Problem with muscle definition

[Flame]

Lately I have noticed a lack of definition in my body, for lack of a better word. Just under 6 feet, 165 lbs and I'm pretty strong and fit.

However, my chest, thighs and shoulders are a nice size and I can lift a good load, but they seem to lack definition, and they look toned only after a good workout.

Do I have to drop some weight to acheive the "defined" look ?

[mbc]

How toned you are is more or less inversely proportional to how much body fat you have. So, in short, lose fat.

[ibleedwhite]

yeah first check your body fat %, and then drop some.
important to remember that your genes come into effect as well.

[ken]

My guess is that there's very little fat on your shoulders (who's got fat shoulders at 6' 165lbs.?). Are you on a creatine supplement? If not, start. Along with increasing performance in the gym, it'll keep you "pumped" for longer afterwards, sometimes even carrying into the next day. Also, fix any problems with your post-workout meal.

[gvibes]

Either you need to add more muscle mass, or lose more fat. It's not rocket surgery.

[Willsw]

Synthol.

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by Flame

Lately I have noticed a lack of definition in my body, for lack of a better word. Just under 6 feet, 165 lbs and I'm pretty strong and fit.

However, my chest, thighs and shoulders are a nice size and I can lift a good load, but they seem to lack definition, and they look toned only after a good workout.

Do I have to drop some weight to acheive the "defined" look ?

At six feet and 165 pounds, I can't imagine you need to drop weight. More likely you need to increase muscle mass at the expense of fat, which on the margin will meaning gaining weight (muscle weighing more than fat).

[Jared]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

At six feet and 165 pounds, I can't imagine you need to drop weight. More likely you need to increase muscle mass at the expense of fat, which on the margin will meaning gaining weight (muscle weighing more than fat).

+1 You can't be that strong at 165 lbs.

[mensimageconsultant]

Muscle mass is not a particularly reliable indicator of strength.

Maybe a diet with less sodium would produce more muscle definition, by reducing water weight.

[lifersfc]

You probably don't have enough muscle mass to show much definition. I remember when I was 165 lbs. I could seem my see my abs, but my arms and chest didn't show much muscle. You will probably have to get really, really lean (like 6-8% bodyfat) to start to look defined at your weight.

Strength and muscle mass are correlated, but not directly related. I put many 225 pounders to shame as far as strength, but they obviously have much bigger muscles.

[Connemara]

I have no muscle.

[greg_atlanta]

Don't fight a losing battle. Sounds like you're naturally skinny. You'd have to work A LOT harder to gain definition than other guys with a different body type.

[drainpipe]

If you haven't lifted much, start with a simple program like Bill Starr's Linear 5x5 and do some running. I'm skinny as all fuck at 5'10" 130lbs, but I found that doing large lifts like squats and deadlifts along with shedding body fat with running and a sensible diet drastically improved my definition.

edit: eat more protein, too

[bBoy JEe]

I believe the answer is anabolic steroids... and a lot of them. Every serious bodybuilder I know uses them.

[ibleedwhite]

Originally Posted by Jared

+1 You can't be that strong at 165 lbs.

don't judge a cover by its book.