do with your or my perceptions of bodybuilding. This has to do with your piss poor dedication to training/eating and probably bad genetics for building muscle.
Why don’t you guys at least aspire to a national/pro level natural competitor instead of an actor? Or would that be aiming to high, because then you might actually have to work a little bit to get on that path.
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.
[/quote]
And to you, Brad Pitt and Daniel Craig represent a symmetric, balanced physique? Enough so that you’d want to model your workout after theirs?
It blows my mind that I read you’ll be lucky to have a physique like Daniel Craig’s after 10 years of lifting on a bodybuilding forum.
[quote]prodigy_2007 wrote:
There should be a natural bodybuilding and steroid bodybuilding thread on this site. A physique like Craigs’ is asking for abuse from non-natural trainers. I’m not saying his physique is incredible and I’d like to see bond with 20lbs more muscle. People have different definitions of bodybuilding - half the guys who write articles for T-Nation have more mainstream physiques than ‘bodybuilder physiques’.
[/quote]
No. We already have a bodybuilding forum. There should be another forum where pussies who think
“A physique like Craigs’ is asking for abuse from non-natural trainers” can post ridiculous bullshit like this.
My brother’s been training for 3 months now. 3 months more and he’s like Craig. What’s the deal?
I would never post in strength or combat forum. Why? Out of respect for guys posting there - I know nothing about their stuff. Why do you post in BB forum if have no fucking clue?
If there are more and more low-aiming people posting here, who will the beginners listen to?
WHAT CAN YOU REALLY TELL THE REST ABOUT BUILDING MUSCLES? Fucking nothing.
A famous pro BB once said, “You must reach for the moon if you hope to get to the stars.” For this reason, every bodybuilder must train as if their goal is to look like Ron Coleman (i.e. “the moon”). A person who starts out at 140 and ends up at 190 (cut) in 10 years, reached the stars (and depending on natural shape-could be a winning bodybuilder). 90% of the people in your gym do not reach this level.
I know a world famous natural BB who has trained most of his lfe and is 175 (ripped/180’s off season) and started lifting at 135 lbs. He is an inch shorter than Craig who was 180’s at his most cut. This BB envisions Coleman when he trains ( or other huge BB’s. He does not envision other natural competitors’ physiques).
I’m trying to impress upon people who are afraid of gaining “too much muscle” that you can’t and won’t. In fact, if you train with Coleman in mind for 10 years and find out I lied and you are now too muscular, I will refund your gym membership.
This thread is a joke and anyone…I MEAN ANYONE…who looks at Daniel Craig and thinks he had 18" arms is either smoking crack or they are so skinny that ANY degree of muscle mass looks HUGE to them.
I suppose these same people believe that there was no CGI enhancement of physiques in movies. Hint, go look at Ghost Rider and any scene where Nic cage had his shirt off. Yes, those muscle were fake.
This is same reason why they have boxes for actors stand on when in scenes with other taller actors. If you are basing what you THINK these guys look like by strictly how they looked on film for a billion dollar movie, then you may just be gullible enough to believe just about anything.
Chances are greater that Craig looked more like he does in that Ruffles picture in real life than anything else. Using a fucking movie poster as proof of development is retarded.
Mind you, no one is saying that no one should try to look like Daniel Craig, however, if looking like that is perceived as taking YEARS of hard training, then some of you have your heads up your asses.
Most of the people with that goal will NEVER reach it because they are the type who shoot for less because they believe it is easier.
Most of the people who shoot past it should be at that level in well under 4-5 years even if their genetics suck.
Yes, this is a bodybuilding forum…so why do so many people without that goal come here?
[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
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?
I’ve read that about Christian Bale, perhaps you are confusing the two?
[/quote]
No was definately Craig. He was on a chatshow here in the UK. I’ve read that about Bale too though.
[quote]andrewe123 wrote:
Mr.Purple wrote:
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?
I’ve read that about Christian Bale, perhaps you are confusing the two?
No was definately Craig. He was on a chatshow here in the UK. I’ve read that about Bale too though.
[/quote]
Most of them train mostly for whatever role they get, not because they truly love lifting. I would expect to hear that someone like Michael Clarke Duncan loves lifting rather than Mr. Craig even if CT did talk to him. Daniel Craig doesn’t exactly look like someone who spends his free time straining and sweating under 400+lbs for the love of lifting. I do give him credit for going slightly against that frail look that was invading Hollywood for a moment so I do respect him for that…but I am amazed a thread about him not only exists…but lasted this many pages in THIS forum.
They do need another forum for “people who casually might maybe possibly lift weights sometimes”. That way they can all group together and talk about how it will be another decade before they look like that.
[quote]Zackgsc wrote:
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]
Exactly. Skinny dudes talking about symmetry when they have little to no mass is a fucking joke…that isn’t funny.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This thread is a joke and anyone…I MEAN ANYONE…who looks at Daniel Craig and thinks he had 18" arms is either smoking crack or they are so skinny that ANY degree of muscle mass looks HUGE to them.
[/quote]
Amen to that. That uploaded picture looks like 15-16 maximum. It takes hard work and dedication to carry AND maintain 18 inch arms, and hed have to weigh helluva lot more to carry them.
[quote]mpenix wrote:
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.
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?[/quote]
Wrong. Bodybuilding = To put on as much muscle as humanly possible. Increasing definition and appearance is one aspect, and a small one at that.
And as for “not necessarily to gain strength” Do you even know anything about Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy? If youre working out to bodybuild, you need to lift heavy-ass weight to grow. So if you’re not adding poundage to the bar, You’re doing it wrong. If someone could curl 30’s or bench 20 for their entire life for the same number of sets and reps and just got bigger for all eternity, EVERYONE would do it because it would be easier to get big.
Strength doesn’t necessarily = Size, But you cant have Size without Strength.
