The Flame-Free Confession Thread

Training
521

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]buckeye girl wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
On topic though, I’m a little surprised she’s developed her delts like that, since her arms seem significantly underdeveloped on a relative basis. It seems unbalanced to me.[/quote]

Can’t say her arms ever struck me as underdeveloped or out of proportion. Her delts definitely are ridiculous, but I’ve never really heard of a competitor having “too much delt”. It seems delts are to female competitors what bis are to curlbros.

Maybe its that particular photo? Or maybe what is considered ideal proportions for male BBer vs. a female physique competitor is a bit different? I know sometimes I forget to take off my WPD glasses when I look at the guys and laugh at how bad their posing is.[/quote]

It’s probably just the varying standards. I don’t really have a grasp over the differences between the various women’s classes at all. I’m still trying to get my head around how men’s physique judging works. You know of a good primer on the various women’s classes and judging criteria?[/quote]

The NPC has judging criteria for all divisions on their site. Following some competitions helps too.

This is my understanding of the divisions…basically it goes smallest and softest to biggest and leanest: bikini, figure, (fitness), WPD, FBB.

Bikini is all about tight glutes and teeny waists. Upper body is “toned” (barf). Seems like both the more muscular and less muscular look has been rewarded. I don’t really get bikini. There are too many of them and they all look pretty much the same.

Figure (and fitness to a lesser degree since the routine plays a role in placing) broad shoulders, capped delts, tight glutes/legs. Things like shape and symmetry are important here. Figure ain’t what it used to be. The girls that are competing now tend to be smaller and smoother than they were in the early days of the division, but don’t get me wrong, they are still significantly more muscular than the average woman and very lean.

The idea of physique was to have something to bridge the gap between figure and BBing. Same same rules about overall shape seem to apply, but more muscular and leaner. They aren’t supposed to be shredded/striated/vascular but its not uncommon to see it to a degree simply because of the way they lean out. They have 5 mandatories (I think. I might be missing one) and are supposed to pose with open hands.

FBB: pretty much the same as the guys, only while looking as feminine as possible. I guess.

From what I can tell, it’s changed a lot. BSL now seems to be the new place for the flame threads, but also has a high level of camaraderie that BB never had (with a bit more GAL thrown in than BB ever had). And BB now seems to be fairly serious discussion of pros, as well as competition prep threads, and a couple “I want to actually be a competitive bodybuilder eventually, what do I do”.[/quote]

Interesting.

522

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Can we get back to flame free?

<[/quote]

This thread and the one in BBing about what should be rewarded got me thinking about something…

An impressive physique is not so strictly defined that you have to be a mass monster to earn the title. I’m definitely not easily impressed, but you don’t have to have the “ideal bodybuilder look” (whatever that is) to impress me. There are MP, bikini competitors and even real athletes out there with impressive physiques too.

Crazy conditioning has always impressed me (ideally, on a very muscular individual) but seeing first hand how uncomfortable and how much of a mindfuck dieting down to nothing can be has made me respect it even more…one of the ladies I competed against was a novice in her 40s, mother of 2, on her period, natural, and absolutely shredded. She wasn’t particularly aesthetic, but holy crap. And genetics, shape…you either have it or you don’t. I can’t hate on those who have it, or those that don’t. You have to work with what you’ve got.

In competition you have to rank physiques. You have to be nitpicky and critical, but outside of that, I have a hard time saying Monica Brant isn’t impressive because she isn’t as big as Iris Kyle, or Branch Warren isn’t impressive because he isn’t as aesthetic as Frank Zane. I have my preferences, but if all of those people are pretty damn impressive.

523

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Another idea to add to the thread.

I think the notion of rest times between sets is VASTLY understated in the realm of bodybuilding training.

I believe its damned near impossible to get terribly soft or fat if you really clench down on rest intervals. For one it gets that heart rate up and is more metabolic and all that jazz, but also its kind of a great way to self-moderate. If you keep up with the short rest times you’re not gonna ever be “out of shape” and hence THAT fat.

So alot of guys look at piling on the “cardio” when really a few subtle tweaks in their current training plan might be sufficient. Plus the added benefit of kicking ass and getting out of the gym sooner.[/quote]
+1000

I don’t claim to know a whole lot about bodybuilding training specifically, but I completely agree about the rest time thing. I trained with a natty bber not long ago. We did an arm workout with strictly 50s or less between every set. It was a whole new experience for me.

