566 réponses à ce sujet

[von uber]

If i have to say jessica ennis one more time..

[Seraphim24]

I don't mind a female runaway model. Just that the typical Kate Moss type is made for clothes. It isn't about looks necessarily. If they're Victoria's Secret or something, they're taller and more fit.

 

Male models have kind of changed recently though.. muscular builds are more common now. I'm sure there's a reason why, but I don't know it. Vanderloo was also on the skinny side back in the day... but not as skinny as some.

 

That could be a part of it actually female models oftentimes get to look more "normal" whereas male models usually have that kind of heavier/muscular thing going on (like Mshep) which I don't find attractive personally... I don't know the full story but I'd guess some girls (er, probably some guys?  ) possibly like it but it just feels artificial and kind of weird to me I guess. 

[Dark_Caduceus]

True enough and a valid point but I think the argument here was more about the validity of a thinner character to having a really built character model. My point was more like how thinner isn't weaker and how size of the arms or size of body isn't a guarantee of strength. Weight classes also don't directly correlate to increased size either. In short, yes size does make a difference but it's not a guarantee or an accurate yardstick of someone's power. 

 

 

I dunno, she could with some heavy muscle weave or a bit of biotics..

 

Well there you have it, you have answered yourself. These characters aren't real and especially in a sci-fi setting like mass effect, you really don't need a beefy character to convey a sense of power which is a rather naive perspective Imo. At least that's not the way I sense power anyways. And with that same reasoning it is equally viable to have a thinner character as the body model because as you said it, it isn't real!

 

And it might be more accurate to say that you are looking at it from an action star perspective because I don't think everyone sees the character the same way you do. The way I played it, Shepard was always a biotic in me 1, 2 and 3 and there was no need for them to look anything like an action star. This is an action Rpg so Ryder really doesn't have to be Duke Nukem 2.0 to convey their power or standing

 

Also strong men have greater core muscles than bodybuilders but unless I'm wrong, they aren't necessarily bigger than bodybuilders when it comes to upper body. In fact body builder generally have a bigger upper body in terms of bicep size, shoulders etc despite the difference in strength.

 

 

All things being equal a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. Realistically a 130 pound woman just won't be as strong as a 170 pound man. Unless they're a cyborg, like Shepard, so that's not really a problem.

 

Strongmen are willing to put on more muscle at the expense of more fat gain. The idea of "if you put on lots of muscle without fat you're on roids" is pretty stupid since an average man can only put on maybe 10 pounds of muscle in a year without steroids and putting 20 pounds of fat on at the same time doesn't change that. Bodybuilders are still way stronger than the average person, saying a strongman is "legimately strong" with the tacit understanding that bodybuilders aren't strong (or are fraudulently strong?) is ridiculous. "Functional Training" is like "inner beauty" - it can mean anything so it means nothing.

 

Your waist is primarily determined by bone structure and body fat, there's really no muscles there to be built.

 

This graphic should read "Lame Excuse for Fatties Who Convince Themselves They're Strong"

 

Sorry, got a bit triggered.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

"They have very thick waists because all the core muscles right through the torso are developed to prevent etc., etc."

 

There are not enough facepalms in the whole internet for that.

 

The medical term for the core muscles (with the possible exception of the erector spinae) is "flat muscles". If that was muscle underneath, then the potential for cross-sectional growth of core muscles would exceed that of any other muscle by several orders of magnitude! That is fat, not muscle. The reason that powerlifters / strongman competitors develop comparatively thicker waists is because their exercises do not require them to be agile (which is when lower levels of fat are beneficial); they do not engage in prolonged high intensity efforts and as such the shredding benefits of HIIT do not apply; and finally because their goals do not require them to have highly-defined muscles, so their food regimen is also not very strict. If they had to cut as much as bodybuilders do, they would have a bit bigger waist but only to a very, very, very small degree - because that would be mostly the stabilizing lower back muscles.

 

If you are looking at the bodies with most functionality (especially the wide range that combat might require) I suggest the Olympic gymnasts.

 

In fact, I was going to post here yesterday that Missy Peregrim in "Stick It" has an excellent athletic body that I wouldn't mind seeing used as a model for female Ryder (or better yet, her stunt doubles, the real gymnasts).

Oh I don't think anyone is delusional enough to think that their thicker waists are made of solid muscle, if that's what you're implying. I thought the original person who made it was mostly referring to the core muscles in the lower back and spine. The image also mentions that they do not really care about being fat free and that having fat is common in these kinds of training, since that isn't their focus. 

