Skinny guys

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: Zstream
I am 5 foot 10 or so depending on the time you measure I weigh 160ish pounds and have the hardest time gaining weight.

Hey don't complain about that, I'm 5 foot 11 and only 130 pounds I don't work out, I sit in font of the PC a lot, don't eat the healthiest stuff (hard to eat healthy at college) and I still don't gain anything

Come post again when your 28-33

99% of the guys I knew back in school are now post Uni 22-23+ and have nearly all piled on the fat...only a few of them haven't.

Koing

I'm built like my dad, he is the same way in he can eat whatever and has a desk job, doesn't work out really (has a bad disc in his neck so he can't do much) but only just started to add a few pounds now that he's about 50. I got a ways to go

 

[chusteczka]

Home-fried dinners with fresh oil will help greatly.
For an active youth, fried foods are an excellent source of nutrition. The problem is changing from this tasty type of meal to something less oily as a person ages.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
160 pounds isn't exactly skin and bones. Do you really think an earlier grave due to maintaining an unnatural body mass is a good trade off?

Unless he starts using steroids, building muscle mass naturally isn't going to cause any problems.

Even the risks of steriods are vastly overstated by the media.

You may not necessarily notice it, but having higher body mass and caloric intake adds up in the long term.

Proof of this claim?

It would be hard to give proof for a vast amount of research in a few links.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

PubMed has a huge amount of research on this and all subjects. Body mass oxidative stress, mitochondrial DNA damage during cell division, you name it and you can find it.

 

[Nutdotnet]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
160 pounds isn't exactly skin and bones. Do you really think an earlier grave due to maintaining an unnatural body mass is a good trade off?

Unless he starts using steroids, building muscle mass naturally isn't going to cause any problems.

Even the risks of steriods are vastly overstated by the media.

You may not necessarily notice it, but having higher body mass and caloric intake adds up in the long term.

Proof of this claim?

It would be hard to give proof for a vast amount of research in a few links.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

PubMed has a huge amount of research on this and all subjects. Body mass oxidative stress, mitochondrial DNA damage during cell division, you name it and you can find it.

No it wouldn't.

Got proof? Post up.

If you don't, I suggest going back in your hole.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: Zstream
I am 5 foot 10 or so depending on the time you measure I weigh 160ish pounds and have the hardest time gaining weight.

Hey don't complain about that, I'm 5 foot 11 and only 130 pounds I don't work out, I sit in font of the PC a lot, don't eat the healthiest stuff (hard to eat healthy at college) and I still don't gain anything

Try eating 5k cals per day and see if you gain anything

 

[50cent1228]

eat alotta peanut butter...one of my friend was exactly ur weight and height and he gained more mass buy taking protein shakes for workouts and eating peanut butter every second he could get his hands on it

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Zstream
Breakfast - 1.5 pouches of oatmeal, the flavored crap *strawberries and cream* with a 20oz glass of water.

Eat 2 full pouches. Drink a glass of milk or juice instead of the water.

Lunch - Sausage/Egg mcmuffin with one burrito and medium soda. I eat breakfast food because the time I go to lunch is pretty early.

Get some hashbrowns/tots too.

Supper - Four pieces of pizza and usually something else like salad or banana.

Eat pasta with meat sauce instead of the pizza. With a buttered roll/bread. And add the salad/fruit.

Toss in a 23gram protein bar each day, usually before I exercise but it can be in the morning or whatever. I take a one a day vitamin which helps with the exercise.

Is it strictly a protein bar? If it is, switch to an energy bar (with protein). Need to get in more carbs.

 

[Alphathree33]

If you're doing this to get girls, there are more effective ways.

Girls aren't purely attracted to looks like guys are.

 

[chusteczka]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Zstream
Breakfast - 1.5 pouches of oatmeal, the flavored crap *strawberries and cream* with a 20oz glass of water.

Eat 2 full pouches. Drink a glass of whole milk or juice instead of the water.

:thumbsup:

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Zstream
Breakfast - 1.5 pouches of oatmeal, the flavored crap *strawberries and cream* with a 20oz glass of water.

Eat 2 full pouches. Drink a glass of whole milk or juice instead of the water.