It can be hugely important in powerlifting even, depending on the program. Volume programs like Sheiko or Smolov are heavily affected by rest times. Doing 10 sets of 3 in 25 minutes as opposed to an hour will get you very different results.

524

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Do you buy into the whole philosophy of ceasing ab training if you have a large waist, so as to not “bulk” it up? I actually did this for my recent show just to come in with a smaller waist a la the recommendations of some old time natty pros at my gym. [/quote]

Do you still buy into it?

It seems BBers who have also competed in PLing seem to have much wider and thicker waists than those who don’t. Maybe it’s just the people I’ve seen, but maybe there’s something to it.

Of course, the ones who are good deadlifters also seem to have more impressive backs.

525

[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
The NPC has judging criteria for all divisions on their site. Following some competitions helps too.

This is my understanding of the divisions…basically it goes smallest and softest to biggest and leanest: bikini, figure, (fitness), WPD, FBB.

Bikini is all about tight glutes and teeny waists. Upper body is “toned” (barf). Seems like both the more muscular and less muscular look has been rewarded. I don’t really get bikini. There are too many of them and they all look pretty much the same.

Figure (and fitness to a lesser degree since the routine plays a role in placing) broad shoulders, capped delts, tight glutes/legs. Things like shape and symmetry are important here. Figure ain’t what it used to be. The girls that are competing now tend to be smaller and smoother than they were in the early days of the division, but don’t get me wrong, they are still significantly more muscular than the average woman and very lean.

The idea of physique was to have something to bridge the gap between figure and BBing. Same same rules about overall shape seem to apply, but more muscular and leaner. They aren’t supposed to be shredded/striated/vascular but its not uncommon to see it to a degree simply because of the way they lean out. They have 5 mandatories (I think. I might be missing one) and are supposed to pose with open hands.

FBB: pretty much the same as the guys, only while looking as feminine as possible. I guess.
[/quote]

Thanks. I glanced through the judging criteria for each of them once upon a time, and while they actually seem to be quite a bit different at the actual show, in photos I really didn’t have a grasp over which was which. So your descriptions help a lot.

526

[quote]buckeye girl wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Can we get back to flame free?

<[/quote]

This thread and the one in BBing about what should be rewarded got me thinking about something…

An impressive physique is not so strictly defined that you have to be a mass monster to earn the title. I’m definitely not easily impressed, but you don’t have to have the “ideal bodybuilder look” (whatever that is) to impress me. There are MP, bikini competitors and even real athletes out there with impressive physiques too.

Crazy conditioning has always impressed me (ideally, on a very muscular individual) but seeing first hand how uncomfortable and how much of a mindfuck dieting down to nothing can be has made me respect it even more…one of the ladies I competed against was a novice in her 40s, mother of 2, on her period, natural, and absolutely shredded. She wasn’t particularly aesthetic, but holy crap. And genetics, shape…you either have it or you don’t. I can’t hate on those who have it, or those that don’t. You have to work with what you’ve got.

In competition you have to rank physiques. You have to be nitpicky and critical, but outside of that, I have a hard time saying Monica Brant isn’t impressive because she isn’t as big as Iris Kyle, or Branch Warren isn’t impressive because he isn’t as aesthetic as Frank Zane. I have my preferences, but if all of those people are pretty damn impressive.[/quote]

I think a lot of people fail to understand the actual criteria for the different divisions. I’ve judged shows where a female comeptitor will enter two different categories, with obviously different ideals for the winner’s physique. As such, she may totally kick ass in one, yet fall way down at the bottom of the other.

In most cases, you have the competitors training with a specific ideal in mind. Malacarne competed in figure, but didn’t place well despite so many people (male and female) being fans of her physique. Once the Physique division came on the scene, she didn’t have to worry so much about appearing overly muscular (for a figure girl).

And whether someone is impressive or not will always be a matter of personal opinion. Of course if you’re going to hold them against an establish set of criteria, then it all gets taken with a grain of salt :slight_smile:

S

527

[quote]pwolves17 wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Can we get back to flame free?

<[/quote]

Sorry Jake, I’ll try to get the ball rolling.

