[quote]detazathoth wrote:
People may look worse lean as oppose to to being fatter
Did I get that right?[/quote]
You got it right.
[quote]hastalles wrote:
JM Blakely pities your 175 lb 0.0001% BF body. [/quote]
Ah, JM Blakely, Mr. Bodyweight Manipulation. I remember that article he put out in PL USA about how to conveniently cram 8,000 to 10,000 calories into your day. He was a great bencher.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]
5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be. [/quote]
C’mon, now… We’ve already addressed that either approach lifters take doesn’t always align with ‘a healthier self’. The work and diet it would take to stay at 8% would make all that other stuff you listed tedious at best because of low energy levels and fear of ‘going catabolic’. One would be too irritable to enjoy any of it anyway ;)[/quote]
You’re right. Health and those two examples can be mutually exclusive. But the guy gave me two, less-than-ideal options and I picked one, because it was an A OR B question. As far as I can remember, EVERY person X has depicted as full house has 20 to 30% bodyfat (including himself as an example) percentages that I choose not to have so long as I can help it. So when given a choice between 20 to 30 and 8, I choose 8.
And, ad nauseum, if people like being 20 to 30%, have at it.
A more polished full house look of Kirk Karwoski in his heyday, quite different than the the examples X has given.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]
5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be. [/quote]
On the subject of self defense, I actually had that question for myself for a while. Before I started powerlifting, I actually fought, with a lot of time spent in martial arts along with some boxing. I used lifting to supplement my fighting. Eventually, I got bit by the iron bug, and had to choose between lifting and fighting. When it came to self defense, it boiled down to the thought that I could either be a smaller guy who knows how to fight when the time comes, or I could just be so big that it serves as a visual deterrent and I don’t need to fight in the first place.
It’s not like I can get in the head of a predator, but I would imagine they would pick “soft targets”.
Although either way, I haven’t been in a non-sport fight since elementary school, so it doesn’t matter, haha.
[/quote]
Very good, reasonable post.
When I answered the questioned, I answered it in accord to what I want, and how my body functions PERSONALLY! When I gain a certain amount of weight, whether it be fat or muscle or combination of both, I get worse and worse athletically and when I take a boxing class I usually take Tuesday nights now, I become worse and worse. If someoen functions better at a higher bodyeight, or has all the time in the world to do effective cross training, hats off.
[/quote]
Oh yeah, it’s no question that I fought better when I was lighter than I am now, it’s just one of those things that people wouldn’t know until it was too late, haha.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]
5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be. [/quote]
C’mon, now… We’ve already addressed that either approach lifters take doesn’t always align with ‘a healthier self’. The work and diet it would take to stay at 8% would make all that other stuff you listed tedious at best because of low energy levels and fear of ‘going catabolic’. One would be too irritable to enjoy any of it anyway ;)[/quote]
You’re right. Health and those two examples can be mutually exclusive. But the guy gave me two, less-than-ideal options and I picked one, because it was an A OR B question. As far as I can remember, EVERY person X has depicted as full house has 20 to 30% bodyfat (including himself as an example) percentages that I choose not to have so long as I can help it. So when given a choice between 20 to 30 and 8, I choose 8.
And, ad nauseum, if people like being 20 to 30%, have at it. [/quote]
Fair enough!
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]
5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be. [/quote]
C’mon, now… We’ve already addressed that either approach lifters take doesn’t always align with ‘a healthier self’. The work and diet it would take to stay at 8% would make all that other stuff you listed tedious at best because of low energy levels and fear of ‘going catabolic’. One would be too irritable to enjoy any of it anyway ;)[/quote]
You’re right. Health and those two examples can be mutually exclusive. But the guy gave me two, less-than-ideal options and I picked one, because it was an A OR B question. As far as I can remember, EVERY person X has depicted as full house has 20 to 30% bodyfat (including himself as an example) percentages that I choose not to have so long as I can help it. So when given a choice between 20 to 30 and 8, I choose 8.
