[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Lol, I guess Ill stick to the PL forum…while I know Brick is joking (but alas as with all joking there is elements of truth that he wanted to spew
I do not feel out of breath when walking,
Im not concerned nor will I ever be about hawt abs and the following:
Wear a size 36 pants, and have rather small legs
Check this SHOCKER out, I actually lift weights to get stronger…it seems as if this has taken a back seat to aesthetics only on TN to which I am sad. Still cant understand why people would want to look like Ronnie Coleman but be as strong as Gary Coleman.
Yeah I have a belly, but I’m still proud to take off my shirt whenever possible, even with the 6 pack, broads dig the power belly.
243 lbs I would say about 20% BF at age 37, I still play basketball, racquetball will be getting into mountain biking this summer. I am athletic and carry extra weight.
My fat rolls smell of cinnamon.
[/quote]
As far as I’m concerned, your total package (hoo-hah smelling cinnamon rolls and all) is cool.
Pre-injuries, I used to have a similar body (sometimes a tad leaner, sometimes a bit fatter, depending on my state of injuries) as you’re sporting now and prided myself in both my strength and my semi-athletic abilities. Provided I’d be more or less injury-free, I’d rather have a flat stomach and humongous strength with above-average agility to allow me to enjoy life and pursue different athletic activities.
Having said that, though: this forum is titled Bigger, Stronger, Leaner. Although you fulfill but the last property (just finished the Spartacus finale and need to tone down my pseudo-archaic speak), you (and other peeps tilting more towards lifting big numbaz as opposed to chasing hawt abz) can still provide a wealth of knowledge regarding improving strength and gaining muscle size. The latter one might find some tempering from serious bodybuilders like Stu, the bottom line being collaborative work amongst iron brothers and sisters. There, max cheesyness score achieved.
Cliff Notes:
MattyXL, you strong, sassy and sexy (no homo, all homo, I don’t care - don’t mistake intent).
Interdisciplinarity is where it’s at.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Lol, I guess Ill stick to the PL forum…while I know Brick is joking (but alas as with all joking there is elements of truth that he wanted to spew
I do not feel out of breath when walking,
Im not concerned nor will I ever be about hawt abs and the following:
Wear a size 36 pants, and have rather small legs
Check this SHOCKER out, I actually lift weights to get stronger…it seems as if this has taken a back seat to aesthetics only on TN to which I am sad. Still cant understand why people would want to look like Ronnie Coleman but be as strong as Gary Coleman.
Yeah I have a belly, but I’m still proud to take off my shirt whenever possible, even with the 6 pack, broads dig the power belly.
243 lbs I would say about 20% BF at age 37, I still play basketball, racquetball will be getting into mountain biking this summer. I am athletic and carry extra weight.
My fat rolls smell of cinnamon.
[/quote]
Not a problem bro! I know you you’re a fun and funny guy too! I think it’s OK to lighten things up here and there, especially with a HOBBY, when lately, including myself, people have been getting far too sensitive and having near meltdowns about theories on muscular gain potential.
I actually look back when I was a bloated 240 to 250 and I have to say that it WAS mostly fun!
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Just curious Lanky, you think they should?[/quote]
Get to 200? Yeah, as long as they’re not short like Waittz. I agree with the overall issue, though, a lot of people were going to 250 which, IMO, is completely unnecessary. Many people took it overboard (myself included). I just don’t want the pendulum to swing back in the other direction where everyone over 10% is considered fat.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Just curious Lanky, you think they should?[/quote]
Get to 200? Yeah, as long as they’re not short like Waittz. I agree with the overall issue, though, a lot of people were going to 250 which, IMO, is completely unnecessary. Many people took it overboard (myself included). I just don’t want the pendulum to swing back in the other direction where everyone over 10% is considered fat.
[/quote]
Misunderstood lanky…I thought you meant get the weight back after cutting.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Lol, I guess Ill stick to the PL forum…while I know Brick is joking (but alas as with all joking there is elements of truth that he wanted to spew
I do not feel out of breath when walking,
Im not concerned nor will I ever be about hawt abs and the following:
Wear a size 36 pants, and have rather small legs
Check this SHOCKER out, I actually lift weights to get stronger…it seems as if this has taken a back seat to aesthetics only on TN to which I am sad. Still cant understand why people would want to look like Ronnie Coleman but be as strong as Gary Coleman.