I personally disagree with people who say that direct ab work is not necessary; that heavy squats and deadlifts provide sufficient stimulation, and/or that nutrition is all that matters for bringing out the abdominals. While for some this may lead to good ab development, I think they’re missing out on their true potential for abs. I was sorely disappointed with my ab development when I competed in my first men’s physique comp last fall.

Granted, I was severely lacking size overall, but my abs simply weren’t there, as I had largely neglected them until my prep. The last 6 or 7 months since the show, I’ve made great strides overall but I’ve been sure to hit abs hard at least 3 days a week while I am in a caloric surplus. I’m very happy with the results so far! My abs are now visible despite not being overly lean, and I’m optimistic that they’ll “pop” a lot more when I next compete. [/quote]

Got to agree my abs were insanely shallow. Been hammering them hard for a year even though I hate ab training. They are much better now. Waist might be slightly bigger but the thicker abs are a much better look. And worth it IMO.

528

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]buckeye girl wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Can we get back to flame free?

<[/quote]

This thread and the one in BBing about what should be rewarded got me thinking about something…

An impressive physique is not so strictly defined that you have to be a mass monster to earn the title. I’m definitely not easily impressed, but you don’t have to have the “ideal bodybuilder look” (whatever that is) to impress me. There are MP, bikini competitors and even real athletes out there with impressive physiques too.

Crazy conditioning has always impressed me (ideally, on a very muscular individual) but seeing first hand how uncomfortable and how much of a mindfuck dieting down to nothing can be has made me respect it even more…one of the ladies I competed against was a novice in her 40s, mother of 2, on her period, natural, and absolutely shredded. She wasn’t particularly aesthetic, but holy crap. And genetics, shape…you either have it or you don’t. I can’t hate on those who have it, or those that don’t. You have to work with what you’ve got.

In competition you have to rank physiques. You have to be nitpicky and critical, but outside of that, I have a hard time saying Monica Brant isn’t impressive because she isn’t as big as Iris Kyle, or Branch Warren isn’t impressive because he isn’t as aesthetic as Frank Zane. I have my preferences, but if all of those people are pretty damn impressive.[/quote]

I think a lot of people fail to understand the actual criteria for the different divisions. I’ve judged shows where a female comeptitor will enter two different categories, with obviously different ideals for the winner’s physique. As such, she may totally kick ass in one, yet fall way down at the bottom of the other.

In most cases, you have the competitors training with a specific ideal in mind. Malacarne competed in figure, but didn’t place well despite so many people (male and female) being fans of her physique. Once the Physique division came on the scene, she didn’t have to worry so much about appearing overly muscular (for a figure girl).

And whether someone is impressive or not will always be a matter of personal opinion. Of course if you’re going to hold them against an establish set of criteria, then it all gets taken with a grain of salt :slight_smile:

S[/quote]

I generally don’t understand why anyone wold enter multiple divisions. There was a woman at my show that did figure WPD and BB. Didn’t place in any of them. She was pretty nutty though. I think she was drunk the whole day. Maybe she just wanted to get to spend the day prancing around stage. You put in all the time and money to prep so you might as well make the most of it and get as much stage time as you can, no? lol

I know a lot of large figure competitors and small BBers tried their hand at physique, especially early on (its still “early on”, I know) and that makes sense. If you’re kind of riding the line between two divisions, I could see why competitors would crossover in an attempt to find a better fit. I know I’ve heard women say that they were happy about physique because it allowed them to train heavy again, and not have to worry about already being “too big for figure”, or they don’t have to go to such extremes to try to compete with the big FBBs.

Of course, trying to be good in multiple divisions is silly because like you said, they all have specific judging criteria.

Impressive is definitely personal and it does depend on context. I think JM and DLB have impressive physiques. Individually. Off stage. But you put them on stage together and look at the physique judging criteria, and one is clearly “better” than the other.

529

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]buckeye girl wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
Can’t there be one single fucking place on this site where a female competitor’s physique can be discussed with the same seriousness that the men are?

What a fucking joke. [/quote]

This is Testosterone Nation. I would expect there to be this type of discussion. Wouldn’t you? Nothing wrong with guys thinking a girl is hot.

james
[/quote]

I would expect the discussion to continue along the lines of my original post which was making a statement about a professional physique competitor especially when I made it clear that I was not posting the picture so that a bunch of dudes could comment on whether or not she could get the business. I thought this thread was supposed to be a place where you could post something without having to deal with the usual T-Nation bullshit.

