T Nation

'Full House' ???

I guess I don’t understand what the fascination is with the “full house” look. Would you rather be big, muscular and lean… or big, muscular and fat? I will choose the former every time. It’s one thing to say getting big, muscular and fat is beneficial to help you acheive the big and lean physique one day, but to look at “full house” as an end goal, in a bbing forum, I just dont get.

Please help me.

Well what I understand is that a lot of people are happy with being full house and do not think these guys look fat therefor no one has the right to think they are fat and judge them because only your own opinion matters when it comes to your body

Some people like the look, which is fine. But most of the people they point to with this look are power lifters and strongmen. So that look is a byproduct of their sport-specific training and how they eat. It isn’t necessarily that they are striving to look a certain way. Anyway, I think it’s good that we have a separate forum now because the majority of people who train for bodybuilding purposes would agree with you guys.

The first time I ever heard that term was in an old issue of Flex when some guy calling himself “big Frank” wrote a letter to Ronnie Coleman’s monthly column. He talked about his diet, and training, and said he was sporting the “full house” look. Well, as nicely as he could, Ronnie explained that he was most likely deluding himself with how big he really was, and that not only could is pose health concerns, but it didn’t really look better for anyone concerned with their appearance (from an aesthetic point of view obviously). Coleman added that if he was honest with himself and cleaned things up a bit, sure he may not be as “big” Frank, but he’d look, and feel a hell of a lot better. Certainly more like a bodybuilder, even if an offseason one.

Now, with that said: I understand competitive powerlifters, or strongmen (I’m friends with quite a few), who don’t worry about bodyfat, because they’re performance athletes. Sure, they have their low moments where they admit that they wouldn’t mind being a bit leaner, but if the added bulk helps them in their chosen pursuit, then so be it.

In my opinion, the reason people argue this back and forth, is because it’s falling under the guise of bodybuilding. In bodybuilding, mass plays a huge role, but so do proportion, and conditioning. As such, die hard BBing fans (competitors, followers, wannabes) will be quick to jump on anyone using the “full house” excuse for inflating their gains.

For someone with no intention of trimming down that’s perfectly acceptable, but whether it’s bodybuilding or not,… that’s what people will constantly bicker about.
(and another can of worms opens…)

S


I think the problem is people have different definitions of what “Full House” is. To me it is a look not a state of being. Not all power lifters are “full house” and neither are all off season bodybuilders. Some carry to much fat. Thing is powerlifters do not care as long as move heavy shit and body builders can let themselves go a bit more than most since there drug use will allow them to drop fat quicker. Also, like I stated in the other thread not everyone will look the same “Full house”. Bodybuilders on average are shorter so carrying extra fat takes away the taper and makes them look short and blocky/stocky.

To me Brandon Lilly has an awesome “Full House” look.

I guess the fascination comes from the fact that one can have a relatively high bf% without looking bad and, therefore, this look is more maintainable for some people for whom a lean and muscular look is not realistically maintained year round.

[quote]eaboadar wrote:
I guess the fascination comes from the fact that one can have a relatively high bf% without looking bad and, therefore, this look is more maintainable for some people for whom a lean and muscular look is not realistically maintained year round.[/quote]

Good post and basically the best answer to this question aside from the guy who posted above you.

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
I think the problem is people have different definitions of what “Full House” is. To me it is a look not a state of being. Not all power lifters are “full house” and neither are all off season bodybuilders. Some carry to much fat. Thing is powerlifters do not care as long as move heavy shit and body builders can let themselves go a bit more than most since there drug use will allow them to drop fat quicker. Also, like I stated in the other thread not everyone will look the same “Full house”. Bodybuilders on average are shorter so carrying extra fat takes away the taper and makes them look short and blocky/stocky.

To me Brandon Lilly has an awesome “Full House” look. [/quote]

I agree that is an imposing look. It does not look bad, especially in clothes. My question: Do you think Brandon Lilly would look better or worse if he maintained his muscle mass and lost 15 lbs of fat?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]eaboadar wrote:
I guess the fascination comes from the fact that one can have a relatively high bf% without looking bad and, therefore, this look is more maintainable for some people for whom a lean and muscular look is not realistically maintained year round.[/quote]

Good post and basically the best answer to this question aside from the guy who posted above you.

[/quote]

Agreed. That dude in the picture sports an awesome Full House. I think the Bigness+Beard combo is a must for the complete Full House.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I guess I don’t understand what the fascination is with the “full house” look. Would you rather be big, muscular and lean… or big, muscular and fat? I will choose the former every time. It’s one thing to say getting big, muscular and fat is beneficial to help you acheive the big and lean physique one day, but to look at “full house” as an end goal, in a bbing forum, I just dont get.

