bodybuilders physique + celebrities

Steff said:
Some woman believe you will think they are too fat if you're cut.
Click to expand...

Funny, I met my wife when I was 18 and she was 21 (11 odd years ago now, wow). At the time I was 5'10" and only 9-9.5 stone (60kg's) and was a bit thinner than her. I never knew until 2-3 years ago that because I had a skinny rake like she use to have a complex. It was only when I started lifting prior to our wedding, bulked out and became bigger than her that she lost it.

Now she's on my back when ever I don't train for a long period so I don't lose it.

I enjoy feeling bigger and no longer referred to in the same manner as when I was younger, not sure about the developing double chin though. ;)
 
Hi Guys.

Thanks for all the responses.

It is my aim to get as big as I possibly can. It always was. But it is finding something that will actually make my muscles finally grow. Being lean isn't as important to me.

The question is why do some guys develop muscular bodies and others don't? What is it that they do to achieve the full muscular look? For me nate green as the right amount of muscle. My mate from the gym here http://opmassive.com/store/articles_detail-6-lang-1.html (scroll down) also has good muscle at 5ft 6. He's always been natural

I know he uses TUT, slow reps and not heavy weight. He can squat 140kg for 1 rep.

For all you guys is hst the fastest way you have built quality muscle? It's difficult to find photo's on here. I saw some photo's of lars an old member and he had an impressive body. Was that all done with hst?

Cheers

Chris
 
charr, they all are what is normally referred to as lean. That's why their muscle size and shape (and abs) are visible.
 
charr said:
The question is why do some guys develop muscular bodies and others don't? What is it that they do to achieve the full muscular look?
Click to expand...

One word...GENETICS.

I have never been able to add much muscle mass even if I eat constantly and train regularly (even when I was in my early 20's). None of the males on either side of my family tree are naturally muscular. Basically I'm screwed genetically. It has taken me a lot of years (I'm now 44 years old) to accept the fact that I will never be heavily muscular unless I turn to AAS, which I have no desire to do. I'm also weak as hell, even for the size that I am, which is actually more frustrating that the size issues. I'm guessing that it has to do with tendon connection points as dominant muscle fiber type. I'm having a harder time accepting the lack of strength issues than the size issues.
 
charr said:
Hi Guys.

The question is why do some guys develop muscular bodies and others don't? What is it that they do to achieve the full muscular look?

For all you guys is hst the fastest way you have built quality muscle?

Cheers

Chris
Click to expand...


Chris

Diet, exercise selection and execution, rest and recovery, testosterone levels and genes. Young and old need to focus on the first two. older lifters need to consider the third and fourth more than healthy young lifters. However, anyone who does not know their T level is shooting in the dark but, if you are growing satisfactorily, don't bother spending the money to have it tested. You cannot change your genes although you can certainly improve upon your physique.

HST is a lot of BS. It is based on stupid science. And the HST website does not even sell supplements! How good could it be then? (Did you really ask that question here with a straight face?) :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
charr said:
I saw some photo's of lars an old member and he had an impressive body.

Chris
Click to expand...

Do you mean Lcars? He was a member awhile back. He had a great build, but it wasn't natural, he was using chemical assistance. (I think he went natural when cutting down, but he did use at least some assistance to bulk up in the first place)
I'm sorry to tell you, but "the look" you are looking for is not natural, most guys who have that kind of heavily muscled physique are on steroids. Once in awhile you will find someone with great genetics and a decade of weight-training experience who managed to get a heavy muscular build naturally, but it's very rare. (Totentanz comes to mind). So sure, there are heavily muscled natural guys, but they are very rare. Unfortunately with average or poor genetics and no chemical assistance, it's very difficult to attain the "bodybuilder look."
 
Last edited:
HST_Rihad said:
That's called leanness, not muscle size. It takes surprisingly little extra muscle to look good, after getting your 6-pack visible. And I'm on my way to that.
Click to expand...

Personally, I've never understood the obsession with abs.

Similar to Totez, my experiences are that size trumps 'leanness' every day of the week (obviously I'm not referring to being too fat, I'm comparing 'ripped' with being bigger minus much/any ab definition).

Each to their own though, of course. We're discussing purely subjective viewpoints after all.
 
