How long?

[shadowfox]

how long would it take to get from 126lb to 200lb?

Ive been bulking for 4 weeks now and ive reached 131lb. im clean bulking as they call it. I love working out and i strongly recommend people to start it.

 

[AmazingTricks]

clean bulking, at your pace, would take about 2 years. however you've had a 5lb newbie gain in a month and is in no way indicitive of where you will be in the future. my personal guess is, assuming you maintain everything as is for the whole time (doubt it), would take like 5 years. again, assuming you don't change your diet, training, or get taller.

if you just wanted to eat everything you saw and bulk bulk...it could be done with a little over year and some stretch marks.

 

[check_mate_kid_uk]

You are so light now im guessing you must be quite short aswell. You will probably never get to 200 lb's even if you used steriods, unless of course a hell of a lot of it was fat. I bet some of that 5lb's you gained was fat from eating more to gain more muscle.

Right now im loosing more weight to get better 6 pack definition as its not really great right now and im at like 9% body fat. I eat quite a bit of protein but am at a calorie deficit.

I dont see why you would want to get 20 200lb's that is soo huge unless you are real tall, that it turns women off, women prefer brad pitt not arnold schwartznager.

Dont wory about your muscle mass gain, just work out for a while, look in the mirror, do you like what you see? aim to like what you see rather then weigh 200 lb's (which is far far to much)

if you are 6ft tall then it may be an idea to get 15-16 inch biscepts but if you not then go for very cut and great abs, and you will look far more atractive and probably be healthier.

 

[pimpfromdayone]

Excellent advice. Almost everyone else on these boards tells guys they need to put on as much muscle as possible, but for many people, that is not really a good idea. Getting "cut" is the best thing a smaller guy can do. Get that six pack, work on your muscle definition, keep that bodyfat % relatively low, work on your weak muscle areas and get your body in good proportion, and you will look great with your shirt off or in a nice polo shirt.

Besides, Arnold was "only" like 220 lbs when he did the Olympia bodybuilding competitions, and he's 6' tall. I am 130 lbs now, at 5'7", and I can't even IMAGINE getting to 200. I would look pretty fu-cked up in my opinion. Brad Pitt is not a lightweight, at like like 5'11" 160 lbs (see him in Troy), but he wouldn't look any better at 200 lbs than he already does now. Try explaining that to 99% of the other people on this message board

 

[NewDude001]

Just for reference Tom Cruise at 5'7'' is about 210 from most sites. Also Mel Gibson is around 210-220 at 5'9'' From what I can tell, they do just fine

 

[pimpfromdayone]

Originally posted by NewDude001
Just for reference Tom Cruise at 5'7'' is about 210 from most sites. Also Mel Gibson is around 210-220 at 5'9'' From what I can tell, they do just fine

Actually, I made an error: Arnold's "competition" weight is actually around 260 lbs according to internet sources, and 235 lbs "off-season." That makes more sense. Cruise must have some hidden muscle in him or something because Depp and Pitt both weigh around the 160 lb mark, at about 5'10" and 5'11" respectively, and both of them have fairly athletic bodies too. Anyway who cares, the point is that as long as you're not a sticlk you should look fine. Putting 70 more lbs of muscle on a small body doesn't do much good.

 

[semag]

I seriously doubt that cruise figure, and the mel gibson figure, although both are carrying a fair amount of fat.

I could see gibson @ like 185-190 with his bf, and cruise, at his height, at like maybe 170 -175... comparing him to brad pitt and the like.

The previous figure of Arnold at 220 at olympia competitions was correct. Franco columbu weighed in @ 185 or so @ 5'5"... and sergei nubret (google him) was 6'1 @ 200-210 or so.

Modern bodybuilders are the ones hitting insane numbers, like ronnie at 300lbs + @ 5'10" and Jay Cutler up there as well. Flex Wheeler used to have an awesome, "classic" physique until he threw on as many lbs as he could to try to compete size-wise with the big guys.

The modern era can probably be said to have started around lou ferrigno, because he was one of the first to compete at like 250+, and he was pushin 6'6"

 

[semag]

Originally posted by pimpfromdayone
Actually, I made an error: Arnold's "competition" weight is actually around 260 lbs according to internet sources, and 235 lbs "off-season." That makes more sense.

Ps. no, that doesn't make sense. A bodybuilder is always going to way less in the competition weight than the off season, because in off season he's carrying around more fat and more water. No way arnold was ever 260... he was like 235 - 245 in the offseason

 

[pimpfromdayone]

Originally posted by semag
Ps. no, that doesn't make sense. A bodybuilder is always going to way less in the competition weight than the off season, because in off season he's carrying around more fat and more water. No way arnold was ever 260... he was like 235 - 245 in the offseason

Well, I was paraphrasing another source, but I thought it made sense because huge muscle mass must be maintained or you can lose it.... at least I think you can, considering their really low levels of bodyfat factored in there too. If the 220 I said earlier is correct than there is no fu-cking way Cruise weighs anything near that. He is not even close to Arnold's size.

 

[check_mate_kid_uk]

Originally posted by NewDude001
Just for reference Tom Cruise at 5'7'' is about 210 from most sites. Also Mel Gibson is around 210-220 at 5'9'' From what I can tell, they do just fine

are american lb's diffrent to uk lb's because i weight not much more then 145 lb's i am normal build, decent pecs, an alright 6 pack genrally speaking im not body builder but am in good shape with plenty of muscle. So how is it that these people could over 60 lb's more then me when i am also 5'9" apart from that, they certainly do not look it!

