Aug 13, 2011 7:27 PM GMT
RJ's body types--in a Venn Diagram
-
Aug 13, 2011 7:27 PM GMT -
Aug 13, 2011 8:03 PM GMTo.O -
Aug 13, 2011 10:25 PM GMTnot sure i like that. some of the words are just hieght/weight ratio and others are how you look. seems like there are more categories for guys in the average range. -
Aug 13, 2011 10:39 PM GMTThe whole point of the diagram is that some people are in more than 1 category. E.g. I would classify myself as slim a year ago, and getting in the slim/average intersection and almost making it to defined but not quite yet.
Some people are really muscular but more on the defined side rather than the truly ripped side. Some people I would describe as muscular but not necessarily defined.
Some categories don't intersect at all, e.g. overweight and defined. -
Aug 13, 2011 10:41 PM GMTq1w2e3 saidThe whole point of the diagram is that some people are in more than 1 category. E.g. I would classify myself as slim a year ago, and getting in the slim/average intersection and almost making it to defined but not quite yet.
Isn't that technically muscular though, since I'm at least "overweight" on the bmi chart, even though not every guy who's my weight can bench 300?
Some people are really muscular but more on the defined side rather than the truly ripped side. Some people I would describe as muscular but not necessarily defined.
Some categories don't intersect at all, e.g. overweight and defined.
-
Aug 13, 2011 11:03 PM GMTBullwinklemoos said
q1w2e3 saidThe whole point of the diagram is that some people are in more than 1 category. E.g. I would classify myself as slim a year ago, and getting in the slim/average intersection and almost making it to defined but not quite yet.
Isn't that technically muscular though, since I'm at least "overweight" on the bmi chart, even though not every guy who's my weight can bench 300?
Some people are really muscular but more on the defined side rather than the truly ripped side. Some people I would describe as muscular but not necessarily defined.
Some categories don't intersect at all, e.g. overweight and defined.
Lol, I'm not talking about BMI. I'm talking about "gestalt"--i.e. first word that comes to mind when you look at somebody.
Stocky/muscular is a much better term than overweight for you. ("Beefy" is such a bad term...)
BTW, how do you even fit in that car in your profile if you're 6'7"? -
Aug 13, 2011 11:29 PM GMTTrollileo saidI think that overweight should be moved inside of stocky/beefy which should be moved to the northwest corner to be inclusive of just average and muscular.
Why?
--you can definitely tell between overweight and beefy/stocky. The latter implies some degree of muscularity, whereas the former doesn't.
--and yes, people say they are average when they are really overweight.
I can put a satellite of overweight up on the NE corner of average, or I can make it a 3-d diagram and wrap overweight across to average.
-
Aug 13, 2011 11:29 PM GMTPeople also apply the terms very subjectively. For example, I think of Truly Ripped as having all major muscle groups very well developed, and a low enough bf % to further emphasize the definition. Some guys will label themselves TR without significant muscle development as long as they have low bf %. Other guys will call themselves TR even if they have maybe only descent guns without other muscles significantly developed and just average bf %. On the other hand, there are guys who are definitely TR or at the least, muscular, who call themselves defined. -
Aug 14, 2011 1:05 AM GMTit's totally subjective and i think biased. i'm pretty muscular but i gain weight pretty easy so i tend towards being a bit heavy. i think it would be better to just have it be how you look. -
Aug 14, 2011 1:31 AM GMTAverage also depends very heavily on the base group of people.
Average Americans are obese (by BMI) and generally overweight (by "gestalt" appearance).
Average humans are probably undefined and probably trending toward slim (if you are counting the billions of folks who are still relatively underexposed to crappy processed American garbage food).
Average RJ'ers are probably trending toward some degree of fitness (not very obviously overweight, but not fitness models, perhaps 15%-20% bodyfat - enough to obscure muscle definition, but not quite so much to make them truly unappealing with their shirts off).
I consider myself average in that last sense (the RJ sense I mention), slowly moving into that intersection between "defined" and "muscular" (I won't consider the transition complete until my "Adonis Belt" is clearly visible and my six-pack has emerged).
To my eye, "Truly Ripped" would be mostly a matter of very low body fat with some muscle mass, with the focus on muscle striation and definition of shape: this would be more the realm of marathon runners and triathletes than powerlifters and bodybuilders.
So yeah - it's all very subjective, until and unless the site owners put out some very clear guidance as to what each category of appearance is supposed to be. -
Aug 14, 2011 1:39 AM GMTBut "average" for the US has gone from normal (i.e. on the thin side) in the 1980's to overweight now, and "overweight" is now more like obese.
"Obese" is more like morbidly obese.
-
Aug 14, 2011 1:42 AM GMTq1w2e3 said
Easy. It's a Dodge, not a Honda.Bullwinklemoos said
q1w2e3 saidThe whole point of the diagram is that some people are in more than 1 category. E.g. I would classify myself as slim a year ago, and getting in the slim/average intersection and almost making it to defined but not quite yet.
Isn't that technically muscular though, since I'm at least "overweight" on the bmi chart, even though not every guy who's my weight can bench 300?
Some people are really muscular but more on the defined side rather than the truly ripped side. Some people I would describe as muscular but not necessarily defined.
Some categories don't intersect at all, e.g. overweight and defined.
Lol, I'm not talking about BMI. I'm talking about "gestalt"--i.e. first word that comes to mind when you look at somebody.
Stocky/muscular is a much better term than overweight for you. ("Beefy" is such a bad term...)
BTW, how do you even fit in that car in your profile if you're 6'7"?
But I like beefy- if the human body was a piece of meat, I don't think that chicken, pork or pheasant really would fit me... Idk that's just me though. -
Aug 14, 2011 4:41 AM GMTEvery body is unique and beautiful in its' own way. I am grateful that I am not disabled in such a way that I cannot pursue being "the best me that I can be".
I've stopped comparing myself to others in regards to "body type". it just leads to unhappiness. -
Aug 14, 2011 4:48 AM GMTIm in-between that mess of circles
-
Aug 14, 2011 4:55 AM GMTI like Venn diagrams.
These two particularly:
Uh oh, did I go off topic again?
* hits self with rubber mallet * -
Aug 14, 2011 4:58 AM GMTCouldn't you go from average to obese though? As in, no muscle definition, and then you are just fat.
Maybe the average should be in the middle then? -
Aug 14, 2011 8:29 AM GMTI don´t understand what the overlaps are meant to show... are these who we have sex with?
#confused -
Aug 14, 2011 8:40 AM GMTthat venn diagram makes little sense
