• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
worldofroids
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
Anabolic Hormones Store Banner
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
mckee
PHARMAHGH1
Bruce Labs Store banner
gd
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
roids-210x65-48kb-1
granabolic123
napsgear-210x65
advertise1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
advertise1
PM-Ace-Labs
advertise1
kinglab
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

Fat acceptance, body positivity movement

hawkmoon

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
2,456
The Cosmo cover reminds me of something.

My wife was a big fan of Gymshark clothes because of their cut and style and was buying regularly for a few years. Recently she complained that too many of the models are fat or out of shape and she can't get a real idea of how the clothes look. She's Japanese and very straight about her opinions (for better or worse!). She has also always made an effort to take care of herself, even after ten years of marriage to me :p

So for a lot of this, I think a lot of this comes down to marketing and making money. Yes, it started with trying to support those who are truly suffering, but it became something else.
Now the marketing agencies are targeting the overweight as there are far more of them. They have found a way to exploit their insecurities and use that to move more products.
 

EWRECK

Verified Customer
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
608
Genetics don’t make people fat, over consumption of calories do. I don’t know how many obese people I’ve heard say they don’t eat enough to lose fat, they have hormonal issues, or the bread, or some other food is the reason they’re fat. It’s nothing more than a lack of education. It’s simply cico. The body can not make something from nothing. Hell even Dr. Serrano claimed to have an obese patient who was eating like 400 or 600 calories a day and not losing weight. This is simply retarded. We have Drs and “experts” who espouse these same bullshit beliefs. It’s an education problem at the highest level.
But but, my thyroid.
 

Bleed

Well-known member
Kilo Klub Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
1,753
To play devils advocate (Assuming when you say "beautiful or desirable" to mean what men find attractive), the first two images look so old as to be from a time that any sculpture would have most likely been for religious purposes as avatars of what most likely would be their fertility godess. So I am assuming that the form of the sculpture would be the end result of pumping out multiple babies and not necessarily what would have been what they found attractive. The sculpture is probably more of a dragon ball z final form if that analogy makes sense at all.

The third picture is probably from the renaissance...without doing a reverse image search that the vibe I get. Everyone here is probably familiar with the time period and what was going on. It's art.

The last picture is most likely a very attractive plus size model and 99% of straight men would. You are 100% correct.



Throughout history, perceptions as to what is beautiful or desirable has always changed over time. Only in the latter half of the 20th century did we become fixated on weight (probably a combination of health reasons and general fashion). But deprivation of food prior to the last 50-60 years was almost unheard of. From prehistoric times to ancient to renaissance, in art from those time periods, women are not thin. Not by a long shot. Even Maryln Monroe was quite chunky IMO. The images below from ancient to modern - all "full-figured" spanning over 3,000 years. Also, if you find the bottom-most modern figure below gross, you may not want to make decisions for the rest of us bc you may likely be gay.

But seriously, let's not confuse desirability with health. Healthy CAN be beautiful but beautiful is rarely healthy to wit, this board. We try to keep our obsessions and fixations as healthy as we can but we rarely succeed. From twiggy models, anorexic, BBers, bigorexic, bulimic, oral fixations, food addictions, even needle fetishes.... as to where health comes into all of this, is going to be different for everyone but do we really and truly care or is it just a window dressing? I'm sure many here are very healthy but this isn't health and fitness .com , this is professional muscle. Muscle which, all too often, is paramount to any health or reproductive ability.

View attachment 135397


View attachment 135398

View attachment 135399

View attachment 135405
 

OuchThatHurts

Moderator / Psych, Ret.
Staff member
Moderator
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
7,712
To play devils advocate (Assuming when you say "beautiful or desirable" to mean what men find attractive), the first two images look so old as to be from a time that any sculpture would have most likely been for religious purposes as avatars of what most likely would be their fertility godess. So I am assuming that the form of the sculpture would be the end result of pumping out multiple babies and not necessarily what would have been what they found attractive. The sculpture is probably more of a dragon ball z final form if that analogy makes sense at all.

