I am actually pretty happy about the general group mindset on this forum about being leaner these days. Seems like for years the T-Nation forums were just a groupthink wash of get big and fat and never cut until you are 200+. I personally think it ruined more physiques than helped, hence why after joining in 04 i had fewer than 200 posts until this year.
It is nice that this place is finally accepting and realizing that 170 peeled is more impressive than 220 soft and it is seen with guys like HT and Marzouk accepting help with Zraw. Even seing some of the old timers like DD posting his new HAWT ABZ now a days is just awesome. Pretty cool things happening these days in the Nation, seems like a few months ago this place was falling apart.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Just curious Lanky, you think they should?[/quote]
Man I sure do. 220 is big. As long as your definition of soft is reasonable. Immensely more impressive than 170 ripped simply for my prersonal tastes. I would never want to be sub 200.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Just curious Lanky, you think they should?[/quote]
Man I sure do. 220 is big. As long as your definition of soft is reasonable. Immensely more impressive than 170 ripped simply for my prersonal tastes. I would never want to be sub 200.[/quote]
You say that now but just you wait, the get shredded/lean mindset will infect you too
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Yeah, you can pretty much gurantee that most have. The difference being that some have advocated going way overboard into obesity ranges and others advocate doing it while keeping bf% in check more reasonably. But we all know this.
After awhile a permabulker chooses to reform. That is, they reform when they get sick of or come to the realization of:
breathing heavily and sweating as they eat, walk up a flight of stairs, or locomote faster than walk
chronic BO
out-of-control, constant hunger pangs
being referred to by the immortal foe–normal people, who they want to impress but at the same time look upon with disdain-- as “the fat guy” rather than “the jacked guy” or “the ripped guy” or “the nutrition guy” or “the bodybuilder guy”.
having to buy 36+ size pants isn’t because they have so much muscle in the thighs or midsection
an altered, clumsy gaint
that point in which “holding in your stomach” doesn’t even work anymore
having to sit with spread legs to alleviate pressure on the gut
crappy mobility and flexibility and the inability to do anything mildly athletic
mommy and some relatives saying “you look terrible!”
looking at how much how they seemed to have aged when looking at pictures.
At least this was my experience. The only thing I miss was the ability to put up bigger weights.
(For those who can’t look at this in a humorous fashion: buzz off if you can’t take a joke. )
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Just curious Lanky, you think they should?[/quote]
Man I sure do. 220 is big. As long as your definition of soft is reasonable. Immensely more impressive than 170 ripped simply for my prersonal tastes. I would never want to be sub 200.[/quote]
I thought ‘soft’ was the outline up the top row of abs being visible and there being clear separation between the deltoid and bicep?
Did we start confusing ‘soft’ for fat at some point (the 16-20+ body fat area)? I also assumed that ‘full house’ was the above guidelines of not resembling a whale, and actually having some muscle definition/separation.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Just curious Lanky, you think they should?[/quote]
Man I sure do. 220 is big. As long as your definition of soft is reasonable. Immensely more impressive than 170 ripped simply for my prersonal tastes. I would never want to be sub 200.[/quote]
I thought ‘soft’ was the outline up the top row of abs being visible and there being clear separation between the deltoid and bicep?
Did we start confusing ‘soft’ for fat at some point (the 16-20+ body fat area)? I also assumed that ‘full house’ was the above guidelines of not resembling a whale, and actually having some muscle definition/separation.[/quote]
Only freaks can pull off the full house look, in my opinion, the type of guys who instead of getting fat from overeating, just get bigger and stronger. Kirk Karwoski and Reg Park come to mind. These are guys who would have a hard time getting fat, and for some reason don’t look fat when they’re all out bulked.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Yeah, you can pretty much gurantee that most have. The difference being that some have advocated going way overboard into obesity ranges and others advocate doing it while keeping bf% in check more reasonably. But we all know this. [/quote]
Amazing that one of the stronger points of contention in the BB-oriented forums can be resolved in such a short and succinct manner. But, alas, there’d be no drama and entertainment value if everyone was to provide and apply sound reasoning as Maiden did in the post above.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
After awhile a permabulker chooses to reform. That is, they reform when they get sick of or come to the realization of:
breathing heavily and sweating as they eat, walk up a flight of stairs, or locomote faster than walk
chronic BO
out-of-control, constant hunger pangs
being referred to by the immortal foe–normal people, who they want to impress but at the same time look upon with disdain-- as “the fat guy” rather than “the jacked guy” or “the ripped guy” or “the nutrition guy” or “the bodybuilder guy”.
having to buy 36+ size pants isn’t because they have so much muscle in the thighs or midsection
an altered, clumsy gaint
that point in which “holding in your stomach” doesn’t even work anymore
having to sit with spread legs to alleviate pressure on the gut
crappy mobility and flexibility and the inability to do anything mildly athletic
mommy and some relatives saying “you look terrible!”
looking at how much how they seemed to have aged when looking at pictures.
