Anabolic Member
Guys - would you agree that there is a "perfect" size meaning height that judges look for.....I mean sure you have a few guys squeez by who are under 5'6 and a few over 6'1, but for the most part, the ideal size is around 5'8-5'11...why is that? I always got dung for being too tall to advance...I did well in locals, but to get farther I'd need about 50lbs...
Member
speaking from a reference point of absolutely no competition experience at all, I would say they would have to be looking for proportionate size/definition/development of your body in relation to your hieght.
5,6" and 120lbs is light... as is 6'2" 185lbs IMO. I would say that if your size/,ass/development is as good or better (when compared as a ratio) to those of smaller stature, you should be in the running to advance.
I doubt this helped any but it's the only way it makes sense to me...
Anabolic Member
Didnt really help but thanks...I know I need a lot more mass, but is it just as hard for someone very short?Originally Posted by sphincter
Member
It depends on what look the judges are going for. Long post waring.
The uber-thick look, guys around 250 contest weight under 5'11", that seems to have been very popular until recently, is really not a good idea for a taller guy, as he has to be much heavier than that, to get a similar look.
BMI is not a good way to judge weight vs. height, as the math is flawed. The PI (ponderal index) is a better way to tell what is comparable for different heights.
For example, 250 at 5’10”, is the same as 346 at 6’6”. We have seen guys 5’10” and 250 pounds on stage, however there never has been a guy who is 346 at 6’6” on stage, and there is a physical limitation that causes this.
The heart has to work harder, both the taller, and heavier you are. Blood has to be pushed through all that beef. Noah Steere, who was as heavy as 347 pounds, in 2004, and at the time was lean enough to have stepped on stage at 325+, but was very uncomfortable with that weight. It was physically painful to be that heavy. Even though his silhouette would have looked similar in shape to a guy who was 250 at 5’10”.
So, in terms of possible, yes taller guys can get just as thick, but they have to be much heavier for it, and there is a limitation for how much a human, of any height, can be heavy muscle wise, until the health is put at serious risk.
However, taller guys can have very impressive builds. Someone who is 6’6” could for example be build like 5’10” 220 pound guy, at 300 pounds, which is realistic example, without keeling over dead at that height. However it is still going to be harder for him to maintain the same silhouette of 300 pounds than it is for the 5’10” guy to maintain 220.
This is partly due to the fact that taller, say 10% taller, does not mean every thing is 10% larger in every direction. The femur bone may be 10% longer, but only 5% thicker around. Therefor is will not sustain a quadriceps muscle more than 5% thicker around even though it is 10% longer, thus giving the visual effect of a quad that is less thick on a bodybuilding stage.
Someone at 5’8” will look like his legs are massive with a 32” quad. If the guy is 6’8” however with a 34” quad, people will say his legs suck, even if both guys can squat the same weight, and the legs are actually larger in circumference on the 6’8”, because visually (all that matter in bodybuilding) the legs look less thick compared to the rest of him.
Anabolic Member
awesome! Now how about the reverse is someone 5'4 in trouble?It depends on what look the judges are going for. Long post waring.
The uber-thick look, guys around 250 contest weight under 5'11", that seems to have been very popular until recently, is really not a good idea for a taller guy, as he has to be much heavier than that, to get a similar look.
BMI is not a good way to judge weight vs. height, as the math is flawed. The PI (ponderal index) is a better way to tell what is comparable for different heights.
For example, 250 at 5’10”, is the same as 346 at 6’6”. We have seen guys 5’10” and 250 pounds on stage, however there never has been a guy who is 346 at 6’6” on stage, and there is a physical limitation that causes this.
The heart has to work harder, both the taller, and heavier you are. Blood has to be pushed through all that beef. Noah Steere, who was as heavy as 347 pounds, in 2004, and at the time was lean enough to have stepped on stage at 325+, but was very uncomfortable with that weight. It was physically painful to be that heavy. Even though his silhouette would have looked similar in shape to a guy who was 250 at 5’10”.
So, in terms of possible, yes taller guys can get just as thick, but they have to be much heavier for it, and there is a limitation for how much a human, of any height, can be heavy muscle wise, until the health is put at serious risk.
However, taller guys can have very impressive builds. Someone who is 6’6” could for example be build like 5’10” 220 pound guy, at 300 pounds, which is realistic example, without keeling over dead at that height. However it is still going to be harder for him to maintain the same silhouette of 300 pounds than it is for the 5’10” guy to maintain 220.
This is partly due to the fact that taller, say 10% taller, does not mean every thing is 10% larger in every direction. The femur bone may be 10% longer, but only 5% thicker around. Therefor is will not sustain a quadriceps muscle more than 5% thicker around even though it is 10% longer, thus giving the visual effect of a quad that is less thick on a bodybuilding stage.
Someone at 5’8” will look like his legs are massive with a 32” quad. If the guy is 6’8” however with a 34” quad, people will say his legs suck, even if both guys can squat the same weight, and the legs are actually larger in circumference on the 6’8”, because visually (all that matter in bodybuilding) the legs look less thick compared to the rest of him.
