[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
JamesBrawn007 wrote:
Second: for the first summer ever this year I walked the beach at 175lbs ripped - and it paid off. The ladies love it and my personal life has benefitted hugely as a result. I know this wouldn’t be the case if I was 220lbs since I would be more likely to be labelled in the ‘freak’ camp.
I’m sure you look fine and all, but 220 pounds would label you a freak? Seriously?[/quote]
No. Anything above 200 lbs. will.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Nikiforos wrote:
JamesBrawn007 wrote:
Second: for the first summer ever this year I walked the beach at 175lbs ripped - and it paid off. The ladies love it and my personal life has benefitted hugely as a result. I know this wouldn’t be the case if I was 220lbs since I would be more likely to be labelled in the ‘freak’ camp.
I’m sure you look fine and all, but 220 pounds would label you a freak? Seriously?
No. Anything above 200 lbs. will.[/quote]
Finally some sense to this thread. Let’s raise a glass to OUR FUHRER!!
Ok well like I said I don’t think Craig’s physique is all that impressive, his arms I would say are 15 inches max and I do agree with those of you saying his development could be acheived by most trainers in a year or two max. I’d also note that I agree that almost ALL natural trainees should aspire to get as big as they can because few need to worry about getting too damn big (just give it a go trying to get massive while relatively lean and drug free).
However, the reason I said it is asking for trouble is because what pisses me off about some people on here is that they try and tell you that 17 inch biceps for the average guy who DOES train hard is a pussies’ physique - that is TOTAL BALLSHIT (please spare me all you hardcore people out there who are about to tell me 'you wouldn’t know what hardcore training is - more ballshit). Even if the ‘maximum bodyweight equation’ is wrong, it’s not so wrong that it’s easy to get 17 or 18 inch arms (Thib has written about the reality of the max lean weight equation before and said you need to be have great genes to smash it)!
I 100% promise you that for many NATURAL trainers 18 inch arms are IMPOSSIBLE to attain, particuarly @ well under 10% body fat. Think about it - the bodybuilding magazine industry is built on ballshit lies that any guy can drink some protein and mass gainer shakes and look like the steroid taking bodybuilders in the magazines (lol). If you have easily or relatively easily build 17/18 inch guns within a few years then count yourself genetically blessed rather than thinking you train so much harder than everyone else.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.[/quote]
One of the Arcadians in 300 sports a full set of abs and a pot belly. It was quite easy to spot on the big screen - I don’t know it if would be so obvious on the DVD.
I guess they didn’t bother putting the extras through the same level of preparation as the principal actors. Maybe it was meant to show how Arcadians aren’t quite as committed to their diet and training as Spartans…
Still made me chuckle at the time, though.
[quote]prodigy_2007 wrote:
However, the reason I said it is asking for trouble is because what pisses me off about some people on here is that they try and tell you that 17 inch biceps for the average guy who DOES train hard is a pussies’ physique - that is TOTAL BALLSHIT (please spare me all you hardcore people out there who are about to tell me 'you wouldn’t know what hardcore training is - more ballshit). Even if the ‘maximum bodyweight equation’ is wrong, it’s not so wrong that it’s easy to get 17 or 18 inch arms (Thib has written about the reality of the max lean weight equation before and said you need to be have great genes to smash it)! [/quote]
I think guys who write shit like you just did are completely clueless. I don’t see ANYONE typing that 17" arms are for pussies. In fact, what you will see often is that most people probably don’t have the genetics to hit 18" arms naturally and that if you can get them to 18", then you probably have decent genetics for bodybuilding. If you can get them bigger than that, then you have REALLY good genetics.
Most of you who make that claim are simply lying. Most of the people here don’t have 17" LEAN arms and most of the people making threads about clothes that don’t fit are SMALL compared to any serious lifter who has been training for years.