Such a response it expected in GAL or the now defunct SAMA. I would never go into the Antoine V thread talking about how I would ride that fine piece of ass all night. My bad for expecting the same when I post a female pro. [/quote]

What do you want us to say? She eats right, works hard, got implants? Has a pretty face? She has a nice build for what she competes in and does well, but does not strike me as something insanely impressive. I see girls around various gyms in my area with as much muscle tone and size as her. The same can’t be said for pro male bodybuilders.

Again nothing against her she looks awesome and you can tell she works hard.[/quote]

Uhh…that’s Juliana Malacarne. She’s undefeated as an IFBB pro since the women’s physique division was created, is the considered by the vast majority of people who follow the sport to be the eventual first WPD Ms. Olympia later this year, and absolutely CRUSHED her competition at the New York Pro show several weeks ago. No one even came close to matching her combination of size, proportions, femininity, and leanness on the PROFESSIONAL stage. Manion came out and said that she was the first competitor to totally nail the look that the women’s physique division was meant to encourage.

Sorry, don’t think you know what you’re talking about or looking at if you “see girls with similar muscularity and tone at your gym all the time.” Yeah buddy, and I’ve got 2 or 3 Arnold’s training at my place on a daily basis.[/quote]

There are 2 IFBB pros and a national competitor in my area. 2 are pros in bodybuilding. While I consider Juliana’s physique much more appealing aesthetically and in just about every way; it is no way impressive compared to the aforementioned women.

No offense, but there are far more women close or with similar musculature as her than than there are of say Phil Heath, Jay Cutler, Kai, etc.

And since the women’s physique was created oh all of a couple years ago? Give me a break. Many judges still are not sure what they are exactly looking for in that arena. She has just been picked as the poster child it seems(although a good one imo! Like I said she looks fantastic). Come back in 10 years when there are actually more results. That being said I am glad women’s physique is there. It is more broadly appealing and will bring a lot more to the sport in general.

And I never said all the time, but I do see them. Just because they don’t compete and hold titles doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Nice logic there.

Must be nice having Arnolds training at your gym all the time. All I see at mine are people that look like you.
[/quote]

Sens much?

A fullhouse hating on s lean guy’s physique. Cool story.

Seriously though, Juliana is literally the best in the world in the division in which she competes. You’re claiming you have two women in your town who make her “not impressive”. IFBB pros or not, that’s absurd since no one has even come close to beating her for the past 3 years. Sorry for not believing that Johnny Fullhouse in Mississippi knows a couple of women who are totally under the radar as IFBB pros but somehow better than the concensus best in the world.

That’s not being dickish, that’s being realistic. Sorry if that offends you, might need to check the e2.

530

.

531

[quote]csulli wrote:
.[/quote]

yuuup

532

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]buckeye girl wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
Can’t there be one single fucking place on this site where a female competitor’s physique can be discussed with the same seriousness that the men are?

What a fucking joke. [/quote]

This is Testosterone Nation. I would expect there to be this type of discussion. Wouldn’t you? Nothing wrong with guys thinking a girl is hot.

james
[/quote]

I would expect the discussion to continue along the lines of my original post which was making a statement about a professional physique competitor especially when I made it clear that I was not posting the picture so that a bunch of dudes could comment on whether or not she could get the business. I thought this thread was supposed to be a place where you could post something without having to deal with the usual T-Nation bullshit.

Such a response it expected in GAL or the now defunct SAMA. I would never go into the Antoine V thread talking about how I would ride that fine piece of ass all night. My bad for expecting the same when I post a female pro. [/quote]

What do you want us to say? She eats right, works hard, got implants? Has a pretty face? She has a nice build for what she competes in and does well, but does not strike me as something insanely impressive. I see girls around various gyms in my area with as much muscle tone and size as her. The same can’t be said for pro male bodybuilders.

Again nothing against her she looks awesome and you can tell she works hard.[/quote]

Uhh…that’s Juliana Malacarne. She’s undefeated as an IFBB pro since the women’s physique division was created, is the considered by the vast majority of people who follow the sport to be the eventual first WPD Ms. Olympia later this year, and absolutely CRUSHED her competition at the New York Pro show several weeks ago. No one even came close to matching her combination of size, proportions, femininity, and leanness on the PROFESSIONAL stage. Manion came out and said that she was the first competitor to totally nail the look that the women’s physique division was meant to encourage.

