My Goal: 170 Lbs. and Cut

Training Bodybuilding
41

[quote]WhiteCaesar wrote:
I Googled Fletcher, but couldn’t find a photo of him in a suit. I’m attaching one that I think sort of illustrates what I mean.[/quote]

If that looks “pudgy” to you, you must be one insanely skinny bastard. That may be why you will never come close to being that muscular. I’m surprised that had to be spelled out for you. He’s a big guy and he’s in shape. You can even see his abs to some degree in that pic THROUGH the shirt (if I had to estimate he is probably a little less than 15%bf in that pic but that’s just a guess) yet that’s “pudgy” to you?

42

[quote]WhiteCaesar wrote:
Professor X wrote:
London Fletcher looks like he lifts weights seriously. I am a little lost as to why that look would be avoided if there was the slightest chance you could gain that much muscle.

This is a bodybuilding forum, right?

He’s thicker around the middle and on the bottom than I want to be. I know lots of people on this forum talk about wanting to “look good naked,” which is probably a goal that most people share, but I think it’s also important to look good in clothes as (depending on your profession :)) that’s how most people will see and judge you.

I think in general shorter guys need to stay leaner in order to look good in clothes. Fletcher absolutely has an impressive amount of muscle – I mentioned in my original post how hard I thought it would be for me or the OP to build that kind of size – but I think the extra thickness he has around his waist and thighs would make him look somewhat bulky/pudgy when he’s wearing a suit.

[/quote]

this is exaclty what i mean.

43

[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
Have you seen a 5’9" 170lb ripped guy?

If so, could you post that physique?

I agree that others shouldn’t be telling you what you should want. I don’t see anything wrong with suggestions, or other’s oppinions, but you already said what you wanted, so I’m thinking it would be better to ask if he really knows what 170 ripped at 5’9" looks like.

Ripped is a lot leaner than some people realize, and even though muscle weighs more than fat, it’s surprising how much weight one can lose when getting ripped, even while maintaining his muscle.

Maybe 170 ripped at 5’9" doesn’t look that bad, I don’t know.

I personally am on a fairly long-term fat loss phase to finaly get rid of this fat on me, and I’m getting scarred that I’m already down to 178lbs, at 5’5".[/quote]

shawn crawford is 5’11 and he looks ripped he only weighs 165 lbs

44

[quote]machinist28 wrote:

shawn crawford is 5’11 and he looks ripped he only weighs 165 lbs

[/quote]

Lean? yes. Ripped is a word reserved for someone with more size than this.

45


Shawn Crawford is built for eactly what he does. He is impressive as a person and as an athlete. He isn’t impressive as a bodybuilder.

46


One more because I actually am impressed by him as an athlete.

However, unless you are involved in the same activity, when it comes to his muscular development, that shouldn’t take most beginners very long at all to reach if they are focused.

I just have a hard time understanding why goals are set so low currently. I could have stopped lifting the same year I started and matched that size.

47

It always cracks me up when people are “afraid to get too big.” At some point I may not want to get bigger, but I am a long way from that and I am sure I would notice before it happened. It is extremely hard to gain so much mass that one day you wake up and realize you are too big. I wouldn’t worry about getting too big. Just keep working out and in about a year maybe look again at your body and figure out what then next step is.

48

It always cracks me up when people are “afraid to get too big.” At some point I may not want to get bigger, but I am a long way from that and I am sure I would notice before it happened. It is extremely hard to gain so much mass that one day you wake up and realize you are too big. I wouldn’t worry about getting too big. Just keep working out and in about a year maybe look again at your body and figure out what then next step is.

49

[quote]Professor X wrote:
machinist28 wrote:

shawn crawford is 5’11 and he looks ripped he only weighs 165 lbs

Lean? yes. Ripped is a word reserved for someone with more size than this.[/quote]
maybe the op meant he wanted to be lean because I dont think being ripped at 170 is possible

50

[quote]Professor X wrote:
WhiteCaesar wrote:
I Googled Fletcher, but couldn’t find a photo of him in a suit. I’m attaching one that I think sort of illustrates what I mean.

If that looks “pudgy” to you, you must be one insanely skinny bastard. That may be why you will never come close to being that muscular. I’m surprised that had to be spelled out for you. He’s a big guy and he’s in shape. You can even see his abs to some degree in that pic THROUGH the shirt (if I had to estimate he is probably a little less than 15%bf in that pic but that’s just a guess) yet that’s “pudgy” to you?
[/quote]

Sigh. Did you even read my earlier post? I DID NOT say London Fletcher was not jacked or in shape (in fact I believe I said he WAS). All I said was that he looks pudgier/bulkier in a suit than I want to – how does anything you just wrote contradict that? The picture I posted was only to show that he is thick through the waist and thighs. I tried to find a photo of him wearing a suit but couldn’t. (I believe I wrote that as well…)

51

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If someone gains 40lbs and only 10lbs of that is lean body mass, they have fucked up as far as making progress.[/quote]

Prof,

I agree totally. Someone who gains 40lb with only 10lb muscle gain is doing everything wrong. Sure, he’s lean at 160, but that doesn’t mean his bf is 0%. Some people here seem to be assuming he’s got 160 LBM, so just gain 12-15 more pounds and cut 2-3 pounds off to get where he’s going. That can’t be true, or he’d be dead. he’s got to have some fat on his body.