You posted this in the bodybuilding forum and you are surprised at the responses. That doesn’t make much sense. Daniel Craig is not a goal in bodybuilding. I am not sure why this offends people. If you want to look like that, fine. Just quit tossing it into bodybuilding related threads.
Uh, no shit, Sherlock. However, getting 18" arms isn’t that fucking rare. It is just that most of you on this site apparently grew up around very genetically compromised people.
[quote]I think guys who write shit like you just did are completely clueless. I don’t see ANYONE typing that 17" arms are for pussies. In fact, what you will see often is that most people probably don’t have the genetics to hit 18" arms naturally and that if you can get them to 18", then you probably have decent genetics for bodybuilding. If you can get them bigger than that, then you have REALLY good genetics.
Most of you who make that claim are simply lying. Most of the people here don’t have 17" LEAN arms and most of the people making threads about clothes that don’t fit are SMALL compared to any serious lifter who has been training for years.
You posted this in the bodybuilding forum and you are surprised at the responses. That doesn’t make much sense. Daniel Craig is not a goal in bodybuilding. I am not sure why this offends people. If you want to look like that, fine. Just quit tossing it into bodybuilding related threads.
I 100% promise you that for many NATURAL trainers 18 inch arms are IMPOSSIBLE to attain, particuarly @ well under 10% body fat. Think about it - the bodybuilding magazine industry is built on ballshit lies that any guy can drink some protein and mass gainer shakes and look like the steroid taking bodybuilders in the magazines (lol). If you have easily or relatively easily build 17/18 inch guns within a few years then count yourself genetically blessed rather than thinking you train so much harder than everyone else.
Uh, no shit, Sherlock. However, getting 18" arms isn’t that fucking rare. It is just that most of you on this site apparently grew up around very genetically compromised people.[/quote]
I’m not completely clueless trust me but thanks for the suggestion. However, you do agree with me that some guys don’t have the genetics for 18 inch arms and yet tell me ‘it’s not that rare’ - that’s like saying it’s not that rare for sub 10 second 100m runners! Plus - rare with drugs or without drugs? I know it’s a BB forum but the fact is drugs need mentioning.
[quote]prodigy_2007 wrote:
I’m not completely clueless trust me but thanks for the suggestion. However, you do agree with me that some guys don’t have the genetics for 18 inch arms and yet tell me ‘it’s not that rare’ - that’s like saying it’s not that rare for sub 10 second 100m runners! Plus - rare with drugs or without drugs? I know it’s a BB forum but the fact is drugs need mentioning.
[/quote]
It isn’t that rare period. I did it. I know many others who did as well. I hit 18" arms in less than 3 years of lifting drug free. Everyone isn’t genetically weak and bodybuilding isn’t for those who can’t gain muscle mass. I know this may not make you feel good, but this activity isn’t for those who can’t seem to get results that are above average.
If you have been training for 10 years and you STILL don’t have 17" arms, you do not have the genetics for this as far as standing out compared to what is considered “average”.
Fitness training is NOT bodybuilding. Anyone can look average with a slight hint of muscle mass. Everyone can’t look in such a way that people stop and stare when you walk in a room in a tank top.
no, 18 inch arms are not rare for anyone who trains properly for a decent amount of time. without drugs. even people whose arms don’t grow that well should have them in under 5 years of training.
So the maximum muscular body weight equation is rubbish then because if anyone who trains drug free should have them in under 5 years then it must be? That’s total rubbish and if you think it’s true then you are 100% in the upper percentile of genetics for weight training in terms of building muscle mass (but are clearly too ignorant to see it).
Prof X - you did it in 3 years. Congratulations mine are 16 inches and yes I have lifted for 8 years and perhaps they should be bigger and I could have trained better. But what does your growth mean to the genetically average? Not much. I find it highly ironic that half of the T-Nation writers are NOT bodyuilders by your defintion and clearly have no rights to be here because they don’t have 18 inch arms and aren’t capable of getting them so I guess they should leave because the activity clearly isn’t for them.
