I think most people should stop giving a shit about genetics and just bulldoze their way up the bodyweight and poundage ‘ladder’ instead. At least, until they look big.
[quote]chitown34 wrote:
Body dysmorphic disorder, maybe? Be proud of your progress and keep gaining.[/quote]
Does anyone here feel like this may actually be a possibility for them? I’ve made comments about someone being bigger than me quite a few times, and the person I was with at the time said something equivalent to “What are you talking about, you look huge compared to him,” or “you probably outweigh him by 20, 30, whatever pounds,” etc.
A long time friend of mine weighs about 20 lbs less than me at the same height, I lift quite a bit more weight than him, and everyone thinks I’m easily quite a bit bigger than him. I just don’t see it though. Anyone else come across this issue?
[quote]Der Candy wrote:
I think most people should stop giving a shit about genetics and just bulldoze their way up the bodyweight and poundage ‘ladder’ instead. At least, until they look big.[/quote]
But…I heard you can only gain .21lbs of muscle a week. What if I accidentally gain a whole pound in one week!?? And summer is right around the corner. I want to start dieting now so I look great.
Current stats:
6’3"
155lbs
13" arms
18" quads
[/quote]
I guess I will just have to shoot for 250 and hope I have the genetics to get there.
[quote]Tattoo85 wrote:
chitown34 wrote:
Body dysmorphic disorder, maybe? Be proud of your progress and keep gaining.
Does anyone here feel like this may actually be a possibility for them? I’ve made comments about someone being bigger than me quite a few times, and the person I was with at the time said something equivalent to “What are you talking about, you look huge compared to him,” or “you probably outweigh him by 20, 30, whatever pounds,” etc. A long time friend of mine weighs about 20 lbs less than me at the same height, I lift quite a bit more weight than him, and everyone thinks I’m easily quite a bit bigger than him. I just don’t see it though. Anyone else come across this issue?[/quote]
It isn’t an “issue”. The human brain doesn’t reboot itself every time you gain or lose 5lbs. Therefore, all of the subconscious events that allow you to obtain a mental image of yourself will likely not fall in line with exactly how much you weigh this week.
This is especially true for those who have made HUGE changes in how they look and even those who have had surgery to change how they look. Your mind will likely still subconsciously view your body the way it was years ago. It will take a conscious effort to realign that self image.
That isn’t a mental disorder. That is how the human mind works.
[quote]elano wrote:
I guess I will just have to shoot for 250 and hope I have the genetics to get there.[/quote]
OR,
Shoot to add more iron on that bar each week and get enough food to move that scale up. Don’t approach this with a negative attitude. It will screw up your progress.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
I think most people should stop giving a shit about genetics and just bulldoze their way up the bodyweight and poundage ‘ladder’ instead. At least, until they look big.
But…I heard you can only gain .21lbs of muscle a week. What if I accidentally gain a whole pound in one week!?? And summer is right around the corner. I want to start dieting now so I look great.
Current stats:
6’3"
155lbs
13" arms
18" quads
[/quote]
LOL.
If you gain a whole pound in one week it’s time to cut out the carbs (read: tomatoes)
The thing I’ve always wondered about in these philosophical debates is: who really gives a shit? If you believe that your genetics only allow you to carry 250 lbs of muscle – what are you going to do when you eventually reach 250 lbs? Stop lifting and start eating donuts? Try to simply maintain that level? For me, this is a never-ending pursuit.
There will always be a goal. 90% of the time it will be mucle gain. 10% fat-loss, but there will always be a goal. No matter what. So, it doesn’t really might matter what could be or can be or should… all that matters to me is what is now and doing everything I can to ensure what will be.
