Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FatForward

The 200Lbs Rule

Recommended Posts

This topic is a continuation of the discussion started in Steve's log about the 'rule' that men should weigh at least 200lbs (90,7kg). 
 
 
 

A friend at the gym said I looked leaner so I told him I dropped to around 202. He asked if I would "freak" if I got below 200. I was like, "huh?" He said some guys like saying/being over 200. It must be the body building bro dudes because I don't care. Have any of you heard of this?

 

 

I used to be in that camp.  That was when I was carrying a lot more fat than I am now.  I was considered a big guy, but no one expected that I had 50+ pounds to lose, including me.  I guess I just "carried it well".  I figured I'd be too skinny if I got under 200.  Now I'm floating right around there, and realize that I should probably be 185-190.  In reality, I don't care what I weigh and focus more on BF.

 

 

If I ever got to 200lbs I think I'd look like a beach ball.  I'm trying to avoid this at all costs.  That would make me freak.

 

Steve, why not go crazy and do a before picture at 202 and then drop to 199 and see the mad comparison??  You'll be unrecognisable  :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Lots of good work, Steve.  No wonder you're getting leaner.

 

On the 200 pounds thing . . .

 

http://70sbig.com/blog/2009/10/adult-males-200-pounds/

 

 

solid work man

I strongly dissagree that an adult male 'should' weigh 200+lb, at even 192, I'm packing a gut, it all depends on how much of your weight is LBM

200+lb at 15% BF or less = good, 200+ lb at 30+% LBM + unhealthy AND unattractive

How much you should weigh depends on you individually, not some arbitrary # that is as bogus as BMI

The lifting world is as bad as the non lifting world about this in many ways, and that arbitrary statement is a prime example

 

 

If I weighed 200lbs with my current LBM, I'd be below 3% bodyfat.    :rolleyes:

Keep in mind the '200lbs-rule' is for people who want to be 70's big. You can't really be 'big' if you're below 200lbs. Obviously, you can be very strong, fit and athletic below that weight, just not 70s big. Jonnie Candito, for example, is beastly strong at a bodyweight of 83kg (183lbs) and he packs a lot of muscle on his 5'7" frame, but he's not really BIG big, like Klokov, who's 105kg (231lbs) at 6ft. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Honestly, what makes a good weight for someone really depends on how tall they are.  The taller you are, the more weight you can carry and still be muscular.  200 lbs at 6'2" and still being lean is not unfathomable.

 

In some ways you can overthink it.  If you can move like and athlete and be competitive, then there's no reason to change the weight.  However, if the weight is getting in your way of being competitive, or just moving like an athlete then shave some fat off.

 

 

I totally agree that 200 lbs. is an arbitrary number that could be too high or too low for any particular person.  I think the 70s Big article is a reaction to this trend:

67097df8933a6d953bcc8870a6faf030.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Great discussion above. I am 6'(barely) and carry a fair amount of muscle in the upper body. At 202 now, I am leaner than when I was 208-211 (the belts I wear are all a notch tighter). I could still lose 10lbs to be leaner and still would not have a six pack. I would look bigger showing more definition than at 202 so I really don't understand the point of the weight #.

 

 

I agree with this [Art's] sentiment.

 

Chasing a number without paying attention to the mirror and/or your waistline is a bad move.  I think many of us who've come up through the internet strength training phenomena of 5x5 / squats / Rip / Milk etc etc have made that mistake at one point or another.

 

Most people who end up trying to chase the internet "70's big" dream end up looking chubby to the point where they don't even look like they train.

 

Unless you're tall (6ft plus), being over 200lb and muscular with some level of vascularity and faint outline of abs is actually quite rare even among steroid users. 

 

Yes many will reach 220+ while bulking, but once they cut the fat and water retention they end up being sub 200.

 

200 is a good number for people to shoot for, but internet bravado has caused many to eat themselves into oblivion just to say they've succeeded in some kind of magical milk and squats bulk only to realise that most of that weight is fat and water retention. 

 

Hmmm, think I might need to blog about this lol

 

 

I think you misunderstand what 70s big is all about. "Vascularity" is not on the 70s big wishlist at all. Those guys want to resemble Grizzly Bears, not leopards. It's about being big and strong and definitely not about having a sixpack, let alone veins popping out. 6ft is pretty much the average height for men in the west, so 200lbs is a nice goal to shoot for. Let's put it this way: if you're of average height and you want to move some serious weight (say: deadlift 500lbs), it's not going to be helpful if you're scared to get heavier than 200lbs. 