Please help me. [/quote]
I guess it depends on how fat your definition of “full house” is. My definition is basically a moderately lean powerlifter. This is totally personal preference, but I am extremely more impressed with a “full house” who’s like 275 20% or so than I am with a guy who is 190 rocking single digits. But obviously you’re right, it’s definitely not the end goal of any decent bodybuilder!

It helps that these guys are big deadlifters. A huge yoke and forearms is a really imposing look. I don’t see any bodybuilders striving for that look specifically though, seems like a byproduct of powerlifting.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I guess I don’t understand what the fascination is with the “full house” look. Would you rather be big, muscular and lean… or big, muscular and fat? I will choose the former every time. It’s one thing to say getting big, muscular and fat is beneficial to help you acheive the big and lean physique one day, but to look at “full house” as an end goal, in a bbing forum, I just dont get.

Please help me. [/quote]
I guess it depends on how fat your definition of “full house” is. My definition is basically a moderately lean powerlifter. This is totally personal preference, but I am extremely more impressed with a “full house” who’s like 275 20% or so than I am with a guy who is 190 rocking single digits. But obviously you’re right, it’s definitely not the end goal of any decent bodybuilder![/quote]

Agreed. Someone weighing 280lbs with 18-20% body fat is truly impressive.

Someone 200lbs and really lean is also impressive, but which one am I happier with?

The 280lbs physique without all abs in.

That is just a personal preference and no, that does NOT mean a 40" waist and no, it doesn’t mean a belly hanging out.

It is a very maintainable look for me and no, most people would not associate that with obesity or laziness.

It is also not usually the ultimate end goal.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
I think the problem is people have different definitions of what “Full House” is. To me it is a look not a state of being. Not all power lifters are “full house” and neither are all off season bodybuilders. Some carry to much fat. Thing is powerlifters do not care as long as move heavy shit and body builders can let themselves go a bit more than most since there drug use will allow them to drop fat quicker. Also, like I stated in the other thread not everyone will look the same “Full house”. Bodybuilders on average are shorter so carrying extra fat takes away the taper and makes them look short and blocky/stocky.

To me Brandon Lilly has an awesome “Full House” look. [/quote]

I agree that is an imposing look. It does not look bad, especially in clothes. My question: Do you think Brandon Lilly would look better or worse if he maintained his muscle mass and lost 15 lbs of fat? [/quote]

If you follow his Facebook page at all, or the JTS page, Lilly plans on losing more bodyfat

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
I think the problem is people have different definitions of what “Full House” is. To me it is a look not a state of being. Not all power lifters are “full house” and neither are all off season bodybuilders. Some carry to much fat. Thing is powerlifters do not care as long as move heavy shit and body builders can let themselves go a bit more than most since there drug use will allow them to drop fat quicker. Also, like I stated in the other thread not everyone will look the same “Full house”. Bodybuilders on average are shorter so carrying extra fat takes away the taper and makes them look short and blocky/stocky.

To me Brandon Lilly has an awesome “Full House” look. [/quote]

I agree that is an imposing look. It does not look bad, especially in clothes. My question: Do you think Brandon Lilly would look better or worse if he maintained his muscle mass and lost 15 lbs of fat? [/quote]

This is kinda me, but make that 30lbs of fat.

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
The first time I ever heard that term was in an old issue of Flex when some guy calling himself “big Frank” wrote a letter to Ronnie Coleman’s monthly column. He talked about his diet, and training, and said he was sporting the “full house” look. Well, as nicely as he could, Ronnie explained that he was most likely deluding himself with how big he really was, and that not only could is pose health concerns, but it didn’t really look better for anyone concerned with their appearance (from an aesthetic point of view obviously). Coleman added that if he was honest with himself and cleaned things up a bit, sure he may not be as “big” Frank, but he’d look, and feel a hell of a lot better. Certainly more like a bodybuilder, even if an offseason one.

Now, with that said: I understand competitive powerlifters, or strongmen (I’m friends with quite a few), who don’t worry about bodyfat, because they’re performance athletes. Sure, they have their low moments where they admit that they wouldn’t mind being a bit leaner, but if the added bulk helps them in their chosen pursuit, then so be it.

In my opinion, the reason people argue this back and forth, is because it’s falling under the guise of bodybuilding. In bodybuilding, mass plays a huge role, but so do proportion, and conditioning. As such, die hard BBing fans (competitors, followers, wannabes) will be quick to jump on anyone using the “full house” excuse for inflating their gains.

