Post: #501

Let me guess your body type....

oh wait...nm...

(06-25-2015 07:25 PM)Pokerbaby Wrote:  IMO, the type of chicks that dig an overly jacked dude tend to have a certain "look".

Usually, stripper types with big fake boobs and highly toned bodies themselves. There are lots of guys who like chicks with bodies like this.. If that's you then go for it.

But I think it's best to keep a toned, lean, muscular look. You might miss out on that small niche of women who only go for huge guys, but your overall quality and range will be much higher.

Post: #502

(06-22-2015 03:00 PM)jariel Wrote:  I'm going to make sure I don't ever drop under 200 again, that's like LeBron saying he's only going to dribble during a game with his left, no need to make the game harder.

Yeah, I am about 205 lbs 14% BF at 6'4". Probably added 10 lbs of lean muscle over the last 2 years I can definitely tell a difference in girls. They want to follow your lead much more easily. They also aren't as invested into the conversation, they keep topics lighter and complain less.

I think 225lbs 8% would be optimal just gotta keep working at it.

Post: #503

Not sure I'm answering CMQs Opening Post directly, but I would just point out that 'Physique/Build' probably makes a small percentage of a guy's total attractiveness to a girl.

Bigger ticket items are

personality/frame/swag or whatever you would call it
facial attractiveness
style
$

So while getting more and more ripped can never hurt anyone, there are plenty of guys with AMAZING builds that can't pull girls. They do shit in all the other departments.

And there are guys with NO build at all and haven't seen a gym that pull girls.

So work on your build all you like (I do). But don't forget all the other elements you can improve on too.

Post: #504

Peoples response definitely change as I got bigger.

I also notice the bigger you are, the more likely drunk guys wanna fight you. I'm talking 230+ lbs. I'm big but not big enough where drunk guys wanna prove to themselves or have some epic story to tell to their friends.

Post: #505

For some people, 160-170 pounds might be the point of diminishing returns. For others, going from a 250 pound to a 300 pound gorilla might make a big positive difference. Depends on the person, the country, the area, the girls etc. Hard to generalize.

However, the most important point of diminishing returns is when guys start getting obsessed by their physique. Women complain about this and ridicule it all the time. Here's just a few I've heard recently. "You know that adonis I was talking about? He couldn't even eat dinner with her parents, because he didn't want his diet ruined. Lolz!". "Being married to a bodybuilder has ruined all my pleasure in sports. It's all obsession about bodyfat, diets etc."

Women are naturally self obsessed, and men are naturally obsessed by women. Showing you're more than just a bit body conscious for men ruins this natural, sexual difference between men and women, and signals a really steep point of diminishing returns, a lot worse than being too big. Hell some bodybuilders seem like psychiatric patients that need girl friends for nurses because they're so mentally wrecked.

Post: #506

(07-17-2015 12:32 AM)Lechon Wrote:  For some people, 160-170 pounds might be the point of diminishing returns. For others, going from a 250 pound to a 300 pound gorilla might make a big positive difference. Depends on the person, the country, the area, the girls etc. Hard to generalize.

However, the most important point of diminishing returns is when guys start getting obsessed by their physique. Women complain about this and ridicule it all the time. Here's just a few I've heard recently. "You know that adonis I was talking about? He couldn't even eat dinner with her parents, because he didn't want his diet ruined. Lolz!". "Being married to a bodybuilder has ruined all my pleasure in sports. It's all obsession about bodyfat, diets etc."

Women are naturally self obsessed, and men are naturally obsessed by women. Showing you're more than just a bit body conscious for men ruins this natural, sexual difference between men and women, and signals a really steep point of diminishing returns, a lot worse than being too big. Hell some bodybuilders seem like psychiatric patients that need girl friends for nurses because they're so mentally wrecked.

160-170 pounds isn't the point of diminishing returns for anyone over 5'4", and you should know better than to listen to what women say.

And to Kaizen, which guy have you ever met with an "AMAZING" build that can't pull girls? If you have an amazing build the only thing stopping you from pulling girls is if you are deformed, mentally retarded, or have Aspergers.

Post: #507

I put a low point of diminishing returns to prove a point. It might be rare, but it happens. Here's Robbie Lawler at 5'9", 170. How many women would think he needs to add more muscle, get bigger, he's too scrawny, etc.? Women know shit about how much a man weighs. They know what they see and what they like.