Someone lean at 160 has probably only 144lb muscle (that’s about 10% bf). So gaining 20lb muscle to make 164 total LBM puts someone about 175 at 6% or so, and 170 ripped. But a bulk while staying at 6% is less than likely. You figure he’s got to hit around 185 or so to be sure. So five more pounds is insurance. 190 at 12% or so is 167 LBM, lose 3 pounds cutting to goal, you’re about perfect.

I don’t think that’s a bad bulk, unless my math is wrong. It never was my strong suit. Sure, I don’t know his exact bf level, oh well. Leaving aside the debate as to whether that’s a small goal, or whether he’ll like what he sees, that’s his goal.

The part about hitting 200lb+, well I guess I was just trying to egg him into getting bigger than his original idea. I think he’d end up liking the bigger size. I guess I got nailed.

And we all know that’s not big for a bodybuilder, but it sounds to me like he’s going for more the athletic physique.

Nothing wrong with that. I don’t want to assume everyone is a bodybuilder when they’re talking about goals. And yes, I still think he would look better with more mass than that. I’m not disagreeing.

52

[quote]Professor X wrote:
machinist28 wrote:

shawn crawford is 5’11 and he looks ripped he only weighs 165 lbs

Lean? yes. Ripped is a word reserved for someone with more size than this.[/quote]

I always used the word “ripped” to refer to extreme leanness, regardless of muscle weight. Ok, ok, not with crazy anorexic chicks or 120lb wusses or anything, but just as a habit. So I guess I’d say Shawn Crawford is ripped. But I can see why other people would hate that. The word was coined in the bb world, so I’m probably misusing the term.

53

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Professor X wrote:
machinist28 wrote:

shawn crawford is 5’11 and he looks ripped he only weighs 165 lbs

Lean? yes. Ripped is a word reserved for someone with more size than this.

I always used the word “ripped” to refer to extreme leanness, regardless of muscle weight. Ok, ok, not with crazy anorexic chicks or 120lb wusses or anything, but just as a habit. So I guess I’d say Shawn Crawford is ripped. But I can see why other people would hate that. The word was coined in the bb world, so I’m probably misusing the term.[/quote]

Thats what I thought too, to me someone that is lean would be brad pitt in fight club, ripped would be someone like shawn crawford, ryan reynold in blade, huge and scary ronnie coleman I mean look at the guy.

54

[quote]Professor X wrote:
One more because I actually am impressed by him as an athlete.

However, unless you are involved in the same activity, when it comes to his muscular development, that shouldn’t take most beginners very long at all to reach if they are focused.

I just have a hard time understanding why goals are set so low currently. I could have stopped lifting the same year I started and matched that size.[/quote]

Unless you’re talking about his quad development.

55

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Professor X wrote:

If someone gains 40lbs and only 10lbs of that is lean body mass, they have fucked up as far as making progress.

Prof,

I agree totally. Someone who gains 40lb with only 10lb muscle gain is doing everything wrong. Sure, he’s lean at 160, but that doesn’t mean his bf is 0%. Some people here seem to be assuming he’s got 160 LBM, so just gain 12-15 more pounds and cut 2-3 pounds off to get where he’s going. That can’t be true, or he’d be dead. he’s got to have some fat on his body.

Someone lean at 160 has probably only 144lb muscle (that’s about 10% bf). So gaining 20lb muscle to make 164 total LBM puts someone about 175 at 6% or so, and 170 ripped. But a bulk while staying at 6% is less than likely. You figure he’s got to hit around 185 or so to be sure. So five more pounds is insurance. 190 at 12% or so is 167 LBM, lose 3 pounds cutting to goal, you’re about perfect.

I don’t think that’s a bad bulk, unless my math is wrong. It never was my strong suit. Sure, I don’t know his exact bf level, oh well. Leaving aside the debate as to whether that’s a small goal, or whether he’ll like what he sees, that’s his goal.

The part about hitting 200lb+, well I guess I was just trying to egg him into getting bigger than his original idea. I think he’d end up liking the bigger size. I guess I got nailed.

And we all know that’s not big for a bodybuilder, but it sounds to me like he’s going for more the athletic physique.

Nothing wrong with that. I don’t want to assume everyone is a bodybuilder when they’re talking about goals. And yes, I still think he would look better with more mass than that. I’m not disagreeing.[/quote]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Professor X wrote:

If someone gains 40lbs and only 10lbs of that is lean body mass, they have fucked up as far as making progress.

