^^ you know I don’t speak Spanish!
[quote]gregron wrote:
^^ you know I don’t speak Spanish![/quote]
Looking at the size of your arm you will fap to anything language barrier or not.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ten years ago I weighed about 210lbs. You know, I think I would know what my goal was from the start better than anyone.
Why would someone compete before they reached the body they are after?
[/quote]
Not that you care, but this is the most valid excuse/reason for not competing I can think of when I said that the amount of time depends on the exuse.
[quote]kakno wrote:
?
He’s like a guy with a 2000 pound gym total. He doesn’t give out advice on cutting for a competition but he knows how to get big. And that’s a pretty big part of it.
How is the fact that he’s never competed relevant to this discussion?
FWIW, H4M gave out great advice before his first meet. In which he totaled elite. Competing isn’t everything.[/quote]
Youre glossing over the point. Where does the strong desire to have the LABEL attached come from? Thats all this debate breaks down to. Who gets to have the LABEL of ‘bodybuilder’? If competition isnt required than about half of what goes into bodybuilding is removed from the criteria. You dont pose in a gym. You dont manipulate water in a gym. You dont slave away on a stepmill for 20+ hours a week to get down to 5% bodyfat.
You dont eat white fish and broccoli and brown rice 4 times a day for 3 weeks straight just for the fuck of it. Competition is a completely different animal than just getting big and pretty.
The people who say that bodybuilding is done in the gym and the kitchen and not on stage HAVE CLEARLY NEVER COMPETED. OR EVEN BEEN TO A SHOW BEFORE.
There is so much more to competition than just training and eating. Those who say bodybuilding is done in the gym and the kitchen are shitting on the extreme prepartion that is necessary to step on stage. Training and eating is by far the easiest part of bodybuilding. Obviously Im talking from a 3rd person perspective but my opionion is based on coversations with people who compete.
Comparitively speaking, powerlifting requires much less preparation for a competition. Its not a great analogy and weakens the stance of the person who says bodybuilding is more than lifting and eating right.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m not upset at all. I’m annoyed when my points are misrepresented. By the way, I hate to fucking break it to you, but a man in his 60’s is not “old”. If all you care about is making it to your 60’s, then that’s your problem. I want to make it beyond 80 and healthy. Excess weight is excess weight as you age - it’s a strain on your heart. Your heart DOES NOT distinguish between fat and muscle - it’s an increased load, ASK ANY CARDIOLOGIST!. For crying out loud, you claim to be a “doctor” - at least have an informed opinion and an understanding of my point. [/quote]
If your goal is to make it beyond 80, then why are you even bothering staying at 240 lbs for your height. You’re profile says 6’1, why not cut back to 210 and be in better shape since those extra 30 lbs are making your heart work harder.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
?
He’s like a guy with a 2000 pound gym total. He doesn’t give out advice on cutting for a competition but he knows how to get big. And that’s a pretty big part of it.
How is the fact that he’s never competed relevant to this discussion?
FWIW, H4M gave out great advice before his first meet. In which he totaled elite. Competing isn’t everything.[/quote]
Youre glossing over the point. Where does the strong desire to have the LABEL attached come from? Thats all this debate breaks down to. Who gets to have the LABEL of ‘bodybuilder’? If competition isnt required than about half of what goes into bodybuilding is removed from the criteria. You dont pose in a gym. You dont manipulate water in a gym. You dont slave away on a stepmill for 20+ hours a week to get down to 5% bodyfat.
You dont eat white fish and broccoli and brown rice 4 times a day for 3 weeks straight just for the fuck of it. Competition is a completely different animal than just getting big and pretty.
The people who say that bodybuilding is done in the gym and the kitchen and not on stage HAVE CLEARLY NEVER COMPETED. OR EVEN BEEN TO A SHOW BEFORE.
There is so much more to competition than just training and eating. Those who say bodybuilding is done in the gym and the kitchen are shitting on the extreme prepartion that is necessary to step on stage. Training and eating is by far the easiest part of bodybuilding. Obviously Im talking from a 3rd person perspective but my opionion is based on coversations with people who compete.
