Men get a lot of criticism these days, with the toxic male stuff,   but today is the international day to highlight men's issues and also men's achievements. 

What better way to do that than with the launch of a big SpaceX rocket (see other thread) and a aesthetically pleasing, almost godlike photo of the male form.

Almost as beautiful as Charlie in his prime. 

 

This guy is a little wussie!🤣

1 hour ago, charliearon said:

This guy is a little wussie!🤣

 

Hmm.... is this you in your prime then, Charliepoos...

 

 

 

 

All real men love the new flightsimulator from Microsoft!

I guess folks on Steam are not real men.

Grotesque!

Noel

18 hours ago, birdguy said:

Grotesque!

Noel

 

Bob Paris at the top or Dorian Yates at the bottom, or both.

 

Dorian was one of the first " mass monsters" 💪 

Both, Martin.  I wonder how fast either one could run the 100 meter dash?

Noel

Built and toned like Colossus, but can't make his way through a Williams Sonoma showroom without knocking everything over... 😋

Imagine what it’s like for them going shopping for clothes.  Any old Big and Tall store won’t do.  They must go directly to Rochester’s for the Grotesque.

I never though all that bulky musculature was even equal to colossal strength.  Maybe just heavy dumb bells for
arm curls! 🦾 

 

17 hours ago, birdguy said:

Both, Martin.  I wonder how fast either one could run the 100 meter dash?

Noel

 

It's the SAID principle, Noel. Specific Adaption to Imposed Demands. Sprinting is anaerobic rather than aerobic, relying on fast twitch muscle fibers, hence why sprinters have big thighs, its the fast twith fibers the hypertrophy the most. So Bob Paris would probably have been a good sprinter if he did the training to develop the neurological adaptions.

But yes, Yates (who used to live near me in the UK) the "mass monster" would have been better than you think at sprinting but certainly not optimally equipped for the task.

14 hours ago, charliearon said:

I never though all that bulky musculature was even equal to colossal strength. 

 

The crosssectional area is directly related to strength, but the relationship isn't precise. Other factors come into play too, like leverage (where the tendon is attached to the bone) and neurological efficiency, then there's different kinds of hypertrophy, like sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. So yes, we can say that bigger muscles are stronger muscles but even two people with the same size muscle will exhibit different strength capability.

Training for strength rather than mass is different for the reasons stated above. Strength training is usually low reps not often to momentary muscular failure. Hypertrophy training is closer to failure (1 to 3 RIR) and higher set volume to promote sarcoplasmic hypertrophy as well as myofibular hypertrophy. 

To be honest, the jury is still out in terms of the best way to stimulate hypertrophy, but the science is favouring 1 to 3 RIR and relatively high volume and one to three times per week, per muscle.

The caveat, of course is that the science in this field is relatively new and to be honest, not that impressive. The studies involve minimal participants, short duration and mostly untrained participants. Even the means to measure mass increase over such short duration is tricky, as short term swelling can be confused with hypertrophy.

So yes, even after being interested in this stuff since my early twenties, and training seriously, I still wouldn't be able to tell anyone, definitively, the absolute best way to train for muscle mass. Individual genetics also come into play.

One thing we do know, though, is that the most debilitating impact of aging is sarcopenia, loss of muscle tissue as we age. So retaining as much muscle mass as we can (without risky drugs) is a good idea, just as important as aerobic fitness. That doesn't mean our muscles need to be huge, of course. 

Sorry to bore you, people, I got carried away, one of my primary interests. 

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

Sorry to bore you, people, I got carried away, one of my primary interests.

Actually, that wasn't boring at all.  I learned quite a bit about the subject from this post.  Thanks.

What is range of movement like?  Is there anything they can no longer do because of the muscle mass?  Like, you know, tie their shoes? 😄 (there was once a rumor about this)

What are the psychological factors?  Once you've gone beyond aesthetically pleasing to what is basically a caricature, what drives someone to do this?  It's like women who starve themselves to the point of looking skeletal, but still think they're overweight.

I remember seeing pics of Arnold Schwarzenegger and thinking he looked good.  Generally well proportioned and not grotesque.  

Did the ancient Greeks or Romans ever create statues or other artwork depicting bodies like this?  Or Michelangelo?  That seems to be the standard for male beauty.  As for female beauty, I think we got that much better today. 😄 

(I'm not hostile, just a bit curious)

Hook

PS.  Actually, the "mass monsters" appear to be the male version of the female fertility fetish figurines, going overboard past the point of attractiveness.

H.

Edited November 22, 20241 yr by LHookins

3 hours ago, LHookins said:

What is range of movement like?  Is there anything they can no longer do because of the muscle mass?  Like, you know, tie their shoes? 😄 (there was once a rumor about this)

 

Good question. Range of motion in terms of individual joints isn't affected, in fact many bodybuilders are very flexible if they conduct flexibility training. Even the largest bodybuilders can certainly tie their shoes. 😁There's  a  video (I'll try and find it) of Tom Platz, who had some of the most impressive quadriceps of all time, engaging in extreme stretching exercises. obviously some movements are restricted if you have enormous deltoids and trapezius and lat muscles like trying to touch your hands behind your back with one arm over the shoulder and one under.