[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
dont know what you’re thinking.[/quote]
If both of those guys were wearing long pants with a sweatshirt and standing 25 yards away while you were squinting looking at them the guy on the left WOULD look/be BIGGER.
Not really sure what is left to discuss. The 3lbs per inch of lean body weight is a damn good goal for nattys to shoot for and attempt to beat if possible. We have seen top nattys that approach this so…what more we talking about?
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
the picture to the left is not more impressive than the picture to the right.
[/quote]
But he’s BIGGER!!!
If they stood next to each other with shirts on who would LOOK bigger?!?!?[/quote]
Well, in a barroom brawl, I’d go with the guy on the left.[/quote]
Your right.
The fatter,slower, less mobile guy with worse conditioning is definitely going to be a better fighter.[/quote]
Lots of cushion to take the force of the punches?
What’s your opinion on Chris Jones, the 5’7 black guy I posted a video of? Looks massive and thick! His back is crazyyyy!
I’d like to see people make more threads about what they do for certain bodyparts and different training approaches. this dieting/more impressive crap is getting annoying lol.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Not really sure what is left to discuss. The 3lbs per inch of lean body weight is a damn good goal for nattys to shoot for and attempt to beat if possible. We have seen top nattys that approach this so…what more we talking about?[/quote]
So you’re saying that at 5’7 which is 67 inches, I should be able to reach 67 x 3 = 201 lbs of lean body mass?
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
the picture to the left is not more impressive than the picture to the right.
[/quote]
But he’s BIGGER!!!
If they stood next to each other with shirts on who would LOOK bigger?!?!?[/quote]
Well, in a barroom brawl, I’d go with the guy on the left.[/quote]
Your right.
The fatter,slower, less mobile guy with worse conditioning is definitely going to be a better fighter.[/quote]
I’m laughing at pitting these before/after versions against each other to see who wins.
In a ring, guy on the right would most certainly win.
In a crowded bar, the additional fat should do a decent job to diffuse the effects of a strike, the added inertia both in striking and in receiving strikes would probably make a difference, and the guy on the left could definitely pin down the guy on the right.
Plus, I mean, the guy on the left obviously has more muscle. Duh.
[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
the picture to the left is not more impressive than the picture to the right.
[/quote]
We didn’t say anything about “impressive” and why use one person as an example when no one is telling anyone to gain that much body fat.
Is it difficult to admit someone else may have gained more muscle than you?
It is like I is impossible for some of you to give any credit in that aspect.
You would rather act like smaller guys are more “impressive” always simple because of leanness.
[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Massiveguns asked who had a really high body weight and muscularity who never bulked up.
Posting pictures of guys under 180lbs doesn’t seem to fit the bill…and yes, I always was led to believe that it takes way less time for someone that short to fill out their physique.[/quote]
Can you post guys who bulked up and then cut, that are natural, and that are bigger than the guys posted? Just to get a comparison.
Do those guys weigh more than 180lbs at the same or similar heights?[/quote]
LOL!!
I posted my own pictures at 285lbs before…did you think I was carrying less muscle?
Why pick guys this short when the whole issue was someone carrying a high body weight…implying more size.[/quote]
285 and you said you were around 20-25 percent body fat?
if you were to even lean down to lets say 12 percent you’d be at 240-260 lb lean .
lol[/quote]
???
Did I miss what was funny here? I never said what my body fat percentage was…but I know I have made a shit load of progress since 5 years ago.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
the picture to the left is not more impressive than the picture to the right.
[/quote]
But he’s BIGGER!!!
If they stood next to each other with shirts on who would LOOK bigger?!?!?[/quote]
Well, in a barroom brawl, I’d go with the guy on the left.[/quote]
Your right.
The fatter,slower, less mobile guy with worse conditioning is definitely going to be a better fighter.[/quote]
Lots of cushion to take the force of the punches?[/quote]
That makes sense.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Massiveguns asked who had a really high body weight and muscularity who never bulked up.
Posting pictures of guys under 180lbs doesn’t seem to fit the bill…and yes, I always was led to believe that it takes way less time for someone that short to fill out their physique.[/quote]
Can you post guys who bulked up and then cut, that are natural, and that are bigger than the guys posted? Just to get a comparison.
Do those guys weigh more than 180lbs at the same or similar heights?[/quote]
LOL!!
I posted my own pictures at 285lbs before…did you think I was carrying less muscle?
