leanmaxxing

[iblamemilo]

Why are your fats so high?

hormone health maybe

 

[exlurkervv999]

That's complete nonsense, there is no difference between being in the healthy testosterone range and having a few hundred ng/dl extra in total testosterone. Also, T levels don't drop at 26, they drop at 40+ if your lifestyle factors are bad, like if you're sleep deprived, overweight, deficient in vitamin D, and so on, basically if your lifestyle is shit and you're middle aged, you're going to have unhealthy low levels of testosterone and then you need injections to make up for that.

Healthy young men don't need drugs to have testosterone. Truth is you guys have body dysmorphia because of social media and hollywood. Truth is, Spartan warriors looked nothing like what you see in the movie 300, and this has been proved many times.




Movie 300 about spartan warriors:

View attachment 3152392


Real Spartans from historic literature:

View attachment 3152395


Nobody, not even the rich folk of the Roman Empire looked like bodybuilders. Bodybuilding arrived during the late 20th century, and at first nobody even had access to drugs, until the golden era. So even if we assume all the fitness youtubers are on drugs, the bronze era and silver era bodybuilders weren't, because steroids were invented right after the silver era:

Eugen Sandow (bronze era):

View attachment 3152405View attachment 3152408



Steve Reeves (silver era:

View attachment 3152417View attachment 3152421

Compare this to the golden era where everyone was on drugs:

View attachment 3152428View attachment 3152429View attachment 3152430


And compare this to what is achievable with the drugs of today:

View attachment 3152443View attachment 3152444View attachment 3152445

Now compare this to Hollywood physiques:

View attachment 3152447View attachment 3152452View attachment 3152460View attachment 3152462View attachment 3152464

Compare that to the aesthetics brahs who take steroids to become fitness influencers:

View attachment 3152471View attachment 3152472View attachment 3152477

Compare this to elite naturals who have been training for 10+ years:

View attachment 3152481View attachment 3152484View attachment 3152486



What do you really think women prefer?

Of course, the answer will depend on the woman, some actually like the pro-bodybuilder look but on average, I think most women would be most attracted to the elite natural look or the Hollywood look. Hollywood look is only like 2-3 years of training, maybe 3-5 for someone who has bad genetics, and more years if people don't train properly or hard enough. What I have so far is essentially this but without abs:

View attachment 3152491

It looks great when I'm shirtless but like I said, I don't look like I lift when I have a shirt on, and it was the same for Brad Pitt when he was wearing a shirt, he never looked muscular with a shirt on.

View attachment 3152494

Does this look like a guy who lifts weight? No. And that's exactly my point.

jfl people still dont know ur baiting

 

[Deleted member 88653]

jfl people still dont know ur baiting

My 6 years of training amount to around 2 years of consistent lifting, I did the math recently.

And I have a physique that would be considered as above average by the average person. I'm not exactly huge, but I am aesthetic and I do look muscular. It doesn't take a whole lifetime to look good as a natural lifter, it just takes consistency and knowledge. Most people aren't passionate enough about lifting to really commit to it and see results. They want to look good but don't want to work hard for it, so they're doomed to fail.

I am mostly satisfied with my shoulder, chest, lats, traps, upper back, hamstrings and neck size, all I really need at this point is triceps, biceps, forearms, abs, and quads which are the areas I have neglected the most in my training because of minimalist novice programs being so prevalent. I have estimated that in around 1-2 years, I will have pretty much a gymmaxxed physique for my small bone structure.

Usually, a 6'4" man can weigh 225-230 lbs at 15% body fat but that is if their starting point was 190 lbs. Mine was 138 lbs, that pretty much guarantees my bone structure is smaller. That's why it's bad to compare yourself to other people, you can only really mog your past self, so that's all you should aim for. That is a realistic goal. Not everyone can be a Chad but everyone can improve, assuming you're not blind or in a wheelchair, it's only for those people that it is truly OVER.

