What weight would this be at 6'5"?

Also, if anyone has any ideas/guesses what BF% this is, I'm guessing 6%-10%?

I'm new to lifting and fitness in general, reading the sticky and following advice from threads, just need help with this so I have a goal.

Thanks in advance bros

>>35691255
I'd look at BMI since that's the whole idea behind BMI. Try to be borderline overweight since BMI thinks you want to be skeleton.

>>35691255
Your proportions are different as a lanklet, you're not going to look like that guy

>>35691276
Thanks for the help man!

That was my first thought too, but when I looked it up, people said the formula gets funky at higher heights and muscle masses(?) E.g. I'm full skellington (4 inch arms, 30 inch waist, 200 pounds) and my BMI says I'm maximum healthy.

Says 210 pounds would be 24.9 BMI, highest edge before overweight. Should I shoot for that, or higher when bulking?

>>35691300
How heavy would I need to get to achieve those proportions though? I know I'd need to train like a maniac and be super dense, but I have no idea what the ballpark is... 250 pounds? 200? 275? I know there are footballers build like this my height...

6'5 here.

One important thing to note is that this guy was genetically blessed with good chest insertions.

And yeah guy looks about 8% BF with a good diet. His look really has more to do with body fat and diet than it does just pure weight.

At 6'5 you could be anywhere from 190-220 and look like this. When I started lifting I was skelly mode 160 and I'm 220 now. I look very similar to what I was at 200 but I just got thicker/bigger looking.

Google "Jon Skywalker". Motherfucker is 6'4 and only 205 and looks jacked as fuck because he cycles with dbol and other fraud juices. Like I said, weight doesn't have that much to do with it.

>>35691338
>>35691338

fellow 6'5 bro again here

These lean ripped physiques revolve around a solid diet with a hypertrophy/pump-based program. Lifting "heavy" is not the key to the aesthetics you aspire to.

as far as pure numbers go anything above 230-235 pounds is not going to be lean if you're natty. Getting to 6'5 235 at 6-8% BF would be a lifetime achievement and is my current goal.

>>35691341
Suuuper helpful, thanks man. Looked up that guy, and you're right, it's crazy. I'm trying to do it natty, so I'm thinking of bulking to 210 and cut to 190, does that seem like a decent range?

Thanks again for advice.

>>35691373
Jeez, this community is seriously better than I'd ever imagine. Again, super helpful. Can I ask: what's the difference between "lifting heavy" and a "pump-based program"?

>>35691255
105kg

>>35691338
My brother looks vaguely similar to that. He's 6'4 and around 240lbs.

>>35691400
This community is actually pretty shit, you'll just find some decent help every now and then.

To answer your question. "Lifting heavy" would imply working with lower rep ranges while utilizing around 80% of your 1RM, while a "pump-based" program would be working with much lower weight, maybe 60% while using higher rep ranges and more volume. As a natural it doesn't make sense to use pump-based programs because you're short changing your gains, but most of /fit/ doesn't actually understand how hypertrophy works.

>>35691400

No problem man glad I could help. Don't be fooled though most of /fit is full of shit posters and meme programs.

Seriously at 6'5 as a natty you're going to want to bulk up as much as possible before your cut. I'm trying to hit 250 then cut down to 210 to try and get to Skywalker mode. Just try and make sure your bulk is made up completely of junk food. Lots of complex carbs and quality protein.

If you were to cut from 210 to 190 natty you would look flat and depleted. The problem is with the picture you posted of the shirtless guy is that he would look small in a t-shirt. He only looks impressive shirtless. That's one of the main reason I wanted to bump up to 220. People notice your size in a regular social setting.

People will try and trick you into thinking you need to lift super heavy with low reps in order to get big. In reality, strength and size do have some correlation but if you want the aesthetic look, focus on hypertrophy and the pump versus heavy weight low reps.

This means using a comfortable "medium" weight from anywhere to 8-15 reps and to make sure you're contracting and squeezing the muscle. Really feeling the burn and getting that awesome pump.