At least this was my experience. The only thing I miss was the ability to put up bigger weights.
(For those who can’t look at this in a humorous fashion: buzz off if you can’t take a joke. )[/quote]
Gosh, dude, you are so normal!
I can’t imagine how you can live with yourself.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Yeah, you can pretty much gurantee that most have. The difference being that some have advocated going way overboard into obesity ranges and others advocate doing it while keeping bf% in check more reasonably. But we all know this. [/quote]
Amazing that one of the stronger points of contention in the BB-oriented forums can be resolved in such a short and succinct manner. But, alas, there’d be no drama and entertainment value if everyone was to provide and apply sound reasoning as Maiden did in the post above.
[/quote]
You shouldn’t listen to anything he says. He pumps his traps with synthol every night to get an even better “peak”
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
But the question remains, how many that look great at 170 peeled never bulked up to 200+? [/quote]
Yeah, you can pretty much gurantee that most have. The difference being that some have advocated going way overboard into obesity ranges and others advocate doing it while keeping bf% in check more reasonably. But we all know this. [/quote]
Pretty much my point. And we have seen how many people can be dilusional when they bulk. Riding the jump from 12-16% and water weight + strength gains from extra fuel/food thinking they are gaining 20 lbs in muscle when in reality it is like 4. Only when it is a problem and they trash their physique is it an issue and addressed.
And then funny enough they crash diet, drop 10 lbs, most of it being water and undigested food weight and think they are back. It’s like the bodybuilding version of yo yo dieting.
Lol, I guess Ill stick to the PL forum…while I know Brick is joking (but alas as with all joking there is elements of truth that he wanted to spew
I do not feel out of breath when walking,
Im not concerned nor will I ever be about hawt abs and the following:
Wear a size 36 pants, and have rather small legs
Check this SHOCKER out, I actually lift weights to get stronger…it seems as if this has taken a back seat to aesthetics only on TN to which I am sad. Still cant understand why people would want to look like Ronnie Coleman but be as strong as Gary Coleman.
Yeah I have a belly, but I’m still proud to take off my shirt whenever possible, even with the 6 pack, broads dig the power belly.
243 lbs I would say about 20% BF at age 37, I still play basketball, racquetball will be getting into mountain biking this summer. I am athletic and carry extra weight.
Whats infinitley sad is wether you were a BBer, PLer, Oly Lifter, Xfitter or whatever the fuck you wanted to lable yourself as we were all loved to lift weights, and it was the common denominator, now it seems that this forum likes to shit on others goals, usually in a passive aggressive manner.
Check this SHOCKER out, I actually lift weights to get stronger…it seems as if this has taken a back seat to aesthetics only on TN to which I am sad. Still cant understand why people would want to look like Ronnie Coleman but be as strong as Gary Coleman.
[/quote]
Everyone wants to be a bodybuilder but nobody wants to lift no heavy ass weight
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
After awhile a permabulker chooses to reform. That is, they reform when they get sick of or come to the realization of:
breathing heavily and sweating as they eat, walk up a flight of stairs, or locomote faster than walk
chronic BO
out-of-control, constant hunger pangs
being referred to by the immortal foe–normal people, who they want to impress but at the same time look upon with disdain-- as “the fat guy” rather than “the jacked guy” or “the ripped guy” or “the nutrition guy” or “the bodybuilder guy”.
having to buy 36+ size pants isn’t because they have so much muscle in the thighs or midsection
an altered, clumsy gaint
that point in which “holding in your stomach” doesn’t even work anymore
having to sit with spread legs to alleviate pressure on the gut
crappy mobility and flexibility and the inability to do anything mildly athletic
mommy and some relatives saying “you look terrible!”
looking at how much how they seemed to have aged when looking at pictures.
At least this was my experience. The only thing I miss was the ability to put up bigger weights.
(For those who can’t look at this in a humorous fashion: buzz off if you can’t take a joke. )[/quote]
Gosh, dude, you are so normal!
I can’t imagine how you can live with yourself.
)