[quote]Der Candy wrote:
I’m sick of everyobody saying Norton took steroids. He did NOT juice.
…[/quote]
You don’t know that. It is quite possible he juiced to get the results faster. Hollywood (and the world) is full of people that take all sorts of drugs for all sorts of reasons. Taking steroids for a movie role is a better reason than most of them.
And no, you do not have to take steroids to look like that, but that is irrelevant.
Maybe different people just have different goals in life?
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
… polished masculinity, and in to fringe trend narcissism.
Very nice use of words here BigR. I like it 
Bushy
[/quote]
Thanks. I voiced my opinion because there are many more guys that want to be fashionable, but not fall into that “metro” trend. I mean, I am secure in my manhood and most certainly in my sexuality, but I still want my clothes to refined, yet obviously masculine. I’m not into unisex clothing, as defined by the societal norms.
What is an e-war? Can I join? Do I get to use sharp stuff?
I love sharp stuff!
On the subject of Norton…I highly doubt he used gear. He looked good, but i think it had alot to do with his low bf%. It was more of an illusion of being “buff.” Whenever he’s got a shirt on, he doesn’t even look like he lifts. And for fight club, all he had to do was lose all the muscle he gained by not eating or lifting.
Norton had been buff in his high-school days, so he was regaining muscle mass he’d had in the past, which, as we all know, is MUCH easier to do than gaining it for the first time.
This according to an interview I heard with him around the time of AHX.
[quote]
Ryan Reynolds did the same thing after doing BladeIII, claiming the eating and lifting was too much work…These mopes run in hollywood circles, and can get hot goldigger chicks as a pencilneck, so there is no incentive for them to maintain a buff physique since it’s not integral to getting roles or gettin’ laid…They (as egotistical artistes’/Actors) dont want to be mistaken for male models (that have to maintain some type of shape), whom they look down upon. Exceptions to this mentality are rare…
Maybe different people just have different goals in life? [/quote]
Is that not what I already said, Dave? (albiet a bit more wordy/
[quote]JMajor wrote:
On the subject of Norton…I highly doubt he used gear. He looked good, but i think it had alot to do with his low bf%. It was more of an illusion of being “buff.” Whenever he’s got a shirt on, he doesn’t even look like he lifts. And for fight club, all he had to do was lose all the muscle he gained by not eating or lifting.[/quote]
Right, Even Reynolds trainer said he concentrated on building up his delts to make him look bigger on camera…If the camera adds 10 lbs to a person, judicious bulking of specific muscles should make one look “hyooge” with edited camera angles, while looking like a semi-athletic pencilneck wearing a shirt in person…BTW, Norton sucks!..
norton sucks? i think he’s a great actor.
If he was on gear he should be embarrassed to look like that. Not saying he doesn’t look good, but if that’s the best you can do with help then that’s bad.
[quote]Blacksnake wrote:
…These mopes run in hollywood circles, and can get hot goldigger chicks as a pencilneck, so there is no incentive for them to maintain a buff physique since it’s not integral to getting roles or gettin’ laid.
[/quote]
Ummm…yeahhh…I’m gonna have to go ahead and…disagree with you there…
Since when was maintaining a buff physique EVER and intregal part of getting laid? If it were, we would ALL be working out, just like everyone takes a shower to stay/smell clean, it would also mean everyone would be working out to look ‘buff’…would it not?
Guaranteed more women overall prefer the slim to skinny look, vs the muscular and large shoulders look. The more you work out, the less desireable you become generally speaking in the long run…IF you are single.
That’s just my opinion.
I think most women (obviously you have to generalise) prefer a muscular build to an extent, with defined arms and abdominals and some size. The typical bodybuilder physique though, all size and veins? Probably not going to do it. Different strokes though.
[quote]JMajor wrote:
norton sucks? i think he’s a great actor.[/quote]
AHX is definetly an awesome movie! I like Norton as an actor too, just not some of the movies he has been in.
I don’t think he is on gear for the movie. He is not a monster, although definetly A LOT larger than in Fight Club.
I bet, as an actor, he just had access to a good trainer and dietician and he just followed what he had to do very strictly. It must suck to just see all that hard work just melt off as you become a skinny bastard again though.
