[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]bwhitwell wrote:
I don’t know what my body fat was in this pic, but I felt like shit until I put on some FAT. When I got that lean, it took alot of effort to do normal activities not to mention working out.[/quote]
dang what year is that pic? Looks like the late 70’s or early 80’s… Also that mustache is legit! Very Magnum PI of you… Stache’s FTW!
.greg.[/quote]
That pic was taken at the 1987 Coastal USA while I was 26 yrs old.
[quote]bwhitwell wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]bwhitwell wrote:
I don’t know what my body fat was in this pic, but I felt like shit until I put on some FAT. When I got that lean, it took alot of effort to do normal activities not to mention working out.[/quote]
dang what year is that pic? Looks like the late 70’s or early 80’s… Also that mustache is legit! Very Magnum PI of you… Stache’s FTW!
.greg.[/quote]
That pic was taken at the 1987 Coastal USA while I was 26 yrs old. [/quote]
That’s just one year older than me right now…
That’s it, I give up! Bodybuilding’s not for me 
Well, very few people measure their bodyfat in the first place.
Instead what they are really talking about if saying they are aiming for a given percentage bodyfat or are at tha percentage is:
Various people claiming or believing that a person can’t or shouldn’t do this or that, blah blah blah, in terms of bodyfat percentage are I think in many cases confusing themselves because what is true for their body with regard to body density or with regard to skinfolds can be very untrue for another.
For example, I can measure in the 7 percent calculated bodyfat range from skinfolds while being not even trim. (With abs though. But I have at least slightly visible abs at even above 20%.)
I haven’t had a DEXA scan done, which would be the only way to get a really good estimate of bodyfat, but my supposition is that a skinfold “bodyfat percentage” is in my case almost surely at least 2.5 points lower than actual bodyfat percentage.
For another person it could be the other way around.
So let’s say I’m at an actual 12.5% but measure 10%, and another person is at an actual 7.5% but also measures 10%.
His understanding of what “10%” is will be quite different from my experience with the same measurement. He really did have to be lean to have that measurement; I did not.
He’d have to be at a calculated 15% to be at the same condition as my calculated 10%.
X, I still don’t know how you have managed to be a regular poster here for so many years. I can only last a few weeks at a time on here now before the scrubs start to wear me down.
Heck, I was once measured by a very experienced coach as ‘‘unmeasurable’’ (which means less than 0%), which is of course impossible; and especially laughable since I had at least 15lbs of fat to lose to be in ‘‘contest shape’’.
I was also measured at 9% by a college professor with a Ph.D. in exercise physiology, who was actually teaching the class on physical evaluation… and I had a 38’’ waist, a belly and love handles at the time!
To give you an idea, I posted a picture where I am at a REAL 7% body fat.
At some level (pro, top level amateurs) it does require pushing every one of these 3 elements to its utmost limit.
But at the lower level, it is more about achieving the best combination of these three elements depending on your physical capacities, the means you are using (drug-free, enhanced), your genetics, the time you have to invest in bodybuilding, etc.
It’s idiotic to think that every can achieve the same size, conditioning and symetry as the pros. It would be like saying that everybody who plays football can have the speed, skill, size and agility of the NFL guys. But for some reason, some people see to recommend keeping on bulking until you have the same size as the top amateurs or even pros!
To me being able to drop below a TRUE 10% bodyfat point IS part of bodybuilding. Just like building out of the norm muscle size IS also part of bodybuilding. To be a bodybuilder in the true sense you eventually have to achieve both goals. So asking a question about one of these goals certainly is acceptable on a bodybuilding forum.
I coached a lot of bodybuilders and went to more shows than I care to remember. Regional level amateur contests up to the Olympia. And regardless of the level, among the spectators, you can ALWAYS see two kind of people:
Very big but fat (by bodybuilding standards) individual wearing extra baggy clothes making comments like ‘‘pffffft I’m much bigger than XYZ (class winner) when I diet down I’ll destroy him’’ (of course him dieting down will never happen and he makes the same comment every year).
Very shredded but small (by bodybuilding standards) individual wearing extra tight lycra shirts making comments like ‘‘what the f… how can this dude win, I’m more shredded than he is and I’m not even competing!’’ (of course he will never build enough size to compete and still continue to comment on how each guy, even the pros, are never conditioned enough).
YES getting big is one part of bodybuilding.
YES getting shredded is one part of bodybuilding.
But real bodybuilding requires both.
Oups, here’s my pic at a true 7%
CT: I’m glad that you posted in this thread. There seems to be two sides of the coin and you happen to be on a side that a lot of the older, bigger posters here, such as Prof X, seem to be in disagreement with. If you wouldn’t mind sharing your thoughts on my question, I’m sure a LOT of the guys here would be most appreciative.