The third picture is probably from the renaissance...without doing a reverse image search that the vibe I get. Everyone here is probably familiar with the time period and what was going on. It's art.

The last picture is most likely a very attractive plus size model and 99% of straight men would. You are 100% correct.
We can only use what relics we have of those time periods for reference. These are fertility goddesses for certain. Probably overly characterized. But that spare tire is no caricature or avatar, my friend. That's a fat chic.

I believe you are applying the modern precept of form OVER function (vs function over form) to what was then likely just function far over form and most likely one and the same. A woman of wealth or status or both would likely have had plenty to eat, safety, and be fertile and her form would have gone straight to desirability (attractiveness). Are you suggesting ancient peoples married for as many children as possible, wealth, and safety while slapping it watching the skinny underfed members of the tribe or village? LOL.. It's something to consider and certainly possible. Same goes for the renaissance painting. I didn't exactly do a "women down through the centuries" full-blown collage for you but if you googled that very phrase, you'd likely see what I mean. All paintings, even portraits, of the 1st millennia through the very end of the 2nd, they are just simply big strong women; women that could plow through a field as easily plow through a pregnancy. Very utilitarian.

Today it's cyclical. What traits we look for are more based on style than utility. And styles change. Then it was 100% utility. For both men and women I suspect. I'll probably look it up tonight because now I'm curious. Although I couldn't have imagined any age where the Twiggys and Ally McBeals would be any standard of beauty but here we are.
 

Bleed

Well-known member
Kilo Klub Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
1,753
When I said avatar, I was describing the females they had in their tribe (whatever grouping they found themselves in) who resembled the figurine. It would stand to reason a fertility goddess would resemble one of these women and not one of the underfed peasants. So the woman who resembled this statue would be the one they used to model the figurine and not some female who was nutritionally deprived. You are correct.

The agriculture age started around 10000 years ago which is a blip on the timeline of human evolution. Before that it was hunter/gatherer in small groups. Men and women both foraged for and hunted for food. The real version of that sculpture is doing neither hunting nor gathering in any meaningful capacity.

My point is that humans and their ancestors were hunter/gatherers for about 1.8 million years if the wiki is to be believed.

So am I to believe that hardwired into men is the idea that a woman who looks like this is what is considered physically attractive when that look is at ~30000 years old? Or is it more likely a woman who has visible and distinct female characteristics who is also physically capable of raising/protecting and caring for a child is what most men would find physically attractive?

I know what I believe the answer is. We don't know who made the statues or what they represent but its entirely possible they were commissioned by nobility and most women arent nobility.

Sure there's thicc women throughout history in art. I bet those women were the sort of nobility sitting around and were the best that was on offer though. And would you rather smash the emaciated peasant or the thicc chic sitting around the palace? Nevermind the female nobles wouldnt have tolerated a slave being the model for a painting, etc. Also still, this art is less than 10000 years old. It was cultural for it's time.

Now what is hard coded into straight mens DNA? I dont think it's a proclivity for porkers.

We can only use what relics we have of those time periods for reference. These are fertility goddesses for certain. Probably overly characterized. But that spare tire is no caricature or avatar, my friend. That's a fat chic.

I believe you are applying the modern precept of form OVER function (vs function over form) to what was then likely just function far over form and most likely one and the same. A woman of wealth or status or both would likely have had plenty to eat, safety, and be fertile and her form would have gone straight to desirability (attractiveness). Are you suggesting ancient peoples married for as many children as possible, wealth, and safety while slapping it watching the skinny underfed members of the tribe or village? LOL.. It's something to consider and certainly possible. Same goes for the renaissance painting. I didn't exactly do a "women down through the centuries" full-blown collage for you but if you googled that very phrase, you'd likely see what I mean. All paintings, even portraits, of the 1st millennia through the very end of the 2nd, they are just simply big strong women; women that could plow through a field as easily plow through a pregnancy. Very utilitarian.