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
… polished masculinity, and in to fringe trend narcissism.
Very nice use of words here BigR. I like it
Bushy
Thanks. I voiced my opinion because there are many more guys that want to be fashionable, but not fall into that “metro” trend. I mean, I am secure in my manhood and most certainly in my sexuality, but I still want my clothes to refined, yet obviously masculine. I’m not into unisex clothing, as defined by the societal norms. [/quote]
I’m right there with you ragoo. I hear you about the “metro” thing. I’m fashionable, but won’t wear a pink button down shirt just because MH says it’s “in” this spring. MH sucks (In my opinion) in the way of fitness because they’ll take Brad Pitt (for example) and claim that he’s got the ideal body type. Whatever.
Their constant badgering of using Bosu balls and going rock climbing as a serious means to build muscle is just silly to me. ( I understand that I know more than the 19 year old kid picking up the magazine, but it’s just not for me)
[quote]JMajor wrote:
I found myself on their forum today because the topic of Ed Norton and whether he took roids to get “big” in AHX was brought up by one of me friends so of course I googled away. Now whether or not he was on gear isn’t the reason I posted this. As I read through their posts to see if anyone had proof or something one guy cited CT.
I thought that was cool, good for CT’s reputation. He talked about not being able to put on more than 5 pounds of muscle in a month, then the aforementioned men’s-healther (who boasts a 245 1rm on his squat) claimed, “but for real i dont think anyone hear takes steriods. Go over to T-Nation and talk to those roid ragers.”
yea those were his exact words(It’s “here” not “hear,” Pal). I think he might be a T-Nation reject. Either way, they wanna rumble… [/quote]
First, if all this guy can boast is a 245 1RM squat, then they are clearly no threat to T-Nation. And if they like Chad W, they clearly are not following his routines very closely. Or, maybe they are all just a bunch of teenage girls, and that would explain it!
As for Norton, I doubt it’s juice. Celebrities have an advantage in that they have the luxury of doing nothing other than working out to prepare for a role. They also get great trainers and can afford all the best foods.
The other issue that applies to everyone is that most of them don’t train regularly. So training is always a new stimulus to them just like a newbie. The reason we need to switch routines so frequently is because our bodies adapt to them quickly. But if you didn’t training for 6 months, then trained like hell for a few months, you would see great results as well.
It’s the changeover from what you were doing to something completely different that your body responds to, not the same routine over and over again.
I hear Norton is about to gain about 1000+ lbs. of muscle. He’s going to be playing Bruce Banner in the new Incredible Hulk movie. Sorry, cheap joke. But it’s true.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Blacksnake wrote:
…These mopes run in hollywood circles, and can get hot goldigger chicks as a pencilneck, so there is no incentive for them to maintain a buff physique since it’s not integral to getting roles or gettin’ laid.
Ummm…yeahhh…I’m gonna have to go ahead and…disagree with you there…
Since when was maintaining a buff physique EVER and intregal part of getting laid? If it were, we would ALL be working out, just like everyone takes a shower to stay/smell clean, it would also mean everyone would be working out to look ‘buff’…would it not?
Guaranteed more women overall prefer the slim to skinny look, vs the muscular and large shoulders look. The more you work out, the less desireable you become generally speaking in the long run…IF you are single.
That’s just my opinion.[/quote]
Well, I happen to agree with your opinion, Rock, you just overlooked the caveat in my comment, that “they run in Hollywood circles”. It’s a whole different unique scene down there, especially for the actor/model crowd (as well as the Gym oriented crowd), so that is the context of the comment…
Mmmmkay?
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Ummm…yeahhh…I’m gonna have to go ahead and…disagree with you there…
Since when was maintaining a buff physique EVER and intregal part of getting laid? If it were, we would ALL be working out, just like everyone takes a shower to stay/smell clean, it would also mean everyone would be working out to look ‘buff’…would it not?
[/quote]
Probably not. People are incredibly lazy and won’t do something that requires long-term effort and goes against the grain of society, even if it virtually guarantees a much MUCH better life.
Like working out and eating right. Or doing what it takes to earn a huge income.