Comparitively speaking, powerlifting requires much less preparation for a competition. Its not a great analogy and weakens the stance of the person who says bodybuilding is more than lifting and eating right.
[/quote]
THIS
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
BG, I’ve been lurking here for a long time and I have found that I tend to agree with your opinions on many counts. However, I think it’s incorrect to state that X and many others who do not compete are not bodybuilders irrespective of their commitment and achievements.
I think that while stepping on stage and competing is certainly admirable, and absolutely required to be considered a competitive bodybuilder, what qualifies one as a bodybuilder is less to do with competition and more to do with training, discipline, and mindset. If someone practiced guitar relentlessly and became very skilled, but never performed in front of a crowd, would that make them any less of a guitar player?
Would that make them merely a guy who plays a lot of guitar and is very good at it? I believe not. Bodybuilding is not done on the stage. Bodybuilding is done in the gym and in the kitchen. While it is judged onstage, it is not done there. In my opinion, if it looks like a bodybuilder and acts like a bodybuilder then it must be a bodybuilder.
[/quote]
Haha… ok now lets but the emotions aside and think logically here. While this may apply to some aspects of life such as music and visual arts, it doesn’t apply to others. If you don’t step on stage to compete then you haven’t reached that legit status. No matter how developed you are. The reason there are discrepancies is because so many guys use the term so loosely.
This is a profession to the elite in the sport. Until you step on stage you are just a guy who lift weights. Would you consider a guy who graduated at the top of his class in law school, but have yet to pass the bar a lawyer?. Until you’ve played some form of professional basketball you’re just a guy who plays basketball, and unless you’ve actually been through med school and residency, then you’re just a dentist.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
?
He’s like a guy with a 2000 pound gym total. He doesn’t give out advice on cutting for a competition but he knows how to get big. And that’s a pretty big part of it.
How is the fact that he’s never competed relevant to this discussion?
FWIW, H4M gave out great advice before his first meet. In which he totaled elite. Competing isn’t everything.[/quote]
Youre glossing over the point. Where does the strong desire to have the LABEL attached come from? Thats all this debate breaks down to. Who gets to have the LABEL of ‘bodybuilder’? If competition isnt required than about half of what goes into bodybuilding is removed from the criteria. You dont pose in a gym. You dont manipulate water in a gym. You dont slave away on a stepmill for 20+ hours a week to get down to 5% bodyfat.
You dont eat white fish and broccoli and brown rice 4 times a day for 3 weeks straight just for the fuck of it. Competition is a completely different animal than just getting big and pretty.
The people who say that bodybuilding is done in the gym and the kitchen and not on stage HAVE CLEARLY NEVER COMPETED. OR EVEN BEEN TO A SHOW BEFORE.
There is so much more to competition than just training and eating. Those who say bodybuilding is done in the gym and the kitchen are shitting on the extreme prepartion that is necessary to step on stage. Training and eating is by far the easiest part of bodybuilding. Obviously Im talking from a 3rd person perspective but my opionion is based on coversations with people who compete.
Comparitively speaking, powerlifting requires much less preparation for a competition. Its not a great analogy and weakens the stance of the person who says bodybuilding is more than lifting and eating right.
[/quote]
That’s fair, and while I maintain that what I said holds true for the majority of skills/sports, I hadn’t considered the extra mile that goes into preparing for a show- I stand corrected.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ten years ago I weighed about 210lbs. You know, I think I would know what my goal was from the start better than anyone.
Why would someone compete before they reached the body they are after?
[/quote]
Not that you care, but this is the most valid excuse/reason for not competing I can think of when I said that the amount of time depends on the exuse. [/quote]
I care about real debate and discussion, not the bs that has been going on in this forum lately and in this thread with the personal attacks.
As far as the topic of what makes someone a bodybuilder…I would guess other people seeing you as one would be the best answer.
Further, I think most of us can tell the difference quickly between some guy with 19 or 20" arms who worked his ass of for them in the gym and some guy who was just “big” naturally and had arms that happened to measure that much.