Back in 2006, your “Truth About Bulking” article (Strength Training, Bodybuilding & Online Supplement Store - T NATION) stated that you should never get above about 10% when bulking as not only is it unnecessary, but actually results in SLOWER gains in the long run due to the need to cut BF (and hence losing some hard earned muscle) after bulking cycles. You even state that “[if you are 13% BF and don’t have much muscle, you shouldn’t bulk, instead] you should go down to 10% then gradually increase your nutritional intake until you reach a point where you’re gaining 1.5 to 2 pounds per month. This will allow you to gain muscle at your optimal rate while staying at 10%.”
Since reading this article in late 2009, I was curious if you still feel this way 3.5 years later? From your last post, it seems that you are still thinking at least along the same lines. Could you please share your thoughts?
Prof X: I would be interested in hearing your thoughts as well if you don’t mind. From your posts, I get the impression that you feel the opposite of this advice is true?
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Oups, here’s my pic at a true 7%[/quote]
I agree with CT, I was never asked at a competition:
The judges only care what you look like at the time of prejudging.
Bodybuilding is an individual sport where the athelete have to become knowlegable of all the available tools and then put it all together through trial and error to be the best they can be. I have known several successful competitive and non-competitive bodybuilders and found they all have tailored training and diet to THEIR needs. It is only right if it works and wrong if it dosen’t. The proof is in pictures and mirrors.
This is why I don’t post much. I can only give advice for what has worked for me and it might not work for anyone else. But I do read other people’s posts for anything that might be helpful and then try it out. I will not ever tell anyone that what they are doing is wrong if they get results, it just might not be right for me.
I think the arguing over stupid issues is a waste of time (funny though at times), especially if the poster dosen’t even have a PICTURE ( bodybuilding is a visual experience- not numbers). I think everyone should post a pic in there profile just as if they were in the gym ( the way I grew up) before you post so the people responding can get a feel for at what stage of development you are in and can better answer your question. Sorry if this bothers anyone, just MY OPINION.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
CT: I’m glad that you posted in this thread. There seems to be two sides of the coin and you happen to be on a side that a lot of the older, bigger posters here, such as Prof X, seem to be in disagreement with. If you wouldn’t mind sharing your thoughts on my question, I’m sure a LOT of the guys here would be most appreciative.
Back in 2006, your “Truth About Bulking” article (Strength Training, Bodybuilding & Online Supplement Store - T NATION) stated that you should never get above about 10% when bulking as not only is it unnecessary, but actually results in SLOWER gains in the long run due to the need to cut BF (and hence losing some hard earned muscle) after bulking cycles. You even state that “[if you are 13% BF and don’t have much muscle, you shouldn’t bulk, instead] you should go down to 10% then gradually increase your nutritional intake until you reach a point where you’re gaining 1.5 to 2 pounds per month. This will allow you to gain muscle at your optimal rate while staying at 10%.”
Since reading this article in late 2009, I was curious if you still feel this way 3.5 years later? From your last post, it seems that you are still thinking at least along the same lines. Could you please share your thoughts?
Prof X: I would be interested in hearing your thoughts as well if you don’t mind. From your posts, I get the impression that you feel the opposite of this advice is true?
[/quote]
See, CT. I told you most people STILL thought this way.
Even CT does not mean no one should go above “10%” body fat. I know this because I have talked directly to the man about this face to face.
There is nothing to comment on. I am dieting down now and there is no way in hell I would be this size without bulking up and without being more than “10%” at times over the last decade and a half.
CT bulked up before.
In fact, most bigger guys you have ever seen went through a softer period whether they admit it openly or not.
Newbies who think they can remain at single digits year round for all people will not grow very much. Your goal is to train according to your results and your own personal genetics. If you can gain OPTIMALLY and remain very lean, good for you. That doesn’t mean the guy who let his body fat hit 18% while gaining 100lbs of muscle did it wrong.
It is a mistake for anyone to give out specific number ranges for all people because we are NOT all made the same.
Yes, MOST people may start bulking up and never diet and simply become fat as hell. That person’s mistakes do not represent the goal of the rest of us and not every guy you see bulked up is incapable of dieting down. They may just be trying to reach a level of size beyond what you are able to understand.
[quote]bwhitwell wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Oups, here’s my pic at a true 7%[/quote]
I agree with CT, I was never asked at a competition:
The judges only care what you look like at the time of prejudging.
Bodybuilding is an individual sport where the athelete have to become knowlegable of all the available tools and then put it all together through trial and error to be the best they can be. I have known several successful competitive and non-competitive bodybuilders and found they all have tailored training and diet to THEIR needs. It is only right if it works and wrong if it dosen’t. The proof is in pictures and mirrors.
This is why I don’t post much. I can only give advice for what has worked for me and it might not work for anyone else. But I do read other people’s posts for anything that might be helpful and then try it out. I will not ever tell anyone that what they are doing is wrong if they get results, it just might not be right for me.
