Abs, Chest, and Arms

why · Feb 17, 2008

Originally Posted by beasty

The fact is even if you take all the drugs he has allegedly taken and do the exact same workout down to the rest period and weight and reps and eat the same food, you still cant have the body close to him.

Yep, you need to find his source of magical pixie dust.

Philosoph · Feb 17, 2008

Originally Posted by beasty

The fact is even if you take all the drugs he has allegedly taken and do the exact same workout down to the rest period and weight and reps and eat the same food, you still cant have the body close to him.

Hence to achieve that sort of body is something to be respected and in awe of and therefore I classify him as having the sort of body all gym rats aspire to.

Perhaps you're right. But then I don't WANT to look like him. I think he looks like a full-body cancerous lesion who would have a heart attack if he tried to run a 200-yard sprint. I don't think that abusing your body morphology is something to be respected. My respect goes to athletes. This idea that more size = better and that you should inflate yourself to oblivion is idiotic.

smw356 · Feb 17, 2008

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Perhaps you're right. But then I don't WANT to look like him. I think he looks like a full-body cancerous lesion who would have a heart attack if he tried to run a 200-yard sprint. I don't think that abusing your body morphology is something to be respected. My respect goes to athletes. This idea that more size = better and that you should inflate yourself to oblivion is idiotic.

+1, bodybuilding is a ******* freakshow now.

Viktri · Feb 17, 2008

Originally Posted by why

Yep, you need to find his source of magical pixie dust.

I can't believe I'm defending him, but beasty is right; genetics is the difference (how the body responds to weights/shape).

Obviously we all need to come up with our own plans that accommodate our bodies.

No one (that I know) wants to look like Jay or Ronnie but if you lift like they you will look the way you want.

why · Feb 17, 2008

Originally Posted by Viktri

I can't believe I'm defending him, but beasty is right; genetics is the difference (how the body responds to weights/shape).

Ah yes, God created Ronnie Coleman as part of a limited-edition run of humanity.

Philosoph · Feb 17, 2008

It's true that if two people eat the same and lift the same they will end up looking different due to the slight differences in their genetics. So if I could deadlift as much as Jay or Ronnie, I wouldn't look like them. I would be the size and shape that my body needs to be to lift that weight.

So yes, you can say that they look the way they do because of genetics, but that doesn't change the fact that they've done more drugs than Keith Richards.

beasty · Feb 17, 2008

Originally Posted by Philosoph

Perhaps you're right. But then I don't WANT to look like him. I think he looks like a full-body cancerous lesion who would have a heart attack if he tried to run a 200-yard sprint. I don't think that abusing your body morphology is something to be respected. My respect goes to athletes. This idea that more size = better and that you should inflate yourself to oblivion is idiotic.

Dude if you lift long and serious enough, you would respect all these athletes. Make no mistake about it: Jay IS an athlete and top notch athlete at that. And if you are a big enough gym rat, you would want at least a bodypart to match Jay's.

smw356 · Feb 17, 2008

Originally Posted by beasty

Dude if you lift long and serious enough, you would respect all these athletes. Make no mistake about it: Jay IS an athlete and top notch athlete at that. And if you are a big enough gym rat, you would want at least a bodypart to match Jay's.

This arguement might have stood in the past, when bodybuilders weren't taking so many drugs they ended up looking like mutants. I remember seeing a video a while back of some bb'er in contest shape (so he was at probably the lightest weight he normally is at) absolutely struggling to do a single pull up. There is nothing athletic about that at all.

beasty · Feb 17, 2008

Originally Posted by smw356

This arguement might have stood in the past, when bodybuilders weren't taking so many drugs they ended up looking like mutants. I remember seeing a video a while back of some bb'er in contest shape (so he was at probably the lightest weight he normally is at) absolutely struggling to do a single pull up. There is nothing athletic about that at all.