Today it's cyclical. What traits we look for are more based on style than utility. And styles change. Then it was 100% utility. For both men and women I suspect. I'll probably look it up tonight because now I'm curious. Although I couldn't have imagined any age where the Twiggys and Ally McBeals would be any standard of beauty but here we are.
 

OuchThatHurts

Moderator / Psych, Ret.
Staff member
Moderator
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
7,712
When I said avatar, I was describing the females they had in their tribe (whatever grouping they found themselves in) who resembled the figurine. It would stand to reason a fertility goddess would resemble one of these women and not one of the underfed peasants. So the woman who resembled this statue would be the one they used to model the figurine and not some female who was nutritionally deprived. You are correct.

The agriculture age started around 10000 years ago which is a blip on the timeline of human evolution. Before that it was hunter/gatherer in small groups. Men and women both foraged for and hunted for food. The real version of that sculpture is doing neither hunting nor gathering in any meaningful capacity.

My point is that humans and their ancestors were hunter/gatherers for about 1.8 million years if the wiki is to be believed.

So am I to believe that hardwired into men is the idea that a woman who looks like this is what is considered physically attractive when that look is at ~30000 years old? Or is it more likely a woman who has visible and distinct female characteristics who is also physically capable of raising/protecting and caring for a child is what most men would find physically attractive?

I know what I believe the answer is. We don't know who made the statues or what they represent but its entirely possible they were commissioned by nobility and most women arent nobility.

Sure there's thicc women throughout history in art. I bet those women were the sort of nobility sitting around and were the best that was on offer though. And would you rather smash the emaciated peasant or the thicc chic sitting around the palace? Nevermind the female nobles wouldnt have tolerated a slave being the model for a painting, etc. Also still, this art is less than 10000 years old. It was cultural for it's time.

Now what is hard coded into straight mens DNA? I dont think it's a proclivity for porkers.
I'm not sure where you're going with any of that honestly. I never suggested a proclivity towards any one specific body type is written into all men's DNA at all. I think men look for what they personally like and befits their needs at that time, in that era, now, as in any age.

Do you think there's an "I Brake For Fat Chics" gene? If so, I've never heard of it. Maybe you can expand on that. I see your words. You can think anything you like. I wasn't expecting when I posted in this thread that I'd have to provide intelligent answers as to what horned-up the men of hunter/gatherer tribes and farmer peasants of the last 1.5 million years.

My original post contains pictures of a figurine, many of which were found in Europe, created approx 20,000bce to 18,000bce almost all nearly identical. The 2nd, ~2,000bce, and 3rd I believe was 12th century, and the final could be a female figure of almost any period of the late 20th and 21st centuries.

As to what constitutes desirable has changed down through the centuries (my original point). I believe it still stands. It's a fact. We can see it very obviously in the paleolithic art, we can determine it from writings regarding womens' roles in society, and we can see it in remains. Some are slimmer, like the far and middle east, and thicker in the west depending on the varying latitudes. So what's the directive here? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing, asking or telling, annoyed by or enjoying the discussion.

I've enjoyed fucking every female body type at one point or another. Generally, when I'm bigger, the thinner, smaller women with wrists like branches make me nervous. If I'm thinned out, the thinner athletic type girls start looking sexy. The only thing I can't dig ever is the really skinny women. My biggest turn-ons right now are whether or not she can cook and clean well. I've had more than my share of arm candy over the years.
 

maldorf

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
24,676
I'm not sure where you're going with any of that honestly. I never suggested a proclivity towards any one specific body type is written into all men's DNA at all. I think men look for what they personally like and befits their needs at that time, in that era, now, as in any age.

