81 replies to this topic

[Skötkonung]

This is how you look like "that guy":

[Skötkonung]

yeah, I remember when I staretd bb'ing I didn't like the "contest" condition either. For the first few years thought I'd like to hols "a little fat", like in offseason. But now I appreciate that veiny look. It's all perception really and how u look at things. Though I completely understand that she may look gross to orinary people, it's just kinda weird that I can't see that anymore lol..

Bodubuilding is really a form of body modification, like tattoos or piercing. People from each sub culture tend to be attracted to others in that same group. I found that as I got more into competitive bodybuilding, my preferences changed a bit as well.

As for the video, I don't see why people find it difficult or hard to build muscle and become lean. I was competing in bodybuilding by age 21 and it only took me a couple years to get to competition shape. You simply have to be dedicated at the gym, follow a strict diet, get adequate rest, and leave the rest up to your body's recovery / adaptation processes. Muscle growth doesn't happen immediately, and that is where I think most people fail. They expect quick results and workout and eat cleanly for a few months before finally getting disillusioned and moving on to some other fad. If you are starting out fat, you will even have a harder time as it will involve much extra work losing the weight AND gaining muscle, then "cutting" for competition.

As for the top 1-5% of the bodybuilders who are absolutely massive and cut...well they obviously either have fantastic genes, are extra dedicated towards their craft, or use pharmaceutical enhancements. Often it is a combination of all three.

This does not exclude someone, however, from becoming a Men's Health fitness model. Most people can look like that with the right amount of time, nutrition, training, and rest.

[Shepard]

This is how you look like "that guy":

A healthy dose of Bret Easton Ellis is a rite of passage. The Palahniuk fans should take note.

[VidX]

As for the top 1-5% of the bodybuilders who are absolutely massive and cut...well they obviously either have fantastic genes, are extra dedicated towards their craft, or use pharmaceutical enhancements. Often it is a combination of all three.

Well.. it's the right genes for the right pharmateuticals. I mean - how you respond to peptides mostly (these days... And your response for test must be perfect a priori, it's an "old school" drug in some sense anyway..).. ANd it's far from top 5%.. I know many bb'ers, many guys EVEN 18yo take GH now, and I know this for real. It's crazy. Test and it's derivatives - ok, we have enough data from decades of use in bb'ing world, so we can cocnlude that it doesn't really f*ck you up if done correctly (even if it's no good to use these substances at an early age however you look at it), but peptides are a different business..
Though I'm interested to see what will happen to these people, if anything. Bodybuilders allways were the first ones to try various chemicals on themselves lol.. When GH appeared on the marker as a "safe" drug for certain cases, bb'ers were already taking it for 10 years or so..

[Sebastian]

It was a fun video to watch.
While I'm pretty big into fitness (and even piercings, though I have none left -- work), I can't really see the appeal of bodybuilding. It's the least functional kind of fitness in real life. You can look nice and big and bulky, but people can run literally circles around you and knock you out faster than you can think to throw a punch, let alone move your incredible bulk..

.. The worst part of the workout .. 15m of cardio

That made me laugh so hard.

Try doing an ironman or ultraman, and then we can talk.

Edited by Sebastian, 17 February 2010 - 11:59 AM.

[Luna]

It was a fun video to watch.
While I'm pretty big into fitness (and even piercings, though I have none left -- work), I can't really see the appeal of bodybuilding. It's the least functional kind of fitness in real life. You can look nice and big and bulky, but people can run literally circles around you and knock you out faster than you can think to throw a punch, let alone move your incredible bulk..

.. The worst part of the workout .. 15m of cardio

That made me laugh so hard.

Try doing an ironman or ultraman, and then we can talk.

I don't think big and bulky is looking nice (had to!). Men like it more than women.Not sure what looks good about it.. in the "you are not doing cr unless super low body fat" (whatever it was called.. "NO CRON" something) thread the pictures of the men there were pretty repulsing.

