[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
OK then. I kinda sorta agree with the BMI thing - or not. When coupled with a bodyfat percentage, it it actually a pretty useful tool. Stu, for instance, is not a ‘big guy’ by internet standards if we only consider his bodyweight of 175 on stage. But for a 5’8 guy in contest shape? Monster.[/quote]
Yeah, pretty much any time you acknowledge lean muscle mass as a factor, you get a much better “number concept” of someone’s physique.
[quote]I just asked because I think I remember you once calling a 5’11, 170 guy ‘underweight’. While that’s definitely not a height/weight ratiofor the Incredible Hulk, it is pretty far from my definition of underweight.
Again, no offense intended.[/quote]
No prob at all and no offense taken in the slightest. I don’t remember that dude in particular, but it’s entirely possible that I mis-spoke/should’ve used a different phrase or was thinking of some other variable.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Other than the time aspect, and everything that goes along with it from a motivational standpoint, does it ultimately make much of a difference to take a slower approach?[/quote]
That’s a tricky caveat to throw in, because a lot of the time it’s younger guys (teens and early-20s) that are getting into lifting while underweight and they can cover a lot of ground faster than “normal” by capitalizing on the monster combo of Youth (recovery time and hormonal advantage) + Underweight +Newbie Gains.
But, for most people most of the time, it definitely is important to treat lifting like a marathon, not a sprint, and trying to rush gains for those people will end up backfiring. Like I like to remind most guys (young and older), there are plenty of badass 50+, 60+, and 70+ year old lifters, so we can be setting and reaching goals for decades, not months.