T-Nation is not a place for jokes guys. Seriously WTF is going on in Penn State…
One does not have to be HYOOOOOOGGGEEEEE by today’s bodybuilding standards to be considered a bodybuilder:
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
One does not have to be HYOOOOOOGGGEEEEE by today’s bodybuilding standards to be considered a bodybuilder:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
One does not have to be HYOOOOOOGGGEEEEE by today’s bodybuilding standards to be considered a bodybuilder:
[/quote]
I thought this thread was about “this shit”, as you so eloquently stated in linked gif image.
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
One does not have to be HYOOOOOOGGGEEEEE by today’s bodybuilding standards to be considered a bodybuilder:
It is an interesting act to deny “today’s bodybuilding standard” by acting like there is no standard today.
Zane wouldn’t win a light weight NPC show today. This isn’t the 70’s.
LOL zooguido do you get picked on a lot in real life? like Prof X said: Zane would be successful in modern bodybuilding. Hell, thats more of a physique competitors build now n days.
Edit: fuck your couch
anyone think being excessively fat over 20-25% hinders muscle gain significantly?
has anyone been that fat and feel like they made decent gains?
just more random questions if thats okay. i figured it would be since this threads first and last page have nothing to do with eachother.
I’ve made some decent gains with a bodyfat around 20%… at my top 97KG near 23~25% bodyfat. But in retrospect I could have kept my bodyfat more in check. It has to come down sometime for more leanway for the next bulk imho. I’m now 85KG and around 11,5% bodyfat.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
However, this isn’t about who gets laid more because bodybuilding is about LONG TERM GOALS.
I would think the ones who won’t stick with this long term are the ones doing it for ass.
I mean, what happens when you get hitched? No more motivation?[/quote]
lol
It is YOUR opinion that bodybuilding is about long term goals. And it seems to be your opinion only because its taking you a fuck ton of time to reach your goal.
Austin has been lifting for quite a while. As have many others who never plan to compete, i.e. those that lift for reasons OTHER than bodybuilding.
So when you get married you shouldnt want to continue lifting to remain attractive to your wife? Lifting to make yourself attractive to the opposite sex applies just as much when someone is single, dating, married. Did you even think for 5 seconds before posting that comment?
[quote]paulieserafini wrote:
anyone think being excessively fat over 20-25% hinders muscle gain significantly?
has anyone been that fat and feel like they made decent gains?
just more random questions if thats okay. i figured it would be since this threads first and last page have nothing to do with eachother.[/quote]
Dude, what is the deal with the numbers?
I’ve been fatter than you and made good progress (and posted the pics to prove it back then). I have never found that to be a hindrance. It just told me that I was definitely eating enough to grow. I would not recommend that approach if losing fat is some unspeakable task for you…but I’ve been where you are mentally as far as not wanting to lose size.
You don’t seem to be as fat as you think you are.
Why would carrying a little more fat cause you to grow slower? If anything, it is usually the opposite…and no, we are not speaking of obese people here.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
However, this isn’t about who gets laid more because bodybuilding is about LONG TERM GOALS.
I would think the ones who won’t stick with this long term are the ones doing it for ass.
I mean, what happens when you get hitched? No more motivation?[/quote]
lol
It is YOUR opinion that bodybuilding is about long term goals. And it seems to be your opinion only because its taking you a fuck ton of time to reach your goal.
Austin has been lifting for quite a while. As have many others who never plan to compete, i.e. those that lift for reasons OTHER than bodybuilding.
So when you get married you shouldnt want to continue lifting to remain attractive to your wife? Lifting to make yourself attractive to the opposite sex applies just as much when someone is single, dating, married. Did you even think for 5 seconds before posting that comment? [/quote]
Wait, so bodybuilding is now NOT about long term goals?
Why would the time it takes me or anyone else to reach that goal be an issue if we reached that goal before most who lift?