[quote]prodigy_2007 wrote:
no, 18 inch arms are not rare for anyone who trains properly for a decent amount of time. without drugs. even people whose arms don’t grow that well should have them in under 5 years of training.
So the maximum muscular body weight equation is rubbish then because if anyone who trains drug free should have them in under 5 years then it must be? That’s total rubbish and if you think it’s true then you are 100% in the upper percentile of genetics for weight training in terms of building muscle mass (but are clearly too ignorant to see it).
It isn’t that rare period. I did it. I know many others who did as well. I hit 18" arms in less than 3 years of lifting drug free.
Prof X - you did it in 3 years. Congratulations mine are 16 inches and yes I have lifted for 8 years and perhaps they should be bigger and I could have trained better. But what does your growth mean to the genetically average? Not much. I find it highly ironic that half of the T-Nation writers are NOT bodyuilders by your defintion and clearly have no rights to be here because they don’t have 18 inch arms and aren’t capable of getting them so I guess they should leave because the activity clearly isn’t for them.
[/quote]
???
First, “maximum muscular body weight” was always bullshit because those stats apparently don’t apply if you simply carry more body fat. Therefore, who fucking cares if someone states I can only weigh so much at 7% body fat if I never compete? I am VERY comfortable with my current state of being and only am dropping weight for my own satisfaction. I have no need or desire to be under 7% body fat unless I decide to compete, which makes Mr. Butt’s rule irrelevant…which it should be to start with for anyone who has a goal of standing out.
Trust me, I can turn enough heads with 15% body fat and not one chick I’ve met is worried about my abs.
As far as authors here, two of them clearly state they HATE bodybuilding and one simply focuses on weight loss…so what do they have to do with a discussion on bodybuilding? Talk about CT if you want to go there and leave the other two out of it. Many of these authors are not bodybuilding writers…which may be why Tim is trying to get this site to focus more on it.
[quote]prodigy_2007 wrote:
. Congratulations mine are 16 inches and yes I have lifted for 8 years and perhaps they should be bigger and I could have trained better. But what does your growth mean to the genetically average? Not much. I find it highly ironic that half of the T-Nation writers are NOT bodyuilders by your defintion and clearly have no rights to be here because they don’t have 18 inch arms and aren’t capable of getting them so I guess they should leave because the activity clearly isn’t for them.
[/quote]
So because your arms haven’t gotten past 16" after 8 years anyone who reaches 18" is on steroids? Or genetically gifted? I got mine to 16.5" (from 14") in a about a year and I’ve always had skinnier arms than most of my friends (who didn’t work out). Maybe your genetics are below average? Maybe you don’t train hard enough or kept up on your diet diligently enough? I don’t know, but I see plenty of guys at my gym who’s arms are bigger and leaner than mine and I doubt EVERY single one of them are on steroids. They may not be 5% bf but they’re lean enough that their abs and alot of their veins are showing. I guess I’m just confused as to why natural lifters with a lean 18" are considered such a rarity. It’s a goal I’d like to achieve in another 2-3 years and I honestly didn’t think that was shooting for the sky. You make is sound so.
[quote]mpenix 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.
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.[/quote]
I originally posted when this was in the BB forum. That’s the only reason I’m bitching and moaning.
Having slept on my ‘bitching’ and having read the responses I will offer some form of a retort. Firstly don’t think we need to bitch at each other because what’s the point. However we can discuss in a decent manner so I’ll drop my bitching tone (hopefully)…
To Prof X regarding Muscular max bodyweight - how big have your arms been at let’s say 8% body fat or do you never get ripped-up? I’m not knocking you one bit because as you say you’re happy @ 15% or need to be there to keep gaining, but it’s quite an important issue.
Perhaps the reason I have found it difficult to get past 16 is because I haven’t been willing to put on too much fat past @ 12%. However 18 inch arms @15% is not the same thing as 18 inch arms @8% - I’d be interested to hear your thought on that and whether you do lean out and if so how much size does it cost you?
