I feel totally bad now, it couldnt be worse. I am 5,11 and weigh 163 (74kg). I was 88kg in January which is 194lbs, and I was FAT. I lost almost all fat, but now I simply realize I dont have any mass at all, thats frustrating.
My mentality is ignore the numbers. Ignore even the mirror. It only makes you worry about self image, and trivial things. Eat right and lift hard, and feel blessed that you can do so.
[quote]triple-10sets wrote:
My mentality is ignore the numbers. Ignore even the mirror. It only makes you worry about self image, and trivial things. Eat right and lift hard, and feel blessed that you can do so.[/quote]
Ignore the numbers if:
- You want to stay small as a beginner
- You are already big and are now just going by the mirror
- You don’t care how you look
Worrying about the numbers is very important when you are initially gaining that basic mass.
I agree with everyone. 6 feet tall and <200lbs unless in contest shape is rarely going to look big.
Im 5’9 and just over 240lbs, I dont feel any bigger then when i was 165lbs. I know I am bigger, ive gone from wearing medium to xxl shirts.
I cut down to 218lbs a few month ago and was lean (not contest shape though). Felt insanely small. I wasn’t even sure if people knew I lifted.
Your mind can play funny tricks with your body size. Same reason why some 160lbs kids think they are huge, maybe.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
In general, that can be explained by height and bone structure. If you are 6 feet tall, yes, you will have to weigh over 200lbs to look “built” unless you are in contest shape at 195lbs.[/quote]
You’d have to be a competitive bodybuilder to get there in the first place considering Steve Reeves and Reg Park were both 6’2 and were barely able to make it to 215.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Professor X wrote:
In general, that can be explained by height and bone structure. If you are 6 feet tall, yes, you will have to weigh over 200lbs to look “built” unless you are in contest shape at 195lbs.
You’d have to be a competitive bodybuilder to get there in the first place considering Steve Reeves and Reg Park were both 6’2 and were barely able to make it to 215.[/quote]
You do realize that training has come a long way since then? Reeves was one in a million back then. There must be a few in any serious gym across the country that size and bigger now. Also, Reeves had reached above 220lbs and that was in contest shape.
You really thought the only way for a guy over six feet to weigh over 200lbs is if they are a competitor?
My friends are throwing me a huge party when I break 200.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sliver wrote:
Professor X wrote:
In general, that can be explained by height and bone structure. If you are 6 feet tall, yes, you will have to weigh over 200lbs to look “built” unless you are in contest shape at 195lbs.
You’d have to be a competitive bodybuilder to get there in the first place considering Steve Reeves and Reg Park were both 6’2 and were barely able to make it to 215.
You do realize that training has come a long way since then? Reeves was one in a million back then. There must be a few in any serious gym across the country that size and bigger now. Also, Reeves had reached above 220lbs and that was in contest shape.
You really thought the only way for a guy over six feet to weigh over 200lbs is if they are a competitor?[/quote]
Yeah, the release of DBol in 58 didn’t have anything to do with the way physiques have blown up since the 60s, it was training and nutrition.
wikipeida:
By his own account, his best cold (unpumped) measurements at the peak of his bodybuilding activity were:
* Height: 6 ft 1 in (1.85 m)
* Weight: 216
* Neck: 18 1/4"
* Chest: 52"
* Waist: 29"
* Biceps: 18 1/4"
* Thighs: 26"
* Calves: 18 1/4"
I don’t know where you read he made it to 220 but whoever told you that needs to be molested.
EDIT:
Did I say that the only way for a guy over six feet to weigh over 200lbs is if they are a competitor? No, I didn’t. You said a guy at 6 feet has to weight weigh over 200lbs to look built, so I was talking about a guy at 6 feet.
First of all… ‘built’ is relative to the opinion of the person calling somebody built. And on here and in this forum… built is a bodybuilder’s physique… or should be…
Second of all… 216 is damn close to 220. And not only that but I bet 216 was his CONTEST weight. Off-season I bet he got over 216.
216 is CLOSER to 215. And yes he may have been able to hit 216 with some extra water weight and a full stomach but for all intents and purposes he was 215.
Most bodybuilders back then didn’t HAVE an off season. They stayed lean year round and even if he DID get bigger than 215 it wasn’t muscle so what the hell does it matter?
[quote]Sliver wrote:
216 is CLOSER to 215. And yes he may have been able to hit 216 with some extra water weight and a full stomach but for all intents and purposes he was 215.
[/quote]
A full stomach? I bet for a man his size that’d be a good 3-5lbs… I’m 5’2" and with a full stomach I’m easily 2-3lbs heavier than with an empty stomach…
OH REALLY?
Whatever.
Do you have anything better to do than argue about how much food you can cram down your gullet and using dismissive one word answers or are you just posting irrellivant crap to make sure you get the last word in?
