Hey, I'm 6'5", and I'm trying to figure out what my goal weight should be if I'm trying to look like this.
Guy in the picture is 5'8" and 175 pounds, basically just trying to figure out what the equivalent would be for proportional muscle mass and definition at my height.
Guesses are fine, I'm just looking for a ballpark.
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
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Holy crap man, new goal pic. Guess I'll lower the weight goal then... Thanks!
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.
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).
Cheers bro, to help you even moar, I will post my whole workout plan (keep in mind, I change it every few months)
Crossover (or peck deck)
reverse curl (for forearms)
Some random calf workout (around 25-30 reps per set)
Wed - Rest
Weighted pull ups
Bent over row
Close grip lat pulldowns
Middle delt rise
Rear delt flies
Close grip bench
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
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
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.
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.
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%
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
>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
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
I know brah. Been trying to get him to work on it. He wants to work on form tho.
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
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.
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
>mark rippletits told me I only need squats deadlifts and bench
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.
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
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%.
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!
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)
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.
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
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.
>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).
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.
uhm i have been 6% my whole life.
6'1'' and 175lbs.
then again.. you are bait
Daily Reminder- based Bolt is 6'5" 207 pounds
>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?
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.
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.
is that a sklavenitis bag ?
also what are hipster briefs ?
> 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
>the way his veins perfectly accentuate his bicep and delts
this guy won the genetics lottery
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.
yes.. good definition but why the long hair? dont you know girls have long hair?