Bulk or Definition?? Which is better?

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

    Sep 27, 2015 2:49 AM GMT
    I have had three people lately tell me that definition is better than bulk. I love muscular bulk because it feel more in control in a relationship in and out of bed. . . . What do you all thing?? Which is better to achieve???
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2015 4:36 AM GMT
    As a fellow tall guy of the same height I know it's a lot harder for us to attain muscular volume because everything is so spread out.

    If you have a reasonable muscular volume you can get away with having some fluff over it, but if you don't yet have this volume (my case) then you are absolutely obliged to be lean because fat can easily cover the shallow muscularity of a tall guy making you look plain and average as if you had never stepped foot in a gym.

    I would say, for someone of our height, this is rarely a choice. First because you need a shitload of weight to actually look buff. Lastly because you're better off honoring your unique proportions rather than trying to emulate the look of a 5'10.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2015 6:16 AM GMT
    steelejacob90 saidI have had three people lately tell me that definition is better than bulk. I love muscular bulk because it feel more in control in a relationship in and out of bed. . . . What do you all thing?? Which is better to achieve???

    So is this a fetish question? Or a serious bodybuilding/fitness question?
  • stratavos

    Posts: 1831

    Sep 27, 2015 12:21 PM GMT
    as per usual, it depends on the individual. for those that want to get away with eating almost anything, the muscle mass is a better way to go :p
  • leanandclean

    Posts: 271

    Sep 27, 2015 2:33 PM GMT
    stratavos saidas per usual, it depends on the individual


    I agree. It's a lot easier for me to get lean than it is to get bulky.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2015 2:41 PM GMT
    I'm just trying to eat more/cleaner, train more/harder, and see how my body wants to look.
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Sep 27, 2015 2:41 PM GMT
    Mass and definition are the ideal. In my case I'm a bit more obsessed with bulk because I used to be absurdly skinny.

    As for your statement about control, I think a man's physical size or strength has little to do with that. It's more about personality and attitude. A huge man can be submissive, and a small man can be very dominant, it all depends on how they carry themselves and how they interact with others.
  • Mitch1

    Posts: 9

    Sep 27, 2015 2:51 PM GMT
    It does depend on what you like and what looks good, but remember that your genes will affect what your capable of achieving. At 6'2" you could do some bulk and still have good proportions though. I lifted heavy once but it made me look even shorter. I've seen guys who went for size and as they aged it was difficult to maintain because, for one thing, old joints won't tolerate the kind of training that bulk requires. Depending on your metabolism you might also consider whether or not you'd want to eat the kind of diet or do the cardio that will give you definition. Good luck.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2015 3:44 PM GMT
    bachian saidAs a fellow tall guy of the same height I know it's a lot harder for us to attain muscular volume because everything is so spread out.

    If you have a reasonable muscular volume you can get away with having some fluff over it, but if you don't yet have this volume (my case) then you are absolutely obliged to be lean because fat can easily cover the shallow muscularity of a tall guy making you look plain and average as if you had never stepped foot in a gym.

    I would say, for someone of our height, this is rarely a choice. First because you need a shitload of weight to actually look buff. Lastly because you're better off honoring your unique proportions rather than trying to emulate the look of a 5'10.


    As an aside, if I could get to your level, I'd be pretty freakin' thrilled. icon_redface.gif
  • metta

    Posts: 39129

    Sep 27, 2015 3:51 PM GMT
    Just a preference. If I had to choose one, I like definition better than bulk. I think of bulk as having more fat. Bigger is not healthier. Look throughout nature (even in humans) and bigger generally decreases lifespan (except trees). Bigger is harder on the organs. The process of getting bigger is also harder on the organs.
  • Zinc

    Posts: 197

    Sep 27, 2015 5:46 PM GMT
    BULK.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2015 6:04 PM GMT
    It's 2015. You don't have to pick.
  • mybud

    Posts: 11837

    Sep 27, 2015 6:11 PM GMT
    Bulk up...define later.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2015 6:39 PM GMT
    mybud saidBulk up...define later.


    Couldn't agree with this more. There's individuals on both sides: "Easier to lose weight, then pack on muscle", or "Easier to gain weight, then re-shape it".