In fact, most women would prefer 170 to 185, because he couldn't maintain that kind of bodyfat at a higher weight:



Now this is a pro athlete with all the time in the world to work out, and he can't even carry himself better at 185 than 170. What about normal people with normal genetics and other interests? For all the extra time and effort many people who had Robbie Lawlers body type at 170 had to put in to being the same bodyfat but just thicker and more muscular, what would they get back from it?

And taking what women say at face value =! observing what women say and making sense of it after applying all due filters.

Post: #508

(07-17-2015 01:06 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 12:32 AM)Lechon Wrote:  For some people, 160-170 pounds might be the point of diminishing returns. For others, going from a 250 pound to a 300 pound gorilla might make a big positive difference. Depends on the person, the country, the area, the girls etc. Hard to generalize.

However, the most important point of diminishing returns is when guys start getting obsessed by their physique. Women complain about this and ridicule it all the time. Here's just a few I've heard recently. "You know that adonis I was talking about? He couldn't even eat dinner with her parents, because he didn't want his diet ruined. Lolz!". "Being married to a bodybuilder has ruined all my pleasure in sports. It's all obsession about bodyfat, diets etc."

Women are naturally self obsessed, and men are naturally obsessed by women. Showing you're more than just a bit body conscious for men ruins this natural, sexual difference between men and women, and signals a really steep point of diminishing returns, a lot worse than being too big. Hell some bodybuilders seem like psychiatric patients that need girl friends for nurses because they're so mentally wrecked.

160-170 pounds isn't the point of diminishing returns for anyone over 5'4", and you should know better than to listen to what women say.

And to Kaizen, which guy have you ever met with an "AMAZING" build that can't pull girls? If you have an amazing build the only thing stopping you from pulling girls is if you are deformed, mentally retarded, or have Aspergers.

My thought exactly. When we seen a hot girl, we instantly think about fucking her, boner test passed. Women do think the same way, look at all that Magic Mike hysteria.

EDIT: Travesty already confirmed this. Which isn't weird when you see his stats. Tall and musculair = less game needed.

Post: #509

(07-17-2015 02:14 AM)Lechon Wrote:  I put a low point of diminishing returns to prove a point. It might be rare, but it happens. Here's Robbie Lawler at 5'9", 170. How many women would think he needs to add more muscle, get bigger, he's too scrawny, etc.? Women know shit about how much a man weighs. They know what they see and what they like.

[snip]

At 5ft 9 170 you are not looking big while wearing clothing. Lawler is both flexing, and is extremely cut, in those first two photos. Hes in fantastic shape no doubt, but hes not 'huge' if you put him standing beside a normal guy. If he was in a bar/club environment full of average 20something 5ft 10 / 175lb guys he wouldn't stand out at all physically - most girls would infact say hes too scrawny in that environment compared to the relatively common muscular 200lb guys walking around.







Also bear in mind even when fighting at welterweight weigh in(170lb) status his fight weight is probably closer to 180lb.

Post: #510

(07-17-2015 02:14 AM)Lechon Wrote:  I put a low point of diminishing returns to prove a point. It might be rare, but it happens. Here's Robbie Lawler at 5'9", 170. How many women would think he needs to add more muscle, get bigger, he's too scrawny, etc.? Women know shit about how much a man weighs. They know what they see and what they like.




In fact, most women would prefer 170 to 185, because he couldn't maintain that kind of bodyfat at a higher weight:



Now this is a pro athlete with all the time in the world to work out, and he can't even carry himself better at 185 than 170. What about normal people with normal genetics and other interests? For all the extra time and effort many people who had Robbie Lawlers body type at 170 had to put in to being the same bodyfat but just thicker and more muscular, what would they get back from it?

And taking what women say at face value =! observing what women say and making sense of it after applying all due filters.

This is kind of an unfair comparison. He's in fighting shape and less than 10% bf. This guy is shredded. Most of is here will not hit this level of BF%. So let say he's 8% BF.
170 x .08 = 13.6lbs of fat. Let's double his body fat level and take him to 16% which is where a lot of guys will be. This guy is now almost 185 lbs, and would carry a little more muscle too. Very little visual difference with a shirt on from 8 to 16%, as he would probably carry most of the extra weight over his abs and and in thighs, some in the arms. He would probably pull just as much tail but without the wow factor when shirtless, besides still looking very good at 16%.

So yes, he could gain a little fat still maintain his results or possibly do better, as a lot of girls don't like the veiny shredded look.

I would also note that low BF% people tend to look much heavier than they really are, case in point with above guy. Most people would estimate him to be in the 180s at least. Visible muscle makes you appear heavier, when shirtless. He's still big enough to look good in a shirt too. Women don't care about actual weight, they care about how you look to them when they see you, either in a nice v neck at the club or shirtless at the beach. Attaching a number limit is silly.

Post: #511

I'm 30 6'4 216 lbs with visible abs ~12% bodyfat since I never get any attention from girls I think I need more bust my ass in gym. For me I have no idea what is diminishing returns since never get any attention from girls either when never trained or when I'm now go to gym last 3 years 4 times a week 45-60min day

Post: #512

(07-17-2015 06:36 AM)Rikardo Wrote:  I'm 30 6'4 216 lbs with visible abs ~12% bodyfat since I never get any attention from girls I think I need more bust my ass in gym. For me I have no idea what is diminishing returns since never get any attention from girls either when never trained or when I'm now go to gym last 3 years 4 times a week 45-60min day

Post pics or your're lying man

Post: #513

Sure, in an environment where guys are beefy and girls prefer the bigger guys, then it's better to have more muscle. But in another you might not gain anything from it. It's a sliding scale that starts at looking muscular with a v-taper but not very heavy like Lawler on one end, to being huge on the other. YMMV.

Also, if you're not so big but have a good v-taper, you lose a lot by using wearing baggy clothes like Lawler does on the last pictures.

Post: #514

(07-17-2015 02:14 AM)Lechon Wrote:  I put a low point of diminishing returns to prove a point. It might be rare, but it happens. Here's Robbie Lawler at 5'9", 170. How many women would think he needs to add more muscle, get bigger, he's too scrawny, etc.? Women know shit about how much a man weighs. They know what they see and what they like.




In fact, most women would prefer 170 to 185, because he couldn't maintain that kind of bodyfat at a higher weight:



Now this is a pro athlete with all the time in the world to work out, and he can't even carry himself better at 185 than 170. What about normal people with normal genetics and other interests? For all the extra time and effort many people who had Robbie Lawlers body type at 170 had to put in to being the same bodyfat but just thicker and more muscular, what would they get back from it?

And taking what women say at face value =! observing what women say and making sense of it after applying all due filters.

Robbie Lawler, like nearly all MMA fighters, walks around at 30 lbs more than his fighting weight. I will agree however, most chicks will go for a leaner frame with decently defined muscularity over the standard body building type. The diminishing returns occur when you are more interested in looking buff for your bros than the hoes. The extreme bodybuilder look (Jay Cutler, Ronnie Coleman) is only attractive to other men, whereas women universally will choose the Hugh Jackman, Channing Tatum, Brad Pitt body type every single time.

Post: #515

Some MMA fighters, boxers etc. train at a (lot) higher bodyfat percentage, and some cut a lot of water to make weight (two different things). But some fight at their natural weight too, because it's a lot less of a drain on your body not to have to cut so much, and it's bad for your cardio. Nevermind the increased chance of brain injuries from dehydration. And a lot of fighters are just fat because they pig out in between fights.

Anyway, even if fighters can train at a higher weight, Robbie Lawler is probably around 180 in fights when fully hydrated, so he's not a big guy in those pics.

Post: #516

(07-17-2015 07:19 AM)Lechon Wrote:  Some MMA fighters, boxers etc. train at a (lot) higher bodyfat percentage, and some cut a lot of water to make weight (two different things). But some fight at their natural weight too, because it's a lot less of a drain on your body not to have to cut so much, and it's bad for your cardio. Nevermind the increased chance of brain injuries from dehydration. And a lot of fighters are just fat because they pig out in between fights.

Anyway, even if fighters can train at a higher weight, Robbie Lawler is probably around 180 in fights when fully hydrated, so he's not a big guy in those pics.

That last pic is RL at 180 meaning he is nearly 200 lbs on fight night.
Nobody fights at their "natural weight" in modern MMA except for Heavyweights.
The concept of working off BF during camp was used by old time boxers who had same day weigh ins. The water cut is something entirely from the modern era introduced to MMA through amateur wrestling. If your point is that RL looks and performs better at 170 I would have to agree.

Post: #517

More fighters have begun to cut less weight recently, because the disadvantages of big weight cuts have become a lot clearer. It's easy to see you get a size advantage, but then you get ten disadvantages from it. Gunnar Nelson cuts just a few pounds and Anthony Johnson did a lot better after he moved from 170 to 205, for example. I don't think Lawler cuts so much water, he didn't cut anything at 185 and now he's slimmer, so if he weighs in at 170, that would make him around 180 in fights.

http://www.foxsports.com/ufc/story/ufc-f...ght-033115

Post: #518

I think a lot of people fail to realise how big 180lbs at 10% bf actually is in real life. Most people, men particularly, are much fatter than they would like to think.