 

My lifting buddy Danny, for example, is 6'1" 194lbs and although he has grown significantly since he started lifting, he's by no means big, let alone 70s big. He would have to gain 20lbs at the very least to look like a big guy, is my conservative estimation. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I think Sinom was saying that people take it too far when trying to get '70's Big.'  They want to look thick and strong, but end up just looking fat and untrained.

 

 

Some people may do that, but I don't believe it's "most". For every (untrained looking) chubby guy there's a (just as untrained looking) skinny guy whining about his fast metabolism and how he can't gain weight no matter what he does. The 200lbs benchmark is for the last category. 

 

 

A cliche and obvious defensive response, you're barking up the wrong tree there.

Im almost disappointed that the infamous grizzly bear v bodybuilder artwork wasn't posted...

I've known about 70's big for over 5 years...

I didnt say veins popping, I said "some vascularity", there's a difference...

I didnt say 6 pack either, I said "faint outline of abs" again a difference...

The idea that you cant be athletic looking and move big weights is bullshit...

No one said anything about worrying or being scared of gaining weight, you've rehearsed those lines very well...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That difference is gradual, not fundamental. I challenge you to find one single 70s big article that talks about how to achieve abs & vascularity in a not sarcastic way. Also: it's not the point that you can be athletic looking and move big weights.. at all. And yes, lots of people are scared to gain weight and that is the point of the 200lbs benchmark. I also consider it insulting that you suggest I'm just defensively shouting out rehearsed lines here. There's no need for that kind of flaming. 

 

I don't get why people have to attack the 200lbs-rule all the time. If you don't want to follow the 70s big philosophy but care about looking athletic, vascular etc., just ignore their 200lbs rule and do something else. That's how I see it, anyway. 

 

 

 

lol 
 
 
 
My friend, those lines are a dime a dozen, I've been reading the same for years and they're quite simply tired .  You were so defensive you didn't really read my post properly so jumped to conclusions about my understanding of 70's big.

My point was that it's a bad move for a lot of guys to just chase a number and you're still arguing over the mission statement of 70's big which I'm more than aware of. No one was attacking the site, or anyone's unquantifiable goal of being "70's big"

It's cool though, I was the same once.

If you want to be big and strong you need more muscle, yes food is a catalyst for growth but if you overdo that shit you'll just spill over and the end results will be undesirable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

my point is that 200 lb is an arbitrary number that doesn't take into account the individual, and therefore as full of shit as the BMI index

also keep in mind that most of those guys are on test, and I'm not talking theraputic amounts, both Wendler and AC are pretty open about it

 

this

67097df8933a6d953bcc8870a6faf030.jpg

is pretty damn horrifying though

 

this is me in 2012 at 225 (sorry if it causes anyone ant truama0

1weekin.jpg

 

this is me 8 weeks later at 170

 

8weeks.jpg

 

 

now the loose skin is pretty awful, but I think it's safe to say I was too fat and unhealthy at 225

I am six feet tall, and while 170 might be a bit thin, 225 was too damn big

and forget that shit Rip preaches about gaining 30lb muscle in six months

your body simply can't add that much muscle that quickly

I would likely look pretty good at 185 or so, if I had more muscle mass, bit you don't gain all that much muscle that quick without a bit of pharmacuetical support

 

also I would have kept more muscle mass during that cut had I not been injured and unable to lift heavy

 

 

I'm 6'3 and 194lbs at probably 11-12% BF, and I am not small (16.5 arms, 45 chest, 32 waist, 550 DL, 460 squat, 280 bench - havn't posted here for a while so profile stats are out of date, but by your definition of 500 DL I am able to move 'big weight' despite being under 200lbs). I will be around 190 after my cut. I'm definately not HUGE, but I think 'males have to be over 200lbs' is pretty stupid advice, especially as the article says regardless of who you are (perhaps this applies on celltech, but for me, as a natty, at my stage of lifting drinking a gallon of milk a day would just balloon me into a fat bastard).

 

I think people really over-estimate how big a lean 200lbs actually is. Most competing bodybuilders (outside of Mr Olympia ofc) are below 200lbs in stage condition. Your body composition is far more important than scale weight, and most people grossly overestimate their lean mass (I know I did before cutting)

 

http://www.healthylivingheavylifting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Layne-Norton.jpg

This is what 195lbs @ 5'11 in contest shape looks like. Please tell me more about how men under 200lbs must drink a gallon of milk a day

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any statement that is along the lines of "real men/women look this one certain way" is bullshit. Real people have a tremendous range of body types.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think you'll be 3% bodyfat @ 200lbs @ 6'1, I think you probably grossly under-estimate your body fat percentage. That's pretty much arnold during his Olympia years status.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any statement that is along the lines of "real men/women look this one certain way" is bullshit. 

