Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FatForward

The 200Lbs Rule

Recommended Posts

I'm saying how he looks is based on his body and build and then training. Big ass ripped rugby players would still be big if they sat on the couch.

EDIT: Besides according to People magazine, Bale is normally 185 and got fat at 228 for American Hustle.

More personal examples:
brother one: 6'3" 180; brother two: 6'1" 210. No amount of training (steroids or not) will ever make them look the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt your lean mass is so high that you would be under 3% bodyfat @ 200lbs.

 

You might very well be right, but I guess we'll never find out. I have no desire to get that low in bodyweight or BF%. 

 

 

I could be, if that's your wish...

 

Dafuq have I ever done to you, man? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're basically saying this is impossible (at least without steroids)? 

 

christian-bale-batman.jpg

 

What makes you think steroids weren't involved? I would hazard to guess that neither of these bodies are ones that come naturally to him.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might very well be right, but I guess we'll never find out. I have no desire to get that low in bodyweight or BF%.    Dafuq have I ever done to you, man?

Nothing mate, im jesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@FF, bear in mind that as you lose weight, you will invariably lose lean mass.  In most cases it amounts to water weight and other non-muscle related weight.  Also, the closer to 10% and below you go the less lean mass your body can support while losing weight.

 

When, like me, you have several tens of pounds of body weight to lose, you'll keep something like 90% of your lean mass as you lose weight.  Translation: 10 lbs total mass down, 1 lb lean mass down.  As you get more and more lean, that slowly changes to something like 75%.  Translation: 4 lbs total mass down, 1 lb lean mass down.  (source, Dr. Casey Butt).

 

As to Simon's response, well he's basically given up trying to convince you of some of the logical fallacies of the 70s big article.  NOTE: 95% of all fitness related articles are rife with logical fallacies, made up statistics (like the one in this sentence), etc.  Please take them with a grain of salt.  Considering your stated goals (FatForward->FitForward), taking the 70s big article at face value can do you more harm than good.  Granted, it wasn't stated as diplomatically as all this either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point that Simon et al are trying to make is that not everyone can look/get "70's big*" because they don't have the frame for it.

 

*"70's big" being thick all over with a reasonable amount of body fat, achieved without the use of steroids.  If you factor in steroids, you've got a whole different ball game.

 

You might be interested in this website.  It's not 100% accurate, of course, but it gives you a good idea of how frame size (and body fat percentage) plays into the amount of muscle mass you can naturally handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then shouldn't it follow that aiming to lift specific weights is also utterly senseless if you don't compete in powerlifting? 

Some people need or at least benefit from these kinds of goals. 

 

Nothing wrong with goals. But it's not an achievement to have a certain weight. Loosing a certain amount of fat or gaining a certain amount of muscle, on the other hand, is in fact an achievement. So is lifting something than you previously weren't able to lift.

 

I'm a bit puzzled about the turn this thread took. I'm sure nobody means ill, and I can't possibly imagine that weighing over or under 200 lbs is such a big deal to any of us, and yet there's much bickering about this completely arbitrary number.

 

WU1yiWw.png

 

Let's face it: No matter how big you are, there might always be a smaller dude who's stronger. No matter how lean you are, there might be a dude less lean who's more agile. And somewhere in the world there might just be a 14 year old girl who's using your deadlift max for bench warm ups. Does it matter? I think not. What matters is that you realize where you want to go and figure out a way how to get there. That has nothing to do with equally arbitrary and hence meaningless numbers like 200 lbs or 100 kg or 20 stone.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what (70s) big men look like in my opinion. 

No pic of me in that list?! I thought we were buddies?! ;)

 

Luna has it right!

 

Honestly, though...it doesn´t matter. Personally, going below 200lbs isn´t really an option in the next years. But I agree with Simon in so far as that way too many people just fatfucked themselves with the whole Rippetoe/70sBig/whatever thing and lost any sort of real appreciation for their physique/lift ratio. I´ve been there. If we´re honest, squatting 180kg isn´t that big of an achievement (unless you´re like 1,6m or smth) for a man, so for a 1,8m guy to balloon up to 120kg to achieve it is ridiculous. As is not wanting to eat more than two leafs of salad because you are scared to lose your "sixpack".

 

What I am trying to say: everyone should find THEIR weight at which they have the best compromise of physique, performance and wellbeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@FF, bear in mind that as you lose weight, you will invariably lose lean mass.  In most cases it amounts to water weight and other non-muscle related weight.  Also, the closer to 10% and below you go the less lean mass your body can support while losing weight.

 

When, like me, you have several tens of pounds of body weight to lose, you'll keep something like 90% of your lean mass as you lose weight.  Translation: 10 lbs total mass down, 1 lb lean mass down.  As you get more and more lean, that slowly changes to something like 75%.  Translation: 4 lbs total mass down, 1 lb lean mass down.  (source, Dr. Casey Butt).

 

As to Simon's response, well he's basically given up trying to convince you of some of the logical fallacies of the 70s big article.  NOTE: 95% of all fitness related articles are rife with logical fallacies, made up statistics (like the one in this sentence), etc.  Please take them with a grain of salt.  Considering your stated goals (FatForward->FitForward), taking the 70s big article at face value can do you more harm than good.  Granted, it wasn't stated as diplomatically as all this either.