I wanted to reach a certain size…so I did. Seeing people try to turn that into a negative is strange as hell.
I personally don’t care what some guy on the internet calls me and am wondering why this topic is now about whether you can or can’t call yourself a bodybuilder.
The topic shifted because its important to know who is being considered a bodybuilder if some dude is going to make an absurd claim that most bodybuilders look like crap. If a large group of the gym going populatiob can simply call themselves bodybuilders then of course you can say that most look like crap. The tail is wagging the dog.
I think the author fucked up saying bodybuilders instead of “gym guys”. But the rest of the message is clear enough. I guess. I think its pretty stupid in the sense that there are plenty of non overweight people who are just as unhealthy as fat people though. It seemed to me that it was just a rant against big guys and how stupid they are for getting “unheathily big”.
Just a poorly conceived article imo
Edit.
Posted before PX edited his post.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The topic shifted because its important to kjow who is being considered a bodybuilder if some dude is going to make an absurd claim that most bodybuilders look like crap. If a large group of the gym going populatiob can simply call themselves bodybuilders then of course you can say that most look like crap. The tail is wagging the dog.
I think the author fucked up saying bodybuilders instead of “gym guys”. But the rest of the message is clear enough. I guess. I think its pretty stupid in the sense that there are plenty of non overweight people who are just as unhealthy as fat people though. It seemed to me that it was just a rant against big guys and how stupid they are for getting “unheathily big”.
Just a poorly conceived article imo[/quote]
I agree…but I think I have said this already.
The claim that “250lbs is unhealthy” is nonsense. Your biology is a tad more complex than that…but what do I know…
[quote]angus_beef wrote:
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
BG, I’ve been lurking here for a long time and I have found that I tend to agree with your opinions on many counts. However, I think it’s incorrect to state that X and many others who do not compete are not bodybuilders irrespective of their commitment and achievements.
I think that while stepping on stage and competing is certainly admirable, and absolutely required to be considered a competitive bodybuilder, what qualifies one as a bodybuilder is less to do with competition and more to do with training, discipline, and mindset. If someone practiced guitar relentlessly and became very skilled, but never performed in front of a crowd, would that make them any less of a guitar player?
Would that make them merely a guy who plays a lot of guitar and is very good at it? I believe not. Bodybuilding is not done on the stage. Bodybuilding is done in the gym and in the kitchen. While it is judged onstage, it is not done there. In my opinion, if it looks like a bodybuilder and acts like a bodybuilder then it must be a bodybuilder.
[/quote]
Haha… ok now lets but the emotions aside and think logically here. While this may apply to some aspects of life such as music and visual arts, it doesn’t apply to others. If you don’t step on stage to compete then you haven’t reached that legit status. No matter how developed you are. The reason there are discrepancies is because so many guys use the term so loosely.
This is a profession to the elite in the sport. Until you step on stage you are just a guy who lift weights. Would you consider a guy who graduated at the top of his class in law school, but have yet to pass the bar a lawyer?. Until you’ve played some form of professional basketball you’re just a guy who plays basketball, and unless you’ve actually been through med school and residency, then you’re just a dentist.
[/quote]
What emotions? I’m posting infrequently because I’m trying to stay objective.
I’ll concede that I failed to consider all the aspects of bodybuilding preparation, and therefore I failed to consider everything that is involved in looking like and acting like a bodybuilder, and therefore what it means to be a bodybuilder. However, I do believe that distinction should be made between professions such as a lawyer or doctor and athletic pursuits like basketball. I think the distinction lies in that the terms “lawyer” and “doctor” are titles, bestowed upon those who have passed certain (at least partially) standardized examinations, whereas the term “basketball player” is a description- similarly to the term bodybuilder. This leads me to my next point, which is really a clarification of my last post with the corrections that have been pointed out by bonez and yourself. I believe that had one gone through all the necessary routine, managing water, carrying dieting and cardio to their absolute extreme logical ends etc. one should still be considered a bodybuilder, even if they had not stepped on stage. The point that I was trying to make was that these descriptive terms apply regardless of competition.
