T Nation

Where Do You Hold Most of Your Weight?

I have always been curious on how at times. I see pros who are 260 diced. But their arms are average (pro standards). Legs kind of small (pro standards), shoulders narrow (pro standards) calves hahaha we don’t need to go there. Sagging chest not a full upper chest.

But yet they are 260 diced. I’m sure height matters but they aren’t short they are average 5’10.

It could be the back? Or abs? Whatever it is it has me wondering. Perfect example.

I won’t post comparisons because that will change the topic. The question is where do you think you hold most of your weight?

Have a stay and blessed day!

Commandment #8, Never keep no weight on you!

1 Like

Easy, mine is in my abdomen hahaha


Yeah yeah I can see this question is weird to look at.

But seriously I don’t get it how some are 260 peeled but they are narrow, arms are decent calves don’t exist legs are okay. I understand all people hold their weight differently but still it makes no sense.


Lol! Atm I’m trying not to… Working out at home and I bought those resistance bands. Honestly they’re brutal on small muscle groups. And imo worse than dumbbells or barbells since there is tension from a flexed to a relaxed postion. I got the free for all ones not the handles. $50 for like 6 levels.

I usually hold most of my weight in my hands, but when I squat I put it on my back

But for real, my legs.


I need a pic. I have rarely seen a shredded 260lbs person. Of those that I have, they are enormous everywhere.

The only thing that makes sense is they have a freaky back and quads but even that would be blown away once you got close to them.

Well that’s the key word rarely. But they exist and I want to understand how they look like that with meh standards.

Yeah that’s what I figured back. Idk how you can even measure your back or better yet see new muscle in some areas besides it being water fat or specific areas that have grown enough. Idk you can’t meaure how much inches your lats are or traps is what I’m getting at.

Legs is pretty obvious. Even 260 pound men with barely 29 inch legs. I’ve to shows and yeah they look great but I always see it. The legs are meh chest is good arms are good shoulders good. But I can never understand how they can be 260 peeled with those stats. It’s obvious really.

I got a big example, Markus Ruhl. His absolute biggest was 275 in his entire carrier. He looked 350 pounds from how truly freaky looked. Then the rest (won’t name names obviously).

Markus had 24 inch arms

60 inch chest

33 inch quads

28 inch shoulders

20 inch calves

Waist 34

And you got other pros

Who barrly have 21 inch arms

Chest is a 56 or 55

Legs are around 29 or 30

Waist is smaller like 32

I guess back really. But it’s crazy to see stats like Markus and other being some weight yet they look meh if you get what I’m saying. No no I’m not mentioning condtioning size and measurments that reach that weight peeled is all I’m saying and only that.

I guess 30 inch quads is freaky? Idk

@kleinhound legs got it. So you get the most weight surplus through legs. Wow makes me wonder how genetics is ever figured out through science.

Some have legs that get them to 260 and others have back that gets them to 260. Huh. Neat.

That being said I’m only 185…so a far cry from 275

Well patience is key. Not all of us can be pros. I never had the genetics to do so. My structure just didn’t work. Maybe you will some day!

Muscle shape will play havoc with the overall look. Also, the sleleton ,akes a difference.

Definitely my abdomen. My goal is simply to get my shoulders and back as wide as possible to draw attention away from the gut lmfao

1 Like

Okay I found the guy. Joel Stubbs.

Here is a video. The guy is 300 pounds ripped offseason competes in the 260s.

But look at how he looks.

This is what I am talking about when I say “makes no sense”.

I remmeber reading “the body grows as one unit”.

No it doesn’t you train a muscle more than others and it will be forced to grow. Except calves off course…

How tall is he? Makes a big difference too. But, he doesn’t look like a lot of other guys would at that size.

As a 300lbs man who is ripped to the bone but looks 180lbs at best, all I can say it is both a blessing and a curse having enormous genitals.

If a guy has thick posterior chain (no homo) and core… he’ll look lighter than he weights.

In contrast to a guy who has small waist, not too thick of a posterior chain and core but has big show muscles (shoulders, chest,etc) and wide clavicles. I’m like this because I got tiny waist and my posterior chain and core are not developed but I got tiny waist and big chest&shoulders, and people say I look I like I weigh 20 lbs more than my actual weight.

Another example is Chris Bumstead, classic physique champ, he doesn’t weight a lot compare to other pro bbs but he’s got a small waist and wide clavicles and big chest that makes him look like he weigh 260, when he’s like 225 lbs on stage and 245-250 ish offseason I think? Some powerlifters weigh that much, but they don’t look nearly as big as Chris bumstead

This is another example, eventhough markus had thick waist, his shoulder width is out of this world, and his chest and shoulders are gargantuan. That’s why he looked way way heavier, but Ronnie Coleman is actually heavier because he’s got much thicker posterior chain.

Think of it like this as well: You will look twice as big, if you add 5 lbs muscle to your shoulders instead of 5 lbs of muscle in your core/glutes/hammies

Hope that helps