T Nation

Physique Athlete/Fitness Model Training?

Marky Mark


Truely the most shocking

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Truely the most shocking [/quote]

LOL! I love the humor some guys have; it keeps things light.

On the topic of injection sites, maybe when I started my TRT the Doctor should have had me inject into my penis rather than my big ass.
(Joking, PLEASE, no one try it)

[quote]Waittz wrote:
Not sure if you understand just how big those guys are. [/quote]

That is correct. At least for the good ones. People have such a screwed up image of what big is, probably because of the guys who are at 220-230 and really are 15% body fat but who think that they are 10%.

This goes along with “people have no idea how lean you have to be to really look like a bodybuilder/fitness model”. A good rule is that when you start to think that you look very good, you have 20lbs more pounds of fat/water to lose :wink:

Let’s take a fitness model who is 190lbs on 5’9", which is pretty standard. At a TRUE 5% body fat that’s a lean body mass of about 181lbs.

Normally each pound of gained fat also has a 0.5lbs of water gain (which is why a lot of people underestimate how much weight they need to lose to be in great shape).

So that same person at a true 10% body fat would be about 215lbs on 5’9" and one of the leanest guy in any gym (a true 10% is much less frequent than people make you think) and in the condition the “big guys who claim to be 10%” these guys would be close to 230lbs on 5’9" with some definition. Which would really stand out.

Trust me, if someone is natural (no steroids or the likes) reaching that level of muscular development will take A LOT of work and quite a bit of time.

[quote]Fyzjin2 wrote:
I currently weigh just over 140lbs (still lean with abs though- not that it matters much- just adding context to the type of weight gained). I am also only 5.57 feet tall at the moment [/quote]
Okay, so you’re about 5’7" (5 feet, 7 inches. I can tell you used a calculator, no big deal) and 140 pounds. Like I said, train hard and eat well, and see how things are going when you’re 160ish.

And really, I’d be more concerned that you - a 17 year old male who’s lifting weights and presumably not living in a barren desert - has gained less than 10 pounds of bodyweight in almost a full year’s time.

Dude… food.

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I know a good handful of guys who compete in this division. While some are former wanna-be bodybuilders and aside from lacking quad development, have trained in typical bodybuilder bodypart split fashion for years, a couple are younger, and to be honest, don’t have much size, but due to their naturally smaller frame, they’re focusing solely on their ‘show’ muscles (chest,back, delts), and little to no work on everything else.[/quote]
I don’t follow this division too much, but I have seen pics of Matt Christianer (above) who’s been doing well in the IFBB Men’s Physique. While I don’t know his exact training, his history seems to follow basically what you just wrote out.

He won one smaller bodybuilding show and then tied for 16th (a.k.a. came in last) in a national show, then transitioned right into Physique and has been nothing but 1st or 2nd for the last few years.

I’m sure the training has to be somewhat different between the two divisions just like basketball and lacrosse have different training. But I’m also sure there are enough similarities that, for the majority of people (let alone people who may never actually compete in either), those differences are relatively minor.

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
sorry if this is a stupid question, is that you chris? if so, FUCK.[/quote]
Ha, thanks but, sadly, no. The pic is two of the dudes the OP mentioned - Lazar Angelov (L) and Alex Carneiro ®. I can’t thank you enough for making that mistake though. :wink:

Looks like he did some of that there reverse hypertrophy training on his shoulders and lats…

I don’t think a natural ever has to “worry” about looking like a pro bodybuilder. Just like a woman whose naturally never has to “worry” about getting big and bulky like a man - unless she means fat.

Skewed image of reality due to lies and tricks in advertising for the win!!!

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Looks like he did some of that there reverse hypertrophy training on his shoulders and lats…

I don’t think a natural ever has to “worry” about looking like a pro bodybuilder. Just like a woman whose naturally never has to “worry” about getting big and bulky like a man - unless she means fat.

Skewed image of reality due to lies and tricks in advertising for the win!!![/quote]

Nuh uh brah. I know brahs who worry about lifting too many weights and happening to fall into winning an Olympia.

Is that brah Ramy? Just kidding, he’s been training for at least 3 years, that’s some legit dedication!

I’d need to upgrade my face first.

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]Fyzjin2 wrote:
I currently weigh just over 140lbs (still lean with abs though- not that it matters much- just adding context to the type of weight gained). I am also only 5.57 feet tall at the moment [/quote]
Okay, so you’re about 5’7" (5 feet, 7 inches. I can tell you used a calculator, no big deal) and 140 pounds. Like I said, train hard and eat well, and see how things are going when you’re 160ish.

And really, I’d be more concerned that you - a 17 year old male who’s lifting weights and presumably not living in a barren desert - has gained less than 10 pounds of bodyweight in almost a full year’s time.

Dude… food.[/quote]

I’m flattered that you remember me from that last thread. :wink: . I agree with you though, I definitely should have gained more weight (I’ve only really had the guts to start eating big over the past few months- was scared of getting fat- that’s where I started 4 years ago). A quick question though, how much weight ‘should’ I have gained (in terms of lean mass, not water weight and fat)?

[quote]Fyzjin2 wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]Fyzjin2 wrote:
I currently weigh just over 140lbs (still lean with abs though- not that it matters much- just adding context to the type of weight gained). I am also only 5.57 feet tall at the moment [/quote]
Okay, so you’re about 5’7" (5 feet, 7 inches. I can tell you used a calculator, no big deal) and 140 pounds. Like I said, train hard and eat well, and see how things are going when you’re 160ish.

And really, I’d be more concerned that you - a 17 year old male who’s lifting weights and presumably not living in a barren desert - has gained less than 10 pounds of bodyweight in almost a full year’s time.