Whether you’re professional or not merely determines if you can or cannot call yourself a professional (bodybuilder/guitar player/basketball player etc). This doesn’t apply to doctors or lawyers because those words are titles, not descriptive terms; whereas with basketball players all that is required for the description to apply in that exact form is that one plays basketball regularly.
Keeping this in mind, I doubt there is anyone who actually goes through all the commitment and trouble to do as competing bodybuilders do without actually competing.
Yea I dont wanna get to big I weight liek 120lbs and bench liek 115 but I dont workout I only do BMX and skate lol
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
[quote]angus_beef wrote:
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
BG, I’ve been lurking here for a long time and I have found that I tend to agree with your opinions on many counts. However, I think it’s incorrect to state that X and many others who do not compete are not bodybuilders irrespective of their commitment and achievements.
I think that while stepping on stage and competing is certainly admirable, and absolutely required to be considered a competitive bodybuilder, what qualifies one as a bodybuilder is less to do with competition and more to do with training, discipline, and mindset. If someone practiced guitar relentlessly and became very skilled, but never performed in front of a crowd, would that make them any less of a guitar player?
Would that make them merely a guy who plays a lot of guitar and is very good at it? I believe not. Bodybuilding is not done on the stage. Bodybuilding is done in the gym and in the kitchen. While it is judged onstage, it is not done there. In my opinion, if it looks like a bodybuilder and acts like a bodybuilder then it must be a bodybuilder.
[/quote]
Haha… ok now lets but the emotions aside and think logically here. While this may apply to some aspects of life such as music and visual arts, it doesn’t apply to others. If you don’t step on stage to compete then you haven’t reached that legit status. No matter how developed you are. The reason there are discrepancies is because so many guys use the term so loosely.
This is a profession to the elite in the sport. Until you step on stage you are just a guy who lift weights. Would you consider a guy who graduated at the top of his class in law school, but have yet to pass the bar a lawyer?. Until you’ve played some form of professional basketball you’re just a guy who plays basketball, and unless you’ve actually been through med school and residency, then you’re just a dentist.
[/quote]
What emotions? I’m posting infrequently because I’m trying to stay objective.
I’ll concede that I failed to consider all the aspects of bodybuilding preparation, and therefore I failed to consider everything that is involved in looking like and acting like a bodybuilder, and therefore what it means to be a bodybuilder. However, I do believe that distinction should be made between professions such as a lawyer or doctor and athletic pursuits like basketball. I think the distinction lies in that the terms “lawyer” and “doctor” are titles, bestowed upon those who have passed certain (at least partially) standardized examinations, whereas the term “basketball player” is a description- similarly to the term bodybuilder. This leads me to my next point, which is really a clarification of my last post with the corrections that have been pointed out by bonez and yourself. I believe that had one gone through all the necessary routine, managing water, carrying dieting and cardio to their absolute extreme logical ends etc. one should still be considered a bodybuilder, even if they had not stepped on stage. The point that I was trying to make was that these descriptive terms apply regardless of competition. Whether you’re professional or not merely determines if you can or cannot call yourself a professional (bodybuilder/guitar player/basketball player etc). This doesn’t apply to doctors or lawyers because those words are titles, not descriptive terms; whereas with basketball players all that is required for the description to apply in that exact form is that one plays basketball regularly.
Keeping this in mind, I doubt there is anyone who actually goes through all the commitment and trouble to do as competing bodybuilders do without actually competing. [/quote]
If competing alone makes you a bodybuilder then many of the guys like Sandow would not be bodybuilders…even though they are considered “founders” of it.
How you look, how you live, how you eat and what you built is what makes you a bodybuilder.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The topic shifted because its important to kjow who is being considered a bodybuilder if some dude is going to make an absurd claim that most bodybuilders look like crap. If a large group of the gym going populatiob can simply call themselves bodybuilders then of course you can say that most look like crap. The tail is wagging the dog.
I think the author fucked up saying bodybuilders instead of “gym guys”. But the rest of the message is clear enough. I guess. I think its pretty stupid in the sense that there are plenty of non overweight people who are just as unhealthy as fat people though. It seemed to me that it was just a rant against big guys and how stupid they are for getting “unheathily big”.