>>35691446

* IS NOT made completely out of junk food

File: 1406414789719.png (5KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 645x773px

>tfw someone else posts your pic on /fit/

>>35691430
>>35691446
Awesome, so bearing this advice in mind, it sounds like my final goal should be ~220 pounds, maybe 8% BF, and that the best way to do that is more reps with a comfortable, "medium" weight. Is that about right?

>>35691462
I know that feel.

Quit posting my pic, faggot OP. Feeling so violated right now.

>>35691255
>>35691467
Are you fucking retarded? Yes, you are. If that pic is your goal, then your goal is to bulk, then cut, NOT looking at the fucking scale you autistic idiot. The scale means shit.

>>35691467

Exactly man. Don't get me wrong, lifting heavy has it's place in bodybuilding, so does lifting light. It's that sweet spot in the middle that's great though. Let's say you're shooting for 10-12 reps on a set. By rep 10 you shouldn't have anything left in the tank. You should feel like that last rep really counted.

As long as you're implementing the concept of "progressive overload" then it really doesn't matter what the weight and/or rep range is. Just be consistent in the gym and your diet and you will see the gains in no time.

File: 4 (2).jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>35691510

Kek...don't listen to him OP.

>>35691409
>>35691417

lol, guy isn't even big. Looked like that back at 6'3" 170

Jon skywalker was bigger than that at 6'4" 195, zyzz too at 6'2" 200

figure it out you dyel fucks

>>35691523
Lol
>thinking your opinion matters

>>35691255
I'm also 6'5" and about 255lbs... But I'm not cut like OP pic... I'm hovering around 20% body fat..

The bulk is over.. Time to cut for summer :(

>>35691557
and to actually contribute to the thread: 185-195 at 6'5" considering the bf%, nothing beyond 200 even with big legs. If bf% was 5% higher i'd agree with the previous estimates

>>35691527
This post is my Bible then, gonna print it out like an old person and stick it on my bathroom mirror.

Got any advice on what to get for a home gym?

>>35691462
>>35691538
Hey man! Thanks for motivational imagery, saved to my phone and screenshotted the diet advice

File: .jpg (64KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x640px

pic related is 6'4" 185 shredded, take that as you will. Most likely manlet in the op lying about weight or t-rex mode

>>35691573
>being this much of a fucking idiot

Confirmed for not going to make it. Come back when you weigh 220lbs with 8bf and look like shit anyways, dumbass.

>>35691255
>5'8"@175
5'9" here
that dude does not weigh that much unless he got a big ol ghetto booty or a third leg.

My guess he is 160

File: 41XZZ3iuQpL._SX355_.jpg (14KB, 355x307px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 355x307px

>>35691605

Actually got a home gym setup for when I'm not at the gym for whatever reason.

Grab yourself a 60-70kg weight set and get yourself some adjustable dumbbells, adjustable bench, and an EZ-Bar. Obviously if you have the space and money then a power rack, dumbbells and a barbell would be ideal but if not go with the EZ bar and dumbbells.

Pic related. Basically they are empty bars that you put however much weight you want on them then screw in the clips on the sides.

>>35691623
You're confused - the reason I don't care about your opinion is because you're too autistic to communicate like someone without tourettes. It's just not worth caring about, you know? So I don't.

Other people are giving detailed advice, communicated clearly. That's objectively more valuable than a homeless dude spewing obscenities.

>>35691617
Holy crap man, new goal pic. Guess I'll lower the weight goal then... Thanks!

>>35691617
>>35691684

Haha bruh that's not 6'4 185 shredded. That's literally just another picture of Jon Skywalker, the same dude I've been talking about with his face cut off and he's around 205. No idea where the guy got 185 from.

>>35691674
Nice, well since I have neither space nor money to spare, EZ bars it is. They even look less expensive than I was assuming, so that's great news.

225 for sure. Maybe a little heavier.

