Odd question regarding muscle growth

Ask or answer questions, discuss and express your views

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward

Post Reply
Rucifer
Member
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Odd question regarding muscle growth

Post by Rucifer » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:54 pm

Since I have been lifting weights semi-seriously, I've noticed two types of muscle growers while I have been there. And keep in mind- both of these only apply to guys with at least a semi decent amount of muscle definition. The first kind are those who look "ripped", and the second are those who look "bulky". To me, I think of the 300 or new wolverine look to epitomize this type (though these are extreme cases), and as for the bulky, I think more of a bodybuilder type look. I don't know if anyone else has made this distinction, or even cares, but I just sort of have a question about it.

Is this entirely genetics as to how this develops? Or is it more how you go about lifting and dieting and whatnot? I used to think the ripped look was just cause of a lower bodyfat % or something, but I have seen plenty of bulky muscled type guys who probably have an extreme low percantage as well. Then I thought maybe it was the underlying frame of a man (as in some are smaller framed naturally moreso than others even before lifting). The reason why I am asking is I would prefer the leaner ripped look, and think this is what I am developing, but don't want to screw it up if its more to do with environmental, rather than genetic factors.

hoosegow
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by hoosegow » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:39 pm

How about yes to all?

Genetics does play a large part. What you do also plays a large part.

A low muscle skinny guy can look ripped. He is still weak. I think what you are basically seeing is a difference between guys with muscle and guys without - both with low body fat.

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Fri May 01, 2009 2:12 am

Yea guys with just a little bit of muscle mass but very low bodyfat have that look you are talking about.

Matt Z
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Matt Z » Fri May 01, 2009 5:32 pm

I think it comes down to something I like to call the the sweatshirt test. Some guys look fairly muscular shirtless or in a painted-on tanktop, but if you put him in a ordinary, normal fitting sweatshirt you can't even tell he lifts. Meanwhile, if someone can wear a normal, or even baggy sweatshirt and still look obviously muscular, it's safe to say he's a pretty big boy.

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Fri May 01, 2009 6:43 pm

Because of my loose skin and not being very cut, I look better in a tight shirt than anything else. Even in a looser shirt you can see it a little.

The thing is though, people are much more impressed with the much smaller guys with low bodyfat. Those kind of guys have to be shirtless or wearing a tank to even tell they lift though.

Matt Z
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4505
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:19 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Matt Z » Fri May 01, 2009 8:25 pm

It depends on who you ask. ..... For example, most women aren't really into big muscles. However, there are still a lot more women who like big muscles than there are guys who actually have them.

Likewise, most people assume that anyone with big pecs, delts and arms must be super-strong. However, those of us who've spent much time in gyms can generally spot the difference between the guys who are REALLY strong and the ones who only have "beach muscle".

hoosegow
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by hoosegow » Fri May 01, 2009 9:41 pm

The really strong ones are the ones under a lot of weight? :wink:

nygmen
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:51 pm
Location: Mass, USA

Post by nygmen » Sat May 02, 2009 1:17 pm

Matt Z wrote:most women aren't really into big muscles.
We certainly hang out with different types of women. :wink:

I know most women aren't really into the dieted down, sub 8%, "on stage", striations & vascular protrusions of a pro, but most chicks I know dig a little bulk belly on a muscular man, and a dude that at least looks like he can pick up heavy stuff and kick some ass in her honor.

As put to me by a girl I know, "Yeah I want a dude with big muscles. First off what is some scrawny dude smaller than me gonna do for me? And second, I want a guy that can kick ass, and pick things up that I need lifted."
Likewise, most people assume that anyone with big pecs, delts and arms must be super-strong. However, those of us who've spent much time in gyms can generally spot the difference between the guys who are REALLY strong and the ones who only have "beach muscle".
Yeah it seems like people just carry themselves differently when they get strong. So get a bit arrogant, but mostly just more confident and strong mentally and emotionally too.

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Sun May 03, 2009 12:24 pm

Yea, women don't like the really low bodyfat with all the veins. They like more around 10%, which is still pretty lean. Some of them like bigger guys, but it seems like there are more that like just a little bigger than average. I think the 10% range is what they go for the most though. But it all depends on the girl. Some of them have their own sort of fetish. Like mine has a thing for big arms.

There could be an age thing too. It seems like the younger girls seem to like leanness the most and as they get older they seem to not think the leaner guys are any more attractive than ones with more average bodyfat levels. I've also noticed women seem to like bigger guys more as they get older too. I think the young ones are intimidated by it, then as they mature they just find it exciting. That's what I have noticed anyway.

Rucifer
Member
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Rucifer » Sun May 03, 2009 8:19 pm

Do you think some people are just genetically drawn to gaining muscle in certain areas moreso than they should? Like outpacing other body parts even if they are trained equally? For me...I've always been naturally stronger in the upper body, particularly chest and shoulders. Yes, when I was younger I did do the beach body workout with my dad where all we would pretty much do was bench and shoulder press and curl, but we weren't too serious about it, and once I got semi-serious about lifting I included everything. I'm not gonna say my legs haven't developed at all, but the upper torso (chest, back, shoulders) is far outpacing my arms and legs. Freaking sucks. Hah.

brook011
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:08 am

Post by brook011 » Sun May 03, 2009 10:58 pm

Mine hates my bicep veins but likes the bigger arms, something to squeeze onto when we go out. Shes a younger girl too.

Post Reply