I’m carrying more muscle right now than most here…so how is that a negative? Yeah, I guess it took me a “fuck ton” of time to gain more size than most ever do.
Look, we get it, you have some issue with me and love to show it.
Bodybuilding is about long term goals and always has been. How you reach that goal is your own journey…but one thing we do see often is those growing slower if their goal is simply to stay super lean at all times (unless they just have the genetics to allow massive gains with little to no fat gains…which as stated is fairly rare).
Swole wrote the exact same thing…and there is a reason you did not call him out for it but decided to with me.
You can keep that up…but I won’t respond after this. I don’t have the time and the same routine is boring to me now.
It takes more effort for me to type right now anyway so you can go back and forth and in circles with someone else.
[quote]paulieserafini wrote:
anyone think being excessively fat over 20-25% hinders muscle gain significantly?
has anyone been that fat and feel like they made decent gains?
just more random questions if thats okay. i figured it would be since this threads first and last page have nothing to do with eachother.[/quote]
The word ‘significantly’ makes your post impossible to answer. But how fat you get will have the biggest impact on insulin sensitivity. Also the fatter you get the easier it is to keep getting fat. The body likes homeostasis. Then there’s the effects on the hormone profile. These things affect people differently and some people are better at ignoring the effects than others.
What I think? It takes a lot of explaining to convince me that any man should ever get to 20% bodyfat.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
However, this isn’t about who gets laid more because bodybuilding is about LONG TERM GOALS.
I would think the ones who won’t stick with this long term are the ones doing it for ass.
I mean, what happens when you get hitched? No more motivation?[/quote]
lol
It is YOUR opinion that bodybuilding is about long term goals. And it seems to be your opinion only because its taking you a fuck ton of time to reach your goal.
Austin has been lifting for quite a while. As have many others who never plan to compete, i.e. those that lift for reasons OTHER than bodybuilding.
So when you get married you shouldnt want to continue lifting to remain attractive to your wife? Lifting to make yourself attractive to the opposite sex applies just as much when someone is single, dating, married. Did you even think for 5 seconds before posting that comment? [/quote]
Wait, so bodybuilding is now NOT about long term goals?
Why would the time it takes me or anyone else to reach that goal be an issue?
I’m carrying more muscle right now than most here…so how is that a negative?
Look, we get it, you have some issue with me and love to show it.
Bodybuilding is about long term goals and always has been. How you reach that goal is your own journey…but one thing we do see often is those growing slower if their goal is simply to stay super lean at all times.
Swole wrote the exact same thing…and there is a reason you did not call him out for it but decided to with me.
You can keep that up…but I won’t respond after this. I don’t have the time and the same routine is boring to me now.
It takes more effort for me to type right now anyway so you can go back and forth and in circles with someone else.[/quote]
I have no issues with YOU. I have issues with people who pass off opinions as fact. And I call it like I see it. Every time.
Bodybuilding COULD be about long term goals. But that’s not necessarily the case. Depending on the person. Let that sink in for a minute; that not everyone goes to the gym for the exact samme reason as you.
“How is carrying more muscle a negative”. Quite possibly the most absurd strawman Ive ever seen you post. Congrats on reaching an all time low/high (depending on how you look at it) (see what I did there?)
“Bodybuilding is about long term goals and always has been.” - Thank you for using circular logic. Your habit of being a one trick logical fallacy pony was getting boring. And dont cop out by saying you dont have time to explain yourself. This is the internet, if you were ABLE to prove that what you stated is a fact rather than your measly opinion you’d have done so in a heartbeat.
I dont know who Swole is, off the top of my head and I havent checked this thread in about 5 days because of tests. I assume his post was devoid of all logic and that’s why youre comparing his to yours. What page was it on?
Its fine if you dont answer, I dont care either way, as my point was made already.
I will say this though…anyone toting the line that a difference of 5-10% body fat percentage alone causes some drastic measurable damage or change to “hormone levels” is probably not someone with much background in biology.