To another poster re: 18 inch arms and being on steroids. No I am not saying everyone with 18 inch arms in on drugs. However, firstly the leanness is an issue - I could blow up 50lbs and put an inch on my arms (of fat) and make them busting 17 inches and possibly they’d also get to 18 inches in 6 months because of the anabolic effects of surplus calories, but where does that leave me when I try and lean out - back to 16?
Are you honestly talking about natural guys @8-10% max with 18 inch guns - pictures? Or are you talking about the chunky guys I see about and they’re not real bodybuilders like Mr X - they’re just big guys who don’t look all that.
If someone maxes out their lean body weight equation then in my opinion that’s what turns heads - big enough for people to know you train in regular clothes, small enough for people not to think STEROIDS (yes I don’t want to look like a juicer and nothing wrong woith that EVEN on a bodybuilding forum - sure you will disagree Mr X?) and alot of women like it.
Back to the lean Max Bodyweight equation - Steeve Reeves’ (yawn yes I like the old skool physiques not daniel craig!) lean max weight was @215 at 6’1" which pushed the max lean body weight to the limits for his frame but didn’t go much past it and he had excellent genes (some say he was light juicing but let’s assume he WAS natural). His arm size? 18 1/4.
My supposed max lean arm size is around 17 inches so personally I think that’s a damn good goal to aim for. Although I am opposing the views of the likes of Mr X somewhat I’m not looking for bitching - hopefully you guys with 18 inch arms can offer constructive advice about getting mine to 17 inches by next June?
[quote]prodigy_2007 wrote:
To another poster re: 18 inch arms and being on steroids. No I am not saying everyone with 18 inch arms in on drugs. However, firstly the leanness is an issue - I could blow up 50lbs and put an inch on my arms (of fat) and make them busting 17 inches and possibly they’d also get to 18 inches in 6 months because of the anabolic effects of surplus calories, but where does that leave me when I try and lean out - back to 16?
Are you honestly talking about natural guys @8-10% max with 18 inch guns - pictures? Or are you talking about the chunky guys I see about and they’re not real bodybuilders like Mr X - they’re just big guys who don’t look all that.
If someone maxes out their lean body weight equation then in my opinion that’s what turns heads - big enough for people to know you train in regular clothes, small enough for people not to think STEROIDS (yes I don’t want to look like a juicer and nothing wrong woith that EVEN on a bodybuilding forum - sure you will disagree Mr X?) and alot of women like it.
Back to the lean Max Bodyweight equation - Steeve Reeves’ (yawn yes I like the old skool physiques not daniel craig!) lean max weight was @215 at 6’1" which pushed the max lean body weight to the limits for his frame but didn’t go much past it and he had excellent genes (some say he was light juicing but let’s assume he WAS natural). His arm size? 18 1/4.
[/quote]
I’m not talking about bulky 18" arms with 2 inches of fat on them. I said “They may not be 5% bf but they’re lean enough that their abs and alot of their veins are showing.” Wanna try and put a bodyfat % on that? 10% would be close. I said lean 18" so I’m not sure where you’re getting this 15% bf #. If you want an example of what I’m talking about, Alpha from this site would be one ( Forums - T Nation - The World's Trusted Community for Elite Fitness ). There’s more than a few guys at my gym that are around his size and leanness.
Now as far as your lean body mass equation… well who cares about it anyway? I believe it’s bullshit so it’s irrelevant to me. Come back with a new equation when you’ve tested 100,000 people in the last 10 years and then maybe it’ll have some credibility in my eyes.
I liked the steroid comment. So pretty much if anyone gets bigger than this fake equation dictates, they’re on steroids. Awesome.