I think the arguing over stupid issues is a waste of time (funny though at times), especially if the poster dosen’t even have a PICTURE ( bodybuilding is a visual experience- not numbers). I think everyone should post a pic in there profile just as if they were in the gym ( the way I grew up) before you post so the people responding can get a feel for at what stage of development you are in and can better answer your question. Sorry if this bothers anyone, just MY OPINION.[/quote]
Can I get an Amen?
If you have NOTHING to show for your progress, unless you CLEARLY have the experience level (like some posters like C-C), then either post a picture or quit posting so much. No one cares that some guy who weighs all of 140lbs thinks that staying ripped is easy.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
X, I still don’t know how you have managed to be a regular poster here for so many years. I can only last a few weeks at a time on here now before the scrubs start to wear me down.[/quote]
I doubt I would be here right now if I hadn’t spoken to CT and Tim directly. The people who run this ship ARE real weight lifters and have that mentality (especially CT). It’s the posters on this site (like some in this thread) who seem to think otherwise.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
X, I still don’t know how you have managed to be a regular poster here for so many years. I can only last a few weeks at a time on here now before the scrubs start to wear me down.[/quote]
I doubt I would be here right now if I hadn’t spoken to CT and Tim directly. The people who run this ship ARE real weight lifters and have that mentality (especially CT). It’s the posters on this site (like some in this thread) who seem to think otherwise.[/quote]
PX and I don’t differ in opinion at all. He never recommned getting fat (people misinterpret what he says). He merely emphasize, and I agree, that somebody interested in building a bodybuilding physique should first worry about building enough size to be impressive once shredded.
I agree with him that someone who hasn’t built the size yet, shouldn’t focus on getting super shredded, short-circuiting his gains at the same time. That is IF BUILDING A BODYBUILDING PHYSIQUE IS HIS GOAL.
Someone who simply wants to look good, lean, muscular and athletic doesn’t need to wait until he has built a ton of size to get ripped.
But by the same token, someone who ultimately wants to look like a bodybuilding shouldn’t let his bodyfat gets too high even when trying to put on size because in the long run it ends up being counterproducting to the end goal (requires a much longer dieting period and increases the risk of failure or muscle loss).
Most people look at me and think I’m below 10%. I dont even think I’m that close. Having muscle in the right places helps the illusion of being leaner than I am though. That’s all that matters to me.
In my current avatar I’d say I’m about 10lbs of fat (probably more) away from being 10% or less. In the leanest pics in my HUB I MAY be close to 10%.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Oups, here’s my pic at a true 7%[/quote]
hey CT, what was your bodyweight at that bf%?
all i have to say is THANK SWEET CHRIST for christian thibaudeau. a voice of reason in an otherwise dark age/time/place.
not only is being “ripped”, “shredded”, or whatever, IMPORTANT in bodybuilding… i’d go so far as to say that it’s JUST AS IMPORTANT as being “jacked”, “huge”, or what have you. then throw the often-forgotten-about idea of “perfect proportions” into the mix, and you have a very difficult bodybuilding recipe to attempt to follow.
and while i still maintain that the best way for a genetically average, drug free guy to go about this is to, quite literally, do all 3 things at once, you have to realize that when seeking a balance between 3 somewhat conflicting goals, each is going to suffer, to a certain degree, so that the so-called “golden mean” can be reached.
to put this another way, all a guy can really do is try to hold as much muscle as he possibly can while lowering his bodyfat levels maximally, all the while paying necessary attention to his proportions. is such a guy going to be as “huge” as a sumo wrestler? no. is he going to be as “ripped” as a sprinter? maybe. is he going to look like a statue by michaelangelo? if he’s lucky. but the seemingly popular idea around here that you’re completely clueless about (and a complete failure at) bodybuilding unless you attain a certain weight/bodyfat percentage/etc., is so beyond absurd it’s actually laughable.
if you don’t believe me, google image yourself a picture of otto arco. the guy weighed less than me and, if i’m not mistaken, puts most here (myself obviously included) to absolute shame.
[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
and while i still maintain that the best way for a genetically average, drug free guy to go about this is to, quite literally, do all 3 things at once, [/quote]
Good luck with that.