Just a poorly conceived article imo[/quote]
I agree…but I think I have said this already
Uh huh.
The claim that “250lbs is unhealthy” is nonsense. Your biology is a tad more complex than that…but what do I know…
[/quote]
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
[quote]angus_beef wrote:
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
BG, I’ve been lurking here for a long time and I have found that I tend to agree with your opinions on many counts. However, I think it’s incorrect to state that X and many others who do not compete are not bodybuilders irrespective of their commitment and achievements.
I think that while stepping on stage and competing is certainly admirable, and absolutely required to be considered a competitive bodybuilder, what qualifies one as a bodybuilder is less to do with competition and more to do with training, discipline, and mindset. If someone practiced guitar relentlessly and became very skilled, but never performed in front of a crowd, would that make them any less of a guitar player?
Would that make them merely a guy who plays a lot of guitar and is very good at it? I believe not. Bodybuilding is not done on the stage. Bodybuilding is done in the gym and in the kitchen. While it is judged onstage, it is not done there. In my opinion, if it looks like a bodybuilder and acts like a bodybuilder then it must be a bodybuilder.
[/quote]
.
Haha… ok now lets but the emotions aside and think logically here. While this may apply to some aspects of life such as music and visual arts, it doesn’t apply to others. If you don’t step on stage to compete then you haven’t reached that legit status. No matter how developed you are. The reason there are discrepancies is because so many guys use the term so loosely.
This is a profession to the elite in the sport. Until you step on stage you are just a guy who lift weights. Would you consider a guy who graduated at the top of his class in law school, but have yet to pass the bar a lawyer?. Until you’ve played some form of professional basketball you’re just a guy who plays basketball, and unless you’ve actually been through med school and residency, then you’re just a dentist.
[/quote]
What emotions? I’m posting infrequently because I’m trying to stay objective.
I’ll concede that I failed to consider all the aspects of bodybuilding preparation, and therefore I failed to consider everything that is involved in looking like and acting like a bodybuilder, and therefore what it means to be a bodybuilder. However, I do believe that distinction should be made between professions such as a lawyer or doctor and athletic pursuits like basketball. I think the distinction lies in that the terms “lawyer” and “doctor” are titles, bestowed upon those who have passed certain (at least partially) standardized examinations, whereas the term “basketball player” is a description- similarly to the term bodybuilder. This leads me to my next point, which is really a clarification of my last post with the corrections that have been pointed out by bonez and yourself. I believe that had one gone through all the necessary routine, managing water, carrying dieting and cardio to their absolute extreme logical ends etc. one should still be considered a bodybuilder, even if they had not stepped on stage. The point that I was trying to make was that these descriptive terms apply regardless of competition. Whether you’re professional or not merely determines if you can or cannot call yourself a professional (bodybuilder/guitar player/basketball player etc). This doesn’t apply to doctors or lawyers because those words are titles, not descriptive terms; whereas with basketball players all that is required for the description to apply in that exact form is that one plays basketball regularly.
Keeping this in mind, I doubt there is anyone who actually goes through all the commitment and trouble to do as competing bodybuilders do without actually competing. [/quote]
What about the asshole in brazil right now who just bought a kit of botox from china and has people paying him $500 to come to his basement to inject it in their faces. He doesnt have a license because he is actually a bricklayer who didbt come close to going to med school. But hes acting like a doctor
Im just saying that u can stretch thia any way u want to justify your opinion. Analogies are useless here. I just think bodybuilding is better off if the crteria for te label is as strict as possible.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Youre glossing over the point. Where does the strong desire to have the LABEL attached come from? Thats all this debate breaks down to. Who gets to have the LABEL of ‘bodybuilder’?[/quote]
Several debates, several points. I’m not touching that one.
Good post though.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
[quote]angus_beef wrote:
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
BG, I’ve been lurking here for a long time and I have found that I tend to agree with your opinions on many counts. However, I think it’s incorrect to state that X and many others who do not compete are not bodybuilders irrespective of their commitment and achievements.