Yeah, it is more likely the guy at 35% body fat or higher is not functioning optimally as he would at “15%”…and that goes for general health (again, everyone is different and simply being “35%” does not mean you have poor health.
It is way more of a leap to apply that to people who train several days a week with high intensity who are simply 10% body fat heavier than they would be ideally if leaned up more.
If you guys want to discuss scientific studies, let’s do so…but this “attack and name call” crap is old.
If this thread can go 15 pages without it, why add it in now?
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
However, this isn’t about who gets laid more because bodybuilding is about LONG TERM GOALS.
I would think the ones who won’t stick with this long term are the ones doing it for ass.
I mean, what happens when you get hitched? No more motivation?[/quote]
lol
It is YOUR opinion that bodybuilding is about long term goals. And it seems to be your opinion only because its taking you a fuck ton of time to reach your goal.
Austin has been lifting for quite a while. As have many others who never plan to compete, i.e. those that lift for reasons OTHER than bodybuilding.
So when you get married you shouldnt want to continue lifting to remain attractive to your wife? Lifting to make yourself attractive to the opposite sex applies just as much when someone is single, dating, married. Did you even think for 5 seconds before posting that comment? [/quote]
Wait, so bodybuilding is now NOT about long term goals?
Why would the time it takes me or anyone else to reach that goal be an issue?
I’m carrying more muscle right now than most here…so how is that a negative?
Look, we get it, you have some issue with me and love to show it.
Bodybuilding is about long term goals and always has been. How you reach that goal is your own journey…but one thing we do see often is those growing slower if their goal is simply to stay super lean at all times.
Swole wrote the exact same thing…and there is a reason you did not call him out for it but decided to with me.
You can keep that up…but I won’t respond after this. I don’t have the time and the same routine is boring to me now.
It takes more effort for me to type right now anyway so you can go back and forth and in circles with someone else.[/quote]
I have no issues with YOU. I have issues with people who pass off opinions as fact. And I call it like I see it. Every time.
Bodybuilding COULD be about long term goals. But that’s not necessarily the case. Depending on the person. Let that sink in for a minute; that not everyone goes to the gym for the exact samme reason as you.
“How is carrying more muscle a negative”. Quite possibly the most absurd strawman Ive ever seen you post. Congrats on reaching an all time low/high (depending on how you look at it) (see what I did there?)
“Bodybuilding is about long term goals and always has been.” - Thank you for using circular logic. Your habit of being a one trick logical fallacy pony was getting boring. And dont cop out by saying you dont have time to explain yourself. This is the internet, if you were ABLE to prove that what you stated is a fact rather than your measly opinion you’d have done so in a heartbeat.
I dont know who Swole is, off the top of my head and I havent checked this thread in about 5 days because of tests. I assume his post was devoid of all logic and that’s why youre comparing his to yours. What page was it on?
Its fine if you dont answer, I dont care either way, as my point was made already.[/quote]
No Swoles post was very good and hes a good guy, you guys would get along
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I will say this though…anyone toting the line that a difference of 5-10% body fat percentage alone causes some drastic measurable damage or change to “hormone levels” is probably not someone with much background in biology.
Yeah, it is more likely the guy at 35% body fat or higher is not functioning optimally as he would at “15%”…and that goes for general health (again, everyone is different and simply being “35%” does not mean you have poor health.
It is way more of a leap to apply that to people who train several days a week with high intensity who are simply 10% body fat heavier than they would be ideally if leaned up more.
If you guys want to discuss scientific studies, let’s do so…but this “attack and name call” crap is old.
If this thread can go 15 pages without it, why add it in now?[/quote]
Im not disaggreeing with your facts about performance, you would know better then me, I think what I dont understand is why anyone would want to be 30%+ bodyfat if theyre someone who cares at all what their physique looks like
[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I will say this though…anyone toting the line that a difference of 5-10% body fat percentage alone causes some drastic measurable damage or change to “hormone levels” is probably not someone with much background in biology.