[quote]prodigy_2007 wrote:
To Prof X regarding Muscular max bodyweight - how big have your arms been at let’s say 8% body fat or do you never get ripped-up? I’m not knocking you one bit because as you say you’re happy @ 15% or need to be there to keep gaining, but it’s quite an important issue. [/quote]
It is? It’s quite important that I get down to 8% because you can’t see muscle gains unless someone is that lean? Are you fucking serious? I could not care less about some jackasses calculation of what my ceiling for growth is. It was a retarded study that ignored entire groups of individuals. Casey Butt even had the nerve to write that blacks may be able to go past his own limits…which means those limits are pointless (which isn’t news to many of us anyway especially if we have been lifting for several years). You can not tell people on a mass scale with such limited info what ALL people have as a ceiling for growth. The entire idea is bullshit from the ground up. You don’t look at ONLY bodybuilders from the 50-60’s to come up with some limit.
For one, those with the genetics for extreme growth would doubtfully go into bodybuilding at that time over other more lucrative sports…not to mention that it ignores that anyone truly into bodybuilding back then was more than likely nowhere near the poverty level so it excludes those with poorer income who may not have ever been able to reach their full potential due to lack of facilities or even food to do it. One walk through an inner city neighborhood shows better physiques than you see on the average suburban street or in those places of business. Different lifestyles breed different needs for physical development to survive.
People who think like you will never stand out. That is why after all of these years, you doubtfully even look like you lift if you wear a shirt. Congrats.
So, if someone isn’t 8% body fat, their gains in muscle mass are void?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
So, if someone isn’t 8% body fat, their gains in muscle mass are void?
[/quote]
Of course dude. Haven’t you been paying attention? Those are just “fat construction workers” or “fat pieces of shit”.
Take your pick… ; )
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Professor X wrote:
So, if someone isn’t 8% body fat, their gains in muscle mass are void?
Of course dude. Haven’t you been paying attention? Those are just “fat construction workers” or “fat pieces of shit”.
Take your pick… ; )[/quote]
I guess that’s better than the “everyone over 200lbs is just fat or on drugs” bullshit we were getting for a while.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
Professor X wrote:
So, if someone isn’t 8% body fat, their gains in muscle mass are void?
Of course dude. Haven’t you been paying attention? Those are just “fat construction workers” or “fat pieces of shit”.
Take your pick… ; )
I guess that’s better than the “everyone over 200lbs is just fat or on drugs” bullshit we were getting for a while.
[/quote]
pff im at 11- 12% BF and i put an in ch and a half on my thighs and almost the same on my arms this year. and .5 on my calves…
ohh but im 3% away from 8 % so i guess i suck right?
Anyone can participate in bodybuilding, but the vast majority of people will not look like bodybuilders, natty or otherwise. I had bigger arms when I was fatter, now I don’t. I like to participate in bodybuilding but realize that I am just average/close to the mean on the bell curve. I fantasize about being at least 2 standard deviation above the mean, but when I wake up I am just me, again.
Most average people (over 97% of the population) will never have over 18"+ arms with 6 pack abs. So what? Tough cookies. The same can be said for any endeavor in life - professional sports, making millions of dollars, fucking supermodels, etc…
Posters on internet websites in general lack the genetic capacity to see 16" arms at 6-8% real-life-not-internet body fat, let alone 17" or 18". The ‘big’ guys I’ve met and chatted with at gyms know nothing about training nor nutrition.
These are the bros you see there week in and week out, so while you think it’s common, you’re seeing a pre-selected subset of the general population.
They’re gifted, took, and responded to weight training, that’s why they’re in the gym.
What the internet has provided to the less genetically gifted are options to be healthy and see reasonable development. Most of the people on this site would have stopped training long ago had it not been for the options made available by the site’s contributors.
Why chagrin individuals who lack the capacity to see impressive muscle growth? At least they’re trying. That’s better than the majority of the population.
Chances are most of the ‘big’ guys you reference X aren’t on websites. They’re smoking dope and nailing bitches from the local club. And probably using.