^^ I agree. However, this is a statement from 70s big, an organization that is of the opinion that men should be big like their 70s idols. Considering that this is their goal, which as such wildly differs from what is normally considered aesthetic (e.g. v-shape and visible abs), I still think 200lbs is a nice benchmark. Although 200lbs is an arbitrary number, of course, as any number would be. 

 

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

 

 

Bismarck du Plessis (6ft2, 251lbs; 189cm, 114kg)

 

tumblr_lyr6dzZEhZ1qkc9jco1_500.png
 

Tendai "Beast" Mtawarira (6ft1, 265lbs / 186cm, 116kg)

8989.2.jpg

 

 

 

Piri Weepu (5"10, 212lbs; 178cm, 96kg)

Weepu%20and%20Daughter-resized-600.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  1. If someone wants to be big they need muscle
  2. Food is a catalyst for muscle growth
  3. The body only needs a little over maintenance (taking into account activity levels), an adequate supply of protein and progressive resistance training for this to occur
  4. The higher the training intensity the more food you'll probably need for growth

Baring those points in mind, a 150lb dude on a low volume training routine, lifting light weights (for the most part) has no business suddenly guzzling a gallon of full fat milk per day in order to chase 200lb. Yes his body will utilise some of the extra cals for muscle growth but what do you think happens with the excess?

His work capacity and poundages wouldn't warrant a sudden increase in calories. He just needs to eat a little over the demands of his lifting, increase slowly as the poundages go up and see where he ends up. This may or may not be over 200lb.

 

This is where many people have slipped up. You can't just stuff your face in pursuit of a BW number in the name of online badassery.  

 

Getting to 200lb is one thing, getting to 200lb while looking big and strong is quite different. 70's big may not be concerned with bodyfat levels, but lets be honest, unless you're very very muscular, you need to keep your bodyfat at reasonable levels to actually look like a big strong dude. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I agree. However, this is a statement from 70s big, an organization that is of the opinion that men should be big like their 70s idols. Considering that this is their goal, which as such wildly differs from what is normally considered aesthetic (e.g. v-shape and visible abs), I still think 200lbs is a nice benchmark. Although 200lbs is an arbitrary number, of course, as any number would be. 

 

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

 

 

Bismarck du Plessis (6ft2, 251lbs; 189cm, 114kg)

 

tumblr_lyr6dzZEhZ1qkc9jco1_500.png
 

Tendai "Beast" Mtawarira (6ft1, 265lbs / 186cm, 116kg)

8989.2.jpg

 

 

 

Piri Weepu (5"10, 212lbs; 178cm, 96kg)

Weepu%20and%20Daughter-resized-600.jpg

 

All elite sportsmen...

 

How many average 150lbers do you think would actually get to that size?

 

To put things into context, Im 6'3", 251lb, 18.5" arms, some vascularity, I was 220lb as a slim 14 year old with zero lifting, just playing football etc

 

The 70's big physique is very much genetic.

 

A v-shape is also genetic.

 

There are guys who bodybuild with "70's big" physiques. They don't win though, because the criteria is wide lats, small waist, quad sweeps.

 

Are you suggesting people can train and eat their way to a certain type of physique?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly FatForward, I just looked at your log and i'd be interested to know what method you used to calculate that you have 197lbs of lean mass. (Genuinly curious as i'd expect seriously hugeeee lifts with 197lbs of lean mass @ 6'1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this belongs here:

real-men-have-chest-hair.jpg

 

 

FWIW, I have, in my adult life, weighed anything between 87 kg (192lbs) and 133 kg (293lbs) at 191 cm (6'3''). I certainly didn't feel less manly at 87 kg than at any other weight. I was probably more useful than over 115 kg.

 

My 2 cents:

- You will always perform better, when you're leaner (within reasonable BF-ranges). Fat doesn't lift shit. Fat doesn't run.

- This aside, it might helpful (functional ;)) to be heavier if it's part of your job or sport to knock over people, or to avoid to be knocked over by other people. But even then, more muscle is better than more fat.

- Unless you're competing in a sport that has weight classes, aiming for a specific number is utterly senseless.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All elite sportsmen...

 

How many average 150lbers do you think would actually get to that size?

 

They may be elite sportsmen, but they're not bodybuilders, weightlifters, powerlifters or strongmen. Their main interest is in playing their game, so if they can get big like this alongside playing their sport, I think it should be attainable for people who make it their main goal, like 70s big enthusiasts would. 

 

 

Honestly FatForward, I just looked at your log and i'd be interested to know what method you used to calculate that you have 197lbs of lean mass. (Genuinly curious as i'd expect seriously hugeeee lifts with 197lbs of lean mass @ 6'1)

 

I know my lifts are nothing special, but that's not the point, obviously. To calculate, I used the formulas developed by Hodgdon and Beckett at the Naval Health Research Center in 1984: %Fat=495/(1.0324-0.19077(log(waist-neck))+0.15456(log(height)))-450

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Unless you're competing in a sport that has weight classes, aiming for a specific number is utterly senseless.