Do you think there's an "I Brake For Fat Chics" gene? If so, I've never heard of it. Maybe you can expand on that. I see your words. You can think anything you like. I wasn't expecting when I posted in this thread that I'd have to provide intelligent answers as to what horned-up the men of hunter/gatherer tribes and farmer peasants of the last 1.5 million years.

My original post contains pictures of a figurine, many of which were found in Europe, created approx 20,000bce to 18,000bce almost all nearly identical. The 2nd, ~2,000bce, and 3rd I believe was 12th century, and the final could be a female figure of almost any period of the late 20th and 21st centuries.

As to what constitutes desirable has changed down through the centuries (my original point). I believe it still stands. It's a fact. We can see it very obviously in the paleolithic art, we can determine it from writings regarding womens' roles in society, and we can see it in remains. Some are slimmer, like the far and middle east, and thicker in the west depending on the varying latitudes. So what's the directive here? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing, asking or telling, annoyed by or enjoying the discussion.

I've enjoyed fucking every female body type at one point or another. Generally, when I'm bigger, the thinner, smaller women with wrists like branches make me nervous. If I'm thinned out, the thinner athletic type girls start looking sexy. The only thing I can't dig ever is the really skinny women. My biggest turn-ons right now are whether or not she can cook and clean well. I've had more than my share of arm candy over the years.
I agree with all that you say. I can also say that every history professor I had in college that discussed this subject said what you have said here. I think there is a general consensus on it. Ive never heard different from a college prof. I took a number of classes where it was discussed. The evidence is strong and it is very logical.
 

Kaladryn

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
6,055
Well, there is a limit to how fat for each person. In general though, its the people with the lowest BMI that live the longest. Its why life insurance goes up fast with higher BMIs. Some people would like to start charging more on health insurance if you have a high BMI.
This is because there are so many unhealthy overweight people screwing the statistics, fat isn't inherently unhealthy, but unhealthy is frequently fat. As a bodybuilder you should know BMI doesn't mean jack :D
 

Bleed

Well-known member
Kilo Klub Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
1,753
Im not annoyed at all. I enjoy all the conversations I have here to one degree or another or I wouldn't participate.

I think you think my tone is one of a guy who thinks he has it figured out or is just arguing with you. I am not doing either of those things. My first post said I was playing devils advocate. I get the impression you think I am possibly attacking you here or getting irritated. That is not the case.

The point about hunter/gatherers was that those are you ancestors (presumably) and theres a lot more years of modern humans traveling from place to place without the means to get fat in one place.

I have a lot of friends who are jumping on walruses at this point and I can't say Im about that life. I cant say I go for the skinny crackwhore look either. I thought we were just bullshitting a bit here honestly.

I'm not sure where you're going with any of that honestly. I never suggested a proclivity towards any one specific body type is written into all men's DNA at all. I think men look for what they personally like and befits their needs at that time, in that era, now, as in any age.

Do you think there's an "I Brake For Fat Chics" gene? If so, I've never heard of it. Maybe you can expand on that. I see your words. You can think anything you like. I wasn't expecting when I posted in this thread that I'd have to provide intelligent answers as to what horned-up the men of hunter/gatherer tribes and farmer peasants of the last 1.5 million years.

My original post contains pictures of a figurine, many of which were found in Europe, created approx 20,000bce to 18,000bce almost all nearly identical. The 2nd, ~2,000bce, and 3rd I believe was 12th century, and the final could be a female figure of almost any period of the late 20th and 21st centuries.

As to what constitutes desirable has changed down through the centuries (my original point). I believe it still stands. It's a fact. We can see it very obviously in the paleolithic art, we can determine it from writings regarding womens' roles in society, and we can see it in remains. Some are slimmer, like the far and middle east, and thicker in the west depending on the varying latitudes. So what's the directive here? I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing, asking or telling, annoyed by or enjoying the discussion.

I've enjoyed fucking every female body type at one point or another. Generally, when I'm bigger, the thinner, smaller women with wrists like branches make me nervous. If I'm thinned out, the thinner athletic type girls start looking sexy. The only thing I can't dig ever is the really skinny women. My biggest turn-ons right now are whether or not she can cook and clean well. I've had more than my share of arm candy over the years.
 

