Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: ManBearPig... on May 22, 2006, 05:07:25 PM
-
Phil Heath's
or
Dennis James?
I know the discussions here are always about "mass monsters" vs. "aesthetics", but which one's easier to get to?
-
The more aesthetic is always harder to attain!
-
mass is harder to obtain why do you think all the little guys bitch about rule changes,because they can not get that big to stay ahead of the game
-
I'm not sure either one is easier to obtain than the other. It comes down to genetics. James has a better frame for mass. While heath looks better as an aesthetic bber.
Gotta go with what works for you, I guess.
-
3 replies, 3 differing opinions.
-
shitpiles.
-
The hardest is a perfect combination of the two.... The hardest is size with aesthetics. There really have never been anyone with a perfect combination of the two. One factor always suffers when this is attempted.. What I mean is there has never been a trully asthetic giant. And vice versa
ex Ronnie getting so huge yet sacrificing his lines... Or Marcus trying to streamline his look to be more aesthetic and ruining his look etc
-
The hardest is ...
good thing this was a "which is easier" thread.
-
my nuts are hard
-
good thing this was a "which is easier" thread.
f**k you power rod ill type whatever I please
Getting huge is harder.... There 8)
-
Can't really say either is easier to obtain.
-
Aesthetics = genetic.
Ability to gain mass = genetic.
It really depends on the hand you've been dealt.
agreed
-
Getting huge is harder.... There 8)
I disagree and this is why...........no one is willing to work hard for what they desire. If you look at most of todays bodybuilders (pro's) they spend more time doing power exercises and using the "HIT"system than volume training, in essence they train exclusivly for mass without paying much attention to detail. I've said this a million times before......if you took todays training methods and put these guys up against yesterdays training methods with the same intensity they wouldn't be able to handle it. A good example is to look at the aesthetics of the bodybuilders from the late 70's, 80's and early 90's and compare to the bodybuilders of today..sure they are bigger but aesthetics is gone!!
Anyone can get big with the right amount of gear, but it takes smart training to perfect it!!
-
depends on which drugs you have at your disposal
-
Phil Heath's
or
Dennis James?
I know the discussions here are always about "mass monsters" vs. "aesthetics", but which one's easier to get to?
ehhhh.... just work with what Mother Nature gave YOU.
-
I disagree and this is why...........no one is willing to work hard for what they desire. If you look at most of todays bodybuilders (pro's) they spend more time doing power exercises and using the "HIT"system than volume training, in essence they train exclusivly for mass without paying much attention to detail. I've said this a million times before......if you took todays training methods and put these guys up against yesterdays training methods with the same intensity they wouldn't be able to handle it. A good example is to look at the aesthetics of the bodybuilders from the late 70's, 80's and early 90's and compare to the bodybuilders of today..sure they are bigger but aesthetics is gone!!
Anyone can get big with the right amount of gear, but it takes smart training to perfect it!!
No such thing as training for detail.
-
No such thing as training for detail.
Yes there is!!
-
Yes there is!!
You cannot train for cuts or striations, they are all genetic when you diet down.
-
I'm pretty aesthetic but I have trouble in gaining mass.. Bummer for me..
-
mass monster is harder
-
You cannot train for cuts or striations, they are all genetic when you diet down.
Get out of Doggcrapps ass cheeks! Go pick up a book by Arnold!
Aesthetics is harder mass is easy.
-
Training for mass imo is easier than training to have an aesthetic physique.Mass monsters just slap on the mass w/o caring (they do to an extent) for how they look compared to aesthetic bb'ers who carefully try to place muscle in all the right areas to create the illusion of being massive.
-
What a stupid thread....."easier"....?
-
Yes there is!!
do you ever get tired of being wrong?
E
-
What a stupid thread....."easier"....?
easier of the two, smart guy.
-
ehhhh.... just work with what Mother Nature gave YOU.
Great point. You have to be yourself.
-
Phil Heath's
or
Dennis James?
I know the discussions here are always about "mass monsters" vs. "aesthetics", but which one's easier to get to?
BOTH guys have incredible shape and mass on their individual frames. Impossible to say in my opinion
-
DJ is harder,Heath relies alot on his genetics.If he had DJ structure on the same weight he would look alot worse.
Thats why Shawn,early Flex and others could stand next to 280 Nasser and beat him when they were aroudn 210-230.
-
Yes there is!!
no, there isn't
how exactly does someone change their genetic muscle insertions, shape etc?
besides synthol
-
You cannot train for cuts or striations, they are all genetic when you diet down.
1. When I say "detail" I'm referring to training each individual bodypart, ex; exercises that train the front and rear delts, exercises that hit each individual muscle from every angle and not just doing 2-3 exercises per bodypart with 2-3 sets and 4-6 reps. Don't give me examples of what "the pro's" do in magazine articals, it's total misleading training advice and anyone that has been training for any lengh of time should know this......HIT is crap training!!
2. Cuts and straitions ARE NOT genetic, like I said before, if you look back in the late 70's, 80's and early 90's just about everyone was cut and or straited.
CAPTAIN MARVEL......I never said anything abouit insertions or shape, that is genetic!!
-
any schmuck can look like dj with enough gear phil heath is one genetically gifted bodybuilder
-
I disagree and this is why...........no one is willing to work hard for what they desire. If you look at most of todays bodybuilders (pro's) they spend more time doing power exercises and using the "HIT"system than volume training, in essence they train exclusivly for mass without paying much attention to detail. I've said this a million times before......if you took todays training methods and put these guys up against yesterdays training methods with the same intensity they wouldn't be able to handle it. A good example is to look at the aesthetics of the bodybuilders from the late 70's, 80's and early 90's and compare to the bodybuilders of today..sure they are bigger but aesthetics is gone!!