The more I learn about this game and the more I learn about my body and the more I learn from others the more I’m convinced of this equation:
Superior Genetics = Superior Effort + Superior Commitment + Appropriate Diet for Goal
[quote]GuerillaZen wrote:
The thing I’ve always wondered about in these philosophical debates is: who really gives a shit? If you believe that your genetics only allow you to carry 250 lbs of muscle – what are you going to do when you eventually reach 250 lbs? Stop lifting and start eating donuts? Try to simply maintain that level? For me, this is a never-ending pursuit.
There will always be a goal. 90% of the time it will be mucle gain. 10% fat-loss, but there will always be a goal. No matter what. So, it doesn’t really might matter what could be or can be or should… all that matters to me is what is now and doing everything I can to ensure what will be.[/quote]
If more thought like that, the pictures we see of people’s progress would be more impressive.
I get the picture that there are tons of newbs out there all thinking about what they can’t do…and thus never actually doing anything at all.
This shit is not for everyone. The people worried about what they can’t do are the ones this activity is NOT made for.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If you are now arguing that Skip isn’t natural, no one should waste any more time on you. For people like you, no matter what anyone says, if they make more progress than you think they can, you will accuse them of whatever.
However, the fact that you think “D-bol” is what pros are using in majority or is what is responsible for the size of these guys today shows how clueless you are.
The fact that you think most pro bodybuilders are “cycling” REALLY shows how out of touch you are.[/quote]
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I’m the one spending 90% of his time backpedaling and explaining what it was I was actually saying because you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old and you’re accusing me of wasting your time?
The worst part is that even after I’ve corrected you several times, you still think that steve reeves weighed 220 in competition, still think that I said people over 6 foot need to compete to get to 215,
Still think I said in the last 50 years nothing has changed as far as training and nutrition, still think that when I said “back then” I was talking about arnold in the 70s, and that I said someone 6’2 needs to take steroids to get to 215.
Lets take a look at your new post and see what crap I can add to the list.
You think I said “D-bol” is what pros are using in majority. Wrong. I think that in 58 that was the drug of choice because, (wait for it) nothing else had been invented yet. I’m pretty sure that when better drugs were invented people started using them too.
You think I said it was responsible for the size of these guys today. Wrong number two. I’m fairly certain other better drugs have been invented since 58 and that aromatase inhibitors and growth horemone and insulin are also factors in the size of current bodybuilders.
Lets see how much of my time you waste when you reply and inevitable butcher the quotes in another one of my posts.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Professor X wrote:
If you are now arguing that Skip isn’t natural, no one should waste any more time on you. For people like you, no matter what anyone says, if they make more progress than you think they can, you will accuse them of whatever.
However, the fact that you think “D-bol” is what pros are using in majority or is what is responsible for the size of these guys today shows how clueless you are.
The fact that you think most pro bodybuilders are “cycling” REALLY shows how out of touch you are.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I’m the one spending 90% of his time backpedaling and explaining what it was I was actually saying because you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old and you’re accusing me of wasting your time?
The worst part is that even after I’ve corrected you several times, you still think that steve reeves weighed 220 in competition, still think that I said people over 6 foot need to compete to get to 215,
Still think I said in the last 50 years nothing has changed as far as training and nutrition, still think that when I said “back then” I was talking about arnold in the 70s, and that I said someone 6’2 needs to take steroids to get to 215.
Lets take a look at your new post and see what crap I can add to the list.
You think I said “D-bol” is what pros are using in majority. Wrong. I think that in 58 that was the drug of choice because, (wait for it) nothing else had been invented yet. I’m pretty sure that when better drugs were invented people started using them too.
You think I said it was responsible for the size of these guys today. Wrong number two. I’m fairly certain other better drugs have been invented since 58 and that aromatase inhibitors and growth horemone and insulin are also factors in the size of current bodybuilders.