 

In comparison, bodybuilder always strive for a very narrow waist and wider upper body which is seen an an ideal in such competitions, as far as I know. So relatively speaking wouldn't a strongman have a much larger waists than a bodybuilder who is specifically trying to trim down his waist. 

[MrBSN2017]

True enough and a valid point but I think the argument here was more about the validity of a thinner character to having a really built character model. My point was more like how thinner isn't weaker and how size of the arms or size of body isn't a guarantee of strength. Weight classes also don't directly correlate to increased size either. In short, yes size does make a difference but it's not a guarantee or an accurate yardstick of someone's power.

Also strong men have greater core muscles than bodybuilders but unless I'm wrong, they aren't necessarily bigger than bodybuilders when it comes to upper body. In fact body builder generally have a bigger upper body in terms of bicep size, shoulders etc despite the difference in strength.

Size does matter, and it is natures way of indicating strength. If muscles weren't an advantage, then why is it illegal to take anabolic steroids in sports? Like I said, muscles trained for what you want them to do is an indication of strength and stamina.

Actually strongmen don't have "better" core muscles than bodybuilders nor the same amount of lean body mass. The added body fat/weight increases leverage. All I can say is I can hold my own moving some heavy ass weights in the gym and I'm not going for strength.

[Thermopylae]

But not too realistic

[xelander]

All things being equal a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. Realistically a 130 pound woman just won't be as strong as a 170 pound man. Unless they're a cyborg, like Shepard, so that's not really a problem.

...

Bodybuilders tend to go into sarcoplasmic hypertrophy where strength gains are minimal as opposed to myofibrilar hypertrophy, which is what powerlifters get. While you do explicitly postulate "all things being equal" and I agree in that exact context, I felt the need to made the above point, since the common use of bigger = stronger is fallacious.
 

 

"Functional Training" is like "inner beauty" - it can mean anything so it means nothing.

 

 

Perhaps in the social circles where you spend your time that is true, i have no way of knowing. For me, Functional training is the first, in certain sense the only training. We live in a world based on merit; if you can't get sh!t done, you don't survive, to paraphrase good ole Darwin. If you don't teach your body to execute soundly the complex combinations of pushing, pulling, twisting and standing up that life requires, it doesn't matter how pretty your muscles look. Once you are familiar with the correct biomenchanics of those movements, then it becomes about developing strength, strength endurance, power, speed, agility and improving the very specific skills that your sport/activity requires. This is what I understand when Functionality comes up.

 

 

Oh I don't think anyone is delusional enough to think that their thicker waists are made of solid muscle, if that's what you're implying. I thought the original person who made it was mostly referring to the core muscles in the lower back and spine. The image also mentions that they do really care about being fat free and that having fat is common in these kinds of training, since that isn't their focus. 

 

In comparison, bodybuilder always strive for a very narrow waist and wider upper body which is seen an an ideal in such competitions, as far as I know. So relatively speaking wouldn't a strongman have a much larger waists than a bodybuilder who is specifically trying to trim down his waist. 

 

Gotcha. I found that part of the image severely misleading, so I felt the need to elucidate. After all, we owe it to ourselves as men to use correct arguments when we defend the stance we take.

[ui876will]

Oh come on,I prefer tiny women as well,but please,is femshep's body really that big deal? she is a soldier,more importantly,a super soldier! how could someone expect a woman that can fight toe to toe against a Yahg to be weak? it's just not right...

[MrBSN2017]

Lol I love how this has turned into a muscle thread

[Dark_Caduceus]

Bodybuilders tend to go into sarcoplasmic hypertrophy where strength gains are minimal as opposed to myofibrilar hypertrophy, which is what powerlifters get. While you do explicitly postulate "all things being equal" and I agree in that exact context, I felt the need to made the above point, since the common use of bigger = stronger is fallacious.
 

 

Perhaps in the social circles where you spend your time that is true, i have no way of knowing. For me, Functional training is the first, in certain sense the only training. We live in a world based on merit; if you can't get sh!t done, you don't survive, to paraphrase good ole Darwin. If you don't teach your body to execute soundly the complex combinations of pushing, pulling, twisting and standing up that life requires, it doesn't matter how pretty your muscles look. Once you are familiar with the correct biomenchanics of those movements, then it becomes about developing strength, strength endurance, power, speed, agility and improving the very specific skills that your sport/activity requires. This is what I understand when Functionality comes up.