>>35691684
at 8% that is. 220 at 8% is ridiculous (never seen a natty on /fit/ close to that size, the lean 6'5" guys that have been lifting for 4+ years (i.e. natty limit) reach 205-210 at an actual 10%).

With that said, 8% isn't that cool and you're depleted most of the time, a natty can stay at a solid 6'5" 235-240 at 13-14% (which corresponds to approx 200 10% non-bloated).

File: imgd.jpg (2MB, 1824x1842px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1824x1842px

>>35691614

Cheers bro, to help you even moar, I will post my whole workout plan (keep in mind, I change it every few months)

Monday

Bench
Incline dumbells
Crossover (or peck deck)
Weighted dips
Chin ups
dumbell curl
reverse curl (for forearms)

Tuesday

Leg extension
Front squat
Hack squat
Dumbell Lunges
Romanian deadlift
Some random calf workout (around 25-30 reps per set)

Wed - Rest

Thursday

Weighted pull ups
Bent over row
Row machine
Close grip lat pulldowns
Barbell Shrugs

Friday

Military press
Middle delt rise
Upright row
Rear delt flies
Close grip bench
Skull crushers
weighted dips
Some random ab workout

Weekend - Rest

All in the rep range of 8-10 reps (struggling to do the 10th rep)

But ofcourse, if you want a similar physique, you have to mainly to focus on low bf and nutrition

>>35691707
get a load of this idiot. Of course, jon skywalker has ALWAYS been 205 as he is right now (on a caloric surplus at that, seeing as he reported his bodyweight as 190 shredded somewhere in spring 15'), especially on that picture that is easily 1+ yrs old now. Scrap your brain cells together chap

>>35691684

Keep in mind, guy in OP picture is natty. Jon Skywalker is not. So unless you are willing to use roids, get a natty body is goal, or you will get disappointed.

>>35691730
Annnnd added to a growing portfolio of information from you man!

What's your BF% like in these pics, if I can ask? I'm shit at estimating that stuff, I'm brand new to lifting.

>>35691713

Don't forget the dumbbells. Dumbbells are actually much more important for you home gym setup than the EZ bar. This is because you can buy that adjustable bench seat that I mentioned and do all your chest/shoulder/press work with the dumbbells on the bench. No spotter needed and you can drop the weights when you burn out.

>>35691725
This guy knows what he's talking about too. Comparing Skywalker to natties is the same as comparing Zyzz to natties; Zyzz was on roids and so is Skywalker. It's not a realistic goal.

For natty tall guy inspiration google MMA/boxing guys like Jon Jones, Anthony Johnson, cheick kongo, Wladimir Klitschko, etc.

File: omron-body-fat-analyzer-pg.jpg (8KB, 299x209px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 299x209px

>>35691772

I have only measured my bodyfat once using something like pic related, and it said I'm 6% bodyfat. But I don't buy it to be honest. I'd say I'm around 9%

>>35691747

Take your shitposting elsewhere Mr. Badass. No need to start menstruating all over the place because I disputed your belief that he's not 185. It doesn't even matter that much anyways the guy is juiced to the gills.

>>35691786
Dumbbells I have some of, but I'll finish out my set since they sound more useful than I thought. I'm setting Vlad there as my tenative goal too, since I started MMA a few months ago. Bench seat looks more expensive, so I'll prioritize that over the bar until next week when I get paid...

>>35691803
Very helpful, only thing I have is something like that too. I know it's not accurate, but it gives me a ballpark... Which is currently 16-20%, haha. So I've got a ways to go.

>>35691255
>>35691341
>>35691373
My gymbro is 6'5 225 and he still looks like a lanky fuck. He started at 175lbs. His lifts now are 2pl8 bench, 3pl8 squat, 3.5 diddy. He is lean but still looks lanky and dyel. To get to the level in ops pic, with muscle that looks that dense, and at 6'5, i would say 250lbs. Look at LeBron or other bball players. 6'5 250-275 and you would look like a beast.