 

Dr. Butt...hehehehe.

 

 

I think the point that Simon et al are trying to make is that not everyone can look/get "70's big*" because they don't have the frame for it.

 

*"70's big" being thick all over with a reasonable amount of body fat, achieved without the use of steroids.  If you factor in steroids, you've got a whole different ball game.

 

You might be interested in this website.  It's not 100% accurate, of course, but it gives you a good idea of how frame size (and body fat percentage) plays into the amount of muscle mass you can naturally handle.

 

That website is obviously not meant for women....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That website is obviously not meant for women....

 

Oh, totally.  But since there's, oh, three of us here, I figured the majority of the forum might find it interesting, at least. :P

 

(I'd be cool with having 150 lbs of muscle, though.  Maybe my lifts would suck less.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love this calculator, brick shithouse build ftw!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. Not much to add other than there are some real odd ideas out there on the net regarding weight.

 

I recently saw a thread on SS where Rip or maybe the programming guy recommended a 5'5" guy needs to be 195. No justification for that number. Just gospel.

 

Found it:

 

http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showthread.php?t=49178

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point that Simon et al are trying to make is that not everyone can look/get "70's big*" because they don't have the frame for it.

 

*"70's big" being thick all over with a reasonable amount of body fat, achieved without the use of steroids.  If you factor in steroids, you've got a whole different ball game.

 

You might be interested in this website.  It's not 100% accurate, of course, but it gives you a good idea of how frame size (and body fat percentage) plays into the amount of muscle mass you can naturally handle.

Thanks, Frota...I had forgotten about that site. Using his formula, if I was as ripped as a pre-steroids, champion! bodybuilder, I could justify 200 lbs at 12% bodyfat.

I'll just keep on with my plan for a 500 deadlift and see where a 33" abdomen puts me then (I'm fully expecting less than 180lbs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to figure out exactly how much milk, steroids, and Mac Donald's I'd have to go through to get to 200 lbs. at 5'7. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out how to maintain 165 lbs. without force feeding.

 

We all have numbers that we all are looking at or looking forward to hitting, whether it's bw, bf%, sprint/agility drill times, or lifting numbers, and where everybody goes wrong is getting married to numbers and forgetting about individual variation and individual goals. Not everybody wants to weigh 200 lbs. and not everybody wants to be 3% bf. When you assert that anybody or everybody has to fit into a certain box, and that if they don't they're not good enough, that's wrong. If you can be healthy in any particular shell then that's perfectly acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think steroids weren't involved? I would hazard to guess that neither of these bodies are ones that come naturally to him.

 

Seeing how quickly Bale accomplished this, I suspect there were some roids involved, because muscle memory can only take you so far. However, dedicate 5 years to it, and I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for the "naturally skinny". 

 

 

@FF, bear in mind that as you lose weight, you will invariably lose lean mass.  In most cases it amounts to water weight and other non-muscle related weight.  Also, the closer to 10% and below you go the less lean mass your body can support while losing weight.

 

When, like me, you have several tens of pounds of body weight to lose, you'll keep something like 90% of your lean mass as you lose weight.  Translation: 10 lbs total mass down, 1 lb lean mass down.  As you get more and more lean, that slowly changes to something like 75%.  Translation: 4 lbs total mass down, 1 lb lean mass down.  (source, Dr. Casey Butt).

 

As to Simon's response, well he's basically given up trying to convince you of some of the logical fallacies of the 70s big article.  NOTE: 95% of all fitness related articles are rife with logical fallacies, made up statistics (like the one in this sentence), etc.  Please take them with a grain of salt.  Considering your stated goals (FatForward->FitForward), taking the 70s big article at face value can do you more harm than good.  Granted, it wasn't stated as diplomatically as all this either.

 

I'm sure losing lean mass is involved when losing weight, but that doesn't mean being 200lbs is suddenly an unholy lot of weight on an average male frame. Especially when one wants to call himself 70s big....  

Also, my goal is not to be 70s big at all, and although I like 70s big and the way they approach fitness, I'm not going to take everything they say at face value. I realize you and I are coming from the other side; but that doesn't mean their benchmark for being big suddenly becomes meaningless. I know lots of guys at the gym who would benefit from being less scared to put on some weight. Not that they necessarily need to achieve that 200lbs in one or two months, but gaining, say 2lbs a month would do most of them a lot of good, as it has my workout buddy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. Not much to add other than there are some real odd ideas out there on the net regarding weight.

 

I recently saw a thread on SS where Rip or maybe the programming guy recommended a 5'5" guy needs to be 195. No justification for that number. Just gospel.

 

Found it:

 

http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showthread.php?t=49178

I think Rip himself is actually a little more nuanced than this.  When I took the SS seminar in 2011, I weighed about 130 lbs.  I asked Rip how much he thought I should "ideally" weigh in order to get "strong" (yes, very vague and therefore practically useless terms, I realize).  I fully expected him to say something like "180 lbs.," given that I'm 5' 9" tall.  Much to my surprise, he looked me up and down and said, "You want to shoot for 150.  You have a small frame, and you probably won't like how you look if you get much above that."  (As it happens, I'm still about 11 lbs. away from 150, and not sure whether I ever will -- or want to -- get there.)