OuchThatHurts

Moderator / Psych, Ret.
Staff member
Moderator
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
7,712
Im not annoyed at all. I enjoy all the conversations I have here to one degree or another or I wouldn't participate.

I think you think my tone is one of a guy who thinks he has it figured out or is just arguing with you. I am not doing either of those things. My first post said I was playing devils advocate. I get the impression you think I am possibly attacking you here or getting irritated. That is not the case.

The point about hunter/gatherers was that those are you ancestors (presumably) and theres a lot more years of modern humans traveling from place to place without the means to get fat in one place.

I have a lot of friends who are jumping on walruses at this point and I can't say Im about that life. I cant say I go for the skinny crackwhore look either. I thought we were just bullshitting a bit here honestly.
Okay, cool. That's all I was doing myself: just bullshitting around. If we were chatting this topic up over a beer, I could see micro expressions and gauge tone and emotion. In a text format I can't gauge shit. It's impossible to express fully my opinion.or discern tone of anyone else's. However I said it, my intentions on this board as a whole is simply friendly. I can be a smartass at times which likely comes off as prickish. But in real life, I'm as jovial and merry as a person could be. Seriously. All in good fun. I'm retired. All I have to do is work hard a few days week, eat and rest a ton, and have fun.

🤜🤛
 

brutus69

Well-known member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
1,891
its ironic that so many steroid users are calling fat people unhealthy.
yall cheat to look like u do, then take ancillary drugs to combat the side effects, then yall are on bp meds, cpap machines, shootin insulin...the least healthy people at bb shows are the folks on stage.
its why your myostatin levels increase the longer ur on gear. yr body's protecting itself from excess muscle mass. cuz its unhealthy.
yall post dead young bb'ers stories and bemoan their fate while doing the exact same shit...denial is strong in you.
look at amateur iron man racers.....there's alot of "fatties" in some of your eyes racing and finishing. are they unhealthy cuz they're 20-25 percent bodyfat? they do ironmans!
yall go lift some weights and think thats a tough workout.
man, i sure dont like watching all these fat black chick music "stars" half naked on the grammys....but so what if they're grossly tubby.
aint nothin to do with me. or with you.
 

OuchThatHurts

Moderator / Psych, Ret.
Staff member
Moderator
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
7,712
I agree with all that you say. I can also say that every history professor I had in college that discussed this subject said what you have said here. I think there is a general consensus on it. Ive never heard different from a college prof. I took a number of classes where it was discussed. The evidence is strong and it is very logical.
Yup. I'm just repeating what I remember studying in various college electives I took on history, ancient history, and archaeology. I have no personal ideas on the matter so I'm of the stance where I listen without asserting. Many of you, maybe most, probably know more than I do. My thesis involved the adverse effects of technology (vs positive effects) on emotional and behavioral growth which I espoused to some subjective amount of success.
 

SouthernMuscle

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,309
its ironic that so many steroid users are calling fat people unhealthy.
yall cheat to look like u do, then take ancillary drugs to combat the side effects, then yall are on bp meds, cpap machines, shootin insulin...the least healthy people at bb shows are the folks on stage.
its why your myostatin levels increase the longer ur on gear. yr body's protecting itself from excess muscle mass. cuz its unhealthy.
yall post dead young bb'ers stories and bemoan their fate while doing the exact same shit...denial is strong in you.
look at amateur iron man racers.....there's alot of "fatties" in some of your eyes racing and finishing. are they unhealthy cuz they're 20-25 percent bodyfat? they do ironmans!
yall go lift some weights and think thats a tough workout.
man, i sure dont like watching all these fat black chick music "stars" half naked on the grammys....but so what if they're grossly tubby.
aint nothin to do with me. or with you.
I mostly agree, save for the statement in bold. If its out there to be used, its not cheating, if there were such a thing.......
 

