[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is the point I have been trying to get across. Any taller bodybuilder already knows that these calculations do not relate to reality. The taller you are, the more mass you need to look the same as a smaller lifter…and it is NOT based on some calculation of mass to height.
Most NPC bodybuilders who are even 6’2" need to be over 240lbs in CONTEST SHAPE to even hang with people shorter than them carrying less size.
I think it sucks that this needed to be argued to begin with. You can see this on any stage in the country.[/quote]
Alright, I couldn’t help but check the thread.
But I must say you still seem confused. No one is arguing what you are arguing against. You don’t have to tell me how much more weight a taller lifter must gain, I’m living it. I’m 6’5".
I’m not saying these calculations are exact (do you people even read? I’ve stated otherwise on this thread more than once).
I’m not saying a 250 pound 6’4" guy is ready for competition.
I’m simply saying it’s a pretty big guy. Not huge, but big. See picture above of 6’3" 250 guy for proof that it’s nothing to scoff at.
[quote]ampleforth wrote:
People should stop making linear references to body weight vs. height. People are not 2 dimensional. Consider this, a cylinder with twice the height and same proportions will weigh 4 times as much, not twice. Your weight increases exponentialy with height.[/quote]
Oh god, this is terrible. No one has made any linear references. I’m aware of the differences height makes. You know what? The hell with the calculations, they were simply being used to prove a point. My original point is that a 6’4" 250 guy is a big dude. You can see picture above for proof. The hell with ALL calculations. Back to original point. Just look at the picture above and tell me if you disagree with my original point.
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
posting in epic thread[/quote]
Not really. We haven’t even starting calling each other names (yet).
[quote]Murasame wrote:
Just Because You’re Bigger…
… it could mean that…
you’re using steroids
you’re using synthol
or you’re using any other chemical crap
You don’t need to be bigger for train smarter
what if you don’t want to be huge?
or what if you just want to be strong?
or be healthy?
or even functional?
(that’s the way i think… big muscles without strength?.. like a ferrari without engine)
[/quote]
Good luck, bro.
[quote]ampleforth wrote:
People should stop making linear references to body weight vs. height. People are not 2 dimensional. Consider this, a cylinder with twice the height and same proportions will weigh 4 times as much, not twice. Your weight increases exponentialy with height.[/quote]
Uhh…I don’t think your math is correct here. Doubling the height of a cylinder doubles the volume/weight. Doubling the radius quadruples the volume/weight.
The funniest part is how this all turned into a geometry problem…
Insecurity is an ugly thing.
This thread is epic
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
The funniest part is how this all turned into a geometry problem… [/quote]
revenge of the nerds.
[quote]ignignokt wrote:
Insecurity is an ugly thing.
This thread is epic[/quote]
Professor took some lightening cream?
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
The funniest part is how this all turned into a geometry problem… [/quote]
Hey, Lanky isn’t an idiot…but yes, the calculations used are what cause newbies to think the way they do. This is why they think their key to success is in how many spreadsheets they can create instead of whether those weights make them cry.
[quote]ignignokt wrote:
Insecurity is an ugly thing.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what this even means. Care to elaborate?
I really don’t get why people are saying that. Usually epic threads have all kinds of name calling and by the end the posters are trying to fight each other. Unless you consider geometry epic, I don’t understand.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
The funniest part is how this all turned into a geometry problem…
Hey, Lanky isn’t an idiot…but yes, the calculations used are what cause newbies to think the way they do. This is why they think their key to success is in how many spreadsheets they can create instead of whether those weights make them cry.[/quote]
As an accountant I resent that. I practically LIVE in spreadsheets.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
ignignokt wrote:
Insecurity is an ugly thing.
This thread is epic
Professor took some lightening cream?[/quote]
LOL… hardly. I’m only 5’10" 245…
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Professor X wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
The funniest part is how this all turned into a geometry problem…
Hey, Lanky isn’t an idiot…but yes, the calculations used are what cause newbies to think the way they do. This is why they think their key to success is in how many spreadsheets they can create instead of whether those weights make them cry.
As an accountant I resent that. I practically LIVE in spreadsheets. [/quote]
Oh, you’re still a nerd. You just aren’t an idiot.
Just to get the last word in, this is Matt Turk of The Houston Texans who weighs about 245lbs at a height of 6’5".