:thumbsup:

I actually was going to say that, but a lot of people don't like whole.

Originally posted by: Alphathree33
If you're doing this to get girls, there are more effective ways.

Girls aren't purely attracted to looks like guys are.

Yea but they are attracted to guys who have confidence, and if he feels better about himself by being more cut, then that will indirectly attract girls.

 

[chusteczka]

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
160 pounds isn't exactly skin and bones. Do you really think an earlier grave due to maintaining an unnatural body mass is a good trade off?

Unless he starts using steroids, building muscle mass naturally isn't going to cause any problems.

Even the risks of steroids are vastly overstated by the media.

You may not necessarily notice it, but having higher body mass and caloric intake adds up in the long term.

Proof of this claim?

It would be hard to give proof for a vast amount of research in a few links.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

PubMed has a huge amount of research on this and all subjects. Body mass oxidative stress, mitochondrial DNA damage during cell division, you name it and you can find it.

No it wouldn't.

Got proof? Post up.

If you don't, I suggest going back in your hole.

There is no need to be so rude.

By observation, stocky football player types often pass away at the ages between 65-75.
Skinnier people who did not push their bodies so hard when younger often live into their 80's and 90's.

EDIT:
If you insist on being rude, at least back it up with your own links to information that disprove the other position.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
160 pounds isn't exactly skin and bones. Do you really think an earlier grave due to maintaining an unnatural body mass is a good trade off?

Unless he starts using steroids, building muscle mass naturally isn't going to cause any problems.

Even the risks of steroids are vastly overstated by the media.

You may not necessarily notice it, but having higher body mass and caloric intake adds up in the long term.

Proof of this claim?

It would be hard to give proof for a vast amount of research in a few links.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

PubMed has a huge amount of research on this and all subjects. Body mass oxidative stress, mitochondrial DNA damage during cell division, you name it and you can find it.

No it wouldn't.

Got proof? Post up.

If you don't, I suggest going back in your hole.

There is no need to be so rude.

By observation, stocky football player types often pass away at the ages between 65-75.
Skinnier people who did not push their bodies so hard when younger often live into their 80's and 90's.

Proof? You can't make a claim like that without a study to back it up.

 

[chusteczka]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
160 pounds isn't exactly skin and bones. Do you really think an earlier grave due to maintaining an unnatural body mass is a good trade off?

Unless he starts using steroids, building muscle mass naturally isn't going to cause any problems.

Even the risks of steroids are vastly overstated by the media.

You may not necessarily notice it, but having higher body mass and caloric intake adds up in the long term.

Proof of this claim?

It would be hard to give proof for a vast amount of research in a few links.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

PubMed has a huge amount of research on this and all subjects. Body mass oxidative stress, mitochondrial DNA damage during cell division, you name it and you can find it.

No it wouldn't.

Got proof? Post up.

If you don't, I suggest going back in your hole.

There is no need to be so rude.

By observation, stocky football player types often pass away at the ages between 65-75.
Skinnier people who did not push their bodies so hard when younger often live into their 80's and 90's.

Proof? You can't make a claim like that without a study to back it up.

I just edited my post to state there are two sides to this coin. The rude person is just being lazy by not providing contrary evidence.
Rudeness is rarely justified.

EDIT:
There is the argument of the impossibility of being able to prove a scientific negative. However, I have found this position to often be taken by lazy people in this forum who feel this position validates their rudeness.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
160 pounds isn't exactly skin and bones. Do you really think an earlier grave due to maintaining an unnatural body mass is a good trade off?

Unless he starts using steroids, building muscle mass naturally isn't going to cause any problems.

Even the risks of steroids are vastly overstated by the media.

You may not necessarily notice it, but having higher body mass and caloric intake adds up in the long term.

Proof of this claim?

It would be hard to give proof for a vast amount of research in a few links.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

PubMed has a huge amount of research on this and all subjects. Body mass oxidative stress, mitochondrial DNA damage during cell division, you name it and you can find it.

No it wouldn't.

Got proof? Post up.

If you don't, I suggest going back in your hole.

There is no need to be so rude.

