Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
.jpg "Research Chemical Sciences")
.png "Research Chemical Sciences")
six pack abs vs. big size dude
- Thread starter Nobledude
- Start date
blut wump
New member
I usually sit around 270-280 and you can see my abs in the same sense that you can see legs under a quilt or duvet. At least, that was true until my wife brought home another 7lbs of 60%-cocoa bittersweet chocolate which I've finally managed to get rid of.
I'm reluctant to look either at my weight or ab for a while. I look good in a sweatsuit.
I'm reluctant to look either at my weight or ab for a while. I look good in a sweatsuit.
silver_shadow
New member
and with a dog headblut wump said:
BiggT
New member
Mariusz weighed in at 330lbs at the Mohegan Sun Superseries show this past weekend. He looked as lean as he ever has. I've met him in person, and he is right at 6' in sneakers, at the time he told me he was ~290, well he told me ~130 and I acted like I was down with it, then I had to multiply by 2.2 later, lol.....super nice guy, didn't speak the greatest English (at the time, anyway), but real personable and charasmatic and interacted well with the fans......that said, his stats/look aren't very realistic goals for 99% of the population for more reasons that I want to get into.
Anyway, you don't have to be fat to be strong and you don't have to lift like a bitch to look, at the very least, like an athlete. If you want to gain muscle and strength, you do need to carry around a little bit more bodyfat that you'd ideally like, that's the reason most guys in general (and the a good amount on this board) get ''stuck'' with the same lifts and muscle mass year after year, they simply won't eat.....you can pretty much have well rounded strength and a solid/athletic look at a happy medium. If you want to maximize lifts, particularly bench and squat and overhead numbers, you need some fat and if you want to be absolutely shredded, then you're gonna be a weak bitch....but I think most of the general population would like what they see and what they lift around 12-15% bodyfat
All that said, I love lifting too much to want to be much lower than 11% bodyfat at any time, the weightroom just blows when you're than lean.....I even like to go near 15-18 a lot of times, and can keep my waist under 36, so I'm happy there.
Anyway, you don't have to be fat to be strong and you don't have to lift like a bitch to look, at the very least, like an athlete. If you want to gain muscle and strength, you do need to carry around a little bit more bodyfat that you'd ideally like, that's the reason most guys in general (and the a good amount on this board) get ''stuck'' with the same lifts and muscle mass year after year, they simply won't eat.....you can pretty much have well rounded strength and a solid/athletic look at a happy medium. If you want to maximize lifts, particularly bench and squat and overhead numbers, you need some fat and if you want to be absolutely shredded, then you're gonna be a weak bitch....but I think most of the general population would like what they see and what they lift around 12-15% bodyfat
All that said, I love lifting too much to want to be much lower than 11% bodyfat at any time, the weightroom just blows when you're than lean.....I even like to go near 15-18 a lot of times, and can keep my waist under 36, so I'm happy there.
blut wump
New member
No that's a tough one, what does 'fit' mean. I've yet to see any definition that I'm happy with other than 'suitable'.
A marathon runner typically isn't fit if the goal is to squat a ton, just as most weightlifters areen't fit if the goal is to run 26 miles.
The next thought is that squatting a ton has nothing to do with thoughts of fitness only of strength but then how about someone like Platz when he squatted 500 for 23 reps? Would that have been considered a display of fitness?
In my experience, most people think in terms of cardio capacity or some aspect of endurance when they refer to being fit. Fat and fit and not incompatible.
A marathon runner typically isn't fit if the goal is to squat a ton, just as most weightlifters areen't fit if the goal is to run 26 miles.
The next thought is that squatting a ton has nothing to do with thoughts of fitness only of strength but then how about someone like Platz when he squatted 500 for 23 reps? Would that have been considered a display of fitness?
In my experience, most people think in terms of cardio capacity or some aspect of endurance when they refer to being fit. Fat and fit and not incompatible.
Nathan
New member
I think you wmore or less said what I was getting at, muscle mass aside, fat people are not fit. Fat is extra weight (up to a point - you need some obviously to be healthy) that only serves its purpose in times of caloric deficit, which in modern day society in North America is not often, if ever (at least for anyone posting on a fitness site).
For anyone who has been 15% bf, then 10%, then 7%, then 5%, you progressively feel fitter. Plus, I sweat way easier than I used to. It's like atthe drop of a dime - I often have to bring a spare t-shirt with me to school in the summers after only a 10 minute walk. I sweat right through them to the point of them dripping. That never happened at 10% bf. Mostly it's just you notice how much easier it is to throw your body around - like lunging up stairs or doing pull-ups, etc.
For anyone who has been 15% bf, then 10%, then 7%, then 5%, you progressively feel fitter. Plus, I sweat way easier than I used to. It's like atthe drop of a dime - I often have to bring a spare t-shirt with me to school in the summers after only a 10 minute walk. I sweat right through them to the point of them dripping. That never happened at 10% bf. Mostly it's just you notice how much easier it is to throw your body around - like lunging up stairs or doing pull-ups, etc.
Similar threads
