Bodybuilding for a Daniel Craig Type Body?

Off Topic
101

[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
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?

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. [/quote]

People should stop using the term “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” until someone proves that this takes place in humans at a greater rate simply because they “bodybuild” instead of any other form of weight lifting.

It is a bogus term being used exclusively to imply that big muscles somehow can’t be as strong…in spite of the strongest people on the planet NOT weighing 150lbs.

Oh, and we are speaking of absolute strength, not some random idea of a calculated fraction that allows people to feel better about “relative strength” even though they don’t even compete in an event with weight classes.

102

What is the big deal if the guy looks like in the right or the left picture? The important thing is that a lot of people felt inspired by it and will work to achieve it.

103

[quote]Alcar wrote:
What is the big deal if the guy looks like in the right or the left picture? The important thing is that a lot of people felt inspired by it and will work to achieve it. [/quote]

hmmm, uncanny resemblance or is it just me

-g

104

Lots of hard work and you can achieve this

105

[quote]Alcar wrote:
What is the big deal if the guy looks like in the right or the left picture? The important thing is that a lot of people felt inspired by it and will work to achieve it. [/quote]

Actually, the important thing is that if this is posted in a bodybuilding forum like it was, it should be readily understood that his level of development is EASILY achievable for most if they are dedicated and that shooting for that as an ultimate goal is most likely to produce people who never even reach that.

No one has an issue with people in general looking up to Daniel Craig. However, people do have an issue with people on a website that is supposed to be more “hardcore” than most of its posters seem to be (especially when they post this in a forum labeled bodybuilding) acting like his physique should be the ultimate goal for people with physique enhancement as a goal.

If you want to look like Craig, great. I will only ask why you still don’t look like that in 5 years.

106

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Alcar wrote:
What is the big deal if the guy looks like in the right or the left picture? The important thing is that a lot of people felt inspired by it and will work to achieve it.

Actually, the important thing is that if this is posted in a bodybuilding forum like it was, it should be readily understood that his level of development is EASILY achievable for most if they are dedicated and that shooting for that as an ultimate goal is most likely to produce people who never even reach that.

No one has an issue with people in general looking up to Daniel Craig. However, people do have an issue with people on a website that is supposed to be more “hardcore” than most of its posters seem to be (especially when they post this in a forum labeled bodybuilding) acting like his physique should be the ultimate goal for people with physique enhancement as a goal.

If you want to look like Craig, great. I will only ask why you still don’t look like that in 5 years.[/quote]

Alright then =)

107

OKay okay sorry I guess when i watched it in theaters he looked bigger then I thought… My bad

108

[quote]optheta wrote:
OKay okay sorry I guess when i watched it in theaters he looked bigger then I thought… My bad[/quote]

LOL.

Oh yeah, the Easter Bunny is gay and most of the guys in 300 didn’t even have abs showing to that degree during filming. Yeah, most of those abs were fake/enhanced also.

Don’t cry, son…big people really do exist. I’ve seen them myself in strange mysterious, and oddly sweaty, places called “GYMS”.

109

anyone who aspires to be ronnie will likely be brad pitt, and daniel craig, and might reach CT level along the way. olympia 2016, daniel craig steps onto the stage with 24" traps!

fuck i look like bpitt on roids. all these bulky muscle make my thighs touch when i shit :frowning:

110

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Funny thing is that Daniel Craig is actually very passionate about training. He actually read two of my books and asked me a few questions a while ago. He is really not one of these actors who gets in shape to make big bucks then lose all their muscle because they hate training.[/quote]

And it shows, his physique is very impressive. His muscles are solid, not bloated. Also, he still moves really well.

Btw, this threat seems like a troll job.

111

[quote]Professor X wrote:
optheta wrote:
OKay okay sorry I guess when i watched it in theaters he looked bigger then I thought… My bad

LOL.

Oh yeah, the Easter Bunny is gay and most of the guys in 300 didn’t even have abs showing to that degree during filming. Yeah, most of those abs were fake/enhanced also.

Don’t cry, son…big people really do exist. I’ve seen them myself in strange mysterious, and oddly sweaty, places called “GYMS”. [/quote]

Ya know you don’t need to put words in my mouth. I have never said any of those things nor implied them.

112

[quote]yusef wrote:
Kanada wrote:
anyone who aspires to be ronnie will likely be brad pitt, and daniel craig, and might reach CT level along the way. olympia 2016, daniel craig steps onto the stage with 24" traps!

fuck i look like bpitt on roids. all these bulky muscle make my thighs touch when i shit :frowning:

How do you measure traps? :confused:

Craig looks the same in both left and right pictures! Just less happy in the left one…[/quote]

The left photos is actually the same as the right… just flipped and undoctored by hollywood! GAAAASP! Pfft I knew it all along!

113

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sarev0k wrote:
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?

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.

People should stop using the term “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” until someone proves that this takes place in humans at a greater rate simply because they “bodybuild” instead of any other form of weight lifting.

It is a bogus term being used exclusively to imply that big muscles somehow can’t be as strong…in spite of the strongest people on the planet NOT weighing 150lbs.

Oh, and we are speaking of absolute strength, not some random idea of a calculated fraction that allows people to feel better about “relative strength” even though they don’t even compete in an event with weight classes.[/quote]

I didn’t mean to imply that i was tossing around an empty term. I just feel that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy applies more to a “bodybuilder” than a weightlifter, even though theoretically sarcoplasm rarely or does not affect strength as myofibrilar does(i disagree).

I think that both lines are crossed in both sports.

