Mint Conditioning

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
elusive wrote:
jtg987 wrote:
Qaash wrote:
jtg987 wrote:
that level of conditioning is why bb isn’t popular…

How do you figure that? That’s the level of conditioning most strive to attain.

when most people look at photos from the 60’s-70’s they aren’t repulse yes they were lean but not this incredibly ridiculous paper thin look, now I know it’s my personal preference but say when watching pumping iron I won’t cop shit about the bodybuilders being gross when compared too some of the current competition, coming from both male and females.

I respect anyone that can achieve that look even though I may have sounded condescending however when most people look at pictures like the ones posted and go gross, yet 9/10 people when they see ‘golden era’ bodybuilders dont have that knee jerk reaction

In my experience, its not the level of conditioning that the average person finds gross. I find, most people feel today’s BB’ers are “too big”. With that said, I think most average people end up seeing a pic of Ronnie (b/c he is (was) the most popular guy in the sport) towards the end of his career and see his wide waist/gut.

They then get the impression that BB’ing is about huge gigantic bloated gut looking guys and that the “golden era” was ideal because people had small waists. People take one example (a bad one too. See Ronnie in his prime) and make generalizations.

Gotta say that most normal people around me seeing pics of bb’ers in contest shape are grossed out by the veins and striations rather than the size… Most think Matt Kroc looks better than a contest-shape bb’er due to that. That goes for normal people, mind you. Beeing “too big” is always a problem for them, moot point.
[/quote]

This is it right here, I believe Prof X has even commented on this many times. People are grossed out by veins and striations (mostly veins) not by the size.

Even my GF is the same, she wants be to get bigger and stronger still and fully supports it but always reminds me “But please don’t get lots of veins!” And if I’m all pumped and they start popping out on my forearms she will point at them and comment about it being gross. Most people, especially women, hate the veins.

[quote]jtg987 wrote:
Qaash wrote:
jtg987 wrote:
that level of conditioning is why bb isn’t popular…

How do you figure that? That’s the level of conditioning most strive to attain.

when most people look at photos from the 60’s-70’s they aren’t repulse yes they were lean but not this incredibly ridiculous paper thin look, now I know it’s my personal preference but say when watching pumping iron I won’t cop shit about the bodybuilders being gross when compared too some of the current competition, coming from both male and females.

I respect anyone that can achieve that look even though I may have sounded condescending however when most people look at pictures like the ones posted and go gross, yet 9/10 people when they see ‘golden era’ bodybuilders dont have that knee jerk reaction[/quote]

That would be the difference with the people like you .vs. the people like me.

In Competitive Bodybuilding you don’t care what the mass media, women, etc are telling you what to look like. That changes weekly anyways…

In ‘I just wanna look good’ you do care what the mass media says looks good.

No offense as everybody has their goals.

It makes bodybuilding unpopular because people don’t understand it. Comments like “MY GAWDDDD that guy will probably never get laid” is what does it.

Like lifting is just to get some pussy.

Anyways a lot of people see those pics and think these guys are that lean year round…they aren’t.

Idk it’s kind of ignorant of you to come on a thread where bodybuilders and fans of bodybuilders are here discussing who has great conditioning on stage. A part of competitive bodybuilding that shows a lot.

This isn’t a thread to show why or why not bodybuilding is unpopular, or to argue whether or not people think being shredded with slabs of beef is attractive…so if you aren’t contributing to this thread besides causing an argument I’d kindly ask that you leave.

DG

[quote]josh86 wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
elusive wrote:
jtg987 wrote:
Qaash wrote:
jtg987 wrote:
that level of conditioning is why bb isn’t popular…

How do you figure that? That’s the level of conditioning most strive to attain.

when most people look at photos from the 60’s-70’s they aren’t repulse yes they were lean but not this incredibly ridiculous paper thin look, now I know it’s my personal preference but say when watching pumping iron I won’t cop shit about the bodybuilders being gross when compared too some of the current competition, coming from both male and females.

I respect anyone that can achieve that look even though I may have sounded condescending however when most people look at pictures like the ones posted and go gross, yet 9/10 people when they see ‘golden era’ bodybuilders dont have that knee jerk reaction

In my experience, its not the level of conditioning that the average person finds gross. I find, most people feel today’s BB’ers are “too big”. With that said, I think most average people end up seeing a pic of Ronnie (b/c he is (was) the most popular guy in the sport) towards the end of his career and see his wide waist/gut.

They then get the impression that BB’ing is about huge gigantic bloated gut looking guys and that the “golden era” was ideal because people had small waists. People take one example (a bad one too. See Ronnie in his prime) and make generalizations.

