EPTTeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 - Page 145
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
decafchicken
United States20060 Posts
| ||
|
phyre112
United States3090 Posts
But honestly at the end of the day these aren't numbers that actually mean anything to me. I don't actually care who is or isn't using x to look like y beyond it being a neat anecdote, and I think most people who have been into fitness for years (like most of the posters in this thread) feel generally the same way. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6243 Posts
| ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
 | ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
My brother is around 5'7 and weighs around 160 and has around 7-8% bf (dont think he is that close to his natural limit) Some ppl can have more LBM than others while natural | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On December 07 2016 13:37 decafchicken wrote: Lol what the fuck, that chart is retarded. I'm conservatively like 20 pounds over that LBM number. Pretty sure I got there 'naturally'. Same here, 5 7" 190-195 pounds, BF 10-15% top if I had to guess. And Igne is even bigger. TLDR: Table is horsehit, you can get fairly big and strong naturally. From the same article: "I think you can take off a solid 15lb off the genetic muscle potential chart above for your height, and you will still have a great physique when lean. I also believe building too much muscle can be taxing for your entire body, including your organs, but I guess that’s a conversation for another time." From the comments: "Being 190lb and ripped when you are 5’10” is nearly impossible unless you are blessed with 1 in a 1000 genetics. I want to encourage guys to work hard, focus on strength, while losing fat without losing muscle. I’ve seen guys at 160lb, 6 feet tall, who are extremely strong with physiques that any guy would kill for. (huh might aswell skip the gym)" Ignore the author at all cost  | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On December 07 2016 02:07 FFGenerations wrote: the antiinflamitaries/fish oil in fish is suuuuuuuuuuper good for you apparently. i mean, that's the main reason everyone eats it. for recipe you can have tuna + microwaved potatoes + butter (or small bit of mayo). tuna pasta bake (this is fucking amazing) but most importantly u want oily fish which tuna is not, so for salmon i have salmon on toast (heat it in microwave for 2 mins after so the salmon is warm/hot) here is a photograph of it + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WVGnbqp.jpg) This reminded me, do we have a food thread? Like where people could just casually post what they had for dinner, maybe with photo, maybe with recipe. I think that would be interesting. | ||
Jer99
Canada8158 Posts
| ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
Jer99
Canada8158 Posts
| ||
|
decafchicken
United States20060 Posts
On December 07 2016 21:16 GoTuNk! wrote: "Being 190lb and ripped when you are 5’10” is nearly impossible unless you are blessed with 1 in a 1000 genetics. I want to encourage guys to work hard, focus on strength, while losing fat without losing muscle. I’ve seen guys at 160lb, 6 feet tall, who are extremely strong with physiques that any guy would kill for. (huh might aswell skip the gym)" Ignore the author at all cost Having been 6' and 160 lb, I looked like a fucking stick figure that desperately needed a cheeseburger and directions to the nearest squat rack. | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
On December 08 2016 01:02 Jer99 wrote: What's your guys' opinion on a deload week? it's all about recovery isn't it, you need to make sure you're recovering adequately | ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
On December 08 2016 01:03 decafchicken wrote: Having been 6' and 160 lb, I looked like a fucking stick figure that desperately needed a cheeseburger and directions to the nearest squat rack. They might be strong tho but i doubt they will look impressive | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16859 Posts
On December 08 2016 01:03 decafchicken wrote: Having been 6' and 160 lb, I looked like a fucking stick figure that desperately needed a cheeseburger and directions to the nearest squat rack. its pretty much a case by case basis. you can't generalize especially without a thorough physical examination and extensive testing. the "eye test" provides a very small amount of information. allen iverson and wayne gretzky did just fine weighing under 160 lbs and appearing to be "skinny as hell" next to competitors who outweighed them and out-sized them. Could guys like Conor Mcgregor, Wayne Gretzky, etc find a way to get themselves up to 185 lbs? sure. are they performing at their peak at 185 lbs? not at all. some layperson might say "wow man u r huge ... u r amazing".. they would just be appealing to some uneducated ill-informed archie bunker layperson opinion. for some people 6 feet tall and less than 160 lbs is perfect. if Brock Lesnar weighed what Steph Curry weighed he'd probably be near death. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16859 Posts
On December 08 2016 02:54 IgnE wrote: You are conflating sport specific performance with some kind of pseudo-calvinist platonic ideal, jimmyj. Your commentary is almost completely irrelevant for most people who ask "what are the natural limits for putting on size and strength?" the natural limits for Steph Curry, Allen Iverson, Wayne Gretzky and Brock Lesnar are all different. its a case by case basis that requires extensive testing not some chart and a 1-line answer on here. and if continuing to add "size and strength" causes a marked decrease in athletic performance in sports like basketball, baseball and hockey you're headed for trouble in terms of your long term health. so this is why monitoring your sports performance as you gain muscle is important. and that is why i'm not "conflating". powerlifters are really big and strong. yes they pack on a lot of size and strength... they also die young. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On December 08 2016 02:54 IgnE wrote: You are conflating sport specific performance with some kind of pseudo-calvinist platonic ideal, jimmyj. Your commentary is almost completely irrelevant for most people who ask "what are the natural limits for putting on size and strength?" I think one place that the table doesn't consider well at all is that LBM is going to depend on your BF%. Like at 6%, it's just not possible to have the muscle mass you'd have at 15%, because the body is always trying to catabolize itself for energy. So I'm sure of most of you were to try and get really ripped, you'd be losing a hefty amount of muscle mass too. Also, I would think that many of you are at or very close to your natural limit. Like Gotunk, you said yourself, it's become too draining to train for a whole year to increase the weight lifted by 10lbs on an exercise, and Decaf, you've seemed to be at a roughly similar point for quite some time, it's fighting for that slight PR here and there, but it seems to me like that's 95% way there. Sure, you might get better at some other exercise, but then you neglect a different one, and then you come back to say you have a shitty bench, you know? I don't mean any of this in an offense way, but none of you guys are like, this is pretty much as far as I will be able to go? | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
That said, from what I recall when seeing progress pictures months back, I feel like some of you are underestimating your BF% S: On December 08 2016 02:59 mordek wrote: Did anyone see my progress pics? I put on 40lb in between those two pictures. I'm not planning on getting any bigger but I'm still small lol. (at 6ft and change) I have not. | ||
| ||