Dude… food.[/quote]

I’m flattered that you remember me from that last thread. :wink: . I agree with you though, I definitely should have gained more weight (I’ve only really had the guts to start eating big over the past few months- was scared of getting fat- that’s where I started 4 years ago). A quick question though, how much weight ‘should’ I have gained (in terms of lean mass, not water weight and fat)?

[/quote]

In your first real year lifting, 2 lbs of muscle a month is doable, so around 20 lbs or so. Keep in mind that adding muscle means adding more ‘water’ in terms of more glycogen storage capabilities. Hopefully someone smarter than me will answer more in depth.

So, according to this article by CT, 12-20lbs is the reasonable amount (I’d read that ages ago).
That agrees with you completely. I was expecting to get a more inflated answer, however, as the thread that Chris posted was from last year November, which was 10 months ago. I have since gained just over 10lbs, which seems to be relatively on track with the lower end of that scale?

Disclaimer Not justifying substandard progress- I acknowledge that I should have eaten and gained more, this is for the purpose of discussion- I’m interested. Don’t start flaming Disclaimer <-- (I’ve been reading these forums for a while :wink: )

One quick question for Chris: Why did you convert my height from 5.57 to 5.7? It seems that 170cm converts to 5.57 feet, not 5.7. Please explain? I’m used to working with metric, so Feet and Inches may as well be Greek to me.

CT: Thanks for that post! Very interesting.

[quote]Fyzjin2 wrote:
One quick question for Chris: Why did you convert my height from 5.57 to 5.7? It seems that 170cm converts to 5.57 feet, not 5.7. Please explain?[/quote]
Because fuck the metric system. That’s why. :wink: It’s 5 feet 7 inches, not 5 (point) 7 With that out of the way…

[quote]http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/the_truth_about_bulking

So, according to this article by CT, 12-20lbs is the reasonable amount (I’d read that ages ago).
That agrees with you completely. I was expecting to get a more inflated answer, however, as the thread that Chris posted was from last year November, which was 10 months ago. I have since gained just over 10lbs, which seems to be relatively on track with the lower end of that scale?[/quote]
That would be under most circumstances. You’re a young guy (an advantage) and you were skinnier not all that long ago (you said you were 115 about a year before your hiking thread. Granted, you were 15 at that time). Basically, the guidelines are a bit more flexible in situations like yours. If you can get your nutrition and training dialed in, you can capitalize on the most naturally-efficient growth period of your life.

Don’t have a panic attack if your abs get blurry or even disappear for a few months. They’ll come back quick enough and you’ll be bigger, better, stronger, and have a better build overall.

Awesome, thanks for that, Chris. I just got back from squats and a big meal- I’m working on it :wink: .

Also, metric FTW.

Just thought this would be interesting to throw in her. Steve Cook claims that he is 6’ 1" tall and weighs 210 at 5%. Steve Reeves was also 6’ 1" 210 (probably not at that low of a BF though). Cook says that he is more into proportions like Reeves was but obviously still trains like a bodybuilder to achieve that physique.

[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
Just thought this would be interesting to throw in her. Steve Cook claims that he is 6’ 1" tall and weighs 210 at 5%. Steve Reeves was also 6’ 1" 210 (probably not at that low of a BF though). Cook says that he is more into proportions like Reeves was but obviously still trains like a bodybuilder to achieve that physique. [/quote]

I’ll throw in a few extra tidbits to give some sort of comparison:

Reeves also claimed 19" arms, calves and neck. Now despite the perfect proportions he is always cited for, these are not dimensions for someone who is small, especially when you consider how relatively lean he was, as well as his above average height.

Also, according to a good number of his contemporaries (and I’m sure others will argue, as Reeves himself publicly denied) he made use of PEDs as well. Although even if he did, I would imagine the dosages used by any of the top guys back then (this is pre-Olympia days) would be considered laughable by today’s bodybuilders and even MPD competitors.

S

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
Just thought this would be interesting to throw in her. Steve Cook claims that he is 6’ 1" tall and weighs 210 at 5%. Steve Reeves was also 6’ 1" 210 (probably not at that low of a BF though). Cook says that he is more into proportions like Reeves was but obviously still trains like a bodybuilder to achieve that physique. [/quote]

I’ll throw in a few extra tidbits to give some sort of comparison:

Reeves also claimed 19" arms, calves and neck. Now despite the perfect proportions he is always cited for, these are not dimensions for someone who is small, especially when you consider how relatively lean he was, as well as his above average height.

Also, according to a good number of his contemporaries (and I’m sure others will argue, as Reeves himself publicly denied) he made use of PEDs as well. Although even if he did, I would imagine the dosages used by any of the top guys back then (this is pre-Olympia days) would be considered laughable by today’s bodybuilders and even MPD competitors.

S
[/quote]

I THINK I remember him (could have been someone else) saying he used them for a short period, but felt SO extremely guilty for doing so, that he never did again. Not sure exactly at which point that was in his career though.

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
I THINK I remember him (could have been someone else) saying he used them for a short period, but felt SO extremely guilty for doing so, that he never did again. Not sure exactly at which point that was in his career though.[/quote]
Sounds like every athlete who was ever busted for PED’s

Reeves was a big dude, I mean he did stand next to Arnold quite well in many many pictures. He wasn’t outright dwarfed. At that time I believe it was mostly Test and Dbol available. Drugs were just starting to make the market.

Look at Dave Draper. He claims natural until after he won the Mr. USA. Take a look at his Mr. USA physique, then afterward. You can see a difference. If he is 100% honest about being clean/natural at the USA, that’s an impressive physique and one I think any dedicated natural bodybuilder would be happy to have.