Sorry, don’t think you know what you’re talking about or looking at if you “see girls with similar muscularity and tone at your gym all the time.” Yeah buddy, and I’ve got 2 or 3 Arnold’s training at my place on a daily basis.[/quote]

There are 2 IFBB pros and a national competitor in my area. 2 are pros in bodybuilding. While I consider Juliana’s physique much more appealing aesthetically and in just about every way; it is no way impressive compared to the aforementioned women.

No offense, but there are far more women close or with similar musculature as her than than there are of say Phil Heath, Jay Cutler, Kai, etc.

And since the women’s physique was created oh all of a couple years ago? Give me a break. Many judges still are not sure what they are exactly looking for in that arena. She has just been picked as the poster child it seems(although a good one imo! Like I said she looks fantastic). Come back in 10 years when there are actually more results. That being said I am glad women’s physique is there. It is more broadly appealing and will bring a lot more to the sport in general.

And I never said all the time, but I do see them. Just because they don’t compete and hold titles doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Nice logic there.

Must be nice having Arnolds training at your gym all the time. All I see at mine are people that look like you.
[/quote]

Sens much?

A fullhouse hating on s lean guy’s physique. Cool story.

Seriously though, Juliana is literally the best in the world in the division in which she competes. You’re claiming you have two women in your town who make her “not impressive”. IFBB pros or not, that’s absurd since no one has even come close to beating her for the past 3 years. Sorry for not believing that Johnny Fullhouse in Mississippi knows a couple of women who are totally under the radar as IFBB pros but somehow better than the concensus best in the world.

That’s not being dickish, that’s being realistic. Sorry if that offends you, might need to check the e2.[/quote]

take it outside you two

533

someone create a flame thread, so no one follows the rules and actually gets on with one another

534

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]pwolves17 wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Can we get back to flame free?

<[/quote]

Sorry Jake, I’ll try to get the ball rolling.

I personally disagree with people who say that direct ab work is not necessary; that heavy squats and deadlifts provide sufficient stimulation, and/or that nutrition is all that matters for bringing out the abdominals. While for some this may lead to good ab development, I think they’re missing out on their true potential for abs. I was sorely disappointed with my ab development when I competed in my first men’s physique comp last fall.

Granted, I was severely lacking size overall, but my abs simply weren’t there, as I had largely neglected them until my prep. The last 6 or 7 months since the show, I’ve made great strides overall but I’ve been sure to hit abs hard at least 3 days a week while I am in a caloric surplus. I’m very happy with the results so far! My abs are now visible despite not being overly lean, and I’m optimistic that they’ll “pop” a lot more when I next compete. [/quote]

Got to agree my abs were insanely shallow. Been hammering them hard for a year even though I hate ab training. They are much better now. Waist might be slightly bigger but the thicker abs are a much better look. And worth it IMO.
[/quote]

I’ve recently come back to the ab training fold, and can actually notice a difference after just a couple of weeks. You wouldn’t believe the DOMS I had in my abs from 4 sets of hanging leg raises after not training abs for close to 2 years!

I think its important to do a bit of “core” work too just to keep the midsection tight (don’t want a weak core giving you the appearance of a belly. I used to have that; it looks like shit when your gut sticks out in a t shirt despite you having a 6 pack). Not to mention it’ll help with back problems which we’ve all had at some point.

As for the waist thickening up, I’m yet to see a before/after shot where it’s happened to any significant degree (obviously distended GH guts are a different kettle o’ fish). I reckon as long as your lats are decent you don’t need to to worry about your waist getting too thick.

535

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]pwolves17 wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Can we get back to flame free?

<[/quote]

Sorry Jake, I’ll try to get the ball rolling.

I personally disagree with people who say that direct ab work is not necessary; that heavy squats and deadlifts provide sufficient stimulation, and/or that nutrition is all that matters for bringing out the abdominals. While for some this may lead to good ab development, I think they’re missing out on their true potential for abs. I was sorely disappointed with my ab development when I competed in my first men’s physique comp last fall.