[gregandbeaker]

This is how you look like "that guy":

I wonder if Christian Bale was as miserable as Stuart during the filming of that movie?

[Skötkonung]

This is how you look like "that guy":

I wonder if Christian Bale was as miserable as Stuart during the filming of that movie?

I think that is where personality comes into play. Some people really thrive on the bodybuilding / fitness lifestyle and aren't bothered by the deprivation. For me, not eating "regular food" or regularly going to the gym is something I thrive on doing. I've gone through cutting cycles to reduce my bodyfat and I don't think I have ever had such an emotional response to be reduced to tears. I also think Stuart's statement at the end of the film that we should maintain 15-20% bodyfat for males isn't very accurate. Careful dietary regulation should keep bodyfat at around 10-12%, even with low activity. Mark Sisson, for instance, is middle aged and has a 6-8% bodyfat and works out infrequently. It seems that Stuart's problem wasn't so much the bodybuilding lifestyle, but perhaps confronting his emotional issues with food and a physically detrimental lifestyle deeply entwined with is family / upbringing. Instead of fussing about the food at his Mother's birthday, he should have been celebrating the time he has to spend with her.

Per the original question, I think that Christian Bale's physique was probably easily achievable, especially for someone already in decent fitness. I think Stuart looked just about as good towards the end of the film. Whether or not he was miserable probably depends on where his head was at during the film prep process.

[Skötkonung]

It was a fun video to watch.
While I'm pretty big into fitness (and even piercings, though I have none left -- work), I can't really see the appeal of bodybuilding. It's the least functional kind of fitness in real life. You can look nice and big and bulky, but people can run literally circles around you and knock you out faster than you can think to throw a punch, let alone move your incredible bulk..

.. The worst part of the workout .. 15m of cardio

That made me laugh so hard.

Try doing an ironman or ultraman, and then we can talk.

Yes, but that is your priority and not theirs. A bodybuilder cares only about form over function.

A good example is the movie "300." Those guys were lean and muscled like bodybuilders. Recent research into Roman gladiators showed that they tended to be fat. The reasoning for their weight gain: the more padding you have, the less likely you will have a serious injury in battle. The makers of the movie were going for a certain aesthetic, the actors would never see real combat. Likewise, a bodybuilder isn't trying to be the best fighter or sprinter, they just want to have a certain look.

As for the cardio part of Stuart's regimen: for someone who has never done much exercise, doing 15min regularly can be very challenging. Especially after 45mn-1hr of strenuous weightlifting and being in a caloric deficit.

[gregandbeaker]

This is how you look like "that guy":

I wonder if Christian Bale was as miserable as Stuart during the filming of that movie?

I think that is where personality comes into play. Some people really thrive on the bodybuilding / fitness lifestyle and aren't bothered by the deprivation. For me, not eating "regular food" or regularly going to the gym is something I thrive on doing. I've gone through cutting cycles to reduce my bodyfat and I don't think I have ever had such an emotional response to be reduced to tears. I also think Stuart's statement at the end of the film that we should maintain 15-20% bodyfat for males isn't very accurate. Careful dietary regulation should keep bodyfat at around 10-12%, even with low activity. Mark Sisson, for instance, is middle aged and has a 6-8% bodyfat and works out infrequently. It seems that Stuart's problem wasn't so much the bodybuilding lifestyle, but perhaps confronting his emotional issues with food and a physically detrimental lifestyle deeply entwined with is family / upbringing. Instead of fussing about the food at his Mother's birthday, he should have been celebrating the time he has to spend with her.

Per the original question, I think that Christian Bale's physique was probably easily achievable, especially for someone already in decent fitness. I think Stuart looked just about as good towards the end of the film. Whether or not he was miserable probably depends on where his head was at during the film prep process.