Gotta say that most normal people around me seeing pics of bb’ers in contest shape are grossed out by the veins and striations rather than the size… Most think Matt Kroc looks better than a contest-shape bb’er due to that. That goes for normal people, mind you. Beeing “too big” is always a problem for them, moot point.

This is it right here, I believe Prof X has even commented on this many times. People are grossed out by veins and striations (mostly veins) not by the size.

Even my GF is the same, she wants be to get bigger and stronger still and fully supports it but always reminds me “But please don’t get lots of veins!” And if I’m all pumped and they start popping out on my forearms she will point at them and comment about it being gross. Most people, especially women, hate the veins. [/quote]

I know some women who like veins…especially in the arms…when you start getting them elsewhere it’s a negative.

Also I don’t know of anybody who likes the varicose look…

When sitting down at a dinner table sometimes girls flick and play with the veins in my biceps…I’m like heeey WTF! so then I just start grabbing boobies >;)

lol!

Anyways let’s end this hijack…this is about conditioning…not what people or women want in a physique.

This is about bodybuilding.

DG

comparison

yates vs haney


dex vs phil

[quote]Dirty Gerdy wrote:
this is about conditioning…not what people or women want in a physique.

This is about bodybuilding.[/quote]

Along this line, what exactly is “conditioning”, in a bodybuilding context?

From the pictures so far, it seems like it’s just being dried out and showing striations. But I always thought the term for that was “being dried out and showing striations.”

dex vs phil

dex vs phil


2 very well conditioned guys, plenty of comparison pics

Whew! Not to dis Dex, but dammit… Phil is awesome.

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Dirty Gerdy wrote:
this is about conditioning…not what people or women want in a physique.

This is about bodybuilding.

Along this line, what exactly is “conditioning”, in a bodybuilding context?

From the pictures so far, it seems like it’s just being dried out and showing striations. But I always thought the term for that was “being dried out and showing striations.”[/quote]

The word “conditioning” obviously means something completely different outside of a bb context… I have no clue why it is used to describe dryness, striations and extreme leanness… Makes about as much sense as certain strength-coaches (or whomever was responsible for that) taking the word “intensity” and changing it’s meaning to “percentage of 1RM used”, doesn’t it?

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Whew! Not to dis Dex, but dammit… Phil is awesome. [/quote]

No shit!

[quote]elusive wrote:
Phil Heath, the future Mr. O. He’s making such quick progress its scary. I was thinking Vic Martinez had the '09 Olympia in the bag, but I don’t know anymore. Phil’s a walking anatomy chart and is steadily adding more mass with each passing contest.[/quote]

holy shit, when was that picture taken?

too make up for the o/t’ing, here is a picture of silvio samuel he always seems too come in peeled

Im pretty sure its from this years IronMan.

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Dirty Gerdy wrote:
this is about conditioning…not what people or women want in a physique.

This is about bodybuilding.

Along this line, what exactly is “conditioning”, in a bodybuilding context?

From the pictures so far, it seems like it’s just being dried out and showing striations. But I always thought the term for that was “being dried out and showing striations.”[/quote]

In bodybuilding lingo if you went to a show and heard somebody say ‘that athlete is well conditioned’ you’d know he is saying ‘he did his homework, he followed his diet, he’s lean, he’s dry, he’s showing striations, his muscles are full, he looks good, he’s probably a contender for the show’

So instead of saying ‘he’s dried out and showing striations’

you can say…‘he came in very conditioned’

Make sense?

DG

[quote]Qaash wrote:
jtg987 wrote:
that level of conditioning is why bb isn’t popular…

How do you figure that? That’s the level of conditioning most strive to attain.[/quote]

no, people like easy sports like football,basketball,baseball

how many fat guys do you know that played one of those sports?

those people never think about bodybuilding, wrestling,boxing because the lifestyle doesnt permit laziness

Gotta say…I wouldn’t want to be a judge with Dex and Heath in the same lineup. Too hard to call. The only thing I could possibly nitpick at would be Dex’s calves and Phil’s traps. But that’s all I can see.

[quote]Trenchant wrote:
Gotta say…I wouldn’t want to be a judge with Dex and Heath in the same lineup. Too hard to call. The only thing I could possibly nitpick at would be Dex’s calves and Phil’s traps. But that’s all I can see.[/quote]

I disagree, I think its an easy choice. Heath wins hands down in my opinion. Look at the pics, he has more mass and more definition pretty much everywhere. The only thing I see that Dex has on him is Traps. Everywhere else Heath is just bigger and more defined - look at the quads, arms, calves, etc.

i have to say out of those comparison pictures phil is easily the more conditioned just look at the size of his traps Wowza