[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
all i have to say is THANK SWEET CHRIST for christian thibaudeau. a voice of reason in an otherwise dark age/time/place.
not only is being “ripped”, “shredded”, or whatever, IMPORTANT in bodybuilding… i’d go so far as to say that it’s JUST AS IMPORTANT as being “jacked”, “huge”, or what have you. then throw the often-forgotten-about idea of “perfect proportions” into the mix, and you have a very difficult bodybuilding recipe to attempt to follow.
and while i still maintain that the best way for a genetically average, drug free guy to go about this is to, quite literally, do all 3 things at once, you have to realize that when seeking a balance between 3 somewhat conflicting goals, each is going to suffer, to a certain degree, so that the so-called “golden mean” can be reached.
to put this another way, all a guy can really do is try to hold as much muscle as he possibly can while lowering his bodyfat levels maximally, all the while paying necessary attention to his proportions. is such a guy going to be as “huge” as a sumo wrestler? no. is he going to be as “ripped” as a sprinter? maybe. is he going to look like a statue by michaelangelo? if he’s lucky. but the seemingly popular idea around here that you’re completely clueless about (and a complete failure at) bodybuilding unless you attain a certain weight/bodyfat percentage/etc., is so beyond absurd it’s actually laughable.
if you don’t believe me, google image yourself a picture of otto arco. the guy weighed less than me and, if i’m not mistaken, puts most here (myself obviously included) to absolute shame. [/quote]
This guy? Is this the golden standard we’re all trying to reach? I must be on the wrong site.
BTW, no one here advocates getting to certain weights/bodyfat levels, etc. in order to be a successful bodybuilder. Some rough estimates may be used to generalize because it makes certain aspects easier to talk about but its all about the LOOK. 1more rep is 160 pounds but looks phenomenal. Powerful01 is 200 pounds at 6’ and looks awesome. You’re about 140 pounds and guess what? You still look skinny. Get over it.
[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
all i have to say is THANK SWEET CHRIST for christian thibaudeau. a voice of reason in an otherwise dark age/time/place.
not only is being “ripped”, “shredded”, or whatever, IMPORTANT in bodybuilding… i’d go so far as to say that it’s JUST AS IMPORTANT as being “jacked”, “huge”, or what have you. then throw the often-forgotten-about idea of “perfect proportions” into the mix, and you have a very difficult bodybuilding recipe to attempt to follow.
and while i still maintain that the best way for a genetically average, drug free guy to go about this is to, quite literally, do all 3 things at once, you have to realize that when seeking a balance between 3 somewhat conflicting goals, each is going to suffer, to a certain degree, so that the so-called “golden mean” can be reached.
to put this another way, all a guy can really do is try to hold as much muscle as he possibly can while lowering his bodyfat levels maximally, all the while paying necessary attention to his proportions. is such a guy going to be as “huge” as a sumo wrestler? no. is he going to be as “ripped” as a sprinter? maybe. is he going to look like a statue by michaelangelo? if he’s lucky. but the seemingly popular idea around here that you’re completely clueless about (and a complete failure at) bodybuilding unless you attain a certain weight/bodyfat percentage/etc., is so beyond absurd it’s actually laughable.
if you don’t believe me, google image yourself a picture of otto arco. the guy weighed less than me and, if i’m not mistaken, puts most here (myself obviously included) to absolute shame. [/quote]
So even after all this talk you’ve decided to put leanness as the most important aspect (of the three mentioned) in bodybuilding. THEY ARE FUCKING EQUAL. But in the long run mass should be the focus because it takes so much longer to achieve. Obviously something you have no experience with, based on your rhetoric.
Youre third paragraph is a joke. The sole reason its a joke is because you haven’t done the “getting big” part yourself. How can you give someone the right formula if you haven’t done it?
I cant get my head around the concept of “talking without walking”.
And your qualifiers in that statement are embarrassing. Drug free and average genetics are just convenient excuses in this case.
Why would drugs affect method for getting big then getting lean to step on stage?
Why would a genetically average guy follow a different approach?
The answer is neither matter. An AAS user may get bigger faster, and then get leaner faster but he sure as hell needs to eat a caloric surplus for years and then diet down intelligently. The method is the same, the time it takes will be different though.
I dont even know where to start with the whole average genetics thing. It doesnt make any sense. If you honestly think that someone who struggles to gain lean mass in a good ratio to fat mass has any chance of going far in this sport youre just plain ignorant. Why is the perpetuially skinny fat guy even a part of this discussion?
[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
if you don’t believe me, google image yourself a picture of otto arco. the guy weighed less than me and, if i’m not mistaken, puts most here (myself obviously included) to absolute shame. [/quote]
Dude, no offense, but if this guy is putting you to shame, it is time for you to work harder. Bodybuilding isn’t bodybuilding without the size. ON STAGE, it isn’t bodybuilding without both the size and definition…but even most pros realize that they aren’t going to make much progress by remaining in perpetual contest condition all year long. In fact, the ones who do have historically shown that they make the least progress over time.
No one is trying to dictate the goals of others but Mr. Otto Arco is NOT the goal in bodybuilding today. I think you may be looking for more “fitness training”.
But Prof X, what about Sandow? Didn’t he stay lean all the time, and put everyone here to shame? Who can surpass his physique today except of course by using drugs. No one, that’s who.
