Is being bigger always better?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 4:28 PM GMT
    I'll throw this question out to the jock masses out here. For me, the more muscle size I have, the better I do look. Especially for tall guys, being bigger and more muscular does look better.
  • ChicagoCarl

    Posts: 163

    Jan 27, 2011 4:42 PM GMT
    For myself, that is one of the two choices I have to face. Since I have lost a lot of weight I have some loose skin and the options are to bulk up more so the skin can become more taut due to muscle mass. The other option is the surgery which of course may have to be done either way, but I want to bulk up as much as possible before going under the knife.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 27, 2011 5:21 PM GMT
    There are a lot of variables. For one, define better.

    I think you mean form, i.e. aesthetics - how you look at the beach. Because, aside from the segment of the population who thinks big muscles are "gross," there's a point where you get too big to look good in clothes, or easily find clothes that fit. (Though I agree with you about the height thing; famous cover fitness model/bodybuilder Frank Sepe who is your height (6'2") trains at my gym and maintains a fantastically beautiful, muscular body but at a leaned out 220lbs (to your 260) looks almost unassuming clothed.)

    rbxi6e.jpg

    But you could also mean function. For some people, being too large can impede them. (But for others, not. Also at my gym is NPC promoter Dave Palumbo. While Dave has a freakishly veiny, muscular, blocky physique which would not be considered by most to be aesthetically pleasing, clothed or not, I was stretching out next to him and while I was barely able to do a full split he had absolutely no trouble.)

    8yi91e.jpg

    Or do you mean healthwise? Some bodybuilders are incredibly healthy (except during precontest prep, an unhealthy practice by definition) while others are ticking time bombs given overdone chemical enhancement.

    ChicagoCarl saidFor myself, that is one of the two choices I have to face. Since I have lost a lot of weight I have some loose skin and the options are to bulk up more so the skin can become more taut due to muscle mass. The other option is the surgery which of course may have to be done either way, but I want to bulk up as much as possible before going under the knife.

    Muscle gain wouldn't make that much of a difference in loose skin over a "Biggest Loser" type of weight loss, but may in your case, though wouldn't most of your loose skin be around your midsection instead of pecs and underarms? Over the course of 18 months (including a forced six month gym layoff, so it's really one year) I lost exactly what you lost in five years - 80lbs - and have absolutely no loose skin anywhere (though down to 182 from 262 I've another few pounds to go). I was lucky in the gene department but am still hoping this is sustainable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2011 3:46 AM GMT
    Bigger isn't really better, for me. It's not practical. It would slow me down during my other physical activities. But on other guys, I don't mind. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2011 4:10 AM GMT
    You are WAY too old to be a go go dancer. 41 years old and still go go dancing? Leave that to us, younger folks! Some people NEVER grows up and still think they are Peter Pan in Neverland. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Hunkymonkey

    Posts: 215

    Jan 29, 2011 8:23 PM GMT
    In a word, YES. Bigger is better. But, that's just my opinion. icon_lol.gif I like how I look when I am bigger and I am more attracted to bigger fit guys. I am not being shallow. I just can't help myself. icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif

    I do think you can be unhealthily too big, but for most of us here, that's not a probability.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2011 8:33 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]eagermuscle said[/cite]There are a lot of variables. For one, define better.

    I think you mean form, i.e. aesthetics - how you look at the beach. Because, aside from the segment of the population who thinks big muscles are "gross," there's a point where you get too big to look good in clothes, or easily find clothes that fit. (Though I agree with you about the height thing; famous cover fitness model/bodybuilder Frank Sepe who is your height (6'2") trains at my gym and maintains a fantastically beautiful, muscular body but at a leaned out 220lbs (to your 260) looks almost unassuming clothed.)

    rbxi6e.jpg

    But you could also mean function. For some people, being too large can impede them. (But for others, not. Also at my gym is NPC promoter Dave Palumbo. While Dave has a freakishly veiny, muscular, blocky physique which would not be considered by most to be aesthetically pleasing, clothed or not, I was stretching out next to him and while I was barely able to do a full split he had absolutely no trouble.)

    8yi91e.jpg

    Or do you mean healthwise? Some bodybuilders are incredibly healthy (except during precontest prep, an unhealthy practice by definition) while others are ticking time bombs given overdone chemical enhancement.

