calf
Too huge to be believed. Watch out Tom Platz!
on a serious note, I can understand if you’re not interested in being a bodybuilder you might not want larger legs than that. If that is the case I would do more hamstring work and less quad work. Your legs would look a bit more even that way
Mine are 27" and I have no issues wearing a 34" or 32" waist pants.
I don’t get it.
[quote]Kulturkampf wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Do you have much problem with stretch marks?
My legs grow fast enough if I concentrate on them that the stretch marks come really fucking fast. It’s a bit irritating.
My legs really aren’t that big, 24" I believe, but I’ve got some nasty stretch marks on the bottom on my hams and right around my crotchal-area. It’s really not cool at all, because I had to convince my girlfriend that it was normal for lifters.[/quote]
Like you wouldn’t believe.
Zebra style.
[quote]LiftSmart wrote:
Mine are 27" and I have no issues wearing a 34" or 32" waist pants.
I don’t get it.[/quote]
Agree.
Scratching head
Those are really a problem?
On T-Nation one is not allowed to have muscles that ‘grow too fast’.
That’s crazy talk.
Once you get past the initial shock of buying pants and shorts with waists much larger than you’re used to, you should be able to find clothes that fit.
Cosgrov mentioned a while ago that, even though most say that spot-reduction fat loss is impossible, he noticed that clients who did more stationary biking for their cardio would tend to lose more fat in their legs while clients who did running for cardio tended to lose more fat off their belly.
If you think you’re 17% bodyfat and you want to keep making gains in lean muscle mass but you can’t find clothes that fit and you want to be lean eventually, then it seems kind of obvious to (Gasp) cut down a little bit.
But by the looks of it I don’t know where you’re storing your fat since you have no ass. So the only way to know if cutting weight would fix your problem is to do it.
i remember when i was trying to put on weight and my jeans were ripping cause i thought i was getting too much muscle. Well no, it was plenty of fat cause i fixed my diet and cut up and went from 194 to 173 in a matter of a couple of months.
Granted some of that was muscle, but a lot was fat. From 11% to 6%. This guy is 17? That’ too high IMO to be bulking.
[quote]AlterEgo721 wrote:
Granted some of that was muscle, but a lot was fat. From 11% to 6%. This guy is 17? That’ too high IMO to be bulking. [/quote]
Too high for bulking? Doubtful.
its not a lot of a problem, is a minor discomfort.
however im planning on another 10-20 pounds of muscle and if my legs take 6-15 pounds of that muscle weight then i would have a problem.
i think im just after justification that my legs are ‘big enough’ so that i dont have to return to going to fat boy stores for clothes.
the cuts happening when either i get to 240 pounds (12 more to go)
or when my waist gets to 40 inches.
i store almost all of my fat around my waist.
[quote]rsg wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
Granted some of that was muscle, but a lot was fat. From 11% to 6%. This guy is 17? That’ too high IMO to be bulking.
Too high for bulking? Doubtful.[/quote]
as i stated i put “IMO” so obviously we differ in that very thing, opinion. I like my abs and want to keep them even while bulking.
[quote]AlterEgo721 wrote:
rsg wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
Granted some of that was muscle, but a lot was fat. From 11% to 6%. This guy is 17? That’ too high IMO to be bulking.
Too high for bulking? Doubtful.
as i stated i put “IMO” so obviously we differ in that very thing, opinion. I like my abs and want to keep them even while bulking. [/quote]
Dude, it’s always time to bulk.
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
rsg wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
Granted some of that was muscle, but a lot was fat. From 11% to 6%. This guy is 17? That’ too high IMO to be bulking.
Too high for bulking? Doubtful.
as i stated i put “IMO” so obviously we differ in that very thing, opinion. I like my abs and want to keep them even while bulking.
Dude, it’s always time to bulk. [/quote]
I wouldn’t use the word “always” very often as it encompasses every situation possible to whatever statement you choose.
Your quads are not too big. I would work harder on your calves and glutes however.
[quote]AlterEgo721 wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
rsg wrote:
AlterEgo721 wrote:
Granted some of that was muscle, but a lot was fat. From 11% to 6%. This guy is 17? That’ too high IMO to be bulking.
Too high for bulking? Doubtful.
as i stated i put “IMO” so obviously we differ in that very thing, opinion. I like my abs and want to keep them even while bulking.
Dude, it’s always time to bulk.
I wouldn’t use the word “always” very often as it encompasses every situation possible to whatever statement you choose.
[/quote]
I’m kidding.
thank God someone else mentioned it and I won’t get the ghey flag thrown at me…
Your thighs are not disproportionately large. I’d say your glutes are undersized a bit.
aside from his thighs, he has to pick up his room. dang it’s messy! lol