>>35691894

As a natty I can agree with you bruh. But in OP's pic the guy looks bigger than he actually is because of his chest and ripped abs. Those arms can't be any bigger than 15 inches. Not to say that he doesn't have a great look, but he wouldn't look that "big" just walking around in public with a shirt on.

Problem with trying to hit 250 as a natty is there's no way in fuck your abs would be the visible and defined.

>>35691954
Depends on what your time line for this "project"is. If it's 3-4 years, then 250 at 10%bf is completely achievable. If it's 1 year then obviously you cant put on that much lean mass. This is only for natties tho

>>35691730
>all those unnecessary exercises

Newfag to /fit/ here, so is /fit/ like: Workout 3-4 days a week and weekend show of you're tits to the entire world

>>35692228
How would you make this assertion? It seems misguided and /r9k/-tier.

It takes over 2 years to look as good as the people in the thread, not to mention they are keeping their diet in check. Do you realise how hard that is? People generally give up fitness training after 2 months.
Being /fit/ is not a short-term investment.

>>35691894
That's a really shitty DL in comparison to his squat and bench.

>>35692162
>250 at 10% bf completely achievable in 3-4 years
always easy to spot the dyel fucks
hell, you can even compare to semi-natty boardshorts atm who hovers around 245 at 15% 2-3 years or so in. 250 at 10% is as big as fucking lou ferrigno and you won't get anywhere close to that without injecting. Stop giving advice when you're obviously a newbie dyel fuck that hasn't been in the scene for more than 2 months

>>35691255
probably 220-240 depending on the person

good luck lol

>>35692344
also, it's absolutely ridiculous to say that the OP physique would be anywhere close to 250 lbs. Check alistair overeem (6'5" 255-260 lbs 14-15%) and the rock (6'4" 250 11-12%), both roiders.

6'5" 250 at 10% natty, top kek. Next time read about diminishing returns when you roleplay on /fit/, you keyboard-lifter

>>35692370
typo on overroid btw, he's 13-14%
6'5" 250 10% proportional = 21" vascular arms. Not doable natty

>>35691255
200 pounds.
No way that guy in your pic is 175 at 5'8" unless he has Tom Platz wheels- he's 160 or so. I've even seen him post here and he isn't 175.

>sauce, me. I am 5'8"

>>35691275
Kill yourself
Its what 10-12 looks like
Below 8% is impossible natty
8% is only possible for a short span of time
Faggot non lifter i bet you are not 6'5

>>35692400
t. skinny arms

>>35691557
zyzz wasn't 6'2". The highest he claimed was 6'1" and he was probably closer to 6'.

>>35692344
>15%
That fuck fuck is well over 20 and he roides
Pls go baggingshorts

File: Screenshot_2015-06-07-11-31-26.png (900KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

900KB, 720x1280px

>>35691255
6'4" 207 lbs here

>>35692629
Cut 10 pounds of fat and add 10 pounds of muscle and you will surpass OP's lean mass proportions no doubt

>>35692315
I know brah. Been trying to get him to work on it. He wants to work on form tho.

>>35692344
Ferrigno was 285 and 315 according to wiki. If you are young and growing, you can hit 280-290 (plenty of college football players get there and even some hs ones) and then cut down to 250ish. 3-4 years is not a short time. 0.5lbs a week for 3 years gets yout 75 lbs and then another year to cut off 20-30 lbs is not that hard. It really depends on how disciplined you are

>>35691255
whats your diet like?

Listen guys, weight is merely a direct proportion of height for most people.
Unless you have wide hips and a barrel chest, it's a completely linear relationship.
Thicker ankles and wrists wouldn't even add Much weight- they are about the same density as muscle tissue.

Tall people are usually only 10-15% taller than short people. Thus a 15-20% difference in lean mass ratio, at most.

>>35691730
repost >>35692690

>>35691255
You sure guy in the picture is 175? He looks too small to weigh that.

Anyway, I'd guess at least 230, being that lean makes you look bigger.