 

[hardRscreamer]

Steve Reeves at 8% body fat didn't even have a visible six pack
View attachment 3152505

This guy at 15-20% body fat had a much more visible six pack:

View attachment 3152507

This is exactly the reason why abs are not a reliable measure of body fat. You know what is? Waist measurement!

cope less and put the fork down ur at 20%

 

[Deleted member 88653]

cope less and put the fork down ur at 20%

If your role models are fake naturals, anyone who is normal will seem fat.

It's just a skewed perception caused by watching too much social media.

That is not to say you cannot aim to be both big and shredded but that would require you to take a bunch of drugs, which is a personal choice. It's not realistic to expect to be both big and shredded as a natural.

And let's put your claim to rest!

Medically, anything above 20% is considered overweight, I'm 180 lbs at 6'4", that is a BMI of 21.9. To be overweight or 21% body fat, I would need a BMI of 25, so a weight of 205 lbs, and at 180 lbs, I have 25 lbs less than what I would require to be overweight. 1% of 205 lbs is 2 lbs, and also BMI doesn't take into account muscle mass.

So to be medically overweight, I would have to be 205 lbs with no training experience, but I have the equivalent of 2 years of training.
To even be 20%, I would have to weigh 203 lbs with no training experience.

And yet, I'm 180 lbs with 2 years worth of gains, so being 20% is just not a possibility in my case. The true explanation is my ab muscles are very thin and my before pic proves that, because I was 8% body fat with no abs. After training them directly, they are more visible now than they have ever been although my body fat is probably 12-13% realistically.

 

[hardRscreamer]

If your role models are fake naturals, anyone who is normal will seem fat.

It's just a skewed perception caused by watching too much social media.

That is not to say you cannot aim to be both big and shredded but that would require you to take a bunch of drugs, which is a personal choice. It's not realistic to expect to be both big and shredded as a natural.

And let's put your claim to rest!

View attachment 3161248


Medically, anything above 20% is considered overweight, I'm 180 lbs at 6'4", that is a BMI of 21.9. To be overweight or 21% body fat, I would need a BMI of 25, so a weight of 205 lbs, and at 180 lbs, I have 25 lbs less than what I would require to be overweight. 1% of 205 lbs is 2 lbs, and also BMI doesn't take into account muscle mass.

So to be medically overweight, I would have to be 205 lbs with no training experience, but I have the equivalent of 2 years of training.
To even be 20%, I would have to weigh 202 lbs with no training experience.

And yet, I'm 180 lbs with 2 years worth of gains, so being 20% is just not a possibility in my case. The true explanation is my ab muscles are very thin and my before pic proves that, because I was 8% body fat with no abs. After training them directly, they are more visible now than they have ever been although my body fat is probably 12-13% realistically.

dnr you're fat put the fork down and stop coping, normal people are not 20% bf

 

[Deleted member 88653]

dnr you're fat put the fork down and stop coping, normal people are not 20% bf

Another reliable measure aside from BMI that is heavily supported by the medical community is waist to height ratio.

Overweight would be anything above 50%, below that is considered healthy.

here is mine:

My result, as you can see is 0.44.

In terms of aesthetics, it's hard to quantify but taking Kinobody's measurement research as a reference point we can sort of see the physique it should give:

My waist is 44% of my height, this means I am on the same level of leanness as those men.
Again, abs will not show if you do not train them.

Maybe you're too lazy to read, but videos require very little effort, all you have to do is listen and look at the guys' bodies, they are elite naturals with 10+ years of experience.

Those videos prove my point:

 

[WojakAI]

If you cannot bulk up for an entire year from a starting point of 11-12% body fat, you're doing something wrong or have body dysmorphia and you'll have much slower results with 4 month bulks than you would if you bulked for 1-2 years at a time. It's pretty easy when you gain only 1-2 lbs per month, most of it will be muscle, and you can avoid unnecessary fat gain in this manner.

If i have cut for 7-8 months to get lean from overweight and lost around 7-10lbs of muscle in the process, should i bulk harder in the first 1-2 months of starting the bulk, like 1lb a week, as that muscle lost should come back quicker? Then after 1-2 months go to 2lbs a month bulk from then on?