Skinny Bastards & Misconceptions

[quote]davan wrote:
If you are 5’8" 190 and you look like crap, then that is your fault! I doubt you are below 10%. I have never met somebody under 10% bodyfat at that weight that looked like crap.


Under 180lb (actually, under 170 according to most sources, but I’ll say under 180 for sake of the thread) @ 5’9"
Monster or bodybuilder? No.
Good physique? Yep.[/quote]

I am far from looking like crap. I’m not 6% bodyfat and totally dehydrated.

That guy probably weighed 200+ the week befor those pictures were taken.

[quote]davan wrote:
Again people here prove they are the meathead portrayed everywhere else and cannot read…

To the person who posted the 125lb guy, read my comments before you embarass yourself.

About my pics… my physique is nothing special, I don’t even train to improve it. I am also not the person trying to degrade people who don’t want to look like fat slobs. Again, the guy in CT’s article was 215 before he got cut. A far cry from 230 and he doesn’t look too ripped at that 215. Continue to “bulk” for the rest of your lives–that is your choice and I respect that! Just don’t think it is any more macho than having a smaller, more ripped physique. Yes, maybe if athletes who are 170-180 ripped went up to the lard %s you are, they would be over 200lbs, but that is not the point! The point is you can still look good and not look anorexic at a bodyweight under 200lbs.[/quote]

The guy in CT’s article (his name on this board is DaFreak) is bigger now than he was before. Like many of us who do gain more weight when not dieting, he makes progress. That is why he is heavier now than before he dieted down for that contest.

The rest of what you wrote is nonsense. Your picture please. If you call someone else out, at least have the balls to go there yourself first.

[quote]davan wrote:
Again people here prove they are the meathead portrayed everywhere else and cannot read…

To the person who posted the 125lb guy, read my comments before you embarass yourself.

About my pics… my physique is nothing special, I don’t even train to improve it. I am also not the person trying to degrade people who don’t want to look like fat slobs. Again, the guy in CT’s article was 215 before he got cut. A far cry from 230 and he doesn’t look too ripped at that 215. Continue to “bulk” for the rest of your lives–that is your choice and I respect that! Just don’t think it is any more macho than having a smaller, more ripped physique. Yes, maybe if athletes who are 170-180 ripped went up to the lard %s you are, they would be over 200lbs, but that is not the point! The point is you can still look good and not look anorexic at a bodyweight under 200lbs.[/quote]

So I’m a lard ass at 225.

I’d like to see your pics, since you’re in the name calling business here.

I have a 32 inch waist. There is nothing lardass about me. If having a 225lb body at 6’ tall makes me a lardass, then I guess there is a new definition that I have not yet learned.

From my picture at 125lbs, I think it would be safe to say I have never been lardass. Quite they opposite, that’s why I decided to hit the weights and do something about it.

You have alot of attitude and alot of mouth… and as usual, no pictures of yourself to back anything up.

I put old scrawny pics of myself up to show what I didn’t want to look like; even though I’m pretty self conscience and am not proud of being skinny once. What have you done besides talk and insult?

[quote]davan wrote:

About my pics… my physique is nothing special, I don’t even train to improve it. [/quote]

How the fuck do these guys find their way to a bodybuilding site? Then have the nerve to argue with people that take this shit seriously and is part of their everyday life.

They’ll let any butt-reaming asshole in here and post!

[quote]davan wrote:
Again people here prove they are the meathead portrayed everywhere else and cannot read…

To the person who posted the 125lb guy, read my comments before you embarass yourself.

About my pics… my physique is nothing special, I don’t even train to improve it. I am also not the person trying to degrade people who don’t want to look like fat slobs. Again, the guy in CT’s article was 215 before he got cut. A far cry from 230 and he doesn’t look too ripped at that 215. Continue to “bulk” for the rest of your lives–that is your choice and I respect that! Just don’t think it is any more macho than having a smaller, more ripped physique. Yes, maybe if athletes who are 170-180 ripped went up to the lard %s you are, they would be over 200lbs, but that is not the point! The point is you can still look good and not look anorexic at a bodyweight under 200lbs.[/quote]

Post a pic of yourself… or take your troll ass to some other forum. This one has people with muscles in it.

Get out of your mothers basement and stop trolling.