Why pick guys this short when the whole issue was someone carrying a high body weight…implying more size.[/quote]
285 and you said you were around 20-25 percent body fat?
if you were to even lean down to lets say 12 percent you’d be at 240-260 lb lean .
lol[/quote]
???
Did I miss what was funny here? I never said what my body fat percentage was…but I know I have made a shit load of progress since 5 years ago.[/quote]
What was your bodyfat lvl at that weight?
[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
What was your bodyfat lvl at that weight?[/quote]
I never tested it. That would mean nothing to me…and really shouldn’t mean much to you.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
What was your bodyfat lvl at that weight?[/quote]
I never tested it. That would mean nothing to me…and really shouldn’t mean much to you.
[/quote]
Larry Scott was 5’10, 205#. You’re obviously bigger than him.
John Grimek was 5’8.5, 195#. You’re also bigger than him.
Neither were “contest lean” by modern standards.
Do you think your own physique is more impressive than theirs? Why or why not?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
What was your bodyfat lvl at that weight?[/quote]
I never tested it. That would mean nothing to me…and really shouldn’t mean much to you.
[/quote]
Larry Scott was 5’10, 205#. You’re obviously bigger than him.
John Grimek was 5’8.5, 195#. You’re also bigger than him.
Neither were “contest lean” by modern standards.
Do you think your own physique is more impressive than theirs? Why or why not?[/quote]
It’s not about impressive!
That’s what many here seem to not understand?
Do I need to write it out in crayon for you?
X was carrying around 50+ more pounds of fat than those guys and is taller.
He is bigger.
He wins.
End every single one of these threads already.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
What was your bodyfat lvl at that weight?[/quote]
I never tested it. That would mean nothing to me…and really shouldn’t mean much to you.
[/quote]
Larry Scott was 5’10, 205#. You’re obviously bigger than him.
John Grimek was 5’8.5, 195#. You’re also bigger than him.
Neither were “contest lean” by modern standards.
Do you think your own physique is more impressive than theirs? Why or why not?[/quote]
Why care what someone else finds “impressive”?
It is like some of you engage in the name dropping just so you can say, “Prof x sad he thinks he looks better than…blaH BLAH BLAH”.
We asked a simple question…who gained more muscle.
Apparently it is very difficult for some to simply say, “yeah, you gained more muscle”.
This isn’t about what you find “impressive”. This is about who has gotten as big and filled out as the guys who bulked up before. Period.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
X was carrying around 50+ more pounds of fat than those guys and is taller.
[/quote]
Uh, yeah, that avatar pic was taken yesterday. 50+ more pounds of fat?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I thought we were talking about 10-15% or less bodyfat.[/quote]
Why? I can tell how muscular someone is at “gasp 16% gasp”.[/quote]
Why?
Because one of these days I’d like to be a much larger version of myself, at 10-15% bodyfat.
I want to know whether I’ll get there faster via the “lean gains” approach or the “bulk and cut” approach.
I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one.
But that’s why I care.[/quote]
It’s also why I’d like to see a genuine comparison of results, between two people that have reached the same conditioning, but via different approaches.
Wasn’t there that study that showed Sumo Wrestlers has the highest amount of LBM then even BB’ers? And they don’t lift
I feel like the goal was simply hold as much muscle as possible, wouldn’t just becoming a sumo be the best solution?
All I’m saying is just being the biggest or holding most muscle isn’t really the ‘goal’ I feel. Level of leanness does matter.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
X was carrying around 50+ more pounds of fat than those guys and is taller.
[/quote]
Uh, yeah, that avatar pic was taken yesterday. 50+ more pounds of fat?[/quote]
That picture is so blurry it looks like it was taken with a potato
You are wearing a shirt.
It doesn’t show your legs.
It doesn’t show your back (where you carry a good amount of your fat)
That picture was not taken yesterday, that same photo (same shirt) has been your avatar for over a week.
I liked your previous avatar better, you looked good in the white robe.
The person comparing your photos was comparing the 285 X to those guys.
50 pounds was a generous underestimation.
[quote]jeanmich wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Not really sure what is left to discuss. The 3lbs per inch of lean body weight is a damn good goal for nattys to shoot for and attempt to beat if possible. We have seen top nattys that approach this so…what more we talking about?[/quote]
So you’re saying that at 5’7 which is 67 inches, I should be able to reach 67 x 3 = 201 lbs of lean body mass?[/quote]
201 at about 10 ish bf is what I am saying. And he would look awesome