Yeah, it is more likely the guy at 35% body fat or higher is not functioning optimally as he would at “15%”…and that goes for general health (again, everyone is different and simply being “35%” does not mean you have poor health.
It is way more of a leap to apply that to people who train several days a week with high intensity who are simply 10% body fat heavier than they would be ideally if leaned up more.
If you guys want to discuss scientific studies, let’s do so…but this “attack and name call” crap is old.
If this thread can go 15 pages without it, why add it in now?[/quote]
Im not disaggreeing with your facts about performance, you would know better then me, I think what I dont understand is why anyone would want to be 30%+ bodyfat if theyre someone who cares at all what their physique looks like[/quote]
I would never want to see anyone at 35% body fat in bodybuilding.
I think 20% is pushing it for most but some people can get above that and it will simply mean more muscle mass like a powerlifter.
I’ve never been 30% body fat and don’t want to be.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I will say this though…anyone toting the line that a difference of 5-10% body fat percentage alone causes some drastic measurable damage or change to “hormone levels” is probably not someone with much background in biology.
Yeah, it is more likely the guy at 35% body fat or higher is not functioning optimally as he would at “15%”…and that goes for general health (again, everyone is different and simply being “35%” does not mean you have poor health.
It is way more of a leap to apply that to people who train several days a week with high intensity who are simply 10% body fat heavier than they would be ideally if leaned up more.
If you guys want to discuss scientific studies, let’s do so…but this “attack and name call” crap is old.
If this thread can go 15 pages without it, why add it in now?[/quote]
Im not disaggreeing with your facts about performance, you would know better then me, I think what I dont understand is why anyone would want to be 30%+ bodyfat if theyre someone who cares at all what their physique looks like[/quote]
I would never want to see anyone at 35% body fat in bodybuilding.
I think 20% is pushing it for most but some people can get above that and it will simply mean more muscle mass like a powerlifter.
I’ve never been 30% body fat and don’t want to be.[/quote]
Ah ok, yeah I aggree with that
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
One does not have to be HYOOOOOOGGGEEEEE by today’s bodybuilding standards to be considered a bodybuilder:
It is an interesting act to deny “today’s bodybuilding standard” by acting like there is no standard today.
Zane wouldn’t win a light weight NPC show today. This isn’t the 70’s.[/quote]
zane was 5’9" at 195 lbs contest ready.
http://www.frankzane.com/web/graphics_Zane/frankcolor.jpg
i realize this isn’t the 70s, i’m just saying you don’t have to be enormous by today’s standards to be a bodybuilder.
times change. records are broken. you wouldn’t tell a world-record sprinter from the 50s that because his sprint time has been beaten by 1 second in present day that he’s not a sprinter anymore, would you (assuming that’s the point you’re trying to make)?
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Zooguido wrote:
One does not have to be HYOOOOOOGGGEEEEE by today’s bodybuilding standards to be considered a bodybuilder:
It is an interesting act to deny “today’s bodybuilding standard” by acting like there is no standard today.
Zane wouldn’t win a light weight NPC show today. This isn’t the 70’s.[/quote]
zane was 5’9" at 195 lbs contest ready.
http://www.frankzane.com/web/graphics_Zane/frankcolor.jpg
i realize this isn’t the 70s, i’m just saying you don’t have to be enormous by today’s standards to be a bodybuilder.
times change. records are broken. you wouldn’t tell a world-record sprinter from the 50s that because his sprint time has been beaten by 1 second in present day that he’s not a sprinter anymore, would you (assuming that’s the point you’re trying to make)?[/quote]
Prof X isnt saying Zane was NEVER a competitive BB, he is saying that in modern times he would NOT be successful with the physique he had in BB
So yes, a sprinter who competed in the 50’s would realize that they would not be competitive in 2011 with the same time they ran back then.
now fuck off and go do some squats