Congrats, you’ve managed to knock a bunch of serious bodybuilders for supposedly having high body fat percentages (Completely disregarding that one of them is looking quite ripped), then immunize yourself by saying you don’t care how your physique looks. Then you go on to talk about how those under 200 pounds can look good…of course they can…at or under 5’9.‘’

So what do you train for? Strength? What are your numbers on the big 3 like?

I already stated what I train for… please read my entire posts before taking them out of context like you have numerous times. Results in the big 3? 450x3 conventional deadlift raw (no belt/chalk/wraps/etc.) when I was under 170 (not anymore). I don’t train for specifically for strength, but I think the numbers are still pretty respectable at my training age.

Again, read my posts over before you make yourself look like even more of a meathead. Also, this site is not strictly for bodybuilders. Look at the variety of articles written on sports and activities outside of bodybuilding. If you think this site is just competing bodybuilders, you are pretty far off. Many of the writers here don’t even write for bodybuilders specifically.

[quote]davan wrote:
I already stated what I train for… please read my entire posts before taking them out of context like you have numerous times. Results in the big 3? 450x3 conventional deadlift raw (no belt/chalk/wraps/etc.) when I was under 170 (not anymore). I don’t train for specifically for strength, but I think the numbers are still pretty respectable at my training age.

Again, read my posts over before you make yourself look like even more of a meathead. Also, this site is not strictly for bodybuilders. Look at the variety of articles written on sports and activities outside of bodybuilding. If you think this site is just competing bodybuilders, you are pretty far off. Many of the writers here don’t even write for bodybuilders specifically.[/quote]

You keep calling people names. How many college degrees do you have that gives you the status to call someone else a “meathead”? You still haven’t posted a picture yet are arguing how people look and calling people lardasses. Stop typing so much and simply post that picture of yourself. It shouldn’t take you that long to search the internet and steal one from someone serious.

[quote]davan wrote:
I already stated what I train for… please read my entire posts before taking them out of context like you have numerous times. Results in the big 3? 450x3 conventional deadlift raw (no belt/chalk/wraps/etc.) when I was under 170 (not anymore). I don’t train for specifically for strength, but I think the numbers are still pretty respectable at my training age.

Again, read my posts over before you make yourself look like even more of a meathead. Also, this site is not strictly for bodybuilders. Look at the variety of articles written on sports and activities outside of bodybuilding. If you think this site is just competing bodybuilders, you are pretty far off. Many of the writers here don’t even write for bodybuilders specifically.[/quote]

Put up a picture of yourself. I think you just offended almost the entire site. Not only am I a “Lard Ass”, I’m now a meathead too.

Calling people meatheads on a bodybuilding site… are you fucking kidding me? You’re a troll. You’re also a waste of my time.

I don’t have a digi cam and even if I did it wouldn’t matter. Again, read my entire posts before you make yourself look like fools. I call you meatheads when you clearly can’t read my posts in context and question the manhood of people who are 180lbs. Read over what I said in my original post before you began to drop logic (actually, you never used it, so you didn’t drop it). Done with this thread, meatheads. Good day.

[quote]davan wrote:
I don’t have a digi cam [/quote]

I guess all of those degrees from higher education that gave you “non-meathead status” haven’t afforded you much of a job, huh?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
davan wrote:
I don’t have a digi cam

I guess all of those degrees from higher education that gave you “non-meathead status” haven’t afforded you much of a job, huh?[/quote]

Checkmate.

[quote]davan wrote:
I don’t have a digi cam and even if I did it wouldn’t matter.[/quote]

His mommy won’t let him have a webcam yet?

/end “ihatepeoplebiggerthanmecomplexrant”

Sprinters don’t drop 20-40lbs to get into ‘CONEST SHAPE’ btw. At MOST they would drop 10lbs.

IF they sat around in the ‘off-season’ (this is not bodybuilding btw, they don’t prepare themselves all year for a couple days) carrying around baggage fat they would lose alot of endurance and technique on the track.

So ya, those sprinters will stay at around 170-190lbs (varying on height) all year long.

Slightly off-topic but had to get that out there.

He only mentioned one of the big 3…I’m guessing that means that he squats and benches…like someone who weighs 170.

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
Sprinters don’t drop 20-40lbs to get into ‘CONEST SHAPE’ btw. At MOST they would drop 10lbs.