Rule of thumb for me is 8-10lbs/1" height difference to maintain proportions

File: 100301_front.jpg (135KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 480x640px

>>35692218

>mark rippletits told me I only need squats deadlifts and bench

>>35693029
That doesn't make any sense. Square cube law doesn't apply to humans. Our limbs and torsos are cylinders that increase in only one dimension, length.

160 pounds/ 68inches = 2.35 pounds per inch

2.35 lb/in times 77 inches = 181 pounds

You could give the 6'5" guy another 10% and he would be 200 pounds.
That sounds about right.

File: SS Muscle&Exercises.png.png (2MB, 1080x1308px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1308px

>>35693176

>>35691318
>four inch arms

WHAT

MINE ARE 12 INCHES AND IM FUCKEN TINY

HOW

MY BONES ARE 4 INCH FFS

File: DSC05820d.jpg (971KB, 1230x1254px) Image search: [Google]

971KB, 1230x1254px

>>35693029
>>35692424

I'm the guy in the pic. I never said I was 175 lbs, OP got it wrong, I'm 143 lbs.
I said I'm benching 175 lbs

File: Screenshot_2015-08-18-23-38-35.png (2MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1920px

Started at 165, just broke 230 lbs (12-14%) at 6'7" and I look like this. To get to OP pic would probably need to be 250 at 8%.

>>35691255
https://symmetricstrength.com/calculator/ideal_bodyweight

>>35693176
That nigger is built to powerlift. Those short midget femurs, long monkey arms and torso. He has the squat and deadlift nailed.
Why did he stop lifting?

File: image.jpg (44KB, 500x329px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x329px

>>35693230
Hahaha no you're not. I'm under 140 pounds at 5'8", look DYEL compared to you and rep 175 on bench.
>Now this is shitposting!

>>35693237
you're all wrong though. Why do you guys overestimate the mass of the OP this hard? look at the arms. you could probably gain 5 lbs of lean muscle mass on your upper body and have the same base at higher bf%, then cut down 20 lbs to get to his bf%. 250 8% at 6'7" would be twice as big as the OP proportions-wise

btw, you might have bigorexia (not saying you look big, but saying that the OP isn't bigger than you)

>>35693268

Don't know if I should take it as a compliment that you think I'm shitposting. But I'm really 175 lbs (around 65 kg). I just don't have alot fat, thats why I'm so low in weight. And I never focused on stength, all my lifts are kinda low.

>>35693268
it's probably because you have high bodyfat while the other guy is at 8%


man, this basic shit needs to be put into the sticky, people still can't grasp the fact that 140 at 8% is twice the visible size of 140 at 15%. Protip: if the guy you quoted was the same bf% as you he'd outweigh you by a big amount

>>35691255


>>35693288
This guy is on track.

I'm
>>35693244
>>35693196
>>35692727
>>35692663
>>35692424

File: image.jpg (48KB, 616x559px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 616x559px

>>35693305
He's lying though. This is me. I bench 205 at 138 pounds, 5'8". No way I'm 30 pounds stronger with less muscle.

>>35693340

>protip: Some people are genetically stronger than some others. I've seen fat dyels squat 176 lbs and bench 220 lbs.

>>35691318
>4 inch arms

That's smaller than the average dick wtf

>>35693340
>protip 2: Strength =/= muscle mass (necessarily)
despite what rippetoe-sama told you. And yeah, your bf% appears to be easily 15-17%, so there's worlds difference between you and the OP in terms of muscle mass (and it's visible).

>>35693634
lol, that delusion
even with top down lighting no full abs and connection in the middle part. 14% atleast

>>35693683
It's about 11-12% I would guess. Even if it is 14%, that just means that I have a lot of gains to be made.
The point is, the 5'8" 143 guy is 4-5% leaner and weighs 5 pounds more, thus he has about 12 pounds more muscle which is substantial.

I'm not beholden to any exact body fat percentage estimate, just to the delta between different levels and the progress indicated.

>>35691255
>>35693301
The fuck man, is your one rep max bench press actually 175 pounds? 79 kilograms?

