[quote]Bigpull wrote:
Just wondering if anybody is a fan of the new bodybuilding style pics that are flooded in the articles now? Im not a fan. I know this is a bodybuilings site too but the pics look like they are right out of FLEX magazine. I liked the more realistic looking ones. THoughts?[/quote]
I think you may be in the minority on this one. The pictures are just there to supplement the article material. Sure in the back of your head, you may like having some sort of motivation from them to emulate that look, but does it really matter? I don’t think most of the newer stuff compared to the older pics show that much of a discrepancy in size anyway. The size most of these images depict I believe to definitely be attainable with hard work, so they are realistic as well. Basically, to answer your question, yes I’m a fan.
“Hey, dudes with muscle. I want muscle. Cool.” is basically the extent to which I previously even paid attention to the pics that go with articles unless the picture is demonstrating something specifically or is meant to be humorous.
I much rather prefer the scenario along the lines of…
“Hey, that hot chick’s in a bikini. Looks like i won’t be standing up for awhile.”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yeah, the idea that an “MMA body” is difficult, time consuming or takes any effort beyond slightly above pedestrian really is bothering me too…
lol
Just turn images off if you don’t like it.
(FTR I don’t read the articles, and only skimmed back through the last 8 or so after reading this thread, lol)[/quote]
Actually I stated BODYBUILDING pics and referenced that type of picture along with FLEX magazine. Again, bodybuilding related. I mentioned nothing about MMA. Obviously those to builds are different with the exceptions of a few so your burn didnt really work if that was your angle. The site has started using a different kind of pictures for articles and thats what I pointed out. [/quote]
Sorry I didn’t make this clearer, but that isn’t a jab at you by any means. It is a jab, and I stand by it being a funny one, just not at you in particular.
[quote]Bigpull wrote:
My point was that older pics were more desirable because they depicted a build that seemed more attainable as a goal- and that drives a lot of people. Anybody can open a bodybuilding magazine and find an ad for some new crazy supplement that the completely juiced up been traing for years guy is claiming thats what got him so big and lean. Thats what the pics resemble.[/quote]
Sorry to break it to you, but the ‘golden era’ guys you find ‘more attainable’ where on gear too.
I’m not complaining but I’ve gone to T-Nation at work (on breaks of course…the computer is in the teacher’s room) and when the front page loads I click to the forums pretty fast so people can’t see that big oiled fucking goddamned chest every time.
[quote]Nards wrote:
I’m not complaining but I’ve gone to T-Nation at work (on breaks of course…the computer is in the teacher’s room) and when the front page loads I click to the forums pretty fast so people can’t see that big oiled fucking goddamned chest every time.[/quote]
Yes, jesus christ. I don’t want to see veiny nipples 8 times a day.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yeah, the idea that an “MMA body” is difficult, time consuming or takes any effort beyond slightly above pedestrian really is bothering me too…
lol
Just turn images off if you don’t like it.
(FTR I don’t read the articles, and only skimmed back through the last 8 or so after reading this thread, lol)[/quote]
Actually I stated BODYBUILDING pics and referenced that type of picture along with FLEX magazine. Again, bodybuilding related. I mentioned nothing about MMA. Obviously those to builds are different with the exceptions of a few so your burn didnt really work if that was your angle. The site has started using a different kind of pictures for articles and thats what I pointed out. [/quote]
Sorry I didn’t make this clearer, but that isn’t a jab at you by any means. It is a jab, and I stand by it being a funny one, just not at you in particular.
[quote]Bigpull wrote:
My point was that older pics were more desirable because they depicted a build that seemed more attainable as a goal- and that drives a lot of people. Anybody can open a bodybuilding magazine and find an ad for some new crazy supplement that the completely juiced up been traing for years guy is claiming thats what got him so big and lean. Thats what the pics resemble.[/quote]
Sorry to break it to you, but the ‘golden era’ guys you find ‘more attainable’ where on gear too.
[/quote]
[quote]Nards wrote:
I’m not complaining but I’ve gone to T-Nation at work (on breaks of course…the computer is in the teacher’s room) and when the front page loads I click to the forums pretty fast so people can’t see that big oiled fucking goddamned chest every time.[/quote]
Yes, jesus christ. I don’t want to see veiny nipples 8 times a day.[/quote]
[quote]Nards wrote:
I’m not complaining but I’ve gone to T-Nation at work (on breaks of course…the computer is in the teacher’s room) and when the front page loads I click to the forums pretty fast so people can’t see that big oiled fucking goddamned chest every time.[/quote]
Yes, jesus christ. I don’t want to see veiny nipples 8 times a day.[/quote]
[quote]Nards wrote:
I’m not complaining but I’ve gone to T-Nation at work (on breaks of course…the computer is in the teacher’s room) and when the front page loads I click to the forums pretty fast so people can’t see that big oiled fucking goddamned chest every time.[/quote]
Yes, jesus christ. I don’t want to see veiny nipples 8 times a day.[/quote]
I wanted to show that Arnold impersonation video to one of my students and when she saw the front page of T-Nation she pointed, giggled and said “Nay nays!”
