So I would see being “full house” as a temporary stage before you dieted off the fat. I would never rock that look permanently but I guess it just comes down to personal preference.
.[/quote]
That is honestly what the goal is for most of tehse guys and for me.
The point again, like the other poster made, is that long term it is most maintainable and allows more progress.
That is why I did it. Otherwise, there is no way I would be this size given the other responsibilities I have had.
Over the years, it was more enjoyable and allowed way more progress overall. That is why I did it and why many other people do it…because when you are really big, you don’t look bad with a little higher body fat.[/quote]
A question comes to mind for me. If you eat enough to grow, like you’ve said, and sit at say 18-24% bf, wouldn’t your progress stall?
Let’s say you eat enough to see great progress with some fat gain. You end up at say 20% bf and you stay there. So the amount of calories you eat to be 20% now = maintrenace calories right? So are you really seeing any more benefit once you establish a new maintenace calorie amount while at 20%?
That said, you should also realize that you have a major interest in believing yourself to be correct, considering the amount of sacrifices you’ve made to being very big and very lean. [/quote]
Ive been both lean and soft. I do not have a problem being soft if it benefits me in the end (it doesnt)
Im not throwing random things I believe. Ive got enough ppl around me that go from lean to soft or went to the soft side to know the difference in reactions, attractiveness etc.
I think Steely is spot on in his assessment of average people. Heck, I remember when I first started lifting and saw someone who was a bodybuilder at my gym flex his thigh and thinking it was the most freakish physical thing I had ever seen. And not in a good way. Nothing against zraw, but most girls I know would not think that being that large and lean is attractive for a variety of reasons. That’s not to say that there aren’t girls out there who would, but it’s just that when you say ‘looks better,’ that’s a value judgment that’s entirely subjective, with different people having different perspectives on it.
That said, you should also realize that you have a major interest in believing yourself to be correct, considering the amount of sacrifices you’ve made to being very big and very lean. [/quote]
I’ve said this many times before…many women would see the extremely dieted down person as “high maintenance” and would see it as a turn off as opposed to someone huge and just a little softer.
Why are some people acting like this isn’t true?
The average woman sees “contest condition” as disgusting.
A question comes to mind for me. If you eat enough to grow, like you’ve said, and sit at say 18-24% bf, wouldn’t your progress stall? [/quote]
24% body fat is pretty high…and no, your genes and metabolism control how much muscle you gain, not your body fat percentage.
[quote]
Let’s say you eat enough to see great progress with some fat gain. You end up at say 20% bf and you stay there. So the amount of calories you eat to be 20% now = maintrenace calories right? So are you really seeing any more benefit once you establish a new maintenace calorie amount while at 20%? [/quote]
The only benefit would be that dieting down when your body is ready to grow would equal less overall progress in the end of that time period.
Other than the theory of holding a higher body weight, no one is saying having more body fat equals more gains.
lmao well ok then yes I agree ronnie coleman offseason is more impressive than that 160lbs guy with abs at my gym sorry for dropping by
[/quote]
Not understanding what is so funny. What has been said from the start is that sheer size alone is more impressive…which obviously means comparing someone bigger and softer to someone smaller and leaner.
Bottom line, no one is going to give a shit about Ronnie Coleman being “off season” when they see him. He could be near and unlikely 20% near 350lbs and people will still see him as more impressive than someone way leaner and smaller.
Most of the guys here who fit this description are some of the biggest guys here…so of course they would be more impressive to someone than someone much smaller and leaner.
No normal person cares about “contest shape”. They think it is too extreme of a condition.
[quote]steven alex wrote:
Cant really understand why there is an argument going on here. Steely and others have expressed a desire to look big as a barn door and care less about fat than Zraw and others who prefer a more defined musculature where fat is stripped to reveal detail. I am impressed by both to be honest and dont see why people are out to say who the majority of the worlds population would think more impressive.