 

 

 

Gotcha. I found that part of the image severely misleading, so I felt the need to elucidate. After all, we owe it to ourselves as men to use correct arguments when we defend the stance we take.

 

I'm not totally sold on the myofibrillar vs. sarcoplastic hypertrophy deal. I think we need more research as far as that goes. Muscle growth is first and foremost an adaptive process to strain (which is why progressive overload is the only thing that works). I'm not sure what the evolutionary benefit of pumping cells full of water in response to increasing strain is - to follow the Darwin allusion.

 

As far as functional training, I just think it's too nebulous a term. Functional training for a boxer is different than for a strongman is different than for gymnast. You're always going to have some trade-off no matter how you approach training because you can't be functional for all roles. A boxer is never going to have to worry about keeping his spine neutral to preserve it while lifting something very heavy off the floor (as per a deadlift), a strongman is never going to have to worry about complex chain of movements needed to maximise the force of a cross.

 

This is just pedantics though, I agree with the core of your post.

[xelander]

Lol I love how this has turned into a muscle thread

 

This thread is about realistic body type of a female soldier. Discussion of muscle is a necessity, though perhaps not an in-depth one.

 

I'm not totally sold on the myofibrillar vs. sarcoplastic hypertrophy deal. I think we need more research as far as that goes. Muscle growth is first and foremost an adaptive process to strain (which is why progressive overload is the only thing that works). I'm not sure what the evolutionary benefit of pumping cells full of water in response to increasing strain is - to follow the Darwin allusion.

More research is always better. I would conjecture that there is no evolutionary benefit to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. If all processes were beneficial, then we would never suffer negative consequences. I think it's about how the body's adaptive stress response is triggered - high intensity low-rep exertions trigger the best response (myofibrilar H., i.e. more strength), whereas lower intensity higher-rep exertions are more system-taxing than system-stimulating. Too much of a good thing and so on... To amplify this into absurdity, I have lifted 200x20 kg (for work) and have also deadlifted 30(6x5) x 125 kg (that's an average value here, the progression was a bit more complex, from ~135 to ~115kg), which is roughly the same work. You can guess which one has been more beneficial.

 

In any case, when it comes to strength and correct bio-mechanics, my money is always on the powerlifters/gymnasts.

 

As far as functional training, I just think it's too nebulous a term. Functional training for a boxer is different than for a strongman is different than for gymnast. You're always going to have some trade-off no matter how you approach training because you can't be functional for all roles. A boxer is never going to have to worry about keeping his spine neutral to preserve it while lifting something very heavy off the floor (as per a deadlift), a strongman is never going to have to worry about complex chain of movements needed to maximise the force of a cross.

 

I think we are speaking of different things. I am referring to general athletic performance of the body, whereas you mean skill-specific performance. The higher the former, the better the latter. You just have to find the cutoff point of diminishing returns. IMO, many people aim below the real cutoff point.

[goishen]

A lot goes into everything that you're talking about here. Calcification of bones, striking distance, striking poses, strength of course matters, but nowhere near as much as the first three.

If you have strength, but don't know what distance to hit from, you might lose. Dunno even how to hit something? Chances increase that you'll lose. Bones aren't calcified? You just broke your hand.

I'd just rather go back to head canon.

[JPVNG]

Would you say that this girl of the photo on the right side..is a martial arts athlete? i wouldn t..the girl on left  yes..so it is very subjective this subject

 

 

 

Its the same girl here

She is a cop by the way and very nice person

[Monk]

The Sims has shown just how many of us love torturing tiny virtual people.

 

This is a good time as any to admit i always cracked up seeing little people run around on fire in Syndicate.

 

This game might or might not have made me a pyro. Don't know.

 

 

One thing never fails about these kinds of threads.  Plenty of pictures

 

More pictures, you say?

 

 

Daisy Ridley, post-gym workout. (yummerz)

[JPVNG]

 

 

 

More pictures, you say?

 

 

 

 

 

very fitted girl..and still so feminine

I like it.

 

Next pls.

[MrBSN2017]

This thread is about realistic body type of a female soldier. Discussion of muscle is a necessity, though perhaps not an in-depth one.

