And here we go again
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
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]
I do understand that. What you do not seem to understand is that this thread was aimed at a lot of the people that now have similar opinions and goals as I do and I want to point out that I am happy because of that. This is not a debate on limits or setpoints. Marzouk and HT are a great example and Zraw is doing something great by helping them achieve these goals.
What I do not understand, is why are you even posting in this thread? And why are you posting an argument that doesnt need to be made. This is an opinion based thread of me stating my opinion and being happy that more people share my opinion. You do not. Cool beans. Keep it to yourself and kindly do not bring up the already existing debate from other topics into this one.
Please stop trying to argue your belief over mine, you have the right to your opinion, but you do not have the right to argue mine.
EXTREEEEEME MUSCLE GAINZZZZZ!!!
I wonder why someone who wants EXTREME muscle gainZzz and is willing to put “healthy” on the back burner would stay natural.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I wonder why someone who wants EXTREME muscle gainZzz and is willing to put “healthy” on the back burner would stay natural.[/quote]
That is why you can’t assume the people with the best genetics would compete naturally…which is why you can’t look at natural bodybuilding as “the best of the best”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[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.
Yes, some of us here want that also.[/quote]
Natty basketball players, obviously.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I wonder why someone who wants EXTREME muscle gainZzz and is willing to put “healthy” on the back burner would stay natural.[/quote]
That is why you can’t assume the people with the best genetics would compete naturally…which is why you can’t look at natural bodybuilding as “the best of the best”.
[/quote]
So, you using?
[quote]Waittz wrote:
I do understand that. What you do not seem to understand is that this thread was aimed at a lot of the people that now have similar opinions and goals as I do and I want to point out that I am happy because of that. This is not a debate on limits or setpoints. Marzouk and HT are a great example and Zraw is doing something great by helping them achieve these goals. [/quote]
What are your opinions and goals?
You seem to not want to be that big…which would mean there is no reasn to bulk up much…which would mean that advice is not for someone like you.
You wouldn’t need to bulk up much to hit 170lbs.
[quote]
What I do not understand, is why are you even posting in this thread?[/quote]
Because I disagree with there being a changing of the guard.
The people who want to get really big should probably still do what the really big people did in majority.
If you don’t want to even get that big, then you are not working on the “BIGGER” part very hard are you?
[quote]
And why are you posting an argument that doesnt need to be made. This is an opinion based thread of me stating my opinion and being happy that more people share my opinion. You do not. Cool beans. Keep it to yourself and kindly do not bring up the already existing debate from other topics into this one.
Please stop trying to argue your belief over mine, you have the right to your opinion, but you do not have the right to argue mine. [/quote]
I actually do have a right to state an opinion…which is all I did.
I didn’t insult you…so if you expected this thread to only be filled with people who agree with you, why start it in a public forum?
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[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.
Yes, some of us here want that also.[/quote]
Natty basketball players, obviously.
[/quote]
The one who competed in the Branch Warren isn’t natural…but that wasn’t the point at all.
the point was, there are people who do want to look like that…and that particular person bulked up and looked great in that contest as a result in the end.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
I do understand that. What you do not seem to understand is that this thread was aimed at a lot of the people that now have similar opinions and goals as I do and I want to point out that I am happy because of that. This is not a debate on limits or setpoints. Marzouk and HT are a great example and Zraw is doing something great by helping them achieve these goals. [/quote]
What are your opinions and goals?
You seem to not want to be that big…which would mean there is no reasn to bulk up much…which would mean that advice is not for someone like you.
You wouldn’t need to bulk up much to hit 170lbs.
[quote]
What I do not understand, is why are you even posting in this thread?[/quote]
Because I disagree with there being a changing of the guard.
The people who want to get really big should probably still do what the really big people did in majority.
If you don’t want to even get that big, then you are not working on the “BIGGER” part very hard are you?
You are 100% right. I dont want to be big. I want to be muscular. If you do not think the two statements are different than we really cant discuss further.
Also, not to sound like a dick or anything, but I am 5’7" and 180. Just like you say nobody on the street calls you fat, nobody I know ever calls me small. I just was at the dentist getting a cleaning and the girl even made some jokes about how muscular I am. I was wearing a dress shirt and slacks, and my shirt is a medium that is heavily tailored. You do not need to be a big person to be a muscular person. But you need to be lean to be seen as a musclar person, not a big person.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[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.
Yes, some of us here want that also.[/quote]
Natty basketball players, obviously.