File: watermelon.jpg (41KB, 350x252px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 350x252px

>>35692449
uhm i have been 6% my whole life.

6'1'' and 175lbs.

then again.. you are bait

>>35694641

>i have been 6% my whole life.

LOOOOOOOL

>>35694641
Calipers and online calculators that use tape measurements always estimate low.
If it says you are 5%, you are probably 10%

if your 6'5 OP you probably have to be 210 or more. You ice landic giant you

File: BOLT-DANCE.jpg (37KB, 446x295px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 446x295px

>>35691255
Daily Reminder- based Bolt is 6'5" 207 pounds

>>35693237
fuq youre tall

>>35694682
fuq youre fast

>>35694641
fuq you're lean

>>35694641 fuq youre a watermelon

>>35691617
fuq youre jon skywalker

>>35695681
>>35695701
>>35695738
>>35695748
>>35695760

gtfo samefag..you are not funny.

>>35695821
fuq youre a cunt

>>35691255
I'm 6.4, currently 190 pounds.

So I would say around 210 and a bit more if you want proper legs

>>35693585
>>35693380
To a small extent, but here, no way.

Mass and force production are nearly 100% proportional.

OP has enough mass in his arms and chest to bench press 250 pounds.

>>35691255

The only way this dude is 175lbs is if his legs are tank as fuck.

File: five eight one seventy five.png (144KB, 187x411px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 187x411px

>>35691255

>>35696129
kek

>>35696042
>100% proportional.
>enough mass in his arms and chest to bench press 250 pounds.

250lb arms and chest on a 145lb man

Am I just American or does that not make sense?

Can someone from a superior country enlighten me?

>>35693288
How so? Ive never cut below about 12% because I've been permabulking for past 2 years. I don't think even with 6% less body fat I would look anything like that guy. Even taking into account insertion differences.

>>35698019
No, you're just not understanding me. I mean that someone's chest and triceps require a certain amount of muscle mass to be able to push a certain amount.
Perhaps for every pound of muscle you add to your chest and every 1/3 pound you add to your triceps, you gain 30 pounds on the bench press.

That's what I'm saying, and I think that the guy in OP has easily enough muscle mass on his body to bench press 250 pounds.

File: 1448162222452.png (34KB, 264x360px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 264x360px

>>35691318
>4 inch arms

>>35691318
Did you take the fucking radius of your arm?

>>35698442
I see. They key word I missed in your post was proportional.

Going by pure guess I'd say 230lb

File: sklaven.jpg (41KB, 460x272px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 460x272px

>>35691538
is that a sklavenitis bag ?
also what are hipster briefs ?

>>35691684

> putting this much effort into a response

if you read the sticky and spent 15 seconds with google you wouldn't have any of these questions.

good luck in the gym and in life, sounds like you'll be needing it

>>35695821
>>35695865
fresh baked kek

File: 20150624_172713.png (1MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x1920px

6'5" 215lbs

File: 9x7.jpg (38KB, 500x481px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x481px

>>35691255
>the way his veins perfectly accentuate his bicep and delts
this guy won the genetics lottery

>>35692449
greg o'gallagher is dexa scanned at 6.6%
and maintains <8% year round

File: 2qr.jpg (189KB, 800x758px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 800x758px

>>35693230
then whats your height?

>>35700754

lmao...good eye...yeah tjats a sklavenitits bag.

Έλληνας?

>>35702346

i spy with my little eye
scoliosis

>>35693230
all these side pictures
are you wide waist?

>>35691255
I learned this a long time ago on /fit/, but I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is. Convert height to inches/cm (5x12+8=68) divide weight by height to find pounds per inch of height (175/68=2.57352941176) then multiply by your height in inches (77x2.57352941176=198) and then you have your goal weight.

File: 1410255654568.jpg (27KB, 532x453px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 532x453px

>>35704262
yes.. good definition but why the long hair? dont you know girls have long hair?

>>35704788
I got a feeling that this won't work... Maybe bc tall people need to be thicker than short people, for the same look...