im 5’4 and 160, i have some fat to shed but im not a “fatty” haha
I used to not care about numbers as long as I felt like I was working hard and noticed I was growing, but now I definitely think having specific short term goals in mind helps.
When you see that you’re just 2 or 3 pounds off your next goal, you are going to be motivated to work harder than if you just went to the gym and said “hey I’m growing, awesome”.
I’m 5’9, 160, ~10% Bodyfat and my goal for the spring is 175, no more than 12% bodyfat. You can’t really ask what numbers would look good on your body because it’s totally opinion based. Be as big as you want to.
[quote]metallicaman wrote:
I used to not care about numbers as long as I felt like I was working hard and noticed I was growing, but now I definitely think having specific short term goals in mind helps.
When you see that you’re just 2 or 3 pounds off your next goal, you are going to be motivated to work harder than if you just went to the gym and said “hey I’m growing, awesome”.
I’m 5’9, 160, ~10% Bodyfat and my goal for the spring is 175, no more than 12% bodyfat. You can’t really ask what numbers would look good on your body because it’s totally opinion based. Be as big as you want to. [/quote]
Most of us care about numbers. Those who don’t will make less progress. He should be setting short and long term goals. He should not be sitting there as a beginner wondering what his exact final weight should be long before he has ever made any real progress based off of a chart. I think having a mental image of your goal would be more productive.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
metallicaman wrote:
I used to not care about numbers as long as I felt like I was working hard and noticed I was growing, but now I definitely think having specific short term goals in mind helps.
When you see that you’re just 2 or 3 pounds off your next goal, you are going to be motivated to work harder than if you just went to the gym and said “hey I’m growing, awesome”.
I’m 5’9, 160, ~10% Bodyfat and my goal for the spring is 175, no more than 12% bodyfat. You can’t really ask what numbers would look good on your body because it’s totally opinion based. Be as big as you want to.
Most of us care about numbers. Those who don’t will make less progress. He should be setting short and long term goals. He should not be sitting there as a beginner wondering what his exact final weight should be long before he has ever made any real progress based off of a chart. I think having a mental image of your goal would be more productive.[/quote]
I think the focusing on numbers is important in the beginning. I’m 17 now and have been training since 14, but never focusing on my weight. Then, I went from 170 to 190 in one year (I went from total shit to shit by a slightly modified Dave Tate scale)and then just stopped.
So, two weeks ago, I said to myself: screw abs. Think about them when you’ve got size. Also, I have always had a very fast metabolism. So I said I wanted to put on two pounds a week for at least six weeks, then maintain, and then bulk some more. Well, it’s two weeks later, I’ve put on 5 pounds, and I’m starting to think this eat tons and lift heavy shit really works.
Anybody got a picture of someone who is 6 foot 180 “ripped” or lean and then at 190 and 200? It might be better if we had an image.
This is a really interesting thread.
I guess it has to do with what your ultimate goal is. I’m 6’ and would be plenty happy with being 190 lbs. at 10%.
It’s so weird, because I have buddies who are 170 lbs. “ripped” at 6’ and I would say have a great physique, but this may also be due in part to their genetics (like frame, muscle attachments, etc.)
the only nunbers worth worrying about are your short term goals, for example, “i want to be bigger” so goal maybe 18 lbs over 3 months=1.5 per week, therefore i need a minimum of 5250/6000 calories above maintanance levels per week= 750+ extra a day, and this is just to start with.then after you hit this goal and you think you hardly look any different you reset your next goal/calories etc to gain your next 18lbs and so on and so on till eventually you actually find out several years later how you look at 5’6" and 150/160/170/200etc.
or you just get fat.
edit: be wary of setting “ultimate” goals. what you gonna do if you achieve them, curl up and die? just focus on the NEXT goal.
im shooting for 230 lean.
of course when i get there ill still want to get bigger.
Well Dante figures around 3.5 lbs per inch like im 6ft2" so by that
74*3.5 would be 259lbs which would sound right to be able to compete with the superheavies.
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
MEN-
HEIGHT WEIGHT
5’ 9" 163
[/quote]
This is the chart my family doctor (the short fat fool) always likes to pull out when I’m there. The first time he showed me that I literally laughed out loud.
When I rowed in college (in my early 20s), I was all I could do between a strict vegan diet, lifting weights, running, and rowing to make weight at 160. I was skinny and weak— worst training mistakes/goals I ever had.
Right now, I’m 5’7 and nearly 180 (started at 150), about 12% BF. At this weight, it’s starting to be difficult to find fitting suits. My plan is to bulk to 200, and then lean back to 175 cut, for the rest of my life. I’m 22.
You could aim for 170-175 cut, ~9% BF.
I’m 5’6". I’d rather be 195-200lbs with abs.
Thus, I say shoot for 200 (since everyone else is telling their ideal).
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Well Dante figures around 3.5 lbs per inch like im 6ft2" so by that
74*3.5 would be 259lbs which would sound right to be able to compete with the superheavies.
[/quote]
Is this his formula for competitive bodybuilders?
Good luck looking good in a suit at 5’6 200…
I’d rather shoot for relative strength and the underwear model look that will never go out of fashion.
[quote]CPerfringens wrote:
Good luck looking good in a suit at 5’6 200…
I’d rather shoot for relative strength and the underwear model look that will never go out of fashion.[/quote]
Enjoy lifting for other people.
Again, it all depends on what type of physique you are after. I applaud someone having the dedication to meet their goal, not what their end result is (unless they put themselves at serious risk of health).
You’re not doing yourself a favor if the only clothes that look good on you are gym clothes.
[quote]CPerfringens wrote:
Good luck looking good in a suit at 5’6 200…
[/quote]
Bespoke
adj : of clothing [syn: bespoken, custom, made-to-order, tailored,
tailor-made]
And who bumped this two year old thread? lol
I’m 275 and a little chubby.
I need more weight.
You bitches need to eat.
Another thing about this obsession with attempted-very-exact numbers:
For what may be the same height, same weight, and same “percent bodyfat” at least as measured by some very imperfect technique such as skinfold, two lifters can look totally different. One can look big, and the other not so big, though by the calculation having the same LBM and in fact not being too different.
(Yes, at either extreme, someone who is in fact extremely big is going to look big no matter what, and someone who is quite small is going to look small no matter what. I am not talking about appearance being utterly drastically different than the numbers, where the numbers are at or near an extreme.)
As mertdawg mentioned, or adjusting slightly, Arnold was 6’1.5" in his prime and about 230 when ripped. I don’t know what he weighed at say 6% bf by skinfold but let’s say that put on 15 lb, thus 245.
Figuring 7 lb per inch, that was 2 inches taller than I now am, so in theory at 6% bf by skinfold, an Arnold-at-his-peak scaled to my height would be about 231.
Arnold looked way more than 27 lb bigger than me after adjusting for height. Way, way, way more.
Worlds different.
Galaxies different.
I am the opposite end where I appear smaller than actual, for whatever reason. Women on learning my weight are always amazed and say that I look some figure always about 20 or 30 lb lighter than actual.
Arnold in contrast looked at least 20 or 30 lb heavier than actual. He just did not weigh THAT much for his height, but sure looked it.
I cannot begin to explain how this can be in either direction, but it is.
To the original poster: As others have said above, what weight YOU need to look good at your height, and good relative to what sort of standard, is entirely individual to you.
We can say that for sure you will be scrawny looking at some quite light weight, or for sure will be big if cut and and some quite heavy weight, but as to the intermediate range that is most likely, individual variation will be the main factor in how you look for what weight and whether that is anything pleasing and/or impressive or not will vary.