By observation, stocky football player types often pass away at the ages between 65-75.
Skinnier people who did not push their bodies so hard when younger often live into their 80's and 90's.

Proof? You can't make a claim like that without a study to back it up.

I just edited my post to state there are two sides to this coin. The rude person is just being lazy by not providing contrary evidence.
Rudeness is rarely justified.

NanoStuff made the original claim that building muscle apparently makes you die sooner. It is his responsibility to provide proof to support his claim.

You don't make a claim, and assume it to be true until someone disproves it. That's not how science works.

Although the reply was admittedly pretty rude.

 

[crt1530]

By observation, muscular/well built men have 8.7 times as much sex as anorexic 130 pound men. You are rude and lazy if you try to contradict me without proof.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
160 pounds isn't exactly skin and bones. Do you really think an earlier grave due to maintaining an unnatural body mass is a good trade off?

Unless he starts using steroids, building muscle mass naturally isn't going to cause any problems.

Even the risks of steroids are vastly overstated by the media.

You may not necessarily notice it, but having higher body mass and caloric intake adds up in the long term.

Proof of this claim?

It would be hard to give proof for a vast amount of research in a few links.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

PubMed has a huge amount of research on this and all subjects. Body mass oxidative stress, mitochondrial DNA damage during cell division, you name it and you can find it.

No it wouldn't.

Got proof? Post up.

If you don't, I suggest going back in your hole.

There is no need to be so rude.

By observation, stocky football player types often pass away at the ages between 65-75.
Skinnier people who did not push their bodies so hard when younger often live into their 80's and 90's.

Proof? You can't make a claim like that without a study to back it up.

I just edited my post to state there are two sides to this coin. The rude person is just being lazy by not providing contrary evidence.
Rudeness is rarely justified.

NanoStuff made the original claim that building muscle apparently makes you die sooner. The burden of proof is on him to provide proof to support his claim.

You don't make a claim, and assume it to be true until someone disproves it. That's not how science works.

Although the reply was admittedly pretty rude.

A simple google search of "NFL Life expectancy" returns hundreds of links stating that the average NFL player lives to be 55, while linemen in particular live to around 52.

Added mass is added mass. The more mass your heart has to pump blood to/through the harder it has to work. It just wears it out quicker. It's pretty simple anatomy/physiology there.

 

[vi edit]

Also, I'm not knocking weight lifting. It's an essential activity required to maintain bone density and muscle strength.

But adding dozens of extra pounds of muscle mass *could* be counterproductive to your body.

Just like anything in life...moderation is the key.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Also, I'm not knocking weight lifting. It's an essential activity required to maintain bone density and muscle strength.

But adding dozens of extra pounds of muscle mass *could* be counterproductive to your body.

Just like anything in life...moderation is the key.

Most people will never be able to attain the size of an NFL lineman no matter what they do, including use steriods.

 

[crt1530]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: chusteczka

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: NanoStuff
160 pounds isn't exactly skin and bones. Do you really think an earlier grave due to maintaining an unnatural body mass is a good trade off?

Unless he starts using steroids, building muscle mass naturally isn't going to cause any problems.

Even the risks of steroids are vastly overstated by the media.

You may not necessarily notice it, but having higher body mass and caloric intake adds up in the long term.

Proof of this claim?

It would be hard to give proof for a vast amount of research in a few links.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

PubMed has a huge amount of research on this and all subjects. Body mass oxidative stress, mitochondrial DNA damage during cell division, you name it and you can find it.

No it wouldn't.

Got proof? Post up.

If you don't, I suggest going back in your hole.

There is no need to be so rude.

By observation, stocky football player types often pass away at the ages between 65-75.
Skinnier people who did not push their bodies so hard when younger often live into their 80's and 90's.

Proof? You can't make a claim like that without a study to back it up.

I just edited my post to state there are two sides to this coin. The rude person is just being lazy by not providing contrary evidence.
Rudeness is rarely justified.

NanoStuff made the original claim that building muscle apparently makes you die sooner. The burden of proof is on him to provide proof to support his claim.

You don't make a claim, and assume it to be true until someone disproves it. That's not how science works.

Although the reply was admittedly pretty rude.