More research is always better. I would conjecture that there is no evolutionary benefit to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. If all processes were beneficial, then we would never suffer negative consequences. I think it's about how the body's adaptive stress response is triggered - high intensity low-rep exertions trigger the best response (myofibrilar H., i.e. more strength), whereas lower intensity higher-rep exertions are more system-taxing than system-stimulating. Too much of a good thing and so on... To amplify this into absurdity, I have lifted 200x20 kg (for work) and have also deadlifted 30(6x5) x 125 kg (that's an average value here, the progression was a bit more complex, from ~135 to ~115kg), which is roughly the same work. You can guess which one has been more beneficial.

In any case, when it comes to strength and correct bio-mechanics, my money is always on the powerlifters/gymnasts.

I think we are speaking of different things. I am referring to general athletic performance of the body, whereas you mean skill-specific performance. The higher the former, the better the latter. You just have to find the cutoff point of diminishing returns. IMO, many people aim below the real cutoff point.

You guys are over analyzing this way too much. Professional bodybuilders, power lifters, and strongmen are all taking different forms of steroids. This is where chemistry meets biology for some unnatural superhuman chit.

I only gain mass from progressive overload so I am constantly increasing my weights while maintaining proper form. Bodybuilders are strong too guys. We just don't always use heavy weights towards the end of the workout. Form is paramount to ensure every fiber is worked.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

All things being equal a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. Realistically a 130 pound woman just won't be as strong as a 170 pound man. Unless they're a cyborg, like Shepard, so that's not really a problem.

 

Strongmen are willing to put on more muscle at the expense of more fat gain. The idea of "if you put on lots of muscle without fat you're on roids" is pretty stupid since an average man can only put on maybe 10 pounds of muscle in a year without steroids and putting 20 pounds of fat on at the same time doesn't change that. Bodybuilders are still way stronger than the average person, saying a strongman is "legimately strong" with the tacit understanding that bodybuilders aren't strong (or are fraudulently strong?) is ridiculous. "Functional Training" is like "inner beauty" - it can mean anything so it means nothing.

 

Your waist is primarily determined by bone structure and body fat, there's really no muscles there to be built.

 

This graphic should read "Lame Excuse for Fatties Who Convince Themselves They're Strong"

 

Sorry, got a bit triggered.

 

Yes but I think you are misunderstanding my point, I never said that size isn't important but rather that size isn't always an accurate indicator of strength which was in response to the statement saying that you needed a buffed character to be physically competitive. Obviously with all things being equal, more muscle mass leads to more volume of muscle and better strength when considering the same individual. I also mentioned that physical strength isn't an indicator of any sorts in a sci fi setting such as Mass Effect due to the presence of biotics, cybernetics and good ole space magic.

 

Again, I have never implied or stated that body builders aren't strong or that they're pseudo strong. What I have said is that strong men are in comparison much stronger than a bodybuilder of comparable stature. The comparison is between the two and not as a separate individual comparison of these people to a normal fellow. 

 

Size does matter, and it is natures way of indicating strength. If muscles weren't an advantage, then why is it illegal to take anabolic steroids in sports? Like I said, muscles trained for what you want them to do is an indication of strength and stamina.

Actually strongmen don't have "better" core muscles than bodybuilders nor the same amount of lean body mass. The added body fat/weight increases leverage. All I can say is I can hold my own moving some heavy ass weights in the gym and I'm not going for strength.

Yes it does matter but again my whole argument was different And would you credit the difference in strength between a strongman and a body builder solely due to the leverages gained with weight/fat? Sure you might be able to move heavy weights but without a standard of reference or comparison that doesn't really add up as much of an argument does it. 

 

Also as to the statement "it is natures way of indicating strength" one of the strongest animals on Earth in proportion to it's weight is the dung beetle which can lift a thousand times it's own weight(and I'm being modest here). So again size isn't necessarily an indicator of how strong something is. *sigh*

[Killroy]

And the situation is much improved as a consequence!

 

(*cough* ahem sorry Mr. model for Mshep  )

 

You think FemShep looks better than Sheploo? You are out of your mind.

[MrBSN2017]

Yes but I think you are misunderstanding my point, I never said that size isn't important but rather that size isn't always an accurate indicator of strength which was in response to the statement saying that you needed a buffed character to be physically competitive. Obviously with all things being equal, more muscle mass leads to more volume of muscle and better strength when considering the same individual. I also mentioned that physical strength isn't an indicator of any sorts in a sci fi setting such as Mass Effect due to the presence of biotics, cybernetics and good ole space magic.

Again, I have never implied or stated that body builders aren't strong or that they're pseudo strong. What I have said is that strong men are in comparison much stronger than a bodybuilder of comparable stature. The comparison is between the two and not as a separate individual comparison of these people to a normal fellow.