A 6' bloke who is 190-200lbs at 10% bf is MASSIVE, and has likely spent many years training to be that lean and muscular simultaneously. Without juicing (couldn't care less whether someone does or doesn't), 200lbs lean (a genuine 10%bf, not an internet 10%bf) is a VERY substantial man and at the upper end of what is natural for the AVERAGE human.

This is a 5'11/6' bodybuilder, ~200lbs natural, by his own reckoning at around 10%BF:
https://www.facebook.com/josh.taubes?pnref=story

The guy is huge and a genetic standout. I think some people's perceptions are incredibly warped on what their BF actually is, and what is realistic without a little help.

Post: #519

People underestimate how much of a factor BF% plays.

170 lbs at 8% BF at 5 9 is pretty big.

Post: #520

(07-17-2015 09:25 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  This is a 5'11/6' bodybuilder, ~200lbs natural, by his own reckoning at around 10%BF:
https://www.facebook.com/josh.taubes?pnref=story

The guy is huge and a genetic standout. I think some people's perceptions are incredibly warped on what their BF actually is, and what is realistic without a little help.

Not to hate, but do you really believe he is natural? Exceptional physique either way though.

Post: #521

(07-17-2015 10:23 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 09:25 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  This is a 5'11/6' bodybuilder, ~200lbs natural, by his own reckoning at around 10%BF:
https://www.facebook.com/josh.taubes?pnref=story

The guy is huge and a genetic standout. I think some people's perceptions are incredibly warped on what their BF actually is, and what is realistic without a little help.

Not to hate, but do you really believe he is natural? Exceptional physique either way though.

I believe he is the absolute extreme of what someone with perfect genetics could possibly attain naturally. I think you'd be an idiot not to be highly skeptical, but I think it is possible for a very select few to have those kinds of genes for bodybuilding. Whether he is or not, I have no idea, but I believe it is within the outer limit of possibility that someone won the genetic lottery for body building like that.

Post: #522

(07-17-2015 09:30 AM)Jetlagged Wrote:  People underestimate how much of a factor BF% plays.

170 lbs at 8% BF at 5 9 is pretty big.

Yes it is, that is right about where Gennady Golovkin is 5'10" and he cuts down to 160 even saying he can make 154 to fight Mayweather. I would not call Golovkin a "small guy" at 5'10" 170. At least not to his face. I think the difference we are talking about is looking muscular and thin (hard to tell in clothes) and where people can tell you lift weights by looking at you in completely normal clothes. I find the guys who look obviously yoked in any clothes are often hardcore gym guys and or juicers. Not the look I am going for or the ladies look for IMO.

Post: #523

To help put things in perspective:

Here is what 212lbs at 6'2 or so looks like:



or




This is what a BIG man looks like lean, without being shredded. I appreciate he didn't lift a ton of weights, but it is really important to keep in mind that a lot of the photos you're looking at (eg the MMA ones here) are of guys who have done some crazy weight manipulation, are admittedly more shredded to make a lower weightclass, or are receiving some chemical assistance that does make some muscles 'pop'.

It can be very easy to lose track of what you think you should look like, or what it means to be big. It is important not to eat yourself to a certain weight and kid yourself that your jacked. Lean, natural guys are not likely to look like hulking behemoths of muscle, even when they are in excellent condition.

Post: #524

Ali isnt the best example since he was not very muscular as a fighter, young George foreman literally looked like a giant in the ring, Holeyfield definitely had the physique of a bodybuilder and he was really a cruiserweight. Roy Jones at 5'11" and 168 had one of the best physiques in boxing. I have met Roy in person in street clothes and he didnt look massive but he surely didnt look small.

Post: #525

So to maybe summarize this discussion, it would be useful for guys to post what they think the MINIMUM bodyweight should be for a man at respective heights.

I know it will vary with bodyfat % but lets assume low double digits (i.e. 10-15%) roughly.

So from what I'm hearing from Jariel and others, it's important for guys 6'3" and up to maintain at least 200lbs.

I've also read (may not be from this thread) that guys at 6'0" shouldn't be below 180.

Where do you draw the line for 5'10'' or 6'0'' or 6'2'' etc?