That's a good point (especially about his Mother's Day experience.) He also was quite focused in the film with "being like the guy in the ad" and how difficult a proposition that was. He may have played up the eating issues a bit to underscore that point.
I've only been lifting for about three months but I've found it to be immediately addicting and fulfilling. Including the food choices you have to make to get maximum reward for the effort.

[Skötkonung]

This is how you look like "that guy":

I wonder if Christian Bale was as miserable as Stuart during the filming of that movie?

I think that is where personality comes into play. Some people really thrive on the bodybuilding / fitness lifestyle and aren't bothered by the deprivation. For me, not eating "regular food" or regularly going to the gym is something I thrive on doing. I've gone through cutting cycles to reduce my bodyfat and I don't think I have ever had such an emotional response to be reduced to tears. I also think Stuart's statement at the end of the film that we should maintain 15-20% bodyfat for males isn't very accurate. Careful dietary regulation should keep bodyfat at around 10-12%, even with low activity. Mark Sisson, for instance, is middle aged and has a 6-8% bodyfat and works out infrequently. It seems that Stuart's problem wasn't so much the bodybuilding lifestyle, but perhaps confronting his emotional issues with food and a physically detrimental lifestyle deeply entwined with is family / upbringing. Instead of fussing about the food at his Mother's birthday, he should have been celebrating the time he has to spend with her.

Per the original question, I think that Christian Bale's physique was probably easily achievable, especially for someone already in decent fitness. I think Stuart looked just about as good towards the end of the film. Whether or not he was miserable probably depends on where his head was at during the film prep process.

That's a good point (especially about his Mother's Day experience.) He also was quite focused in the film with "being like the guy in the ad" and how difficult a proposition that was. He may have played up the eating issues a bit to underscore that point.
I've only been lifting for about three months but I've found it to be immediately addicting and fulfilling. Including the food choices you have to make to get maximum reward for the effort.

I know I've told you this before, but I think genetically you are well equipped to get quick results from weight lifting. Three months of consistency says a lot about your staying power. A little longer and you'll be an addict too! When you're all ripped, you better post some before / after photos to show all those CRONies what living is really about

[The Immortalist]

the link to the video doesn't take me to a video.

[Mike M]

Just because someone diets and trains doesn't mean they'll get the desired results. I've been able to dunk a basketball since I was in 9th grade. It had nothing to do with training or skill. It was genetics. I'm a 5'11 white boy with short arms and a massive vertical leap. I don't care how hard someone trains, many will never be able to dunk a basketball. While different from bodybuilding, the principal of genetics still applies. There are some who simply can't get there naturally. Throw drugs into the mix, different ballgame. As a natural, I'd say less than .01% of the population can maintain less than 9% bf on a year around basis. Most people misguage bodyfat by at least 3-4%. Most who say they are 10 are 14. Last night in the gym, kid told me he was 8 weeks out. I said 8 weeks out from what. He said a show. I had to laugh and tell him as a natural he was at least 20+ weeks out. He said his bf was 11%, I laughed and said try 16-18%. I'm probably around 12% right now. Have a full set of abs and veins running through the lower part. You can guage bf level very quick by looking at someone's legs. Anyone claiming 7% better have some shredded hamstrings.

I've dated many fitness models. Using bodpod testing, one of them got down to 10.5% the week of a show. She had veins running through everywhere and was leaner than the girl posted in this thread already. Most fail to realize, even on stage, the best are still at 5% bf. To claim that someone is 7% year around or can "easily" do it, would make them the super genetic elite.

I've been involved in the industry for 12 years. I've worked with numerous professional bodybuilders (you'd die at the level of drugs involved for the top pro's). There are always some genetic freaks out there. Just take what you got, do the best you can with it and roll from there. If you're a natural, you have to keep your fats high during any sort of dieting. When I do shoots, I'll usually do a carbload style diet. I eat 17 meals in a row of high protein, high fat and high fiber. My 18th meal is a 1500 calorie all carb/fat meal before bed. Nothing has worked as well as that for me.