Banned
lee priest
Anabolic Member
that was my example....however his mouth landed him in more trouble than his size....
I'm talking on the NPC level....we'll talk pro status later......I think the leniency is different before pro....
Member
If they are only 5'4", then the amount of weight required to look "thick" will be rather minimal. The PI of a guy who is 250 at 5’10”, reduced to 5’4”, would be only 191 pounds. However, it is easier to be 191 than 250, regardless of height. SO in terms of getting that uber-thick look, the shorter guys has an advantage.
The smaller stature of a shorter bodybuilder, compared to the other guys on stage, in the 5’8”-5’11” range, is what will hurt them more.
Even though being thick is not the issue, being a head shorter than the guy next to you is.
This is why bodybuilding is dominated by the 5’8”-5’11” heights.
I am an advocate of bringing back the height classes for just such a reason, as I feel comparing the physiques of guys of similar height gives a much better comparison of overall package than does comparing guys of similar weight, even if there is a 12" difference.
The classes could be: >5’, 5’1”-5’5”, 5’6”- 5’11”, 6’0”-6’5”, and 6’6”+
Or described as: dwarf, manlet, medium, tall, giant
Here is a photo of Art Atwood 5’11” 245 pounds and Noah Steere 6’6”+ 283 pounds, from the 2001 NPC Nationals. Art came in 1st, and Noah 5th. BTW.
Last edited by meathead320; 02-01-2008 at 01:45 PM.
Member
Will a mod please move this to a training section, or the lounge?
It is not directly AAS related.
Anabolic Member
Didnt realize it number one...and didnt relaize it was such a bother....anyways, thanks for eveyones inpout karma to all.....
Member
so 5'4" 190 is small? and easy to attain?
Anabolic Member
so im ok at 6'2....wat would my weight need to be before cutting then at contest time....NPP show
Member
Not saying it is easy to attain.
That is absurd.
My point is it is harder to maintain 300 pounds.
Also, if there is a 5'10" and a 6'4" bodybuilder, both of them may have a limit of say 240 pounds, before they don't feel good.
However, the 5'10" guy will look a lot thicker at 240, than the 6'4" guy will look, even if both guys have equal strength in the gym.
190 at 5'4" is not small. If that is a contest weight, he is a very thick dude.
It is just that for a guy 6'4" to be equally as thick, compared to his height, he would have to weigh 318 pounds. That is the same on the PI index. Cubed-root of 190, divided by 64”, then x 76” (new height), and cubed = new weight, in this case 318 pounds and change.
318 pounds however is a LOT more difficult to get to regardless of height, than 190 at 5'4".
That does not mean it is easy for someone to be 190, just harder to hold a contest weight of 318.
The heart muscle on the 6'4" guy is not much bigger (if any) than that of the 5'4" guy, but having to pump blood through 190 is a lot different than 318. If the heart does start getting bigger, then you have problems, and that is one of the things that happens at 300+, vs. 190'ish.
Height not being as much of a factor in terms of health.
To be the = of what shorter stats? Honestly, you do not need to be = thickness for your height, just do the best you can to be the biggest and most cut you can, work on lagging part, and see how you do. Do not aim for a certain weight, go by the miror. 225 on two 6'2" guys could look very different, depending on where it is on the frame, bone thickness, waist size too. Just do your best. Go by the miror, not the scale or the tape. Your bodybuilding.
Last edited by meathead320; 02-04-2008 at 11:47 AM.
Anabolic Member
I agree but I do think there is an avg weight you can obtain or someone my height to really be safe..I mean I'm 185 now.....I know I need a minimum of 30 right? Esp. since Im under 10%
Anabolic Member
Holy crap man... Your 6'2" 185lbs....... I'm 6'2" 285 you must be a bean poll =P... I am higher body fat right now 16.5% but damn dude =P Eat something
Anabolic Member
EZ son....no need to be harsh...I'm much closer to a good weight than you are...esp. since I'm under 10%R I have tons of room to bulk, where you need to cut down.........I dont want this to get ugly, not like that, but all I need is about 20lbs of mass, where you could afford to lose 60ish....Holy crap man... Your 6'2" 185lbs....... I'm 6'2" 285 you must be a bean poll =P... I am higher body fat right now 16.5% but damn dude =P Eat something
I think most would agree its better to bulk when you are a low bw % as opposed to the other end...
Member
http://forums.steroid.com/showthread.php?t=305774Holy crap man... Your 6'2" 185lbs....... I'm 6'2" 285 you must be a bean poll =P... I am higher body fat right now 16.5% but damn dude =P Eat something
click the link and then click the link on there.
i remembered this guy boasting about his weight and size in the past and then he posted pics.
these are pics of you soulstealer? why are you being harsh with this guy if these are pics of you?