Yeah I have a belly, but I’m still proud to take off my shirt whenever possible, even with the 6 pack, broads dig the power belly.
243 lbs I would say about 20% BF at age 37, I still play basketball, racquetball will be getting into mountain biking this summer. I am athletic and carry extra weight.
My fat rolls smell of cinnamon.
[/quote]
As far as I’m concerned, your total package (hoo-hah smelling cinnamon rolls and all) is cool.
Pre-injuries, I used to have a similar body (sometimes a tad leaner, sometimes a bit fatter, depending on my state of injuries) as you’re sporting now and prided myself in both my strength and my semi-athletic abilities. Provided I’d be more or less injury-free, I’d rather have a flat stomach and humongous strength with above-average agility to allow me to enjoy life and pursue different athletic activities.
Having said that, though: this forum is titled Bigger, Stronger, Leaner. Although you fulfill but the last property (just finished the Spartacus finale and need to tone down my pseudo-archaic speak), you (and other peeps tilting more towards lifting big numbaz as opposed to chasing hawt abz) can still provide a wealth of knowledge regarding improving strength and gaining muscle size. The latter one might find some tempering from serious bodybuilders like Stu, the bottom line being collaborative work amongst iron brothers and sisters. There, max cheesyness score achieved.
Cliff Notes:
MattyXL, you strong, sassy and sexy (no homo, all homo, I don’t care - don’t mistake intent).
Interdisciplinarity is where it’s at.
[/quote]
Just saw this! Thanks for setting me straight FF…I was a delicate little flower yesterday. Even my wife asked me if I had my period. But I agree I love reading about BBing methods as I have always found it helpful in my pursuits as well. I guess Ill pull a Rodney King just ask why we all cant get along.
FTR I would never want to get rotund at the expense of my own health and ability to do other things I enjoy besides weightlifting. While it may not be my main goal I still want to look good.
Also I always see an ab, at approximately 4:00 am every morning when I get up…fucking shredded yo.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Just curious Lanky, you think they should?[/quote]
Get to 200? Yeah, as long as they’re not short like Waittz. I agree with the overall issue, though, a lot of people were going to 250 which, IMO, is completely unnecessary. Many people took it overboard (myself included). I just don’t want the pendulum to swing back in the other direction where everyone over 10% is considered fat.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Just curious Lanky, you think they should?[/quote]
Get to 200? Yeah, as long as they’re not short like Waittz. I agree with the overall issue, though, a lot of people were going to 250 which, IMO, is completely unnecessary. Many people took it overboard (myself included). I just don’t want the pendulum to swing back in the other direction where everyone over 10% is considered fat.
[/quote]
I agree. Putting so much priority on staying super lean 365 days a year to where it limits muscle gain can be just as unproductive as overbulking to obesity in terms of attaining the big AND lean physique imo. Pretty much every bber gets over 10%bf offseason.
Yes i know its not the bb forum yolo lol, but training to be big and lean is pretty much bbing.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Yeah, you can pretty much gurantee that most have. The difference being that some have advocated going way overboard into obesity ranges and others advocate doing it while keeping bf% in check more reasonably. But we all know this. [/quote]
Could I ask you WHO has recommended people need to get into “obesity ranges” to make the most progress?
It is great to look shredded at 170 if that is all you care about.
Some of us want to be big enough to be shredded at over 200lbs…so we did what we needed to in order to pull that off.
I haven’t seen anyone tell someone they need to be obese to pull that off.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
I am actually pretty happy about the general group mindset on this forum about being leaner these days. Seems like for years the T-Nation forums were just a groupthink wash of get big and fat and never cut until you are 200+. I personally think it ruined more physiques than helped, hence why after joining in 04 i had fewer than 200 posts until this year.[/quote]
How could this ruin physiques? Building muscle to over 200lbs ruined physiques?
If they gained some fat, they just need to diet it off. What got “ruined”?
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Yeah, you can pretty much gurantee that most have. The difference being that some have advocated going way overboard into obesity ranges and others advocate doing it while keeping bf% in check more reasonably. But we all know this. [/quote]
Could I ask you WHO has recommended people need to get into “obesity ranges” to make the most progress?[/quote]
Perhaps he is referring to a BMI of 35 or more but we all know BMI is not the best indicator of health status and obesity for obvious reasons.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Yeah, you can pretty much gurantee that most have. The difference being that some have advocated going way overboard into obesity ranges and others advocate doing it while keeping bf% in check more reasonably. But we all know this. [/quote]
Could I ask you WHO has recommended people need to get into “obesity ranges” to make the most progress?[/quote]
Perhaps he is referring to a BMI of 35 or more but we all know BMI is not the best indicator of health status and obesity for obvious reasons.
