T Nation

'Full House' ???

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
bodybuilding is about a combination of

size
proportion
leanness
[/quote]

WRONG

Bodybuilding is about improving your physical appearance (body) in a way that you like

I learned that today

[quote]eaboadar wrote:
I think the Bigness+Beard combo is a must for the complete Full House.[/quote]

LOL!

well at least I’m halfway there.

The beard that is, not the bigness, unfortunately…

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

S[/quote]

Kroc wants to be an IFBB pro

Lilly and a few other Powerlifters are part of the growing tread in powerlifting to not be fat guys anymore and be strong and have abs.

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

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.
.[/quote]

That is honestly what the goal is for most of tehse guys and for me.

The point again, like the other poster made, is that long term it is most maintainable and allows more progress.

That is why I did it. Otherwise, there is no way I would be this size given the other responsibilities I have had.

Over the years, it was more enjoyable and allowed way more progress overall. That is why I did it and why many other people do it…because when you are really big, you don’t look bad with a little higher body fat.

The Dave Tate transformation articles posted here showed a very impressive and lean “full house-type” look. He was better off health-wise as well.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

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?[/quote]

Yes, he may be more impressive, but honestly, again this is about who is making the most progress in a given amount of time…the guy making sure he is feeding himself everything he needs to grow when ever his body is ready…or the guy putting on the breaks to keep his abs in check?

That is the philosophy behind it.

This isn’t about end goals…this is about the journey.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

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.
.[/quote]

That is honestly what the goal is for most of tehse guys and for me.

The point again, like the other poster made, is that long term it is most maintainable and allows more progress.

That is why I did it. Otherwise, there is no way I would be this size given the other responsibilities I have had.

Over the years, it was more enjoyable and allowed way more progress overall. That is why I did it and why many other people do it…because when you are really big, you don’t look bad with a little higher body fat.[/quote]

Yeah I understand the rationale behind it, and I agree that full house only works when you already have a ton of muscle. Still don’t think it’s for me though (not that I have a ton of muscle…). The minute the top of my abs starts to blur I break out in cold sweats. I could probably get a bit bigger a bit faster if I let myself go full house mode for a while but I prefer the slow n steady, leaner approach.

Horses for courses. I actually think that I’d be more inclined to get a bit looser with my BF% if I had a better frame. I think in order to pull off full house you need to have a good, wide bone structure. I just look pot bellied if my BF% gets too high but I know a ton of guys who carry fat really well that can pull it off.

So the summary of my thinking is: full house is good for a while to help you achieve your size goals, but it can be abused when people use it as an excuse to never diet down and it can have the negative effect of people thinking they have more muscle then they do.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Yes, he may be more impressive, but honestly, again this is about who is making the most progress in a given amount of time[/quote]

but you are basing progress entirely on size. If someone leans out isn’t that progress?

edit: nvm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The point again, like the other poster made, is that long term it allows more progress.

[/quote]

How can you say that…What are you basing yourself off to say this?

How do you even KNOW this?

[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 ylost ou think Brandon Lilly would look better or worse if he maintained his muscle mass and lost 15 lbs of fat? [/quote]

he’d look better if he lost 15 lbs of fat–and the same holds true for every physique that has at least that much fat to lose

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Yes, he may be more impressive, but honestly, again this is about who is making the most progress in a given amount of time[/quote]

but you are basing progress entirely on size. If someone leans out isn’t that progress?[/quote]

Not in terms of muscle mass. Leaning out is what you do when you are big already. That is the rationale behind it.

Most of the guys shouting how lean they are not that big or muscular. Trust me, people are impressed by someone who is my size at my level of leanness whether I want to get leaner later or not.

If you have built huge muscles and are less than four months away from losing all of that extra fat, you made great progress. Most gym rats understand that.

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
why start ANOTHER fucking argument thread?

it seems to be the same 5-10 people can’t you all send each other these circle jerk messages over FB?[/quote]

it’s actually been quite a civil discussion so far til you came storming in. Relax.

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
why start ANOTHER fucking argument thread?

it seems to be the same 5-10 people can’t you all send each other these circle jerk messages over FB?[/quote]

it’s actually been quite a civil discussion so far til you came storming in. Relax.[/quote]

But he also has a point. Let’s keep it that way.

this is terrible
full of insecure roid heads and the most ignorant “bodybuilder” ever in px
only saving grace is CT posts here

[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 BIGGER, 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]

Fixed.

By BBing standards, lean is probably < 5% bf and fat is anything over that…nobody going for the full house look really plans on being obese, but nor do they care if they sit at a higher bf%. IMO 15% isn’t that unreasonable but by BBing standards it is likely to be considered fat.

[quote]ronald1919 wrote:
this is terrible
full of insecure roid heads and the most ignorant “bodybuilder” ever in px
only saving grace is ct posts here[/quote]

lol at roid heads. Fuck off back into the hole you crawled out of.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Not in terms of muscle mass. Leaning out is what you do when you are big already. That is the rationale behind it.[/quote]

I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree; I prefer to stay a bit leaner. That’s just my own personal bias though as I do NOT carry fat well. You clearly do so you are more comfortable with it. Didn’t CT say you carry fat well in the other thread? That’s probably why you are happier with the full house look then I would be.

EDIT: I do still think that leaning out is just as good progress as building muscle is. In my mind the two are equally important

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Most of the guys shouting how lean they are not that big or muscular. Trust me, people are impressed by someone who is my size at my level of leanness whether I want to get leaner later or not.

If you have built huge muscles and are less than four months away from losing all of that extra fat, you made great progress. Most gym rats understand that.[/quote]

I don’t think anyone could argue with that :slight_smile:

but hey, us lean guys have to shout about staying lean! We’ve got nothing else.

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I prefer to stay a bit leaner. That’s just my own personal bias though as I do NOT carry fat well. You clearly do so you are more comfortable with it. Didn’t CT say you carry fat well in the other thread? That’s probably why you are happier with the full house look then I would be.[/quote]

How do we disagree? We all do what falls in line with what we are comfortable with.

[quote]
I don’t think anyone could argue with that :slight_smile:

but hey, us lean guys have to shout about staying lean! We’ve got nothing else.[/quote]

i know…and I understand that. I don’t have to get naked for someone to say, “Holy shit, look at your muscles”. I personally would rather be there than really lean and was smaller so no one could tell unless wearing club clothes.

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Yes, he may be more impressive, but honestly, again this is about who is making the most progress in a given amount of time[/quote]

but you are basing progress entirely on size. If someone leans out isn’t that progress?[/quote]
yes leaning out=progress assuming you didnt loose a lot muscle