 

[pimpfromdayone]

Originally posted by check_mate_kid_uk
are american lb's diffrent to uk lb's because i weight not much more then 145 lb's i am normal build, decent pecs, an alright 6 pack genrally speaking im not body builder but am in good shape with plenty of muscle. So how is it that these people could over 60 lb's more then me when i am also 5'9" apart from that, they certainly do not look it!

American and UK lbs are the same. But actually, as far as I know, UK men are on average slimmer than American men. I have noticed that our clothing sizes are actually slightly different than yours. For instance, for several popular brands, a size small over here is a size medium over there.... at least from what I have seen when internet shopping.
145 lbs is a completely normal weight for 5'9". I think it is just like di-ck size.... many people exaggerate their weight (and height) just like they exaggerate their di-ck size. I am only 130 lbs at 5'7", and even though I have a small frame, people in REAL LIFE that actually see me don't think I am way too skinny or anything, because I am within the normal range of weight for someone my size. People on here somehow think they can know what you look like from just height and weight, but they're so full of shi-t it isn't even funny. They are, no doubt, having a battle of weights, just like they have a battle of di-cks.

 

[semag]

I just found a few sites that peg Tom Cruise at 170 lbs... which makes sense to me.

http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/bio/tom_cruise.shtml
http://www.celebwelove.com/Tom_Cruise/

I also found a few that peg him at 201... which i think is too much for him.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

Wait...why be cut, when there's little muscle there to be cut for? The purpose of being 'cut' is to show off muscle. Obviously being overweight isn't a pleasure either, hence diet control.

But the body is counter-productive to gaining weight and losing fat. It's a fallacy. What normally happens is...

You gain so much muscle at a current bodyfat %, say 17, and the larger muscle APPEARS to give you more cut. Also, you will lose a few points by lifting, getting bigger, and eating just a little right, so it won't be AS tough. Fat is burned in low to moderate states of intensity, such as walking, low intensity and moderate intensity cardio, resting, and sleep. Anything above moderate intensity is burned by carbs because it's more readily available and easily convertible to energy and glucose.

That said, I wouldn't want to be cut with tiny bi's, tiny legs, no arse. Sure, abs are nice, but girls don't care about that thinness. Then again, there's a flavor FOR ALL girls and guys out there.



A-Unit

 

[shadowfox]

Originally posted by check_mate_kid_uk
You are so light now im guessing you must be quite short aswell. You will probably never get to 200 lb's even if you used steriods, unless of course a hell of a lot of it was fat. I bet some of that 5lb's you gained was fat from eating more to gain more muscle.

if you are 6ft tall then it may be an idea to get 15-16 inch biscepts but if you not then go for very cut and great abs, and you will look far more atractive and probably be healthier.

lol im 6ft tall.... damn i'am skinny its not even funny.

 

[al77]

Originally posted by semag
I just found a few sites that peg Tom Cruise at 170 lbs... which makes sense to me.

http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/bio/tom_cruise.shtml
http://www.celebwelove.com/Tom_Cruise/

I also found a few that peg him at 201... which i think is too much for him.

I got a feeling all those site simply BS. It is obvious to anyone that Tom Cruis is not at 200lb.
He can be 170lb sure. But the problem I see the very same sites which say he is 170lb say he is 5'9'' which is BS, since he is 5'7''.
They lost any credibility after that.

 

[DonJuanMonk]

Originally posted by NewDude001
Just for reference Tom Cruise at 5'7'' is about 210 from most sites. Also Mel Gibson is around 210-220 at 5'9'' From what I can tell, they do just fine

Bullsh-it. They are not that heavy. The heaviest I would go for Mel Gibson is 180 and Tom Cruise, I'd say 170.

 

[Warboss Alex]

Originally posted by shadowfox
how long would it take to get from 126lb to 200lb?

Ive been bulking for 4 weeks now and ive reached 131lb. im clean bulking as they call it. I love working out and i strongly recommend people to start it.

Depends entirely on your genetics/metabolism/etc and is impossible to say. Just eat your arse off and enjoy yourself on the way.

 

[pimpfromdayone]

Re: Re:

Originally posted by A-Unit
Wait...why be cut, when there's little muscle there to be cut for? The purpose of being 'cut' is to show off muscle. Obviously being overweight isn't a pleasure either, hence diet control.

That said, I wouldn't want to be cut with tiny bi's, tiny legs, no arse. Sure, abs are nice, but girls don't care about that thinness. Then again, there's a flavor FOR ALL girls and guys out there.



A-Unit

The term "cut" that we use implies a gain in muscle accompanied by a loss in fat (IF you had extra fat to begin with). Obviously if you have no muscle to begin with, you must add some muscle mass in order to be cut, but you don't need hardly as much as a bodybuilder to look really good. You do need some muscle though. I just wanted to clarify that for everyone.

Actually, I am willing to bet that abs (and possibly glutes) are THE most sexually attractive part to women. They are, in essense, your "fu-cking muscles," and that explains why women love them so much. Biceps, legs, pecs, etc are all nice and show your ability to protect her, but of those who have big muscles, FEW men have a true six-pack.

You're completely right though: all women have different taste. I know girls who like anyone with a lot of muscle, whether they are short or tall, doesn't matter to them, as long as muscle is there. I know women who don't seem to care about it much at all, and date skinny guys, cut guys, bodybuilder guys, doesn't matter. Because height can't be changed, you shouldn't worry about it.

Btw, speaking of shoes, my Reeboks add about an inch of height.

 

[Warboss Alex]

Re: Re:

Originally posted by A-Unit
Wait...why be cut, when there's little muscle there to be cut for? The purpose of being 'cut' is to show off muscle.
A-Unit

"I can see the point in trimming the fat off a prime steak, but not from a piece of bacon."
-DC