Lets see how much of my time you waste when you reply and inevitable butcher the quotes in another one of my posts.[/quote]
This discussion has jack shit to do with the 1950’s OR Steeve Reeves so please take your retarded ass elsewhere.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This discussion has jack shit to do with the 1950’s OR Steeve Reeves so please take your retarded ass elsewhere.[/quote]
No, at this point it’s pretty much me having a pissing match with an internet tough guy who insists on getting the last word in. And if you’re bitching about the fact that I brought 1950s bodybuilders up without even knowing why then I really am wasting my time.
In Randall Strossen’s Super Squats, he says:
[quote]“A given bodyweight is no guarantee of a particular level of size or strength so treat the bathroom scale as a guide, not an absolute rule, letting your appearance and performance help you interpret what you read on the dial.”
“What’s a good rule of thumb to use for your bodyweight if you are aiming for a strong, well-developed body? As a general guideline for bodyweight, when you’re talking about being well-developed and strong, consider the following system (Brown 1967):”
“start with a height of 5’0” take 100 pounds as your basic bodyweight. Add or subtract 10 pounds for each inch over or under 5 feet in height."
[/quote]
For a 6"1 man, this would mean 230
For a 6"1 man, this would be between 260 and 270.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
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).
What’s his best time on combat pyramids? eh? eh?
LOL. To this day I have no idea what the hell those are. I even tried googling it a while back with no luck.[/quote]
Lol, actually sentoguy…i don’t know what they are either haha. I think Professor X used it once to satirize the response a typical person training for “function” would have against a bodybuilder. I just supposed someone said it to him once and it stuck with me because it made me LOL.
I googled it and got this - YouTube
what was that quote my mr. ford?
If you think you can’t do a thing, or if you think you can, you are right.
Now maybe this will eventually have limitations, but honestly, you’d be damned surprised how far you can go if you put your entire soul into something.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
Lol, actually sentoguy…i don’t know what they are either haha. I think Professor X used it once to satirize the response a typical person training for “function” would have against a bodybuilder. I just supposed someone said it to him once and it stuck with me because it made me LOL.
I googled it and got this - YouTube
It was from one of the threads that led to the T-Cell being created. Some guy who I haven’t seen post since tried to claim that being big and stronger in the gym didn’t mean anything unless you could combat pyramids. After about 5 pages, no one still knew what the hell he was talking about…including him apparently.
If I can find the link I’ll post it. It was pretty funny.
Here it is. It was TRAJJ on this site. Apparently, back bridges for 3 min are also the key to success in getting really big and strong…and FUNCTIONAL.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
still think that I said people over 6 foot need to compete to get to 215[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
Silver wrote:
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]
There’s not many other ways to interpret that sentence, you yourself are the one that didn’t make any clarification on leanness, skeletal density, water weight, etc.
You jumped straight from someone stating that 200lbs+ is a minimum to look built(a subjective term) to saying that said weight is unattainable by a human being outside the realm of competitive bodybuilding.
Even if you backpedal to say you were pointing to his mention of a contest shape 195, that’s 20lbs short of your examples, which is a large amount of muscle gain at the levels of bodyfat that would entail.
This entire thread is starting to remind me of that thread a ways back where the guy tried to say he found a formula to predict the maximum possible muscle mass your frame can achieve EVER, based on nothing but current height+weight+wrist/ankle circumference.
Until you can prove that Reg Park and Steve Reeves were the genetic peak of bodybuilders in that time, and not just the guys that decided to train for it while the freaks decided instead to go play football/baseball/sprint/do gymnastics/anything but bodybuilding, you cannot use them as your maximum echelon for human natural bodybuilding evolution. Please stop.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
6’1 and 196 isn’t big. In fact it’s below average for your height IMO at least for someone that works out.
Now, you’ve come a long way so just realize that it is just going to take a little more time.
Hell, at 5’8 and 198 I wasn’t even big.
At your height you might want to aim for at least 230 (and go from there) if you want to look like you have some size on you.[/quote]
It really is depressing. For a long time I figured when I got up around 180, I’d look decent at 5’7".
But alas, I feel like I always have another year, another ten or twenty pounds to go.