Dude, all athletes are good in their areas. I bet Ronaldinho in his prime cant do a pullup too but he can last 90 min with a ball on the pitch and he would still be an athlete.

smw356 · Feb 17, 2008

Originally Posted by beasty

Dude, all athletes are good in their areas. I bet Ronaldinho in his prime cant do a pullup too but he can last 90 min with a ball on the pitch and he would still be an athlete.
Right but a athlete is performing. There's nothing athletic about putting on man-thong and strutting around a stage. When the muscle ceases to be functional as well as aesthetic (not that I'm saying modern bb'ers have any aesthetic whatsoever), there ceases to be anything athletic about it. and I'm willing to be most world cup level soccer players can do pullups just fine.

beasty · Feb 17, 2008

Originally Posted by smw356

Right but a athlete is performing. There's nothing athletic about putting on man-thong and strutting around a stage. When the muscle ceases to be functional as well as aesthetic (not that I'm saying modern bb'ers have any aesthetic whatsoever), there ceases to be anything athletic about it.

and I'm willing to be most world cup level soccer players can do pullups just fine.

I disagree. The bodybuilder's muscle is functional and aesthetic.

Functional: The purpose of the muscle is to move the body part ie. the arm. Not only can Jay lift his arm, he can do it with a truck load of weight on it.

Aesthetic: All pro bodybuilders are judged on the aesthetic nature of their body. You dont have asymmetrical body or chopstick legs.

Plus you can see the striations on the muscle. Who knew muscles can be shredded like that. Before the advent of modern bodybuiling, we only have one use for the phrase 'christmas tree'.

beasty · Feb 18, 2008

Originally Posted by why

Ah yes, God created Ronnie Coleman as part of a limited-edition run of humanity.

I agree.

Limited edition run of a kick ass, big, bad, bad to the bone big mutha.

And to debunk the myth of bodybuilders being sterile, Ronnie has 2 teenage daughters and Dorian has 1 son. No doubt with their superior muscle generating genes in them, they would be or produce the next generation of Jays.

Gym rats beware!

Philosoph · Feb 18, 2008

If you are not kidding, then I'd suggest that maybe you should start looking at naked women instead of bodybuilders.

Pro bodybuilders are not judged on aesthetics. If they were, most of the juicers would be disqualified. They're judged on their ability to pack on muscle. Symmetry and size do not an aesthetic body make. And nobody said they were sterile. Just ugly.

Plenty of people had striations before Jay or Ronnie showed up. Look up Eugene Sandow. And have you ever watched the Olympics?

beasty · Feb 18, 2008

Originally Posted by Philosoph

If you are not kidding, then I'd suggest that maybe you should start looking at naked women instead of bodybuilders.

Pro bodybuilders are not judged on aesthetics. If they were, most of the juicers would be disqualified. They're judged on their ability to pack on muscle. Symmetry and size do not an aesthetic body make. And nobody said they were sterile. Just ugly.

Plenty of people had striations before Jay or Ronnie showed up. Look up Eugene Sandow. And have you ever watched the Olympics?

1. You referring to Mr Olympia not olympics? Since when is bodybuilding an olympic sport.

2. Of course striations are around since the start of time. But the present bodybuilders make it look so super freaky now.

3. Of course symmetry and aesthetics are a factor. Shawn Ray and Flex Wheeler did well against the size freaks in their day. I believe IFBB rules did state that these are factors to be considered in judging. Packing muscles is one of them. It just so happens the champions from Dorian to Ronnie to Jay not only have symmetry and aesthetic look, they pack mass so well.

why · Feb 18, 2008

Originally Posted by beasty

I agree. Limited edition run of a kick ass, big, bad, bad to the bone big mutha. And to debunk the myth of bodybuilders being sterile, Ronnie has 2 teenage daughters and Dorian has 1 son. No doubt with their superior muscle generating genes in them, they would be or produce the next generation of Jays. Gym rats beware!
Shut the hell up about genetics. Most of the argument surrounding genetics have to do with anthropometry with Olympic weightlifting. 'Muscle-building' genetics is mostly bullshit -- most people have very similar abilities when it comes to putting on muscle (and drugs even the playing field a lot). Most of the aesthetic differences are anthropometric and deal with attachment points of muscles for peaked biceps and large calves. Genetics is not as important as a factor as you make it out to be and you sound downright stupid for even insinuating that Ronnie is some supreme human being when it comes to building muscle. Get your head of of Flex magazine.

Abs, Chest, and Arms

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: