Nobody is going to be a dad if this idiocy goes through.
SarcasticGoodGuy
*R O T T E N*
If this gets through I'm really tempted to apply for it.
"Dad why don't I have a mum?"
"Because no one loved me, just like how no one will love you."
"Oh."
"Now stop talking, if I pretend you're a down I get free parking at the cinema."
AskWazzup
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Ha, bodybuilders have the least amount of functional strength because they mainly do isolated exercises. As for the bear in the video, i guess it could be possible to win against it, but these wrestlers are using wrong technique, they should go for it's hind legs, that way the bear could not grab them and it would fuck up the bears balance. Front on they have no chance of winning.
Idiot body builders maybe, if you do the correct exercises, then you don't "isolate" the exercises. Yes, there are many machines that can assist you and help in targeting specific muscles, but those shouldn't be the only exercises you do. Anyone who's not using some form of dead lift or squad in his exercises for example, is missing out on a lot of potential here. And correct body building also means that you don't stick to the same old exercises till the sun dies, but changing things a little, trying variations after some time. What people often do, is that they perform one big exercises like a bench press, but never ever do something like a neggative bench press, cables or exercises with dumbbells to stimulate the muscles that support the chest.
When you look at Bodybuilders like Arnold, then you will see that many of them actually engaged in competitions outside of bodybuilding, like powerlifting before they became professional bodybuilders. Also, the moment you step in a gym to push around weights, be it for boxing, runing, swiming you name it, you do bodybuilding. There is not really much of a difference. At the core, body building is to gain muscle while loosing bodyfat. The only difference between bodybuilders and your average joe who's doing it for athletic reasons, is that the bodybuilder is doing it a lot more efficiently. Don't confuse those bulky super mutants that you see in professional bodybuilding with the gold days of bodybuilding in the 70s with Arnold and Lou Ferrigno.
When you look at Bodybuilders like Arnold, then you will see that many of them actually engaged in competitions outside of bodybuilding, like powerlifting before they became professional bodybuilders. Also, the moment you step in a gym to push around weights, be it for boxing, runing, swiming you name it, you do bodybuilding. There is not really much of a difference. At the core, body building is to gain muscle while loosing bodyfat. The only difference between bodybuilders and your average joe who's doing it for athletic reasons, is that the bodybuilder is doing it a lot more efficiently. Don't confuse those bulky super mutants that you see in professional bodybuilding with the gold days of bodybuilding in the 70s with Arnold and Lou Ferrigno.
Last edited:
AskWazzup
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
You are talking about lifting weights, i was referring to bodybuilders, people who make money of showing their muscles in skimpy underwear. They have inferior functional strength compared to wrestlers, gymnasts, breakdancers etc. because they only use their chains of muscles in a limited manner compared to the other prior mentioned professions. If a bodybuilder is a bodybuilder and not a wreslter also, i would wager he would fare even worse than an avarage athletic joe in scenarios involving chimps, bears and other beasts, because not only does he have to move around his mass in a manner that he is not used to, he will also gass out much faster because of the amount of muscle that he has to employ.
Most modern professional bodybuilders, especially in the non-natural competitions, really do train mostly with isolations because they're on so much juice it works. The golden age is over, and it's the era of distended whey-bellies and pea-sized balls.
I think a guy like Hafthor Björnsson would have a chance against a chimp, but not against a gorilla or a bear.
I think a guy like Hafthor Björnsson would have a chance against a chimp, but not against a gorilla or a bear.
AskWazzup
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Hm... I don't know, his fighting technique is not all that great:
Of course this is training and fooling around, but does not seem like he uses his body all that efficiently.
Of course this is training and fooling around, but does not seem like he uses his body all that efficiently.
Yeah, he can't fight. But if he actually trained for it he'd be a beast. Well, he'd probably lose mass and strength, but still. He'd be pretty scary. And I do believe that in an all-out fight to the death, McGregor would have been torn to pieces 
AskWazzup
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
If he managed to catch him and seriously hurt him in the first 5 minutes or so, after that it's over for him because as you can see his stamina is pretty limited.
This is an interesting example of an actual fighter who is of similar build to the mountain:
He tosses the smaller guy around, but eventually his gas tank runs out.
This is an interesting example of an actual fighter who is of similar build to the mountain:
He tosses the smaller guy around, but eventually his gas tank runs out.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
I think The Mountain is moving pretty ok for a guy who weighs 140 kg + (?). But still, he's on roids. Has to be. And that's ok, people quietly accept it because, well he's not in the olympics competing or something.
Imagine, back in the cave man days, every guy was that size. And had maybe even more functional strenght. They hunted huge cave bears and ate cave bear meat and lots of berries etc. They got their hormones naturally.
Imagine, back in the cave man days, every guy was that size. And had maybe even more functional strenght. They hunted huge cave bears and ate cave bear meat and lots of berries etc. They got their hormones naturally.
Actually, his competition weight more around 190 kg. But yeah, roids. He's a big dude by nature, but that amount of training just isn't possible naturally.
And I think cavemen were quite a bit smaller than modern humans, actually. Well, shorter, at least. Strong and muscular, but not Björnsson-sized.
I think the average size of the caveman wasn't really much bigger then 1,60 or maybe even just 1,50. I know that the average size of humans some 2000 years ago was somewhere around 1,70. The size and age of humans grew with access to better nutrition. Like trough farming and domestication of animals. We never had such an access to high quality food like today. In the western world, that is.
duh ...
Not everyt sport out there is bodybuilding, but building muscle is pretty much the core of bodybuilding. How, or in which way you do that, is a whole different story, and not what I am talking about. As I said, the idiots out there, do it in a way where it's unatural. But you can take every sport, be it runing, cycling or lifting weights, and turn it into something 'extreme'. But I am sorry, some people don't like to hear this, but the moment you step in a gym to push those weights around, you're building your body. As said, some have different goals, getting better at cycling, climbing or what ever, but that doesn't change the fact what it is. You're gaining muscles.
The point is, I just don't see the difference between a baseball player who's hitting the gym training his arms to increase his performance and a 'bodybuilder' who's pretty much doing the same movements, but with the only difference in the weights and reps. This huge distinction just doesn't make any sense for me. Particularly as I remember, that I started in hiting the gym in my youth, to get better in Judo, and what considence, it also increased my muscles while burning fat.
All that's really different, is the goal. What you want to achieve. You're muscles don't care if you're throwing a baseball, swining a bat, punching a bag or lifting some really huge weight. What you're muscles care about, is how you stimulate them. And someone who's into heavy weight lifting needs different muscle fibers and contractions to someone who's playing a baskeball match.
Dude. That is the VERY definiton of bodybuilding. How do you 'build' your body if you don't contract your muscles? Everyone, whos hiting the gym to lose fat and gain muscles, is bodybuilding. The problem is that over the years the term bodybuilding got a very negative connotation. But that doesn't change the fact what it is at the core and historically. Oh? So you hit the gym 3-4 times a week? Are you a bodybuilder? No no no! I am just doing it for my fittness. And what do you do? Oh I benchpress a lot and lift weights! And with what goal? To gain muscles and lose fat of course!
duh ...
Not everyt sport out there is bodybuilding, but building muscle is pretty much the core of bodybuilding. How, or in which way you do that, is a whole different story, and not what I am talking about. As I said, the idiots out there, do it in a way where it's unatural. But you can take every sport, be it runing, cycling or lifting weights, and turn it into something 'extreme'. But I am sorry, some people don't like to hear this, but the moment you step in a gym to push those weights around, you're building your body. As said, some have different goals, getting better at cycling, climbing or what ever, but that doesn't change the fact what it is. You're gaining muscles.
*shakes head* All the people you mantioned ARE bodybuilders! There. Is. No. Difference. The moment they gain muscles with pushing weights around, is when they build their body. The one you're really talking about are PROFESIONALL bodybuilders who simply take this to the extreme, of which many are idiots today even destroy their own sport because they take it to such a level, where you hardly regonize them as humans. If you train the wrong way, then yes you get all those issues you mentioned, but that's definetly true for every sport. But bodybuilding isn't just pushing 300lb weights around and pumping steroids before you wast your belly on some 500grams of pure protein that cost you 80 dollars. There is a reason why many athletes in the 70s and 80s looked for advice to bodybuilders like Arnold and Lu, to increase their strength and performance and many of their training exercises actually made it into other professional sports.
The point is, I just don't see the difference between a baseball player who's hitting the gym training his arms to increase his performance and a 'bodybuilder' who's pretty much doing the same movements, but with the only difference in the weights and reps. This huge distinction just doesn't make any sense for me. Particularly as I remember, that I started in hiting the gym in my youth, to get better in Judo, and what considence, it also increased my muscles while burning fat.
All that's really different, is the goal. What you want to achieve. You're muscles don't care if you're throwing a baseball, swining a bat, punching a bag or lifting some really huge weight. What you're muscles care about, is how you stimulate them. And someone who's into heavy weight lifting needs different muscle fibers and contractions to someone who's playing a baskeball match.
Last edited:
AskWazzup
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I think you sometimes just like to start arguments for fun
. If you want to define all people who incorporate weight lifting in their lives as bodybuilders, that is fine, but i was not referring to them. I was referring to a particular subdomain of that group. I have nothing against bodybuilders, or Arnold, but whenever the question of fighting animals, or other people and generally surviving by using their physical fitness comes to question, bodybuilders often come up as a high success probability example based only on the amount of muscle mass they carry, which is wrong, because they are barely if even better at that than average fit people. That is why i was saying that they have low functional strength, with the implicit notion that they of course have better functional strength than an average human.
I am not in any way claiming that supplementing ones fitness with weight exercises as used by bodybuilders will diminish functional strength.
Yeah, sorry for being so agressive and emotional.
It's just that many people hear body building and have this image of those big hulky beasts in their mind that can barely whipe their own asses. But they are, among bodybuilders, the minorty. The 'professionals'. Most athletes that do body building to gain muscles actually try not to look like they do.
It's just that many people hear body building and have this image of those big hulky beasts in their mind that can barely whipe their own asses. But they are, among bodybuilders, the minorty. The 'professionals'. Most athletes that do body building to gain muscles actually try not to look like they do.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Hmm, I got the size of the cavemen wrong. I remember this one US prehistorian claiming that at least certain cavemen had "the pecs of mr Olympia without having to train for it" but yea, didn't mention the height of the cavemen. I guess they could have been short buff dudes.
Last edited:
Eh, if you're gonna get technical about it, then start at "cavemen", there is no such thing. Humans have never truly lived in caves. We have used them as temporary shelters and as storage facilities, sometimes funeral sites. Otherwise we prefer huts, log houses, and so on.
Either way, various archaic humans will still be best compared with hunter-gatherer types of today. People in the past rarely punched bears to death with their hulk-fists, it was much more a matter of spears. Then compare to African tribals, who - to this very day - bring down elephants with spears. If we go by the same logic, these tribals should be mega-tremendous in size, with muscles the size of small children, strapped to their bodies, but they tend to be light-weight, lean, and with a high stamina rather than brute strength.
A different matter would be neanderthals, but they are technically not Homo sapiens. If we're gonna count non-Homo sapiens, then the entire "game" changes, we would be looking at an entire range of variations in "standard" anatomy
/nerdness
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Yes, sorry I just I guess like the term caveman for some reason, unscientific as it is. And I would need to dig out that documentary that had that specific snippet of a comment made by that US prehistorian to delve further into the whole issue why I was led astray on this matter.
Some prehistorians make statements like in the link below, it's not always easy for a layman dummy such as me to sieve the facts from the feaces.
http://metro.co.uk/2009/10/19/ancie...olt-and-stronger-than-schwarzenegger-3421373/
Oh, and I was going to add: Don't get me wrong! These people would be strong, like tribals today are strong. Like farmers are strong, especially old fashioned ones. It's a hard, physical lifestyle.
Depending on world region, exact lifestyle, and so on, these people would have different physical specialities, but all in all, they would kick my ass thoroughly if it came to that
You know how people talk about the draw weight of longbows? There's this English survivalist - not Bear Grylls - this other, friendlier tubbier guy, focuses much more on actually eating food, berries, ancient lifestyle. He gifted a longbow to this tiny, scrawny, tribal elder, a pygmi at that. It was impressive to see this tiny man draw the bow, excitedly, and shoot an arrow into a tree, with great ease. The impact made a loud, sharp noise, like a whip. That surprised me!
T
TorontoReign
Guest
This should be renamed the thread of semantics. 
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
I had one of those dreams where I didn't attend a class the whole semester and then I had to take an exam, but I've been a semi responsible member of the work force and graduated 3 years ago, why the fuck is my brain trying to fuck with me in such illogical ways?