And, ad nauseum, if people like being 20 to 30%, have at it. [/quote]
Fair enough!
[/quote]
Steely, why are you always so reasonable? 
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]
5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be. [/quote]
C’mon, now… We’ve already addressed that either approach lifters take doesn’t always align with ‘a healthier self’. The work and diet it would take to stay at 8% would make all that other stuff you listed tedious at best because of low energy levels and fear of ‘going catabolic’. One would be too irritable to enjoy any of it anyway ;)[/quote]
You’re right. Health and those two examples can be mutually exclusive. But the guy gave me two, less-than-ideal options and I picked one, because it was an A OR B question. As far as I can remember, EVERY person X has depicted as full house has 20 to 30% bodyfat (including himself as an example) percentages that I choose not to have so long as I can help it. So when given a choice between 20 to 30 and 8, I choose 8.
And, ad nauseum, if people like being 20 to 30%, have at it. [/quote]
Fair enough!
[/quote]
Steely, why are you always so reasonable?
[/quote]
Mostly because I don’t take myself too seriously. I just go to the gym and do my thang.
I’m not going to argue with e-dudes whether I’m fat or not lol
aintnobodygottimefordat
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And here we see an example of how a PREFERRED look has nothing to do with who wins a fight. Here we see Tim Sylvia defeat the beloved Mariusz Pudzianowski, who supposedly in some people’s eyes should’ve won because of his accomplishments in ANOTHER area (strongman) and how he LOOKS.
- YouTube [/quote]
Pudz has a black belt in Karate. That’s why he was hyped in MMA.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
People may look worse lean as oppose to to being fatter
Did I get that right?[/quote]
You got it right. [/quote]
Ololololol
Good to know I’m on top of things in this thread, however sad this thread is going
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And here we see an example of how a PREFERRED look has nothing to do with who wins a fight. Here we see Tim Sylvia defeat the beloved Mariusz Pudzianowski, who supposedly in some people’s eyes should’ve won because of his accomplishments in ANOTHER area (strongman) and how he LOOKS.
- YouTube [/quote]
Pudz has a black belt in Karate. That’s why he was hyped in MMA. [/quote]
I thought he was only a 4th kyu. He also had some sort of amateur boxing background.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And here we see an example of how a PREFERRED look has nothing to do with who wins a fight. Here we see Tim Sylvia defeat the beloved Mariusz Pudzianowski, who supposedly in some people’s eyes should’ve won because of his accomplishments in ANOTHER area (strongman) and how he LOOKS.
- YouTube [/quote]
Pudz has a black belt in Karate. That’s why he was hyped in MMA. [/quote]
I thought he was only a 4th kyu. He also had some sort of amateur boxing background.
[/quote]
They must have promoted him, Karate Kid style.
Whoa now. Given equal skill and everything else, bigger is better in fighting stuff. This is the ultimate in common sense… there’s a reason they have so many weight classes.
Force = Mass * Acceleration
Therefore, if we’re talking about not particlarly skilled skinny guy against not particularly skilled big guy in a drunken brawl, big guy wins every time.
If we’re talking about super skilled lightweight pro boxer against not particularly skilled big guy in a boxing match, the boxer is bvery likely to win.
I don’t think it was implied earlier that being big means you can automatically fight well. But being larger absolutely is a big advantage in a fight. I’m well aware of this from getting into a ton of trouble as a 115 lb teenager. 
This is common sense.
Sorry for continuiing that de-rail there. Go back to discussing musclebears.
IME and this is just IME, my dick gets too veiny when I’m sub 15%
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I’m sorry Bricks comment hurt your feelings, but generally people aren’t saying that. So why act like they are?
[/quote]
LOL. It doesn’t have anything to do with being “hurt”. I was showing that people ARE acting like that whether you claim you can see it or not.
Not the point. You made s statement that implied simply being leaner always makes you look better. This is not always true and it isn’t always just the face that is the concern.