A simple google search of "NFL Life expectancy" returns hundreds of links stating that the average NFL player lives to be 55, while linemen in particular live to around 52.

Added mass is added mass. The more mass your heart has to pump blood to/through the harder it has to work. It just wears it out quicker. It's pretty simple anatomy/physiology there.

The main health problem for former NFL athletes (or any strength athlete) is that after they retire, they continue to eat as they did when they were full training full time. If you are a 240 pound professional athlete, you can easily eat 5000+ calories per day and maintain weight and have a healthy cardiovascular system. Sedentary people cannot eat like a professional athlete without serious health consequences.

 

[KoolDrew]

Simply eat more and lift heavy. When it comes to eating if you have trouble consuming so many calories, protein shakes come in handy. When it comes to lifting, your workout should consist of mainly compound movements such as squat, deadlift, chins, dips, bench, OH press, rows, etc.

Again, diet is the main thing here. Eat a ton, train hard, and get plenty of rest.

 

[SagaLore]

vi_edit is right, there have been an number of studies linking how many cells you have in the body to your life expectancy. This is twofold - your cells have a limitation on how many times they can replicate, and muscle activity produces free radicals.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=7444

http://sageke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/2002/20/nw68

http://www.sciencewatch.com/may-june2000/sw_may-june2000_page8.htm

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet
No it wouldn't.

Got proof? Post up.

If you don't, I suggest going back in your hole.

It's your life I'm not the one who should be convincing you to take measures to live longer, I really don't care. I say this because I don't keep track of every single thing I read, so I couldn't possibly provide you with the same proof that I've become familiar with. I could certainly give you a start, but it would take hours of searching.

In conclusion, if you care about your longevity, you will find this proof on your own. It's really not that bad taking a day off to research if it means 20 more years to your life. Alternatively you can just take my word for it and save yourself the trouble, but if you disagree, by all means do yourself the favor and research.

The issue goes beyond body mass and caloric intake. Too much cardio workout will leave you with an enlarged heart, which is good for endurance, essential to many sports, unfortunately the advantage goes against your favor later in life. A larger heart will greatly increase your chance of cardiovascular complications as you age. Then there's also the issue of autoimmune diseases. Continuous stress on the joints greatly increases your chance of developing rheumatoid arthritis, which is not only debilitating, but also will shorten your life by some 10-20 years, depending on severity and when you get it.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet
No it wouldn't.

Got proof? Post up.

If you don't, I suggest going back in your hole.

It's your life I'm not the one who should be convincing you to take measures to live longer, I really don't care. I say this because I don't keep track of every single thing I read, so I couldn't possibly provide you with the same proof that I've become familiar with. I could certainly give you a start, but it would take hours of searching.

In conclusion, if you care about your longevity, you will find this proof on your own. It's really not that bad taking a day off to research if it means 20 more years to your life. Alternatively you can just take my word for it and save yourself the trouble, but if you disagree, by all means do yourself the favor and research.

The issue goes beyond body mass and caloric intake. Too much cardio workout will leave you with an enlarged heart, which is good for endurance, essential to many sports, unfortunately the advantage goes against your favor later in life. A larger heart will greatly increase your chance of cardiovascular complications as you age. Then there's also the issue of autoimmune diseases. Continuous stress on the joints greatly increases your chance of developing rheumatoid arthritis, which is not only debilitating, but also will shorten your life by some 10-20 years, depending on severity and when you get it.

Some people would rather enjoy their lives than live them inside a bubble. Jealous?

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: CKent
Some people would rather enjoy their lives than live them inside a bubble. Jealous?

You enjoy your life and I'll enjoy mine, for about 20 years longer

As a bonus, I get extra time to wait on regenerative therapy, which could theoretically allow me to live for a billion years, bulked up as big as I'd like. But technology isn't there yet and I'd certainly like to give myself the chance to live long enough to get the chance. It would be pretty crappy to die 5 years short of full body regenerative medicine because you didn't give enough of a ****** to take care of yourself until it arrives. Once you're dead you don't care... but if you want to care, its best not to die.

 

[crt1530]

Calorie restriction diets and tinfoil hat wearing is not "living" by my definition.