[quote]Sliver wrote:
<<< Most bodybuilders back then didn’t HAVE an off season. >>>[/quote]
Even if true, like Professor X said, bodybuilding has come a long way since then.
right now i’m 6’5 230lbs. i don’t consider myself to be huge but other people (both guys who lift and don’t lift think that i am some kind of a monster.) i guess it’s all relative…
i feel that i have to weigh a minimum of 250lbs. to start considering myself “big.”
…and i am well on my way
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sliver wrote:
<<< Most bodybuilders back then didn’t HAVE an off season. >>>
Even if true, like Professor X said, bodybuilding has come a long way since then.[/quote]
The only big change between now and then were the drugs. There’s a reason why the best natural bodybuilders are trailing the drug enhanced ones by almost 100 pounds and it sure as hell isn’t “nutrition”.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Sliver wrote:
<<< Most bodybuilders back then didn’t HAVE an off season. >>>
Even if true, like Professor X said, bodybuilding has come a long way since then.
The only big change between now and then were the drugs. There’s a reason why the best natural bodybuilders are trailing the drug enhanced ones by almost 100 pounds and it sure as hell isn’t “nutrition”.[/quote]
Really?
So, then the bodybuilders had offseasons back then? Oh wait, nope you already said they didn’t. You truly don’t believe that makes a difference? Well then why do today’s BB’ers have offseasons? And do you truly believe that none of the weight that BB’ers lose during a cut is muscle weight?
Second, most guys back then trained with full body programs. Today’s top guys train with splits. And again, you don’t think this makes a difference?
Seriously, just think about the improvements that have been made in terms of nutrition, training, and rest methods in all areas of athletics. These areas are not stagnant entities, they are constantly improving and evolving, which is pretty obvious by the fact that today’s athletes have pretty much smashed any and all records set by athletes during Reeves and Park’s time period. You truly don’t think that BB’ing falls into this category as well?
For argument’s sake, here is a picture of Skip Lacour, a self proclaimed lifetime natural (and multiple time drug tested natural BB’ing champion). At a height of 5’11" he’s been as heavy as 231 lbs on stage (and at a much leaner state than Reeves or Park ever competed at).
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
For argument’s sake, here is a picture of Skip Lacour, a self proclaimed lifetime natural (and multiple time drug tested natural BB’ing champion). At a height of 5’11" he’s been as heavy as 231 lbs on stage (and at a much leaner state than Reeves or Park ever competed at).[/quote]
Is he functional though?
[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
For argument’s sake, here is a picture of Skip Lacour, a self proclaimed lifetime natural (and multiple time drug tested natural BB’ing champion). At a height of 5’11" he’s been as heavy as 231 lbs on stage (and at a much leaner state than Reeves or Park ever competed at).
Is he functional though?[/quote]
LOL. Yup, his muscle is perfectly suited for winning natural BB’ing championships. 
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Sliver wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Sliver wrote:
<<< Most bodybuilders back then didn’t HAVE an off season. >>>
Even if true, like Professor X said, bodybuilding has come a long way since then.
The only big change between now and then were the drugs. There’s a reason why the best natural bodybuilders are trailing the drug enhanced ones by almost 100 pounds and it sure as hell isn’t “nutrition”.
Really?
So, then the bodybuilders had offseasons back then? Oh wait, nope you already said they didn’t. You truly don’t believe that makes a difference? Well then why do today’s BB’ers have offseasons? And do you truly believe that none of the weight that BB’ers lose during a cut is muscle weight?
Second, most guys back then trained with full body programs. Today’s top guys train with splits. And again, you don’t think this makes a difference?
Seriously, just think about the improvements that have been made in terms of nutrition, training, and rest methods in all areas of athletics. These areas are not stagnant entities, they are constantly improving and evolving, which is pretty obvious by the fact that today’s athletes have pretty much smashed any and all records set by athletes during Reeves and Park’s time period. You truly don’t think that BB’ing falls into this category as well?
For argument’s sake, here is a picture of Skip Lacour, a self proclaimed lifetime natural (and multiple time drug tested natural BB’ing champion). At a height of 5’11" he’s been as heavy as 231 lbs on stage (and at a much leaner state than Reeves or Park ever competed at).[/quote]
What’s his best time on combat pyramids? eh? eh?
Oh look, a post full of questions tangentially related to my post at best with little to no actual substance of it’s own.
For arguments sake if we assume anyone who hasn’t admitted to using steroids or failed a drug test is “natural” then as far as I know Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler, and pretty much every bodybuilder out there aside from a small handful I’ve read on avidly is “natural” by your definition. But one look at the mass they’re carrying would prove otherwise.
But lets assume that this guy is natural.
Arnold, at 6 foot 2 weighed in at 235 in contest condition. You honestly think this guy who is 3 inches shorter and who I’ve never heard of has better genetics’ than Arnold, a 7 time olympia winner and the most famous bodybuilder of all time?
I’m not buying it.