Granted, I was severely lacking size overall, but my abs simply weren’t there, as I had largely neglected them until my prep. The last 6 or 7 months since the show, I’ve made great strides overall but I’ve been sure to hit abs hard at least 3 days a week while I am in a caloric surplus. I’m very happy with the results so far! My abs are now visible despite not being overly lean, and I’m optimistic that they’ll “pop” a lot more when I next compete. [/quote]

Got to agree my abs were insanely shallow. Been hammering them hard for a year even though I hate ab training. They are much better now. Waist might be slightly bigger but the thicker abs are a much better look. And worth it IMO.
[/quote]

I’ve recently come back to the ab training fold, and can actually notice a difference after just a couple of weeks. You wouldn’t believe the DOMS I had in my abs from 4 sets of hanging leg raises after not training abs for close to 2 years!

I think its important to do a bit of “core” work too just to keep the midsection tight (don’t want a weak core giving you the appearance of a belly. I used to have that; it looks like shit when your gut sticks out in a t shirt despite you having a 6 pack). Not to mention it’ll help with back problems which we’ve all had at some point.

As for the waist thickening up, I’m yet to see a before/after shot where it’s happened to any significant degree (obviously distended GH guts are a different kettle o’ fish). I reckon as long as your lats are decent you don’t need to to worry about your waist getting too thick.

[/quote]

I remember CT saying something in one of his bodybuilding focused articles about how he’d never really have bodybuilding proportions since the O-lifts built up his waist too much.

It’s all conjecture of course, but some BBers do have far more hypertrophied obliques than others.

536

[quote]LoRez wrote:
It’s all conjecture of course, but some BBers do have far more hypertrophied obliques than others.[/quote]

yeah but I think that’s just genetic. I’ve never seen a guy with a tiny waist end up having a chunky waist because his obliques got too big.

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I’ve certainly never seen it. Guys with big obliques and chunky waists always seem to have wide hips.

I could very well be wrong, as I often am, but I don’t think I am.

537

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
It’s all conjecture of course, but some BBers do have far more hypertrophied obliques than others.[/quote]

yeah but I think that’s just genetic. I’ve never seen a guy with a tiny waist end up having a chunky waist because his obliques got too big.

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I’ve certainly never seen it. Guys with big obliques and chunky waists always seem to have wide hips.

I could very well be wrong, as I often am, but I don’t think I am.[/quote]
You’re not

538

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]pwolves17 wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Can we get back to flame free?

<[/quote]

Sorry Jake, I’ll try to get the ball rolling.

I personally disagree with people who say that direct ab work is not necessary; that heavy squats and deadlifts provide sufficient stimulation, and/or that nutrition is all that matters for bringing out the abdominals. While for some this may lead to good ab development, I think they’re missing out on their true potential for abs. I was sorely disappointed with my ab development when I competed in my first men’s physique comp last fall.

Granted, I was severely lacking size overall, but my abs simply weren’t there, as I had largely neglected them until my prep. The last 6 or 7 months since the show, I’ve made great strides overall but I’ve been sure to hit abs hard at least 3 days a week while I am in a caloric surplus. I’m very happy with the results so far! My abs are now visible despite not being overly lean, and I’m optimistic that they’ll “pop” a lot more when I next compete. [/quote]

Got to agree my abs were insanely shallow. Been hammering them hard for a year even though I hate ab training. They are much better now. Waist might be slightly bigger but the thicker abs are a much better look. And worth it IMO.
[/quote]

How have you been training abs?

I have been terrible with consistently training abs in the past which resulted in back problems and tight hips. Now that I am leaning out, I have been placing a little more emphasis on training abs.

539

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
It’s all conjecture of course, but some BBers do have far more hypertrophied obliques than others.[/quote]

yeah but I think that’s just genetic. I’ve never seen a guy with a tiny waist end up having a chunky waist because his obliques got too big.

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I’ve certainly never seen it. Guys with big obliques and chunky waists always seem to have wide hips.

I could very well be wrong, as I often am, but I don’t think I am.[/quote]
You’re not[/quote]

That’s good news. You know, since I do have narrow hips.

And narrow clavicles…

540

Agree with the importance of ab training. I left them out for some time as well and noticed my lower back stiffened up quite abit. When I started doing them regularly again it went away. Gotta train everything.