    ChicagoCarl saidFor myself, that is ine of the two choices I have to face. Since I have lost a lot of eight I have some loose skin and the options are to bulk up more so the skin can become more taut due to muscle mass. The other option is the surgery which of course may have to be done either way, but I want to bulk up as much as possible before going under the knife.

    Muscle gain wouldn't make that much of a difference in loose skin over a "Biggest Loser" type of weight loss, but may in your case, though wouldn't most of your loose skin be around your midsection instead of pecs and underarms? Over the course of 18 months (including a forced six month gym layoff, so it's telly one year) I lost exactly what you lost in five years - 80lbs - and have absolutely no loose skin anywhere (though down to 182 from 262 I've another few pounds to go). I was lucky in the gene department but am still hoping this is sustainable.[/quote

    I agree big is good i'm short tho. I'm only 5'8 and 175lbs. and I'm told I'm big enough. Keep in mind most who are saying this are not bodybuilders or gym rat like myself. I think i'd be crazy hot if I was 190 and nicely defined. Larger then normal muscle is hot but it is a point where it can be too much. I mean forget the clothes..how can you move around if you 5'9 225 or 6'2 and 290 it can be over done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2011 8:40 PM GMT
    i much prefer a lean, cut, swimmer/runner, 'guy next door' over the bulk/mass of a bodybuilder.... so 'no', bigger isn't better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2011 8:48 PM GMT
    I'm in the never ending slow process of mass building. So far i weigh 149 lbs, and everyone's already noticing. Yay! But i want to see how muscular i can get.
    I like muscular guys too but the attraction doesnt end there. I like men, whatever shape they are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2011 9:30 PM GMT
    No. Bigger is not always better. There are guys on this site who think they look amazing and they frankly are less attractive than the "average" guy. Their huge egos and odd behaviour easily outweighing their low body fat.

    What matters is proportion: both height/weight and then visual proportion. A balanced physique is always more attractive than a "big" one.

    But who understands this.. very few.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2011 9:36 PM GMT
    All of the attractive guys in the clubs are tall and built.

    In order to compete, I will have to grow 4" and put on about 25 pounds in muscle. Wunderbar.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2011 9:51 PM GMT
    BlakeJ saidAll of the attractive guys in the clubs are tall and built.

    In order to compete, I will have to grow 4" and put on about 25 pounds in muscle. Wunderbar.


    From the photos I see on your profile, you look fine to me. You are only nineteen; eat right, hit the gym, and you will gain muscle. And by the way, there are a lot of guys who like guys in your height range. That's the beauty of beauty and attractiveness, it is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
  • MuscleComeBac...

    Posts: 2376

    Jan 29, 2011 9:58 PM GMT
    in a word...yes.

    It's personal.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2011 10:12 PM GMT
    I've never seen a person I'd consider too big to be the point their size took away they're attractiveness in real life...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2011 10:24 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidNo. Bigger is not always better. There are guys on this site who think they look amazing and they frankly are less attractive than the "average" guy. Their huge egos and odd behaviour easily outweighing their low body fat.

    What matters is proportion: both height/weight and then visual proportion. A balanced physique is always more attractive than a "big" one.

    But who understands this.. very few.


    I agree with this. A proportionate physique is more aesthetically pleasing than gross size. So is natural, graceful movement and good posture, which being bigger for the sake of being bigger can hinder.

    If you're blessed with a good frame, then being bigger would suit the powerful frame. But others with finer frames might tend to look better with a sleeker, leaner build. So that shows that bigger is not always better.

    I'm aiming for a dancer's build because I know that this sort of build would be proportionate for my height and narrow frame.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2011 10:31 PM GMT
    kangourou said
    Lostboy saidNo. Bigger is not always better. There are guys on this site who think they look amazing and they frankly are less attractive than the "average" guy. Their huge egos and odd behaviour easily outweighing their low body fat.

    What matters is proportion: both height/weight and then visual proportion. A balanced physique is always more attractive than a "big" one.

    But who understands this.. very few.


    I agree with this. A proportionate physique is more aesthetically pleasing than gross size. So is natural, graceful movement and good posture, which being bigger for the sake of being bigger can hinder.

    If you're blessed with a good frame, then being bigger would suit the powerful frame. But others with finer frames might tend to look better with a sleeker, leaner build. So that shows that bigger is not always better.

    I'm aiming for a dancer's build because I know that this sort of build would be proportionate for my height and narrow frame.