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may be elite sportsmen, but they're not bodybuilders, weightlifters, powerlifters or strongmen. Their main interest is in playing their game, so if they can get big like this alongside playing their sport, I think it should be attainable for people who make it their main goal, like 70s big enthusiasts would. I know my lifts are nothing special, but that's not the point, obviously. To calculate, I used the formulas developed by Hodgdon and Beckett at the Naval Health Research Center in 1984: %Fat=495/(1.0324-0.19077(log(waist-neck))+0.15456(log(height)))-450

So you agree, they're naturally big guys. By all accounts wouldnt be big in the powerlifting or bodybuilding world but much bigger than average joe.

In other word genetics.

So how would a naturally slimmer dude get that big?

Like I said in Steven's log, I remember when I used to think like this.

Experience has taught me different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if they're naturally big, but I know the stats of these guys are nothing to be ashamed of for your average powerlifter. Most squat and deadlift over 200% of their bodyweight and bench 150%. So you can't really say they were born like this. 

 

For your "naturally" slimmer dude, I guess it would take at least half a decade, lots of eating and heavy lifting to get that big. But I deliberately gave examples of guys who are well over 200lbs and still extremely athletic to demonstrate that 200lbs isn't that much if you want to look 70s big and dedicate your life to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevermind...you have much to learn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And apparently, I'm not going to learn it from you... 

Could you be any more condescending? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you agree, they're naturally big guys. By all accounts wouldnt be big in the powerlifting or bodybuilding world but much bigger than average joe.

In other word genetics.

So how would a naturally slimmer dude get that big?

Like I said in Steven's log, I remember when I used to think like this.

Experience has taught me different.

 

 

I don't know if they're naturally big, but I know the stats of these guys are nothing to be ashamed of for your average powerlifter. Most squat and deadlift over 200% of their bodyweight and bench 150%. So you can't really say they were born like this. 

 

For your "naturally" slimmer dude, I guess it would take at least half a decade, lots of eating and heavy lifting to get that big. But I deliberately gave examples of guys who are well over 200lbs and still extremely athletic to demonstrate that 200lbs isn't that much if you want to look 70s big and dedicate your life to it.

The Navy rope-n-choke has me between 16% and 20% and 140 to 145 lbs lean body mass at 5'10" as I've varied between 168 and 182 lbs over the last couple years. I don't doubt that the method is statistically accurate over large groups, but it estimates me personally about 5% higher than the bioimpedance testers do (I currently 14.5" neck with a 43" chest and 35" abdomen).

Simon has the right idea if you want to know how a slimmer dude gets that big. He doesn't. He can get fat and be that heavy (200) though; I've done it.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may be elite sportsmen, but they're not bodybuilders, weightlifters, powerlifters or strongmen. Their main interest is in playing their game, so if they can get big like this alongside playing their sport, I think it should be attainable for people who make it their main goal, like 70s big enthusiasts would. 

 

 

 

I know my lifts are nothing special, but that's not the point, obviously. To calculate, I used the formulas developed by Hodgdon and Beckett at the Naval Health Research Center in 1984: %Fat=495/(1.0324-0.19077(log(waist-neck))+0.15456(log(height)))-450

Then, your bodyfat is likely to be higher than you predict, once you get over 20% it becomes very difficult to calculate. I highly doubt your lean mass is so high that you would be under 3% bodyfat @ 200lbs.

 

I also think you're missing the point of the 70sbig article, it says EVERYBODY under 200lbs should drink a gallon of milk to 200lbs. No exceptions.

 

He's not saying that's not possible, he's saying the way to do it is not drink a gallon of milk a day until you're 200lbs regardless of body composition. Christian bale has good genetics, he is not naturally skinny (look at American psycho), he was simply starved for his machinist role. Also, steroids were likely used in that transformation (he's a hollywood actor, why wouldn't he use them for a role?). Also he's not really very lean at all in the 2nd picture, likely over 15% bodyfat. I think you're missing his point, he's not saying this doesn't work for some reason, he's saying it doesn't work for EVERYONE, which the article explicitly states.

 

As a 6'3 guy with a 1250-1300lb total @ 194lbs I find this line of thinking ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And apparently, I'm not going to learn it from you... Could you be any more condescending?

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

Look, its an old subject done to death, you'll notice the members responding have been there and worn the tshirt, in other words they're speaking from experience.

You continually bark up the wrong tree while side stepping valid points.

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  

×