[Mind]

I've been involved in the industry for 12 years. I've worked with numerous professional bodybuilders (you'd die at the level of drugs involved for the top pro's).

I have a friend who competed for the first time last year. He trained over a year and looked great (I thought anyway). His trainer said he wouldn't win without steroids or some sort-of performance enhancer. He didn't take the stuff. He didn't place too well. I have always thought the pro body-builders must almost all be on performance enhancers and this anecdotally confirmed it. Not that I am against technological human enhancement, it is just a reality in present-day body-building.

[Mike M]

There is nobody that competes on any semi high level that isn't on steroids in bodybuilding. I have an employee who is a natural bodybuilding pro. He has to take lie detector tests, along with urine samples to prove it. He got up to 205lbs this year to compete at 168. He will diet for almost 26 weeks to acccomplish that Most "diets" for a show are in the 12-16 range when on drugs. He will need to lose 1.5lbs per week to accomplish his goal. So far he's on point. He's about 16 weeks out I think. He has crazy genetics, even for him, he can't get on stage (and be competitive) over 170lbs. There is a reason in natural bodybuilding there are no 200+ type classes. You can't do it.

[mustardseed41]

There is nobody that competes on any semi high level that isn't on steroids in bodybuilding. I have an employee who is a natural bodybuilding pro. He has to take lie detector tests, along with urine samples to prove it. He got up to 205lbs this year to compete at 168. He will diet for almost 26 weeks to acccomplish that Most "diets" for a show are in the 12-16 range when on drugs. He will need to lose 1.5lbs per week to accomplish his goal. So far he's on point. He's about 16 weeks out I think. He has crazy genetics, even for him, he can't get on stage (and be competitive) over 170lbs. There is a reason in natural bodybuilding there are no 200+ type classes. You can't do it.

Ever heard of Steve Reeves?

[Shepard]

Bodybuilding was a different game back then. Steve Reeves would not be a contender today.

[The Immortalist]

Who cares what you look like? I value function over form anyday.

[Skötkonung]

Just because someone diets and trains doesn't mean they'll get the desired results.

That is a false dichotomy. Sure, one can train and diet and never get anywhere, but if one diets and trains correctly, they will see definite results. Perhaps they'll never be a IFBB natural, only a certain subset of the population may be able to acheive that, but they can easily achieve the build of a fitness model. Just look at the guys they trained for the movie '300.' They were average individuals with the drive to achieve a certain look. And pending mental discipline, I'm sure most people are physiologically capable of maintaining a single digit body fat percentage perennially.

Regarding maintaining a low body fat percentage... have you heard of the body fat set point hypothesis? The hypothesis goes as such: Everyone has a body fat set point. This is configured through body composition, lifestyle, and diet. Read more about it here. If you take a overweight or lean person and overfeed them to make them artificially gain weight, they will lose most if not all of that weight once they return to their normal diet. With that in mind, if you know you have a tendency to consume 2,500 calories a day and you are 15% body fat, you could conceivably adjust your body composition so your basal metabolic rate was still close to 2,500 calories but your body composition was shifted towards having more lean mass. With some training to maintain the lean mass, you can conceivably keep a low body fat quite easily by simply working with your body fat set point (instead of fighting it).

Or better yet, you could reset your body fat setpoint.

[Mike M]

Just because someone diets and trains doesn't mean they'll get the desired results.

That is a false dichotomy. Sure, one can train and diet and never get anywhere, but if one diets and trains correctly, they will see definite results. Perhaps they'll never be a IFBB natural, only a certain subset of the population may be able to acheive that, but they can easily achieve the build of a fitness model. Just look at the guys they trained for the movie '300.' They were average individuals with the drive to achieve a certain look. And pending mental discipline, I'm sure most people are physiologically capable of maintaining a single digit body fat percentage perennially.