Anyone can get big with the right amount of gear, but it takes smart training to perfect it!!
BULLSHIT. Ronnie Coleman and Jay Cutler both use a huge amount of volume. Just watch their training videos. Very few big guys use HIT training.
Aesthetics are gone because bodybuilders are pushing their bodyweights too high. Ronnie and Jay both looked fantastic at 220 lb, and easily could have competed against the champions of the 70's and 80's. The idea that isolation exercises are necessary for a more aesthetic physique is simply laughable. All of the great bodybuilders of the 50's and 60's used freeweight exercises such as bench presses and squats. How do you explain the fact that John Grimek, Dave Draper, Reg Park, Boyer Coe, and Lou Ferrigno all trained extremely heavy on the powerlifts? According to your logic, those guys should have had terrible aesthetics.
Aesthetics is almost entirely a function of genetics. The most aesthetic bodybuilders are naturally well proportioned and symmetrical. END OF STORY.
-
Like someone said it's all in the genes. You can bust your balls and become your personell best and with average genetics mass is probably the way to go. If you borne with Flex Wheeler's genetics, than you train to to obtain the best cut and ripped physique you can. It's all what you have to begin with.
-
BULLSHIT. Ronnie Coleman and Jay Cutler both use a huge amount of volume. Just watch their training videos. Very few big guys use HIT training.
Aesthetics are gone because bodybuilders are pushing their bodyweights too high. Ronnie and Jay both looked fantastic at 220 lb, and easily could have competed against the champions of the 70's and 80's. The idea that isolation exercises are necessary for a more aesthetic physique is simply laughable. All of the great bodybuilders of the 50's and 60's used freeweight exercises such as bench presses and squats. How do you explain the fact that John Grimek, Dave Draper, Reg Park, Boyer Coe, and Lou Ferrigno all trained extremely heavy on the powerlifts? According to your logic, those guys should have had terrible aesthetics.
Aesthetics is almost entirely a function of genetics. The most aesthetic bodybuilders are naturally well proportioned and symmetrical. END OF STORY.
You are totally missing my point. I know they used (Ferrigno, Coe, etc) power exercises ie; Bench, squats, rows, but they also used exercises to hit each individual bodyparts front lateral, rear laterals, 3-4 exercises for triceps, 3-4 for biceps, etc, when I say 'volume training' I'm talking about 12, 15 or 20 sets per bodypart and 8-12 reps. Bodybuilders way back when rarely if at all did any type of deadlifts. You are right to some extent about the genetics but it is quite possible to also train for aesthetics as well.
Arnold is a great example, he routienly did 20-25 sets for chest when he wasn't supersetting with back and even with his supersets the sets and reps were quite high. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see, read or here about people doing even too many supersets anymore exept maybe in the weeks prior to a show.
-
Maybe I'm wrong
No, not maybe.
-
No, not maybe.
..............but I'm rarely wrong :P!!
-
i think its harder to be a mass monster. a good mass monster. how many good big guys are out there? its hard to be a huge pro bber and look good.
ex. greg kovacs. huge but looks like shit (ok, looked ok when he got his pro card).
ex. dillet, nasser, ruhl, yates. all big guys and looked good.
i think its harder to be bigger. all the smaller guys def. want to be bigger. ahmad haidar may not want to be ruhls size, but he would much rather compete at 240 and look the same as he does now at 220.
-
Like someone said it's all in the genes. You can bust your balls and become your personell best and with average genetics mass is probably the way to go. If you borne with Flex Wheeler's genetics, than you train to to obtain the best cut and ripped physique you can. It's all what you have to begin with.
how do you know what you have to begin with?
bone structure? i don't really subscribe to that theory.
genetics? look at arnold's and lou's dad (and i'm sure many other pro's dads/moms).
plateauing at a certain weight? well, we all can find a solution to that in a needle...or needles.
-
..............but I'm rarely wrong :P!!
ahahahahahahahhaahahhaha hahahahahahahahaha
E
-
any schmuck can look like dj with enough gear phil heath is one genetically gifted bodybuilder
This cracks me up if you are serious LOL
For those that think a pro physique like Dennis James is nothing more than hitting a lot of juice, well, then for those that really think that try this:
1. Get as much stuff as you can via any means possible, train hard, eat right, etc.
2. Do this for a couple years and go win an NPC qualifier, then go and win your class at the nationals, get your pro card and place in a pro show a few times.
Pc of cake.....NOT!
-
This cracks me up if you are serious LOL
For those that think a pro physique like Dennis James is nothing more than hitting a lot of juice, well, then for those that really think that try this:
1. Get as much stuff as you can via any means possible, train hard, eat right, etc.
2. Do this for a couple years and go win an NPC qualifier, then go and win your class at the nationals, get your pro card and place in a pro show a few times.
Pc of cake.....NOT!
The "train hard" part is where most people have problems. Nobody gets super big without lots of heavy and hard training.
-
The "train hard" part is where most people have problems. Nobody gets super big without lots of heavy and hard training.
not to mention thousands of calories and "supplementation"
-
The "train hard" part is where most people have problems.
Including the "pro's". Don't be decieved by their DVD's!!
-
This cracks me up if you are serious LOL
For those that think a pro physique like Dennis James is nothing more than hitting a lot of juice, well, then for those that really think that try this:
1. Get as much stuff as you can via any means possible, train hard, eat right, etc.
2. Do this for a couple years and go win an NPC qualifier, then go and win your class at the nationals, get your pro card and place in a pro show a few times.
Pc of cake.....NOT!
Plenty of "big guys in the gym" do all of those things and, of course, they don't look so good.