I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t consider that “Big” in bodybuilding terms at all.
I could find more if you like.
Hell, why not, right? Epic threads don’t fill themselves.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
Professor X wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
The funniest part is how this all turned into a geometry problem…
Hey, Lanky isn’t an idiot…but yes, the calculations used are what cause newbies to think the way they do. This is why they think their key to success is in how many spreadsheets they can create instead of whether those weights make them cry.
As an accountant I resent that. I practically LIVE in spreadsheets.
Oh, you’re still a nerd. You just aren’t an idiot.
Just to get the last word in, this is Matt Turk of The Houston Texans who weighs about 245lbs at a height of 6’5".
I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t consider that “Big” in bodybuilding terms at all.
I could find more if you like.
Hell, why not, right? Epic threads don’t fill themselves.[/quote]
All of that weight is in his legs. Yup. Everyone knows that.
I’m sure we could both come up with a miriad of pictures supporting our case.
To be honest, I just wanted to use the word miriad.
This is Clark Harris…also of the Houston Texans. he weighs 261lbs at 6’5".
Now, he is a big guy…but bodybuilding big or even powerlifting big? Not really. It takes more muscle to fill out a frame like that in those terms. However, I do doubt anyone is running up to in order to steal his wallet in dark alleys.
Zach Miller of the Oakland Raiders…6’5" at 255lbs.
Bodybuilder big? Nope.
Hell, Holymac looks more filled out than this and he isn’t in the NFL.
Still not convinced? This is Greyson Gunheim of the Oakland Raiders…265lbs at 6’5".
Now is he weak looking? Hell no. But trust me, someone much shorter would need to weigh MUCH less to look like that. I was more filled out than that at 190lbs.
The bottom line is, the taller you are, the more weight it takes to get that “built” look…so no, 250lbs at 6’4" is not impressive to me in those terms. You would simply look like someone who works out. That isn’t what this section is supposed to be about.
Dude, I thought I specified good bodyfat % - as in < 10%. Posting some guys who fit the height and weight requirement but who are pretty soft around the edges hardly proves a point. It’s like the guy you posted a week or so ago (forgot his name) who is 6’2" and 176 pounds who looks big as hell. It’s going to vary from person to person.
[quote]ampleforth wrote:
People should stop making linear references to body weight vs. height. People are not 2 dimensional. Consider this, a cylinder with twice the height and same proportions will weigh 4 times as much, not twice. Your weight increases exponentialy with height.[/quote]
To get all nitpicky on you, it doesn’t increase exponentially - it increases geometrically. I believe that an individual’s weight (or at least volume, and weight should be proportional to volume) should be roughly proportional to the cube of that individual’s height.
By means of justification: if a person were 20% taller than another person, in order to be proportioned similarly, the first person would also have to be 20% wider and 20% thicker than the second person. So the first person would have to be (1.2)^3 (or 78% larger) than the second person.
So if two individuals are proportionally as “big” as each other, we can say:
w1 / h1^3 = w2 /h2^3
or solving for the weight of individual # 1:
w1 = ((h1/h2) * (w2)^(1/3)) ^ 3
By this formula a 6’4" 250lbs guy is the same as 5’9" 187lbs guy or a 6’0" 210lbs guy. You’ll note that this translates pretty close to 10lbs per inch, when dealing with people of near average height.
So 6’5" 250lbs guy isn’t exactly huge, though he’s proportionally bigger than I am. However, I’ve have to admit I’m pretty small (right now), but I’m hoping to change that.
Sorry for the hijack.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Dude, I thought I specified good bodyfat % - as in < 10%. Posting some guys who fit the height and weight requirement but who are pretty soft around the edges hardly proves a point. It’s like the guy you posted a week or so ago (forgot his name) who is 6’2" and 176 pounds who looks big as hell. It’s going to vary from person to person.
[/quote]
So you are using someone who is a clear genetic freak to prove a point?
These guys are all pro athletes and I seriously doubt the guy the OP was talking about was much leaner than this. None of them are fat.
Once again, unless someone is damn near contest shape (which means well under 10% body fat), 250lbs on a 6’4" frame isn’t that damn big.
I’ll find more pictures.
This is Gary Barnidge. 6’5" at about 250lbs.
Just freaky, isn’t he?
