Abs, Chest, and Arms

[Philosoph]

Originally Posted by beasty

The truth is times moved on and standards moved on.

You always see people in the gym scoffing at others for working hard and at the saying how they dont want to look like a musclehead. The truth is these people want to look like that but are too lazy to sacrifice to look like that.

Standards do not always change for the better. Change is not always positive.

I've yet to see anyone scoff at a hard-working person in the gym. Those who do not work hard annoy the heck out of me most of the time. But there are also people who work as hard as they can...and yet... don't want to look like Mr. Olympia. Packing on the most size that is humanly possible is not the only possible goal. Yes, it takes a heck of a lot of hard work and dedication to get to the current Olympia level. The question is: should that be the goal? Answering for myself, and I believe, most well-adjusted people, the answer is no.

 

[Brian278]

It seems like you folks are getting awfully worked up over a slightly above average second-year QB.

 

[whacked]

Originally Posted by Brian278

It seems like you folks are getting awfully worked up over a slightly above average second-year QB.

How random. Good timing too, I almost fell asleep reading about beasty's inane "manhood" ideals.

 

[Saucemaster]

Originally Posted by Brian278

It seems like you folks are getting awfully worked up over a slightly above average second-year QB.

Actually, that was my initial reaction, before I remembered there was another Jay Cutler.

For that matter, the Broncos QB is definitely closer to what I'd consider an "ideal physique" than the bodybuilder, but to each his own.

 

[beasty]

Originally Posted by Saucemaster

You've got some serious projection going on there.

I can honestly say, with as close to 100% certainty that I am being fully transparent to myself as is humanly possible, that I would never, ever want to look like a bodybuilder. Even a "normal" bodybuilder, much less the crazy extremes of someone like Ronnie Coleman. I can respect how hard it is to develop that kind of body, but seriously, it's grotesque.

I do not, however, scoff at people who manage to build these (admittedly grotesque) bodies. It takes all sorts of hard work and willpower.

Grotesque? Grotesque?
You are barking so far up the wrong tree, you are barking at a flagpole.

Grotesque would be women who have excessive breast implants or facelifts. Grotesque would be clowns who perform surgery themselves.

What Ronnie and all are doing is pushing their body to the limits.

Instead of settling at 100 kg bench at 6 reps, they as imagine-nauts asked themselves can they do 110 kg, 120 kg and so on.

Instead of 21 inch arms, they asked, can they go 23 inch or 24 inch and so on.

Therefore what you have is a natural and logical consequence.
Not unlike a man who scale one peak and ask can he scale all peaks in America and the world.

If you are not in the gym, training to be a better golfer, swimmer etc, then your ideal should be what a bodybuilder looks like, V shape lats, X shape body, proportionate bodyparts.

Surely your ideal is not large upper body and no legs? Or large quads and no calves or large lats and no chest?

 

[Brian278]

Originally Posted by beasty

If you are not in the gym, training to be a better golfer, swimmer etc, then your ideal should be what a bodybuilder looks like, V shape lats, X shape body, proportionate bodyparts.

No. Please try that one again.

 

[Fat-Elvis]

Beasty's dream body:

 

[beasty]

Originally Posted by Fat-Elvis

Beasty's dream body:

Now thats grotesquely hilarious.

 

[smw356]

Originally Posted by beasty

FYI I am not turned on by women...

Sums it all up.

 

[Saucemaster]

Originally Posted by beasty

Grotesque? Grotesque?
You are barking so far up the wrong tree, you are barking at a flagpole.

Grotesque would be women who have excessive breast implants or facelifts. Grotesque would be clowns who perform surgery themselves.

What Ronnie and all are doing is pushing their body to the limits.

Instead of settling at 100 kg bench at 6 reps, they as imagine-nauts asked themselves can they do 110 kg, 120 kg and so on.

Instead of 21 inch arms, they asked, can they go 23 inch or 24 inch and so on.

Therefore what you have is a natural and logical consequence.
Not unlike a man who scale one peak and ask can he scale all peaks in America and the world.

If you are not in the gym, training to be a better golfer, swimmer etc, then your ideal should be what a bodybuilder looks like, V shape lats, X shape body, proportionate bodyparts.

Surely your ideal is not large upper body and no legs? Or large quads and no calves or large lats and no chest?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if you actually want to maintain proportion, you're going to have to realize that bigger is not always better. There comes a point where someone is simply too big, both from an aesthetic and a functional standpoint. It's amusing that you brought up breast implants and surgery, because I see it as almost exactly analogous aesthetically, though the means are different. C-cups are nice, so why not D-cups? But then, why not DD-cups? Hell, why not screw two hot air balloons to her chest! We'll just give her wider hips to stay in proportion. Nevermind that she's not getting any taller, and that in itself is throwing everything completely out of proportion.

My formulation is:

Appreciation star : female form :: bodybuilder : male form. Both are essentially (unintentional) self-parody.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by beasty

That is untrue.

If it is, any numbnuts who lift weights and according to rumours, roid up will be a contender for Mr Olympia. But no, you always see the same faces in Olympia and the fact is its hard to get your IFBB pro card. Just look at the difference between those who have the card and the also rans.

That's like saying 'anybody who works will not get to be CEO of a major corporation, therefore it's genetics that determines who gets to be a CEO.' It's a dumb argument because it completely leaves out many factors.

Also, you would notice that many Olympia contestants are of Negroid origin or have Germanic/Austrian blood. Given Olympia is in USA and many of the Pro cards are from there, there should be more caucasian males qualifying since that is the majority of US population.

Yes, and we should also see more blacks in politics. Percentages in a given industry are not dependent upon a genetic factor and there's many other factors (financial, social, etc.) to consider.

If its attachment, those are temporary like pecs implant. If its calves attachment, it looks like a balloon and wont change even when you flex.

Ummm....what? That didn't even make sense.

Just ask any bodybuilder how hard it is to get to Ronnie's level.

Great argument. How about I ask ten bodybuilders and list all the different responses?

 

[Philosoph]

Originally Posted by beasty

Therefore what you have is a natural and logical consequence.
Not unlike a man who scale one peak and ask can he scale all peaks in America and the world.

That consequence is neither natural nor logical. I've scaled a peak, and I didn't feel a sudden desire to climb every mountain in America. Not all peaks are worth scaling.

 

[Saucemaster]

Originally Posted by Philosoph

That consequence is neither natural nor logical. I've scaled a peak, and I didn't feel a sudden desire to climb every mountain in America. Not all peaks are worth scaling.

You're just jealous because you wish your logic was that unassailable. It's like drinking. At a BAC of .04%, I am happy. At a BAC of .08%, I am happier. Therefore, as BAC approaches 100%, I must approach ultimate happiness.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Saucemaster

You're just jealous because you wish your logic was that unassailable. It's like drinking. At a BAC of .04%, I am happy. At a BAC of .08%, I am happier. Therefore, as BAC approaches 100%, I must approach ultimate happiness.

There are limits to a function, even as X (BAC in this case) approaches infinity.

Jon.

 

[Saucemaster]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

There are limits to a function, even as X (BAC in this case) approaches infinity.

Jon.

What are you, a nihilist? There is no limit to happiness.