[/quote]
The one who competed in the Branch Warren isn’t natural…but that wasn’t the point at all.
the point was, there are people who do want to look like that…and that particular person bulked up and looked great in that contest as a result in the end.[/quote]
A) It was a joke.
B) Being assisted makes any mention of his weight/how he got there pretty irrelevant.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
You are 100% right. I dont want to be big. I want to be muscular. If you do not think the two statements are different than we really cant discuss further. [/quote]
Of course they are different.
However, why is it because you don’t want to get big…you would assume there is a “changing of the guard” and no one else wants to get that big?
I didn’t say you were “small” as in never lifted. It doesn’t take the same effort to weigh 170lbs as it does to push your body to weigh over 200lbs lean or bigger. The distance is simply greater between the starting and end points usually unless you were drastically underweight.
Madtitan on this site hovered around 180 or less and looked great due to his muscle bellies and structure.
Someone with different muscle bellies or someone much taller would look way less impressive at the same weight.
Yes, it is understood about muscularity…and there are enough veins visible on me for that to be clear as well. That avatar picture is recent.
It seems you are disregarding the desire of people who DO want to get really big and for some reason think everyone has turned from that goal to just be “lean”.
I would disagree with that. Everyone on this site isn’t after being the leanest without the massive size.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
B) Being assisted makes any mention of his weight/how he got there pretty irrelevant.
[/quote]
Really?
So why listen to someone like Zraw about diet at all?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
You are 100% right. I dont want to be big. I want to be muscular. If you do not think the two statements are different than we really cant discuss further. [/quote]
Of course they are different.
However, why is it because you don’t want to get big…you would assume there is a “changing of the guard” and no one else wants to get that big?
I didn’t say you were “small” as in never lifted. It doesn’t take the same effort to weigh 170lbs as it does to push your body to weigh over 200lbs lean or bigger. The distance is simply greater between the starting and end points usually unless you were drastically underweight.
Madtitan on this site hovered around 180 or less and looked great due to his muscle bellies and structure.
Someone with different muscle bellies or someone much taller would look way less impressive at the same weight.
Yes, it is understood about muscularity…and there are enough veins visible on me for that to be clear as well. That avatar picture is recent.
It seems you are disregarding the desire of people who DO want to get really big and for some reason think everyone has turned from that goal to just be “lean”.
I would disagree with that. Everyone on this site isn’t after being the leanest without the massive size.[/quote]
madtitan looked great at 180 because he was lean as fuck. If he was taller, he would’ve had weigh, say 200 to look as good. There really isn’t a gigantic individual variance
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
madtitan looked great at 180 because he was lean as fuck. If he was taller, he would’ve had weigh, say 200 to look as good. There really isn’t a gigantic individual variance[/quote]
There are many people as lean as him who did NOT win a national contest based on aesthetics. His muscle bellies are why he looks like that and his overall structure.
To state there isn’t a big variance between people makes no sense and is scientifically misinformed. The variance is huge. It is why one guy at the same height can look great at a certain weight and body comp and another looks not so great.
How your muscles are shaped and your overall structure is what wins more bodybuilding contests and not just how lean someone is.
??? I was not talking about bodybuilding competitors.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
??? I was not talking about bodybuilding competitors. [/quote]
Madtitan isn’t a bodybuilding competitor.
Simply put, you stated that there was not a big variance between people of different heights and how they look at certain weights…which is flat out wrong.
Do you need further explanation?
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Dude! I’m lost. WTF is going on?[/quote]
There was a “changing of the guard”.
Did you miss it too?
your explanation of what I said is confusing me, but I said “madtitan looked great at 180 because he was lean as fuck. If he was taller, he would’ve had weigh, say 200 to look as good. There really isn’t a gigantic individual variance,” which I still believe is correct aka scientifically informed
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
your explanation of what I said is confusing me, but I said “madtitan looked great at 180 because he was lean as fuck. If he was taller, he would’ve had weigh, say 200 to look as good. There really isn’t a gigantic individual variance,” which I still believe is correct aka scientifically informed[/quote]
If Mad Titan was taller, it would change his overall build…which would affect his aesthetics…which means how he looks.
If discussing two different people, the difference would be even greater than in your “tall clone of mad titan” scenario.
It would also take completely different effort to pull off the way he looked on a larger build.
Simply put, this is why taller bodybuilders have such a hard time filling out like a shorter person. It takes way more effort and time usually.