It's not about the abs alone, it's the beauty and aesthetic of a lean body in general. Back, chest, shoulders, thighs... They all look much more awesome when lean, the muscular definition, vascularity, etc. all look very interesting to me. When it's all covered up in a layer of fat, it just looks like a big blob, less aesthetically pleasing. At least to me, I find lean bodies more appealing to a degree. I even like women with a little bit of definition in the back and thighs... of course, not TOO lean though, so they lose all their curves!! That's not good on a woman, need some fat to be healthy and feminine and I always liked them curvy :) but you know what I mean, people look nice when you can see some muscle definition, like a Greek statue.
 
Last edited:
For sure, but there are degrees involved.

It isn't a case of chiseled all over vs fat.

There's a never-ending grey space in between the black and white.


In my experiences, there's a lot more attention given to size w/moderate definition/leanness than there is to 'perception of muscle' and greater degree of leanness.

Not to mention, if you've never seen a chick's face palm when Captain Abz gets trounced at the gym by guys with actual size and strength ... it's priceless.



Of course, anyone doing this for female attention has some correcting to do in due time, just my $0.02. Confidence and approval-from-others are v.different.
 
@charr, it's been two weeks since you started this thread. Have you made any adjustments or progress you're interested in sharing? How's your diet?
 
Not to offend anyone who fantasizes about male abs, but I personally prefer women's bodies, with or without abs. ). ).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
adpowah said:
@charr, it's been two weeks since you started this thread. Have you made any adjustments or progress you're interested in sharing? How's your diet?
Click to expand...

I've used ifcalc (which seems to be no more) to calculate what I need for fat loss. It has had me eating alot more including 130g of fat on my workout days. It was difficult to bring myself to start eating more however I have lost around 3lb using it this last couple of weeks and feel leaner.

I wish it was still around so I can recalculate now that I've lost a few pounds.
 
All these calorie calculators are nothing but (gross) estimates. My BMR is calculated at 1656, and if I sleep for 8 hours and sit on my butt for the remaining 16, my TDEE is at 2117. Add to that just 1 hour of moderate exercise, 30 minutes of standing/walking, and TDEE grows to 2603. That's only to cover my energetic needs, no caloric surplus is involved. Then we add another 500 which is believed to be required for growth, which leaves my with 3103 kcals. Say, 200 gr protein (800 kcal), 60 gr fats (540 cals), 440 gr carbs (1760 kcal), to sum up to 3100 kcals. This is ridiculous. If I eat this much, half this much, I will be gaining weight/waist/arms/legs at a great rate. But what kind of growth will that be? Some of it will be muscle, for sure, but most of it will be water held due to the extra glycogen, and fat.
 
Calculators are not great.

There is a FAR better way to work out what your 500kcal above maintenance is (or any other number). Pretty damn obvious too.
 
HST_Rihad said:
All these calorie calculators are nothing but (gross) estimates. My BMR is calculated at 1656, and if I sleep for 8 hours and sit on my butt for the remaining 16, my TDEE is at 2117. Add to that just 1 hour of moderate exercise, 30 minutes of standing/walking, and TDEE grows to 2603. That's only to cover my energetic needs, no caloric surplus is involved. Then we add another 500 which is believed to be required for growth, which leaves my with 3103 kcals. Say, 200 gr protein (800 kcal), 60 gr fats (540 cals), 440 gr carbs (1760 kcal), to sum up to 3100 kcals. This is ridiculous. If I eat this much, half this much, I will be gaining weight/waist/arms/legs at a great rate. But what kind of growth will that be? Some of it will be muscle, for sure, but most of it will be water held due to the extra glycogen, and fat.
Click to expand...

Something seems wrong with that site, it lists my TDEE (total daily energy expenditure?) at 2800kcals with no exercise and that's what I am eating right and I have been gaining good solid weight over my first cycle. I do agree that all of these cal calcs are just estimates but I think most people still need them (I know I did). Sure they don't measure how many grains of rice Chipotle put in your burrito but they give you good idea of the rough caloric range. Each day when I end at 26-2800 cals I know that that isn't exactly what went into my body but I also know that I was above 1800 but not over 4k, which without the counters I would probably not pay attention enough to on a consistent enough basis to actually see growth (all of my previous training cycles). I think there is a natural progression of counting your calories (typically with an app or a site) to get a sense of what it takes to get into a caloric surplus and then you stop using them as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top