If this was politics where a persons views impacted on the general population at large I could understand wanting to change the mind of others but in reality its all just about what each individual has a preference for their own bodies and whats the point of even trying to alter that view?[/quote]
There is an argument because some of us dared to say that some people actually prefer a more filled out and huge look to something smaller and leaner.
The truth is, most guys don’t end up the size of Steely and others if they approach it like the alternate opinion on this board.
A question comes to mind for me. If you eat enough to grow, like you’ve said, and sit at say 18-24% bf, wouldn’t your progress stall? [/quote]
24% body fat is pretty high…and no, your genes and metabolism control how much muscle you gain, not your body fat percentage.
[quote]
Let’s say you eat enough to see great progress with some fat gain. You end up at say 20% bf and you stay there. So the amount of calories you eat to be 20% now = maintrenace calories right? So are you really seeing any more benefit once you establish a new maintenace calorie amount while at 20%? [/quote]
The only benefit would be that dieting down when your body is ready to grow would equal less overall progress in the end of that time period.
Other than the theory of holding a higher body weight, no one is saying having more body fat equals more gains.[/quote]
What I am saying is, you are no longer gaining at the rate your were because the surplus is no longer a surplus, but is now maintenance, right? I don’t really know which is why I’m asking.
So say, 3,000 cal gave you a surplus of 200 when at say 15%, but now you are at 20% and you need 3,000 cal just to maintain that body.
It just seems to me a better alternative would be to bust your ass while consuming enough calories to gain both muscle and fat, then reduce fat back down to a lower bf% say 12%-17% while maintaining muscle, and then repeat. That way each time you bulk you beenfit while reaching the higher % rather than seeing no beneift while maintaining the %.
What I am saying is, you are no longer gaining at the rate your were because the surplus is no longer a surplus, but is now maintenance, right? I don’t really know which is why I’m asking.
So say, 3,000 cal gave you a surplus of 200 when at say 15%, but now you are at 20% and you need 3,000 cal just to maintain that body.
It just seems to me a better alternative would be to bust your ass while consuming enough calories to gain both muscle and fat, then reduce fat back down to a lower bf% say 12%-17% while maintaining muscle, and then repeat. That way each time you bulk you beenfit while reaching the higher % rather than seeing no beneift while maintaining the %. [/quote]
Uh…that is what we are talking about.
That is what I did and what most people do when bulking up. You often see me calling that “damage control”…which just means dieting down any extra body fat but not to extreme levels.
If you see a reduction in muscle gain, then yes, that would be the time to do some “damage control”.
What I am saying is, you are no longer gaining at the rate your were because the surplus is no longer a surplus, but is now maintenance, right? I don’t really know which is why I’m asking.
So say, 3,000 cal gave you a surplus of 200 when at say 15%, but now you are at 20% and you need 3,000 cal just to maintain that body.
It just seems to me a better alternative would be to bust your ass while consuming enough calories to gain both muscle and fat, then reduce fat back down to a lower bf% say 12%-17% while maintaining muscle, and then repeat. That way each time you bulk you beenfit while reaching the higher % rather than seeing no beneift while maintaining the %. [/quote]
Uh…that is what we are talking about.
That is what I did and what most people do when bulking up. You often see me calling that “damage control”…which just means dieting down any extra body fat but not to extreme levels.
If you see a reduction in muscle gain, then yes, that would be the time to do some “damage control”.[/quote]
Am I mistaken that you have suggested people maintain a heavier weight for over a year? I’m think more like a few months maybe 6 - 8 at most. Then diet down for 3-4 months and repeat.
This thread is so dumb. Can we just make two subforums? One called Bigger Stronger Leaner and one called Bigger Stronger Softer and everyone can go their seperate ways instead of arguing why their opinion or their preference is better than other peoples?
Seriously, you guys aren’t even debating anything at this point, just trying to justify your own preference of physique. Simply say I prefer full house or i prefer lean. Not ‘you are wrong because your opinion is differnt then mine on personal preference’.
It’s like watching a bunch of children argueing if batman could kick spider-man’s ass and vice versa.