    Personally, I've been scrawny my entire life, and absolutely despise it, so I'm biased.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2015 1:16 AM GMT
    ^

    You're also 6'2 like me. Don't bulk unless you're on steroids! You're not a 5'10. Your muscles will be shallow for a long time and if you get fatter the fluff will quickly hide them.

    Good volume x low fat = Muscular
    Good volume x more fat = Beefy
    Poor volume x low fat = Swimmer
    Poor volume x more fat = Average/Plain/Featureless

    If you have poor volume (because you're just starting or because you're very tall), it's more desirable to look like a swimmer than looking like you never stepped foot in a gym in your life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2015 3:55 AM GMT
    Thanks all. (Btw. . . This is a serious question . . Not a fetish). I am very encouraged abs will keep bucking up ! Peace
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2015 11:30 AM GMT
    Definition with a bit of bulk.
  • wellwell

    Posts: 2265

    Sep 28, 2015 5:06 PM GMT
    ^ ^
    This One +
  • Rico024

    Posts: 27

    Sep 28, 2015 10:42 PM GMT
    I am a defined guy, but nothing turns me on more than a massive muscular guy. icon_wink.gif
  • BuffGeezer

    Posts: 4

    Sep 29, 2015 6:03 PM GMT
    As a short guy who always has been a hard gainer, adding bulk is a continual struggle. Still, particularly when I'm in the gym or at the beach, I like having a more defined body than men more than half my age despite the fact that they are carrying a great deal more mass than me.

    So since bulk is truly elusive for me, guess I'm more in the defined camp, probably as much by default as by choice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 30, 2015 3:21 PM GMT
    Notice that in the case of the last two posters (who have undeniable bulk, yet respectively are 5'9", 154lbs and 5'7", 165 lbs, and to put things in perspective comparable to their condition I'm "skinny-fat" at 5'10" and 183lbs), definition makes you look bulkier.

    More definition than bulk is the best case scenario, because then you'll good out AND in clothes. Many guys who are bulky yet lean look beefy in clothes - a look not everyone wants.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2015 2:59 PM GMT
    metta saidJust a preference. If I had to choose one, I like definition better than bulk. I think of bulk as having more fat. Bigger is not healthier. Look throughout nature (even in humans) and bigger generally decreases lifespan (except trees). Bigger is harder on the organs. The process of getting bigger is also harder on the organs.

    The elephant's life expectancy is around 75 years. The more defined cheetah's is 10-12 years. Why is that? Because while the cheetah is running the elephant is lifting heavy.
  • metta

    Posts: 39129

    Oct 02, 2015 3:43 PM GMT
    ^


    notice the word "generally". icon_smile.gif

    I was not trying to compare one species with another. It has more to do within a species.

    Shorter/smaller/thinner humans tend to (on average) live longer than bigger/taller/wider humans.

    For example:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/07/height_and_longevity_the_research_is_clear_being_tall_is_hazardous_to_your.html

    I remember going to my best friends doctor's appointments and his Nephrologist told us that he had a lot of dialysis patients (people who's kidney's are not functioning well enough, many not at all) that were body builders. He said that constant over stress on the organs are not good for the organs. When working out, if we need to make big grunting noises while working out, that we are probably over doing it and over the long term, causing damage to organs. He said it was not necessary to do that in order to build muscle and/or get a good workout. He recommended less weight and more reps as being the way to go. He did not say that was the only reason why they were there. But he said it was a contributing factor. He saw it too often for it to not be considered a factor.


    A good example of what the doctor was talking about is Vic's Natural:

    https://www.youtube.com/user/vicsnatural

    And as for a bad example...there are a ton of them. I think that Scott Herman has gotten way out of hand and what he is doing now has nothing to do with health. He is just challenging himself to get bigger and bigger, and to lift more and more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2015 5:34 PM GMT
    If you hear someone breaking in your house at 3a.m. who do you want in bed next to you, 250 pounds of bulk or 150 pounds of definition?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2015 9:49 PM GMT
    DefensiveEnd saidIf you hear someone breaking in your house at 3a.m. who do you want in bed next to you, 250 pounds of bulk or 150 pounds of definition?

    I'd prefer a 12 gauge shotgun, in this scenario. icon_biggrin.gif