Through dif. rep ranges, rep speeds, ROM’s, etc… I try to cross both lines (myo and sarco). And I as well was talking about absolute strength. My point was, like you mentioned earlier, that you don’t see small people lifting light weight, and getting bigger from it.

114

and with that…

I also think half of you people on here who want to look like brad pitt or daniel craig should GTFO and go over to BB.com.

Or crossfit.

115

[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
and with that…

I also think half of you people on here who want to look like brad pitt or daniel craig should GTFO and go over to BB.com.

Or crossfit.[/quote]

Actually, maybe not crossfit. Most of the people over there actually work hard.

That isn’t in line with a lot of people’s goals I’m coming to find out.

116

[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sarev0k wrote:
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?

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.

People should stop using the term “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” until someone proves that this takes place in humans at a greater rate simply because they “bodybuild” instead of any other form of weight lifting.

It is a bogus term being used exclusively to imply that big muscles somehow can’t be as strong…in spite of the strongest people on the planet NOT weighing 150lbs.

Oh, and we are speaking of absolute strength, not some random idea of a calculated fraction that allows people to feel better about “relative strength” even though they don’t even compete in an event with weight classes.

I didn’t mean to imply that i was tossing around an empty term. I just feel that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy applies more to a “bodybuilder” than a weightlifter, even though theoretically sarcoplasm rarely or does not affect strength as myofibrilar does(i disagree).

I think that both lines are crossed in both sports.

Through dif. rep ranges, rep speeds, ROM’s, etc… I try to cross both lines (myo and sarco). And I as well was talking about absolute strength. My point was, like you mentioned earlier, that you don’t see small people lifting light weight, and getting bigger from it.

[/quote]

You missed the mark on your rebuttal in the first place. I never said “Not necessarily to gain strength” implies that bodybuilders are not strong. “not necessarily” != not at all. Bodybuilders are first and foremost interested in the aesthetic results from lifting weights. If they are interested solely in strength then they are a by definition a powerlifter. If you fall into neither of these categories then you are in the wrong place for sure. If you fall into both categories (aesthetics and strength are equally important) then I’d just call you weight lifter/athlete/someone who takes care of themselves.

No matter what you do, if you lift heavy weights and “come correct” on your diet you will gain both SIZE and Strength… there’s no way to get one without the other. The whole point was to define what a bodybuilder is at the very root of it all. In which case myofibrillated or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is irrelevant to my arguement. As for seeing small people lifting light weight and not getting bigger from it. That’s a broad and very general statement as a 125lb tweener might not be able to bench 200 but he’s gotta start somewhere… without 100lbs there is no 200lbs.

Thanks for playing.

117

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Sarev0k wrote:
and with that…

I also think half of you people on here who want to look like brad pitt or daniel craig should GTFO and go over to BB.com.

Or crossfit.

Actually, maybe not crossfit. Most of the people over there actually work hard.

That isn’t in line with a lot of people’s goals I’m coming to find out.[/quote]

Agreed. It is not my cup of tea, but these people bust their ass and the women are usually smoking. It is cool to see girls doing kip pull-ups instead of an abductor-adductor machine, no?

118

[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
and with that…

I also think half of you people on here who want to look like brad pitt or daniel craig should GTFO and go over to BB.com.

Or crossfit.[/quote]

Again people wanting to look like craig or brad pitt isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If i was a 125lb kid i’d be overwhelmed to look up to Coleman as an aspiration… but brad pitt or craig well those are stepping stones I might take to get to the coleman stage (even if i never actually get there). That’s something to look forward to.

Not to mention a lot of people are missing a key factor here. Publicity. If you are just getting into or getting interested into redefining your body you might not know names like Jones, Draper, or Coleman… but hollywood stars get a lot of screen time and are household names. Just because you might be 250lbs you wont want to look like either of those stars… doesn’t mean some 120lb soaking wet kid doesn’t. At least it’s a tangible and at that point realistic goal.

Crossfit… have you tried it yet? How long did you try it? It’s not for everyone and it won’t make you “HYYYYUGE” but it can condition you for some taxing workouts if you choose to go towards developing a big physique.

119

[quote]mpenix wrote:
Again people wanting to look like craig or brad pitt isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If i was a 125lb kid i’d be overwhelmed to look up to Coleman as an aspiration… but brad pitt or craig well those are stepping stones I might take to get to the coleman stage (even if i never actually get there). That’s something to look forward to.

N[/quote]

I think that’s a good way to approach it. I didn’t even have any idea what “bodybuilding” was let alone who Ronnie Coleman was 3 years ago. So obviously I looked up to actors like Sylvester stalone, arnold, and at times the smaller guys who were just very lean.

But once I discovered bodybuilding, muscle mags, and the pro competitors, it just became a whole new ball game.

As we always say, progression is everything, even this type of progression is important.

120

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
mpenix wrote:
Again people wanting to look like craig or brad pitt isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If i was a 125lb kid i’d be overwhelmed to look up to Coleman as an aspiration… but brad pitt or craig well those are stepping stones I might take to get to the coleman stage (even if i never actually get there). That’s something to look forward to.

N

I think that’s a good way to approach it. I didn’t even have any idea what “bodybuilding” was let alone who Ronnie Coleman was 3 years ago. So obviously I looked up to actors like Sylvester stalone, arnold, and at times the smaller guys who were just very lean.

But once I discovered bodybuilding, muscle mags, and the pro competitors, it just became a whole new ball game.

As we always say, progression is everything, even this type of progression is important.[/quote]

Exactly that’s why I don’t mind these threads… but X was right shoulda been moved a lot faster from the bb forums… and now it’s really been taken away from the OP so others can argue about semantics… fuuuun.