You do realize many people in the movie 300 were on drugs right? Look at the gyno present in certain actors from that movie after the fact or hell, even during the movie itself. Many of them are far from in that shape now. The "average" person will never achieve that level of conditioning naturally.

Regarding maintaining a low body fat percentage... have you heard of the body fat set point hypothesis?

I'm very familiar with it. Still doesn't change my point that outside of .001% of the population, you can't maintain single digit bodyfat year around.

The hypothesis goes as such: Everyone has a body fat set point. This is configured through body composition, lifestyle, and diet. Read more about it here. If you take a overweight or lean person and overfeed them to make them artificially gain weight, they will lose most if not all of that weight once they return to their normal diet. With that in mind, if you know you have a tendency to consume 2,500 calories a day and you are 15% body fat, you could conceivably adjust your body composition so your basal metabolic rate was still close to 2,500 calories but your body composition was shifted towards having more lean mass. With some training to maintain the lean mass, you can conceivably keep a low body fat quite easily by simply working with your body fat set point (instead of fighting it).

Theory is great. I'm more of a real world guy. I'd love to see a bunch of real world examples of naturals maintaining single digit body fat year around. There will always be some, but the average person, it will never happen. Most people's genetic potential would be reached in the low teen's, unless their overall bodyweight is very low having very little muscle mass. Even then, they would be unable to maintain it.

[VidX]

Who cares what you look like? I value function over form anyday.

Well you care, yourself...obviously. As someone said bodybuilding is a subculture of body transformation, and I'd add - an art of sculpting your physique to the desired end result. For ex. I couldn't care less how much I can squat one rep max. I know some guys who can squat an insane amount of weight and they look like an ordinary Joe. And noone really cares how much can you squat even more. Actually - noone cares whatever you can do really, it's about your personal goals.

BTW - these who think a big guy can't fight - find a M.Pudzianowski vs Nayama video on youtube. That's one of the best strongmans recent debut in UFC. Though it's NOT about fighting. I allways laugh when someone says to me - "But you'd probably get beat by some boxer, eh?". I can't understand why they don't say the same thing to some other athlete, like runner, tennis player, basketballer, etc..

[gregandbeaker]

Theory is great. I'm more of a real world guy. I'd love to see a bunch of real world examples of naturals maintaining single digit body fat year around. There will always be some, but the average person, it will never happen. Most people's genetic potential would be reached in the low teen's, unless their overall bodyweight is very low having very little muscle mass. Even then, they would be unable to maintain it.

So do you think it is just unnatural to be at a sub 10% body fat and therefore the body is fighting it, or that most people lack the desire and dedication required to achieve and maintain it? Art De Vany says that 10-13% bf is pretty optimal for the human male. In the film Stuart seemed to be doing really well until he started going below 10% bf.

[Mike M]

The body doesn't want to be under 10%. It's not natural. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. The problem is that SO many people misread bodyfat %. Like I said, most who think they are 10% are really 14%. Single digit bodyfat is VERY low. It's far from optimal for any athletic event. Outside of looks and a bodybuilding show, there is no reason to be that lean.

You can have all the desire and dedication in the world. Yet 99% of the population could never run a 10 second 100 meters regardless of how hard they trained. You can do a lot of things, but you can't defeat genetics. You might trick it for a bit, but balance always comes.

[Shepard]

BTW - these who think a big guy can't fight - find a M.Pudzianowski vs Nayama video on youtube. That's one of the best strongmans recent debut in UFC. Though it's NOT about fighting. I allways laugh when someone says to me - "But you'd probably get beat by some boxer, eh?". I can't understand why they don't say the same thing to some other athlete, like runner, tennis player, basketballer, etc..

Pudzianowski is a rarity. He is not and has never been the strongest, but his conditioning level is what sets him apart. That's why he can fight/dance and be a general badass.

[Skötkonung]

You do realize many people in the movie 300 were on drugs right? Look at the gyno present in certain actors from that movie after the fact or hell, even during the movie itself. Many of them are far from in that shape now. The "average" person will never achieve that level of conditioning naturally.

That is a ridiculous assertion unless of course you have something to substantiate it.

It would be instructive for you to read this article by the facility that trained these actors and extras:
http://www.gymjones....ledge.php?id=36

Theory is great. I'm more of a real world guy. I'd love to see a bunch of real world examples of naturals maintaining single digit body fat year around. There will always be some, but the average person, it will never happen. Most people's genetic potential would be reached in the low teen's, unless their overall bodyweight is very low having very little muscle mass. Even then, they would be unable to maintain it.

Why would most people reach their genetic potential at such a young age given all of the processed foods, skyrocketing levels of childhood obesity, and rampant in-activity? Reaching your genetic potential implies that you are training and dieting to maximize your body's recovery / adaptation processes ergo optimizing body fat setpoint.

I also would consider it more than a theory: It is something I have implemented in my own life. In my teens, I never lived effortless in the single digit bodyfat range, but after years of training it is something I live with daily. Or perhaps I must be a genetic freak as you suggest? You can look in my profile for my photo.

The way you are going on about how hard it to achieve an optimal balance of fitness and appearance clearly indicates that either you yourself are discouraged with your own training / diet regimen or you are trying to discourage others. Either way, it is sad to see.

[gregandbeaker]

BTW - these who think a big guy can't fight - find a M.Pudzianowski vs Nayama video on youtube. That's one of the best strongmans recent debut in UFC. Though it's NOT about fighting. I allways laugh when someone says to me - "But you'd probably get beat by some boxer, eh?". I can't understand why they don't say the same thing to some other athlete, like runner, tennis player, basketballer, etc..

Pudzianowski is a rarity. He is not and has never been the strongest, but his conditioning level is what sets him apart. That's why he can fight/dance and be a general badass.

Besides fighting and dancing, he also enjoys pulling large planes in his spare time:

[tunt01]

You do realize many people in the movie 300 were on drugs right? Look at the gyno present in certain actors from that movie after the fact or hell, even during the movie itself. Many of them are far from in that shape now. The "average" person will never achieve that level of conditioning naturally.

like skot, i also question the truthfulness of this statement. i spent a bit of time reading exactly what they did at gym jones, how they changed their diet to produce the "spartan" look for the movie 300. it seemed very plausible to me. the '300 workout' has been discussed in many places (feel free to google it).

[mustardseed41]

Bodybuilding was a different game back then. Steve Reeves would not be a contender today.

Ummm yea

[mustardseed41]

The body doesn't want to be under 10%. It's not natural. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. The problem is that SO many people misread bodyfat %. Like I said, most who think they are 10% are really 14%. Single digit bodyfat is VERY low. It's far from optimal for any athletic event. Outside of looks and a bodybuilding show, there is no reason to be that lean.

You can have all the desire and dedication in the world. Yet 99% of the population could never run a 10 second 100 meters regardless of how hard they trained. You can do a lot of things, but you can't defeat genetics. You might trick it for a bit, but balance always comes.

Plenty of reasons to be at 8-9% bodyfat or even slightly lower. Sprinters, basketball players, etc. etc. etc.
I can assure you that 8-9% bodyfat is sure a hell of a lot healthier than the average slob on the street at 27%+
Nothing natural about those pathetic bodies.
Sub 10% bodyfat could never be compared to running a 10 sec 100 meters. That's insane.

[Shepard]

Bodybuilding was a different game back then. Steve Reeves would not be a contender today.

Ummm yea

From the 2008 WNBF Championships:



Steve Reeves:



I'm not trying to bash anyone, he just wasn't at the level current natural bodybuilders strive for (shredded glutes, or other indication of ridiculously low BF levels). Even Arnold wouldn't hold a candle to the current IFBB monsters that the judges like.