For someone with no intention of trimming down that’s perfectly acceptable, but whether it’s bodybuilding or not,… that’s what people will constantly bicker about.
(and another can of worms opens…)

S[/quote]

Ha good to see Ronnie Colemans view of full house. I think for most people, especially for bbing enthusiasts, fans etc. that big and lean is just more aesthetic than big and not so lean.

I agree from strongman/powerlifter standpoint. Physique is not the end goal, performance in the sport is.

[quote]eaboadar wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]eaboadar wrote:
I guess the fascination comes from the fact that one can have a relatively high bf% without looking bad and, therefore, this look is more maintainable for some people for whom a lean and muscular look is not realistically maintained year round.[/quote]

Good post and basically the best answer to this question aside from the guy who posted above you.

[/quote]

Agreed. That dude in the picture sports an awesome Full House. I think the Bigness+Beard combo is a must for the complete Full House.[/quote]

It is. I had a guy who used to play football (still had some size on him and real lean with no weight lifting in a few years so great genetics) say I looked like a super hero yesterday. When that shit comes from other built people, it is truly a compliment.

The beard is glowing right now.

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
I think the problem is people have different definitions of what “Full House” is. To me it is a look not a state of being. Not all power lifters are “full house” and neither are all off season bodybuilders. Some carry to much fat. Thing is powerlifters do not care as long as move heavy shit and body builders can let themselves go a bit more than most since there drug use will allow them to drop fat quicker. Also, like I stated in the other thread not everyone will look the same “Full house”. Bodybuilders on average are shorter so carrying extra fat takes away the taper and makes them look short and blocky/stocky.

To me Brandon Lilly has an awesome “Full House” look. [/quote]

I agree that is an imposing look. It does not look bad, especially in clothes. My question: Do you think Brandon Lilly would look better or worse if he maintained his muscle mass and lost 15 lbs of fat? [/quote]

If you follow his Facebook page at all, or the JTS page, Lilly plans on losing more bodyfat [/quote]

Any reasons given? I don’t really follow the sport, but I know that Matt Kroc transformed himself quite well a few years back.

S

bodybuilding is about a combination of

size
proportion
leanness

I don’t see how anyone who would consider themselves a bodybuilder, whether they compete or just do it recreationally, could neglect any of these aspects.

So I would see being “full house” as a temporary stage before you dieted off the fat. I would never rock that look permanently but I guess it just comes down to personal preference.

Different people like different looks. Nothing wrong with that, but I personally think that permabulking misses out a large aspect of bodybuilding. Leanness is just as important as size IMO.

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
I think the problem is people have different definitions of what “Full House” is. To me it is a look not a state of being. Not all power lifters are “full house” and neither are all off season bodybuilders. Some carry to much fat. Thing is powerlifters do not care as long as move heavy shit and body builders can let themselves go a bit more than most since there drug use will allow them to drop fat quicker. Also, like I stated in the other thread not everyone will look the same “Full house”. Bodybuilders on average are shorter so carrying extra fat takes away the taper and makes them look short and blocky/stocky.

To me Brandon Lilly has an awesome “Full House” look. [/quote]

I agree that is an imposing look. It does not look bad, especially in clothes. My question: Do you think Brandon Lilly would look better or worse if he maintained his muscle mass and lost 15 lbs of fat? [/quote]

If you follow his Facebook page at all, or the JTS page, Lilly plans on losing more bodyfat [/quote]

Any reasons given?

S[/quote]

They get sick and tired of looking at their fat belly every morning and want a hotter wife

Tee heee kidding kidding

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I guess I don’t understand what the fascination is with the “full house” look. Would you rather be big, muscular and lean… or big, muscular and fat? I will choose the former every time. It’s one thing to say getting big, muscular and fat is beneficial to help you acheive the big and lean physique one day, but to look at “full house” as an end goal, in a bbing forum, I just dont get.

Please help me. [/quote]
I guess it depends on how fat your definition of “full house” is. My definition is basically a moderately lean powerlifter. This is totally personal preference, but I am extremely more impressed with a “full house” who’s like 275 20% or so than I am with a guy who is 190 rocking single digits. But obviously you’re right, it’s definitely not the end goal of any decent bodybuilder![/quote]

Agreed. Someone weighing 280lbs with 18-20% body fat is truly impressive.

Someone 200lbs and really lean is also impressive, but which one am I happier with?

The 280lbs physique without all abs in.

That is just a personal preference and no, that does NOT mean a 40" waist and no, it doesn’t mean a belly hanging out.

It is a very maintainable look for me and no, most people would not associate that with obesity or laziness.

It is also not usually the ultimate end goal.[/quote]

I agree, someone at 280 20% bf can be very impressive. But do you think that same person’s physique would be more or less impressive if he lost 15 lbs of fat and retained his muscle?