Prof,

I agree totally. Someone who gains 40lb with only 10lb muscle gain is doing everything wrong. Sure, he’s lean at 160, but that doesn’t mean his bf is 0%. Some people here seem to be assuming he’s got 160 LBM, so just gain 12-15 more pounds and cut 2-3 pounds off to get where he’s going. That can’t be true, or he’d be dead. he’s got to have some fat on his body.

Someone lean at 160 has probably only 144lb muscle (that’s about 10% bf). So gaining 20lb muscle to make 164 total LBM puts someone about 175 at 6% or so, and 170 ripped. But a bulk while staying at 6% is less than likely. You figure he’s got to hit around 185 or so to be sure. So five more pounds is insurance. 190 at 12% or so is 167 LBM, lose 3 pounds cutting to goal, you’re about perfect.

I don’t think that’s a bad bulk, unless my math is wrong. It never was my strong suit. Sure, I don’t know his exact bf level, oh well. Leaving aside the debate as to whether that’s a small goal, or whether he’ll like what he sees, that’s his goal.

The part about hitting 200lb+, well I guess I was just trying to egg him into getting bigger than his original idea. I think he’d end up liking the bigger size. I guess I got nailed.

And we all know that’s not big for a bodybuilder, but it sounds to me like he’s going for more the athletic physique.

Nothing wrong with that. I don’t want to assume everyone is a bodybuilder when they’re talking about goals. And yes, I still think he would look better with more mass than that. I’m not disagreeing.[/quote]

excellent analysis, thanks. I will more than likely follow this advice. Yes I am rather going for the athletic physique.
(I posted pictures at 160 not too long ago. your numbers seem good)

KNowing that I want an athletic physique, what ideal weight would you recommend then? Keep in mind that im 5’9".

About being “ripped”… All i know is i would like my muscles defined and a definite 6pack. I hope this is possible without bf% so low that it is unhealty and I feel weak though.

I know I am talking ahead alot but I am setting my goals. They are pretty clear though, thanks for the help. I will try to reach them for next summer. Yes I have alot of work.

56

5’9 170 really lean can look ok. this is what the 155 lb pride and ufc fighters probably walk around at.

i would rather be like 190 if i was that height.

myself, i would like to be about the size of terrell owens. i imagine some on hear would say that is skinny;]

i think people on the board should realize, that if the OP goes up to 170, he’ll probably realize of his own volition that he wants to gain more

hell, when i wrestled @130, i used to think id be jacked if i got up to 160.

57

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
hit the gym wrote:

A poster suggested that i gained 15 pounds and cut 5 pounds. You suggest that i gain 40 pounds and cut 30 pounds. Big difference hehe.

Well, what do you think is easier?

Gaining 15lbs then cutting back 5lbs to get a net gain of 10lbs

Gaining 40lbs and then losing 30lbs for a net gain of 10lbs?

The first is what people try to do but it is very very hard to do. You body just goes “screw you, I am not going to add muscle, you are not eating enough, cop this I’ll make you exhausted”. You workout less hard, you do less, or even if you push yourself, YOU DO NOT GROW, NO MUSCLES, nothing, and you wonder WTF is going on and why it has taken you 2 years to gain 5lbs and half of it is fat anyway and your strength sucks.

[/quote]

You’re general point may be a good one. To not spin your wheels by cutting too soon. However, if you gain 40 lbs and 30 of that is fat and only 10 is muscle, you’ve been doing something terribly wrong.

58

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
hit the gym wrote:

A poster suggested that i gained 15 pounds and cut 5 pounds. You suggest that i gain 40 pounds and cut 30 pounds. Big difference hehe.

Well, what do you think is easier?

Gaining 15lbs then cutting back 5lbs to get a net gain of 10lbs

Gaining 40lbs and then losing 30lbs for a net gain of 10lbs?

The first is what people try to do but it is very very hard to do. You body just goes “screw you, I am not going to add muscle, you are not eating enough, cop this I’ll make you exhausted”. You workout less hard, you do less, or even if you push yourself, YOU DO NOT GROW, NO MUSCLES, nothing, and you wonder WTF is going on and why it has taken you 2 years to gain 5lbs and half of it is fat anyway and your strength sucks.

If someone gains 40lbs and only 10lbs of that is lean body mass, they have fucked up as far as making progress.[/quote]

Beat me to it. Didn’t see your post when I just posted mine.

59

The guy in your avatar(Georges St. Pierre) weighs around 185 before he cuts to make the welterweight division. He looks pretty athletic. So you’ve got 25 lbs to gain.

60

[quote]patpwnt wrote:
The guy in your avatar(Georges St. Pierre) weighs around 185 before he cuts to make the welterweight division. He looks pretty athletic. So you’ve got 25 lbs to gain.[/quote]

…and 25lbs of solid lean body mass can take a few years to gain. It amazes me how easy some of these guys think gaining this size is. There are people who have been training for ten years who haven’t gained 25lbs of pure lean body mass yet they seem to think it will happen almost by accident.