I think that while stepping on stage and competing is certainly admirable, and absolutely required to be considered a competitive bodybuilder, what qualifies one as a bodybuilder is less to do with competition and more to do with training, discipline, and mindset. If someone practiced guitar relentlessly and became very skilled, but never performed in front of a crowd, would that make them any less of a guitar player?
Would that make them merely a guy who plays a lot of guitar and is very good at it? I believe not. Bodybuilding is not done on the stage. Bodybuilding is done in the gym and in the kitchen. While it is judged onstage, it is not done there. In my opinion, if it looks like a bodybuilder and acts like a bodybuilder then it must be a bodybuilder.
[/quote]
Haha… ok now lets but the emotions aside and think logically here. While this may apply to some aspects of life such as music and visual arts, it doesn’t apply to others. If you don’t step on stage to compete then you haven’t reached that legit status. No matter how developed you are. The reason there are discrepancies is because so many guys use the term so loosely.
This is a profession to the elite in the sport. Until you step on stage you are just a guy who lift weights. Would you consider a guy who graduated at the top of his class in law school, but have yet to pass the bar a lawyer?. Until you’ve played some form of professional basketball you’re just a guy who plays basketball, and unless you’ve actually been through med school and residency, then you’re just a dentist.
[/quote]
What emotions? I’m posting infrequently because I’m trying to stay objective.
I’ll concede that I failed to consider all the aspects of bodybuilding preparation, and therefore I failed to consider everything that is involved in looking like and acting like a bodybuilder, and therefore what it means to be a bodybuilder. However, I do believe that distinction should be made between professions such as a lawyer or doctor and athletic pursuits like basketball. I think the distinction lies in that the terms “lawyer” and “doctor” are titles, bestowed upon those who have passed certain (at least partially) standardized examinations, whereas the term “basketball player” is a description- similarly to the term bodybuilder. This leads me to my next point, which is really a clarification of my last post with the corrections that have been pointed out by bonez and yourself. I believe that had one gone through all the necessary routine, managing water, carrying dieting and cardio to their absolute extreme logical ends etc. one should still be considered a bodybuilder, even if they had not stepped on stage. The point that I was trying to make was that these descriptive terms apply regardless of competition. Whether you’re professional or not merely determines if you can or cannot call yourself a professional (bodybuilder/guitar player/basketball player etc). This doesn’t apply to doctors or lawyers because those words are titles, not descriptive terms; whereas with basketball players all that is required for the description to apply in that exact form is that one plays basketball regularly.
Keeping this in mind, I doubt there is anyone who actually goes through all the commitment and trouble to do as competing bodybuilders do without actually competing. [/quote]
If competing alone makes you a bodybuilder then many of the guys like Sandow would not be bodybuilders…even though they are considered “founders” of it.
How you look, how you live, how you eat and what you built is what makes you a bodybuilder. [/quote]
No one said competing alone makes someone a bodybuilder. Youre just goig to get people jumping on ypur ass again if u start making things up again.
Competing is simply another one of the elements that goes into it along with diet and training and the other handfull of things i mentioned earlier.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Im just saying that u can stretch thia any way u want to justify your opinion. Analogies are useless here. I just think bodybuilding is better off if the crteria for te label is as strict as possible. [/quote]
Yeah, and the holes in that include people who do compete before they ever build any size at all yet calling themselves “bodybuilders” JUST because they competed first.
I got a buddy back home who trains at an MMA gym four or so days a week. He really enjoys it, and busts his ass to be a better fighter and be competitive with the dudes he trains with. But, he’s never competed outside of a training environment, so he doesn’t [and can’t] consider himself a fighter. I played basketball, and was actually pretty good but was also a punk ass kid and blew every oppertunity presented to me, so I can never call myself a basketball player, just a guy who’s pretty good at basketball. You can have all your meals planned out in advance, know exactly what time of day you’ll train and exactly what will be trained that day, hell, even own a pair of turquois sequined speedos, but if you’ve never competed in a bodybuilding show, you’re not a bodybuilder. Just an avid trainer. End of discussion.