IF they sat around in the ‘off-season’ (this is not bodybuilding btw, they don’t prepare themselves all year for a couple days) carrying around baggage fat they would lose alot of endurance and technique on the track.

So ya, those sprinters will stay at around 170-190lbs (varying on height) all year long.

Slightly off-topic but had to get that out there.[/quote]

Who was unaware of this? The only thing debated was the actual weights of some athletes. Without those athletes standing in front of us on a scale right now, it is still an unknown regardless of who heard what from anyone else.

[quote]DON D1ESEL wrote:
He only mentioned one of the big 3…I’m guessing that means that he squats and benches…like someone who weighs 170.[/quote]

Every skinny guy on this forum claims a deadlift over 400lbs so I am not impressed.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DON D1ESEL wrote:
He only mentioned one of the big 3…I’m guessing that means that he squats and benches…like someone who weighs 170.

Every skinny guy on this forum claims a deadlift over 400lbs so I am not impressed.[/quote]

I only DL’d 355 :-/

[quote]Professor X wrote:
fjolnirg wrote:
Just a quick one since I’m pressed for time.

What most skinny guys who look at themselves are obsessing about is fat percentage. What they should be thinking of instead is muscle percentage. Not lean mass, since your brain, intestines and liver isn’t a changable parameter (for non GH using individuals). Muscle mass… That’s what you need to be concerned with. If you are 200lbs and 20% fat, you DO NOT have 160lbs of muscle.

I can’t begin to fathom the difference between someone who is 5’10" 136lbs and 13-16% fat or someone who is 5’10" 236lbs and 13-16% fat. The body doesnt operate well without a certain amount of fat, and besides, to look all cut up, you need to have some muscle for anything to be seen. If the muscle mass is missing, you won’t look muscular, simple as that.

Worth noting… when the skinny bastards start to gain muscle by eating enough it is possible for them to gain little to no body fat (or even decrease the percentage if body fat in lbs stays the same and they gain weight).

This is however no excuse for them to stuff their face with fast foods. They should eat a lot, but healthier choices.

Who’s with me in trying to point this out to the poor fellows? Prof X?

I feel you wasted your time with this post. The reason I feel that way is because people believe what they want to believe. The loudest people on this forum AGAINST anyone bulking up (which is nothing more than the concentration on size and strength alone to build a solid base) are also the ones who have never shown a picture of themselves or their own physical progress. From their stats, they are also all under 200lbs. Results should speak for themselves. This would be painfully obvious to those truly trying their best to make significant progress from year to year.

It does come down to personal preference, however, I know I would rather take the 3-5 years to reach a level that these guys afraid of any and all fat gain won’t ever reach in a life time. I’ve been on this board for a long time, long enough to see the progress people actually make over years. The ones who go ahead and make strength and size their main focus for a good deal of time are the ones who now look VERY different from just 3 years ago. The ones afraid of every ounce of body fat are not making anywhere near that kind of progress…if they are making much progress at all.

To someone out to achieve something important to them, that should be all the proof needed. The rest are people I would probably avoid if I saw them in the gym for fear of their lack of interest and motivation rubbing off on me.[/quote]

I agree that anyone truly into bodybuilding and who wants the above average, beyond 200 pound physique, and above average strength, should follow the ‘bulk’ of advice of Prof X. His guidance and advice for that is sound. The recent article by Thibs which sparked so much controversy was directed at people who have already attained this to a degree.

However, just like X pointed out some of the loudest on the board who decry anyone cutting there are a ton of guys who scream bulk, bulk,
bulk, and talk like experts, and as X pointed about the non bulk crowd out, if you look at their pics or stats they aren’t anywhere near the level they are giving advice on how to get to.

How many guys do you see hop on the bulk train and are quit to ridicule, but they haven’t broken the 200 pound barrier or their max bench is 250. I just like to see continuity from both sides and once a person has shown they have learned how to do it then they can dispense advice on getting there.

There are many members of this site who aren’t into that degree of bodybuilding or even if they want that type of build aren’t going to commit to the level of dedication to get there. They will be happy to attain a decent level of shape beyond the couch potato masses and maintain that. They will cherry pick the training advice and education here that suits their needs or that they are willing to follow.

Should we brow beat everyone into one camp of thought or trust people to use their heads when reading the training info and learn like we all have by then applying the info in practice and seeing what works for them.

D