    This is what I believe, as well. I DO think a person can be too big. In fact, some people who are not height/weight proportionate I don't find attractive at all, on either end of the spectrum.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jan 29, 2011 11:05 PM GMT

    rbxi6e.jpg

    the just about perfect combination of height, muscle mass and low(er) body fat, IMO


    .


    8yi91e.jpg

    too much muscle mass, IMO

  • safety43_mma1...

    Posts: 4251

    Jan 29, 2011 11:58 PM GMT
    bigger isnt always better i am only 165 and wouldnt trade it for the world. icon_biggrin.gif
  • LuckyGuyKC

    Posts: 2080

    Jan 30, 2011 12:23 AM GMT
    I looked at your profile pics and your hot list.

    1) Frankly I like you the size you are in the pics - just about perfect. If you packed on another twenty like most of the guys on your hot list, I would be losing interest.
    2) You are 41 - I know very few (exceptions to everything) former body builders that keep the muscle mass looking good at 65. However I know some dang hot 65 year old that are your current size (thinking Arnold)

    arnold.jpg
    2010-WonderCon-Lou-Ferrigno-511x384.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2011 12:31 AM GMT
    LanceKC saidI looked at your profile pics and your hot list.

    1) Frankly I like you the size you are in the pics - just about perfect. If you packed on another twenty like most of the guys on your hot list, I would be losing interest.
    2) You are 41 - I know very few (exceptions to everything) former body builders that keep the muscle mass looking good at 65. However I know some dang hot 65 year old that are your current size (thinking Arnold)

    arnold.jpg
    2010-WonderCon-Lou-Ferrigno-511x384.jpg


    I was eating icon_cry.gif
  • starboard5

    Posts: 969

    Jan 30, 2011 12:34 AM GMT
    There's a lot of "eye of the beholder" in this, I suppose. Is anyone addressing limitations? I'm coming up on 56 and have the metabolism of a ferret on crack. Gains are minimal and slow, and sometimes involve minor injury.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2011 12:43 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidThere are a lot of guys at my gym that are bulky and do not look muscular. They think they do but they do not. Distended bellies, bloated.

    I think I may drop down to 200lb. I am about 215 now. I am getting rather sick of gay men who identify themselves with a big muscular body.

    Since my weight has fluctuated from 185 to 250 it has been rather interesting to see how some people were drawn to or repelled by me (depending on how small or big/muscular I was). When I was 250 I had a couple buds that were into bodybuilding and when I lost the weight they stopped talking to me. Stupidly, I eventually figured out that the only reason we were friends was because of my bigger body. People who identify with others and associate with others who basically "mirror" them when it comes to physical attributes are poorly evolved. Unfortunately this is how most people operate and seems rampant in the gay community. I find it incredibly shallow.

    And some of those big guys are as fucked up as anorexic chicks. Only it is "bigorexia" and I find them annoying as hell.


    I'm quite a fan of your girlish figure icon_exclaim.gificon_redface.gif And your tattoos perfectly compliment your chest and back.

    That said, I agree with you about 'bigorexia'. There was a man who used to come frequently into the pharmacy I worked at, and who worked at a local gym. He was said to be training for a bodybuilder competition and had quite a large chest and arms. However, he had pitiful chicken legs and all that muscle just looked like big mush. It was all about being big with no sense of proportion or aesthetic.

    Another case: one of my classmates in year 9 was eventually expelled for steroid use (and we were already speculating in year 9 that he was a roider). He's a massive hulk of a guy these days.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2011 10:48 AM GMT
    "Better" is being happy with yourself the way you are...regardless of how you look.
    Bigger is only bigger.
  • metta

    Posts: 39155

    Jan 30, 2011 11:00 AM GMT
    Bigger is not necessarily better, healthwise. Being bigger does not make you healthier. In fact, in many cases, it may not be as healthy. Carrying around more weight is harder on your organs. Having to keep pushing yourself to maximum lifting weight ability, is again, hard on your organs, especially your heart and joints. Some long-time bodybuilders suffer health issues as they get older because of the damage done overtime to the heart and joints.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2011 11:10 AM GMT
    Lostboy saidNo. Bigger is not always better. There are guys on this site who think they look amazing and they frankly are less attractive than the "average" guy. Their huge egos and odd behaviour easily outweighing their low body fat.

    What matters is proportion: both height/weight and then visual proportion. A balanced physique is always more attractive than a "big" one.

    But who understands this.. very few.


    Agreed, based on your bone structure and frame to determine the balanced physique as opposed to loading on more than you should.