 

Again, 200 lbs. is an arbitrary number.  Although Justin states a general rule that any guy under 200 lbs. should become a "professional eater," I think he was really talking to the hard gainers who have trouble putting on weight, or the hipster wannabes who are afraid they won't fit into their skinny jeans if they have fries with that shake . . . or maybe any guy whose desire to add 100 lbs. to his squat outweighs (pun intended) his desire for a six-pack.  

 

Personally, I like the "70s big" look.  Which is why I cringe when my 6' 2", naturally muscular (lucky bastard) husband comes home from his annual physical and tells me that his doctor wants him to get down to 185 so that his BMI can be more favorable.  I immediately run to the grocery store and stock up on Ben & Jerry's, which he cannot resist. :ph34r:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Frotabaga: interesting. I will check it out when I'm near a measuring tape again.

@Chris: I harbor no hard feelings against anyone here. However, if I found out there was a 14yo girl somewhere, who warmed up her bench with my deadlift PR, I would cry. :P 

@Daniel: LOL I totally forgot you posted pics of yourself. Otherwise you would definitely make the list. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for reference, here's my friend Pocket Atlas, who is a tiny bit shorter than I am (he's prolly 5' 8"), and weighs about 200 lbs.  I have no idea what his body fat percentage is, but he isn't fat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he has what we would call "good lifting genetics." :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another point, illustrated by the earlier post of a natural BBer at less than 200lb

when you see a guy, you don't think to yourself

hey, I bet he weighs 225

you either think

that dude looks strong (maybe big and strong) or

that dude isn't very muscular

you can't judge it from looking at it

it's no different from that male pastime of checking out women

no one looks at a girl and thinks, man, I bet she weighs x# of lbs

it's either 'OMG' or 'hey now!'

 

also realize that most big pro sports guys, are also on some sort of gear

yes, they are tested, and yes their coaches find ways around it, they are mostly not that large and muscular naturaly

 

the best judge of how you look is a mirror, or better yet, another person

I have no problem with someone wanting to be '70s big' but the idea that any and all can achieve that without gear is just silly

 

seriously FF go to some 'natty' BBing sites and see how many of the guys there are well below 200 lb and they are jacked

hell Arnold competed at less than 200 and he was on all KINZ of roids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously FF go to some 'natty' BBing sites and see how many of the guys there are well below 200 lb and they are jacked

hell Arnold competed at less than 200 and he was on all KINZ of roids

 

I'm sure they are, but they're not trying to be 70s big, they're trying to look like bodybuilders, which is something entirely different. Bismarck du Plessis wouldn't win any bodybuilding competition walking on the stage like that either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing how quickly Bale accomplished this, I suspect there were some roids involved, because muscle memory can only take you so far. However, dedicate 5 years to it, and I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for the "naturally skinny". 

 

 

 

I'm sure losing lean mass is involved when losing weight, but that doesn't mean being 200lbs is suddenly an unholy lot of weight on an average male frame. Especially when one wants to call himself 70s big....  

Also, my goal is not to be 70s big at all, and although I like 70s big and the way they approach fitness, I'm not going to take everything they say at face value. I realize you and I are coming from the other side; but that doesn't mean their benchmark for being big suddenly becomes meaningless. I know lots of guys at the gym who would benefit from being less scared to put on some weight. Not that they necessarily need to achieve that 200lbs in one or two months, but gaining, say 2lbs a month would do most of them a lot of good, as it has my workout buddy. 

 

You also seemed to miss the first post I had on the subject--the amount of weight that looks good on someone is highly dependent on the size of their frame.  I think this is the point most people are trying to drive home.  You are so hung up on 200 lbs because of the 70s big article.  If it was written by Joe Fitness (insert picture of Snoopy here), then just how much confidence would you have in it?

 

Will most skinny guys look good if they add some lean mass?  Absolutely.  Slow and steady is the name of the game.  GOMAD is not slow and steady.  Slow and steady is increasing your food intake 200-300 Calories a week until you are gaining .5 lb to .75 lb (tops) a week, while putting in serious work in the gym.  At that point just enjoy the ride and see where it takes you.  There comes a point where you just have to chill out about the weight (gaining or losing).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure they are, but they're not trying to be 70s big, they're trying to look like bodybuilders, which is something entirely different. Bismarck du Plessis wouldn't win any bodybuilding competition walking on the stage like that either. 

and as I noted, it's highly unlikely that he is entirely natural, and the guys at 70s big aren't, either

neither is Klokov, or any Russian weightlifter

hell our Oly lifters are on growth hormones, remember those two guys fro broz getting caught out not too long ago?

 

does that mean you can't get that big without gear? nothing is impossible, but before steroids the # of athletes of any type over 200lbs was very low, and they usualy carried plenty of fat

Doug Hepburn is a good example, big burly dude, but he was fat, no question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, which guys at 70sBig are on drugs?

I think Lascek is being a bit facetious anyway. It's a schtick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×