SouthernMuscle

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,309
its ironic that so many steroid users are calling fat people unhealthy.
yall cheat to look like u do, then take ancillary drugs to combat the side effects, then yall are on bp meds, cpap machines, shootin insulin...the least healthy people at bb shows are the folks on stage.
its why your myostatin levels increase the longer ur on gear. yr body's protecting itself from excess muscle mass. cuz its unhealthy.
yall post dead young bb'ers stories and bemoan their fate while doing the exact same shit...denial is strong in you.
look at amateur iron man racers.....there's alot of "fatties" in some of your eyes racing and finishing. are they unhealthy cuz they're 20-25 percent bodyfat? they do ironmans!
yall go lift some weights and think thats a tough workout.
man, i sure dont like watching all these fat black chick music "stars" half naked on the grammys....but so what if they're grossly tubby.
aint nothin to do with me. or with you.
And not to nitpick but you just described a fat diabetic......
 

OuchThatHurts

Moderator / Psych, Ret.
Staff member
Moderator
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
7,712
its ironic that so many steroid users are calling fat people unhealthy.
yall cheat to look like u do, then take ancillary drugs to combat the side effects, then yall are on bp meds, cpap machines, shootin insulin...the least healthy people at bb shows are the folks on stage.
its why your myostatin levels increase the longer ur on gear. yr body's protecting itself from excess muscle mass. cuz its unhealthy.
yall post dead young bb'ers stories and bemoan their fate while doing the exact same shit...denial is strong in you.
look at amateur iron man racers.....there's alot of "fatties" in some of your eyes racing and finishing. are they unhealthy cuz they're 20-25 percent bodyfat? they do ironmans!
yall go lift some weights and think thats a tough workout.
man, i sure dont like watching all these fat black chick music "stars" half naked on the grammys....but so what if they're grossly tubby.
aint nothin to do with me. or with you.
💯% Right on. There was a great article in Men's Health a few years ago regarding an overweight man finishing Iron Mans that would probably put me and most people on this board in the hospital (eg Escape From Alcatraz, etc). He was a company owner, CEO. A short fireplug of a dude whose fitness achievements quite frankly, put me to shame. I'm 50 now. Now 220lbs. My BMI puts me in the obese category but I'm still out there climbing mountains, doing sprints, and can still do three consecutive 7 min miles and five consecutive 8 min miles. But yeah man, you'll find me out in the wilderness a lot, climbing a serac somewhere or some shit. I always have to sort of prove to myself that this muscle all translates to some sort of achievement whether it be a BBing competition or...

0057447_30096458_4508_n.jpg
 

maldorf

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
24,676
This is because there are so many unhealthy overweight people screwing the statistics, fat isn't inherently unhealthy, but unhealthy is frequently fat. As a bodybuilder you should know BMI doesn't mean jack :D
I used to think that a lean bodybuilder with a high bmi had no greater risk of death, but I dont believe it any longer.
 

maldorf

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
24,676
% Right on. There was a great article in Men's Health a few years ago regarding an overweight man finishing Iron Mans that would probably put me and most people on this board in the hospital (eg Escape From Alcatraz, etc). He was a company owner, CEO. A short fireplug of a dude whose fitness achievements quite frankly, put me to shame. I'm 50 now. Now 220lbs. My BMI puts me in the obese category but I'm still out there climbing mountains, doing sprints, and can still do three consecutive 7 min miles and five consecutive 8 min miles. But yeah man, you'll find me out in the wilderness a lot, climbing a serac somewhere or some shit. I always have to sort of prove to myself that this muscle all translates to some sort of achievement whether it be a BBing competition or...
If you're 6 foot tall like me, we are supposed to weigh no more than about 170 lbs. There's no way I could ever get that low now. I'm 230 now. If I was able to get lean and fit I'd probably be around 200 or 210. I didnt realize how bodybuilding permanently changes your BMI. Even now when I can't lift heavy or workout hard, much of the muscle mass persists even at age 51.
 