Yes it does matter but again my whole argument was different And would you credit the difference in strength between a strongman and a body builder solely due to the leverages gained with weight/fat? Sure you might be able to move heavy weights but without a standard of reference or comparison that doesn't really add up as much of an argument does it.

Also as to the statement "it is natures way of indicating strength" one of the strongest animals on Earth in proportion to it's weight is the dung beetle which can lift a thousand times it's own weight(and I'm being modest here). So again size isn't necessarily an indicator of how strong something is. *sigh*

Who cares if an ant can move a leaf, an elephant can throw a truck. Elephant is stronger than a dung beetle, care to argue? Size adds more strength, nobody gives a chit about strength/size because bugs kill everything in that stupid category where I don't even know who decided it was important. Bugs have a size limit too due to that breathing through the skin handicap. No bug will ever be as strong as an elephant.

When I'm offseason and add bulk without concern of bodyfat, my weights go through the ceiling. It may have something to do with the influx of carbs. Reference? what do you want numbers? Right now I weigh 200lbs, 9-10%bf and I can bench 315 for 8-10 reps and squat 405 for 10. This is me on 1800-2000 cals a day. I've been to some powerlifting gyms and my numbers are pretty good. I'm not king chit but I get by.

I've never seen a huge guy that can't move some heavy arse weights.

/thread

[Pasquale1234]

Yes but I think you are misunderstanding my point, I never said that size isn't important but rather that size isn't always an accurate indicator of strength

This is true. Muscle density as well as bulk is also in play.
 

Obviously with all things being equal, more muscle mass leads to more volume of muscle and better strength when considering the same individual.

This is also true.
 

What I have said is that strong men are in comparison much stronger than a bodybuilder of comparable stature.

Powerlifters have tremendous functional strength, but the specific functions involve only a handful of very specific lifts. They also tend to be very heavy, and carry a lot of fat. Just how fast a powerlifter could skitter up a climbing rope - I dunno.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

Who cares if an ant can move a leaf, an elephant can throw a truck. Elephant is stronger than a dung beetle, care to argue? Size adds more strength, nobody gives a chit about strength/size because bugs kill everything in that stupid category where I don't even know who decided it was important. Bugs have a size limit too due to that breathing through the skin handicap. No bug will ever be as strong as an elephant.

When I'm offseason and add bulk without concern of bodyfat, my weights go through the ceiling. It may have something to do with the influx of carbs. Reference? what do you want numbers? Right now I weigh 200lbs, 9-10%bf and I can bench 315 for 8-10 reps and squat 405 for 10. This is me on 1800-2000 cals a day. I've been to some powerlifting gyms and my numbers are pretty good. I'm not king chit but I get by.

I've never seen a huge guy that can't move some heavy arse weights.

You really missed the whole point I was making, again. When did I say a huge guy can't move heavy weights? Or that bodybuilders are weak in general? Please read the lines I've written, not in between them! But fine, yes an elephant is stronger than a dung beetle

 

Impressive reps though!

 

...
Powerlifters have tremendous functional strength, but the specific functions involve only a handful of very specific lifts. They also tend to be very heavy, and carry a lot of fat. Just how fast a powerlifter could skitter up a climbing rope - I dunno.

True enough, power lifters and strong men are hardly the ideal in a combat situation. 

[Arcian]

Gina Carano for female protagonist in MEA. But I'm also of the opinion that Gina Carano should be in everything.
 

Or just make the femprotag look like Zarya.

[von uber]

Right, you can stick your cops, body builders and models trying to flash a bit of clunge. This is a properly fit woman - Jessica Ennis.

• Is from Northern England, therefore automatically awesome*
• 2010 heptathlon European Champion
• 2011 heptathlon World Champion
• 2012 heptathlon Olympic Champion
• In 2014 has a bloody baby and then in 2015 becomes World Champion again
• Still scrubs up decent

 

* Note to Americans. The North of England - and where Sheffield is - is the Northern part of England, which is a constituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is located off the coast of mainland Europe, which is a continent on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean is a big bit of water that has fish in it.

[Killroy]

Right, you can stick your cops, body builders and models trying to flash a bit of clunge.

...the **** is clunge?

[Khrystyn]

Yeah but still make her feminine with curves, a feminine figure.

 

The warrior princess/beauty is an archetype that I enjoy in both rpgs and movies. A strong woman who has not lost her femininity.