[/quote]
Then why would he say what he did?
Most bodybuilders in heavy weight classes have BMIs over 35…so is he saying no one should be a heavy weight now?
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Just curious Lanky, you think they should?[/quote]
Man I sure do. 220 is big. As long as your definition of soft is reasonable. Immensely more impressive than 170 ripped simply for my prersonal tastes. I would never want to be sub 200.[/quote]
[quote]Waittz wrote:
I am actually pretty happy about the general group mindset on this forum about being leaner these days. Seems like for years the T-Nation forums were just a groupthink wash of get big and fat and never cut until you are 200+. I personally think it ruined more physiques than helped, hence why after joining in 04 i had fewer than 200 posts until this year.[/quote]
How could this ruin physiques? Building muscle to over 200lbs ruined physiques?
If they gained some fat, they just need to diet it off. What got “ruined”?[/quote]
I never said building muscle to over 200lbs, you are saying that. I said that there was a large groupthink attitude of eat and grow at all cost to push your weight up. I also prefaced that this is my personal opinion that they ruined the physique as my OPINION of an impressive physique is predicated on a balance of size, shape and leanness. So becoming temporarily fat currently, makes your physique look like shit currently in my opinion.
Make sense? Really dont want this to turn into some debate about limits and the value of bulking etc. I was mearely saying that it is nice now that alot of people, you do not seem to be one of them which is fine, but alot now in this community are starting to see the value of being lean along with muscular and for me, I am happy because I share those same values.
Pardon my use of the number 200 lbs, because as Lanky loves to point out, I am borderline midget so my baseline for weight is differnt than that of Lanky who is in turn the desendent of a blood line of mythical porportion in height.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Just curious Lanky, you think they should?[/quote]
Man I sure do. 220 is big. As long as your definition of soft is reasonable. Immensely more impressive than 170 ripped simply for my prersonal tastes. I would never want to be sub 200.[/quote]
Same here. [/quote]
Again, sorry for my use of a set number, but to discredit being under 200 lbs as undesirable needs to be scalable. 5’6 200 lbs at sub 10% is borderline superhero.
Dam near topping 260lbs i starting to be a pain in the ass and all the extra is just dead weight. Does it make me look bigger? in clothes yeah.
But…
Fuck that i wana be healthier! BP is 150/100 and im 26.
I sweat quite a lot, but i don’t smell bad.
Losing breath up stairs etc
It all sucks, wana get rid as much of this fat as possible.
Want my body to ‘work’ better, better hormones, insulin resistance, cv system. athleticism etc…
Don’t get me wrong, once get rid of it, i wana try and get bigger the right way!
I never said building muscle to over 200lbs, you are saying that. I said that there was a large groupthink attitude of eat and grow at all cost to push your weight up. I also prefaced that this is my personal opinion that they ruined the physique as my OPINION of an impressive physique is predicated on a balance of size, shape and leanness. So becoming temporarily fat currently, makes your physique look like shit currently in my opinion. [/quote]
But…do you understand that some people have EXTREME goals and that to recah those goals you may not look ideal for some time?
I mean, I just had this conversation with CC about this…and it seems you missed it.
I am sure we all see some “value” in getting lean. Some of us also want HUGE MUSCLES when we get that lean. That often takes some time of not looking ideal. The real question is, do you understand this?
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Just curious Lanky, you think they should?[/quote]
Man I sure do. 220 is big. As long as your definition of soft is reasonable. Immensely more impressive than 170 ripped simply for my prersonal tastes. I would never want to be sub 200.[/quote]
Same here. [/quote]
Again, sorry for my use of a set number, but to discredit being under 200 lbs as undesirable needs to be scalable. 5’6 200 lbs at sub 10% is borderline superhero. [/quote]
I had a past training partner who was 5’7" 225lbs. Yes, he looked like a super hero.
Yes, many of us here want that look also.
I had one who competed in the Branch Warren who was 5’7" 260lbs in the off season.
I know you you’re a fun and funny guy too! I think it’s OK to lighten things up here and there, especially with a HOBBY, when lately, including myself, people have been getting far too sensitive and having near meltdowns about theories on muscular gain potential.