OuchThatHurts

Moderator / Psych, Ret.
Staff member
Moderator
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
7,712
If you're 6 foot tall like me, we are supposed to weigh no more than about 170 lbs. There's no way I could ever get that low now. I'm 230 now. If I was able to get lean and fit I'd probably be around 200 or 210. I didnt realize how bodybuilding permanently changes your BMI. Even now when I can't lift heavy or workout hard, much of the muscle mass persists even at age 51.
The reason for this is that large weight on your bone structure (like from squats and deadlifts) causes increased activity of osteoblasts within the bones. So in addition to the increased strain on skeletal muscle and hypertrophy, will also actually increase bone thickness and density as well. I'm like you, @maldorf where even though my ideal weight is 168 lbs, I could NEVER reach. Maybe 180 or 190 but never in the 160's. I'd be nothing but bones and skin.

I broke (hairline fracture) in a car accident a few years bag and doc said it was the thickest femur he's seen. I'm certain that was all due to extreme load bearing (600lb+ squats for reps). They couldn't even get a good shoulder x-ray because my scapulas were like armored plates from rock climbing and the constant pulling of the scapula. This is a photo of me in 2000's after losing 40 lbs in South America in the Andes Mountains. Still 190lbs whith not much wiggle room to lose more BF. I am now 40lbs heavier than this photo with similar BF % ( I have no idea what it is). But my frame is now just simply much thicker than this photo.

300057_2155631807915_902423393_n.jpg
 

maldorf

Featured Member / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
24,676
The reason for this is that large weight on your bone structure (like from squats and deadlifts) causes increased activity of osteoblasts within the bones. So in addition to the increased strain on skeletal muscle and hypertrophy, will also actually increase bone thickness and density as well. I'm like you, @maldorf where even though my ideal weight is 168 lbs, I could NEVER reach. Maybe 180 or 190 but never in the 160's. I'd be nothing but bones and skin.

I broke (hairline fracture) in a car accident a few years bag and doc said it was the thickest femur he's seen. I'm certain that was all due to extreme load bearing (600lb+ squats for reps). They couldn't even get a good shoulder x-ray because my scapulas were like armored plates from rock climbing and the constant pulling of the scapula. This is a photo of me in 2000's after losing 40 lbs in South America in the Andes Mountains. Still 190lbs whith not much wiggle room to lose more BF. I am now 40lbs heavier than this photo with similar BF % ( I have no idea what it is). But my frame is now just simply much thicker than this photo.

View attachment 135478
Great point! Very true. I guess once the bone builds up, it remains thick even though the stress is no longer there. Bones don't weigh a lot, but it is a factor. You can see much larger tuberosities and other bony projections on guys with large muscles, where the tendons attach and pull hard.

The cadaver I had in gross anatomy looked like he did weight lifting and he died in his mid 40s. A lot of the other med students came over to our table to see his muscles and tendons. When I did autopsies, I didn't get to see that.
 

OuchThatHurts

Moderator / Psych, Ret.
Staff member
Moderator
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
7,712
Great point! Very true. I guess once the bone builds up, it remains thick even though the stress is no longer there. Bones don't weigh a lot, but it is a factor. You can see much larger tuberosities and other bony projections on guys with large muscles, where the tendons attach and pull hard.

The cadaver I had in gross anatomy looked like he did weight lifting and he died in his mid 40s. A lot of the other med students came over to our table to see his muscles and tendons. When I did autopsies, I didn't get to see that.
Exactly. It's not just the bones but all the supportive tissues along with them as well.
 

Staff online

  • LATS
    Moderator / FOUNDING Member / NPC Judge

Forum statistics

Total page views
513,093,605
Threads
126,082
Messages
2,470,462
Members
156,517
Latest member
Scorpyd
Top