Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Brands geared towards averagely big guys?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Brands geared towards averagely big guys? - Page 7

post #91 of 103
4/2/11 at 7:21pm
Couldn't resist
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.       I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 103
4/2/11 at 7:26pm
If you go to a nicer store, like Ralph Lauren or some place with lots of staff they'll have good recommendations for you. Neiman Marcus and Barney's might give you some help as well. They wanna sell you stuff so they definitely want to find out what you'd fit in.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 103
4/2/11 at 7:33pm
I love those discussion about what being a "real man" is and why all people w. 28-30 waists are girly losers or those at 34-36 are lard asses. It becomes waaayyy more surreal when some super cut gym rat is posted and even the gym rats are like "nah, guy isn't muscular, look at those thighs" Way to go styleforum!
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 103
4/2/11 at 7:38pm
But he only has veins in his arms? He's clearly obese, everyone on style forum is 5% body fat and has visible capillaries on their abs.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 103
4/2/11 at 7:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuji View Post
But he only has veins in his arms? He's clearly obese, everyone on style forum is 5% body fat and has visible capillaries on their abs.

I have visible hair on my abs, does this count as being super cut?
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 103
4/2/11 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coco2010 View Post
u can achieve that look naturally. it just takes time and dedication.

Not really. Time and dedication mean nothing when your beset by injuries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coco2010
there natural bodybuilders today who look bigger than him without any sort of gear.

Yeah, there are some, but there are far more natural bodybuilders working out for 10+ years who don't. And comparing a natural bodybuilder in the 50s to one now raises all the problems mentioned in the MMA thread about comparing someone in today's UFC to back in the day when it just started.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola View Post
What size?

That size. It's right there in plain view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola
Only veins showing are on his arms. No veins elsewhere. Not even his neck or forehead.

You forgot the veins on his calves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stylin-1 View Post
Yeah well, this is how bodybuilders looked before drugs were available.

I don't know if Reeves was on drugs, but just from a historical point of view, he could have been. I mean anabolics were being tested with in the 30s, Reeves was at his peak in the late 50s/early 60s I believe, and it wasn't that long after that a teenage Arnold was pretty huge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
Honestly, not impressed unless he can actually do athletic activities. I'm guessing not, but I'm prepared to be surprised.

He probably did some running and ducking in World War 2 if that counts.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 103
4/2/11 at 7:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
I love those discussion about what being a "real man" is and why all people w. 28-30 waists are girly losers or those at 34-36 are lard asses. It becomes waaayyy more surreal when some super cut gym rat is posted and even the gym rats are like "nah, guy isn't muscular, look at those thighs" Way to go styleforum!
One needs to have exactly a 32" waist in order to avoid being criticized by the forum. Most people can never live up to the ideals espoused here. I'd actually be embarrassed to recommend this forum to anyone I know. Which begs the question why I am even here reading this inane thread? Frequently this place feels like a guilty pleasure, similar to watching an awful TV show or movie.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 103
4/2/11 at 8:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
Honestly, not impressed unless he can actually do athletic activities. I'm guessing not, but I'm prepared to be surprised.

Actually bodybuilding back in the day was a far cry from what it is now. Back then the guys placed great emphasis on athletic ability. Lots of them had a signiture trick or stunt like doing a standing backflip while holding dumbbells. Can't remember off the top of my head who that was.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 103
4/2/11 at 8:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosenberg View Post
Actually bodybuilding back in the day was a far cry from what it is now. Back then the guys placed great emphasis on athletic ability. Lots of them had a signiture trick or stunt like doing a standing backflip while holding dumbbells. Can't remember off the top of my head who that was.

I remember Arnold had pictures of him running through mountainous (sp?) terrain as his cardio sometimes. Like some super legit trails, with steep inclines. I'd like to see Ronnie Coleman do that.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 103
4/2/11 at 11:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by somatoform View Post
Not really. Time and dedication mean nothing when your beset by injuries.



Yeah, there are some, but there are far more natural bodybuilders working out for 10+ years who don't. And comparing a natural bodybuilder in the 50s to one now raises all the problems mentioned in the MMA thread about comparing someone in today's UFC to back in the day when it just started.



That size. It's right there in plain view.



You forgot the veins on his calves.



I don't know if Reeves was on drugs, but just from a historical point of view, he could have been. I mean anabolics were being tested with in the 30s, Reeves was at his peak in the late 50s/early 60s I believe, and it wasn't that long after that a teenage Arnold was pretty huge.



He probably did some running and ducking in World War 2 if that counts.

He was born in 1926 and was well on his way to genetic perfection by age 17-18, so I'm guessing he wasn't. The picture I posted was right around his mid 20's which would put the date ~1950. True anabolics weren't available in this country until the late '50's, and if you look at him in Hercules from '57, he's slightly past his peak and looking a little softer. I suppose he still could've dabbled in basic testosterone in the '40's, which was obscure. He always maintained that he didn't.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 103
4/3/11 at 12:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuji View Post
This thread is amazing, have someone saying a guy who deadlifts 500lbs has a week lower body and someone saying a guy who is like 10% body fat isn't lean. All you guys complaining j crew small isn't small enough must be fucking stacked.
Seriously. If you are around 10-15% body fat, you're in decent shape. You gotta be extremely dedicated or just have good genes to be in the single digit range.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 103
4/3/11 at 12:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wj4 View Post
Seriously. If you are around 10-15% body fat, you're in decent shape. You gotta be extremely dedicated or just have good genes to be in the single digit range.

or be an ectomorph/not eat a lot/have a coke addiction.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 103
4/3/11 at 5:10pm
http://www.costellotagliapietra.com/ they seem to be women's designers though.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Brands geared towards averagely big guys?