Yes, someone might just look more impressive carrying more body fat to the eye other people.
[quote]
I have no issued with SteelyD, not have I or would I call him fat. I just know I personally don’t have that as an end goal. Why drop his name??[/quote]
Because you dropped someone else’s. I returned the favor.
Simply put, many people would think someone like Steely D is more impressive than even Stu if they saw him in the gym.
How is that for name dropping?[/quote]
many people would think steely is a big guy who lifts weights, but to say he is more impressive than a top natty pro. what kind of drugs are you fucking on?[/quote]
im gonna bump this post, no disrespect to steely. but i cannot believe x just said that more people would find you impressive than stu (a competitive natty pro!)
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I’m sorry Bricks comment hurt your feelings, but generally people aren’t saying that. So why act like they are?
[/quote]
LOL. It doesn’t have anything to do with being “hurt”. I was showing that people ARE acting like that whether you claim you can see it or not.
Not the point. You made s statement that implied simply being leaner always makes you look better. This is not always true and it isn’t always just the face that is the concern.
Yes, someone might just look more impressive carrying more body fat to the eye other people.
[quote]
I have no issued with SteelyD, not have I or would I call him fat. I just know I personally don’t have that as an end goal. Why drop his name??[/quote]
Because you dropped someone else’s. I returned the favor.
Simply put, many people would think someone like Steely D is more impressive than even Stu if they saw him in the gym.
How is that for name dropping?[/quote]
many people would think steely is a big guy who lifts weights, but to say he is more impressive than a top natty pro. what kind of drugs are you fucking on?[/quote]
im gonna bump this post, no disrespect to steely. but i cannot believe x just said that more people would find you impressive than stu (a competitive natty pro!) [/quote]
Some of saw your post. I did. We know you’re not showing disrespect because Steely D is impressive. I THINK you’re expressing your surprise because like me, you believe, that most people, men and women, find a symmetrical, heavily muscled, lean body to be the male physical ideal, the image shown in nearly every display of the ideal male physical form. But who knows, maybe the people in X’s circle do find the 20 to 30% full house look the ideal.
I’ve seen Stu compete. He was very impressive.
uh oh, this thread is starting to go down a slippery slope, about big dudes who can cannot fight, and who would win in a fight.
This type of shit is always entertaining.
I was a small kid who always got into fights and mostly lost, as I got bigger I got into less fights but the fights I did get into I mostly won, because I could take a hit and would get guys on the ground. Also Tai Chi.
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
uh oh, this thread is starting to go down a slippery slope, about big dudes who can cannot fight, and who would win in a fight.
.[/quote]
Right, unfortunately my reply in regards to how I PERRSONALLY function to an A or B question with two less-than-ideal choices got misconstrued by someone with that particular someone thinking I don’t know of VERY BIG men who are skilled fighters and great athletes.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]
5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be. [/quote]
You are under several different delusions if you think there aren’t guys in the upper 200’s and higher who can’t “locomote faster than a walk” or who can’t run, climb and swim or play sports or who don’t have very healthy insides. And the biggest delusion of all is thinking you could defend yourself against one of them as a 175 pound twink.[/quote]
The guy posed me a question with two options: Professor X’s image of full house and the other, 175 at 8%. So being I had two choices, I picked ONE. When given a choice between A or B, you pick A or B, and your choice doesn’t have anything to do with your ideal. I love how it’s implied from my choice that I don’t think there are healthy athletes weighing 200 or even 240 plus![/quote]
I couldn’t find a picture posted by X so I guess I don’t know who you had in mind as option A.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
uh oh, this thread is starting to go down a slippery slope, about big dudes who can cannot fight, and who would win in a fight.
.[/quote]
Right, unfortunately my reply in regards to how I PERRSONALLY function to an A or B question with two less-than-ideal choices got misconstrued by someone with that particular someone thinking I don’t know of VERY BIG men who are skilled fighters and great athletes. [/quote]
Lol I know…but people will infer what they want