Retired AR Monitor
Its a lot harder to gain 20lbs of muscle then lose 60lbs of BF IMO. Also, the middle pictures or after he is looking a lot better. Remember there is no flaming on this board for everyone to know, its a great way to get suspended. Also to columbus, you are about the same size as my buddy back home. He was super ripped but only like 182 at 6'2" and boasted around like he was "the shit" kinda irritated me and im 10lbs heavier then him at 5' 7.5" But regardless its hard to put on that muscle fast, going to take a while with the right diet. Some people like to bulk up a lot and then cut. I bulked to 194 and cut back 2lbs and now climbing back up. Dropped a bit of BF% not adding more muscle. Keep up the good work columbus and soulstealer. Im also trying myself to get into an ameture show to start (been too much of a chicken and want to really get big first) this thread has def. helped me out as in terms of height/weight!
Anabolic Member
So whats your point exactly? at that point I was eating like a savage those were my fat pics....if you look lower I dieted alot off.... right now I'm doing the same thing but I was calipered at a much lower bodyfat...I will be dieting in april
Last edited by soulstealer; 02-06-2008 at 10:52 AM.
Anabolic Member
Didn't mean any offense just saying you should eat something =P let yourself get up to 12-13% bodyfat while bulking..... and on a side note that was a while ago now I couldnt afford to loose 60lbs that would be alot of muscle I'd be in single digits around 250
Anabolic Member
Hey thats awesome bro.... Same thing here man.... I would love to compete but I'm chicken as hell to commit... maybe next year....
Anabolic Member
now why would I want to get to 12-13 if I can stay around 10 with the same effe3cts....if your train hard and eat clean, the gains will come and the bodyfat doesn/t......it's not about scarfing down obscene amoiunt of food....it doesnt need to be that way and should....I can gropw and stay lean!
Anabolic Member
Its my firm belief that you have to put on "some bodyfat" to put on optimum muscle mass doesnt have to be alot of fat but some...
Retired AR Monitor
I prefer Lee Priests method of bulking (eat as much as you can and everything). Hahahah that dude got fat as hell then lost it for comp!
Anabolic Member
Member
I could just see people in the offseason, that do not know who he is, think he is a regular fat guy.
Member
been away for awhile. this is not a flame, you want clarification so here it is.
you don't look good at that weight and you dont look huge. you look fat. for you to tell someone 1 or 2 percent body fat away from being ripped nicely that he is skinny when you are 290 and 60 to 70 pounds away from being in solid shape is harsh and unnecessary. i saw your new pics and you are not 30or 40 pounds away from being lean, no way. if you were 220 to 230, i would say you would look great. but to put someone else down for being skinny and proclaiming how you are a massive weight when it looks sloppy and fat is ridiculous.
again, not a flame or looking for internet crap. that was my point.
Anabolic Member
So what your saying is according to my pics you deduce that I am 30%+ BF? as in if I were to hit 9% BF it would require me to loose 60-70lbs?
Member
im not telling you anything really, its an opinion. you could say f u to me and be done with my opinion. you know your info about training and such but here i think your a little off.
in this post you say this guy is 15 to 16% bf.
http://forums.steroid.com/showthread.php?t=331911
in this thread we are posting in you say you are around 16.5%.
the guy you said is 16 or so % is way leaner than you.
in my opinion, i would put you no lower than 23% and probably closer to 25%bf. you are smooth everywhere and have a large roll of bf around your lower back and midsection. the upper abs, chest, and arms have a high bf % also. so i would put you at around 220ish to 230 when all is said and done.
not a flame. just an opinion. all out bulks are not effective and its a hell of alot harder to lean out to where you want to be than you think. you let yourself go. i did it in the past too, almost a decade ago and regret it alot. took a long while to get my midsection back.
like i said, its my opinion and im not talking down to you or talking shit, just what i see.
Anabolic Member
Sorry to say I'm no where near 25% BF bro.... get your eyes check =P besides after switching my carb intake from White potatoes + wheat bread + dextrose to sweet potatoes + brown rice + beans.... I dropped almost 6lbs in 2 days....I was bloated as hell eating those crappy carbs.... ontop of holding a mid-high teen BF%
Last edited by soulstealer; 02-19-2008 at 07:48 PM.
Member
like i said, just an opinion. good luck either way.
Anabolic Member
Thats cool bro appreciate any input dont get me wrong... I'll be the first to admit I'm a fatty right now
Member
Less than 2 month old, and a good subject, so bump.
Banned
all i got to say is im 6'2 and so is arnold so im happy
Senior Member
arnolds teen pictures in his encyclopedia were amazing, he was huge at 16 years old! i hope you are on that track if you are looking to be as great as him =)
Purveyor of Thor's Hammer
that's a load of shit, you can't add as much mass staying at 10% as someone could adding a little more bodyfat inadvertently
New Member
bean pole lol
New Member
im 5'9 214
Associate Member
what is this ponderal index stuff? and what factors account for such a difference in weights for the different heights? as apposed to say dividing pounds by inches, which only accounts for about 3 pounds per inch on a big man.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote