Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: baleweight[1].jpg (645KB, 600x417px) Image search:
[Google]
![baleweight[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/e4wpZ5p.jpg "baleweight[1]")
645KB, 600x417px
So we have all seen this picture circulating but is it really correct? This guy looks really buff at 83 kg. I am only some 5 cm taller than him (according to his 1.83cm profile Google gives me) with ~15% body fat, yet look very skinny compared to his mass. Does that 5 cm really make such a difference?
The difference between 83kg and 86kg is enormous in his mass. He even looks bigger at 81kg than at 83kg? Is this just his god tier genetics or are these weights horribly incorrect?
Can someone explain?
>>
>>39355897
Hollywood lightning and good angle.
>>
>>39355928
That's all there is to it?
>>
>>39355897
Water retention for the day of the shoot
Hollywood fitness is a literal scam
>>
>>39355897
Hypothetically:
If you have two guys both at 83kg.
>One has never trained legs
>Other trains legs religiously
But you judge them only by how their upper body looks, how big of a dumbass are you to not realise this on your own?
>>
>>39355897
Body fat, bone thicness, muscle development in different body parts, there is a lot of factors, like trained 50 kgs are much stronger and capable than untrained 70 kg of bodymass.
>>
>>39356278
Does Bale skip leg day?
>>
>>39355897
They are spot on for weight, remember there is fat on the organs and upper legs can throw out weight by 15kg while the top can look the same. the quick gains are from muscle memory. Ironically it's easier to do the yoyo drop than achieve the constant maintenance - which is really always improving slowly to make sure you never go backwards in any area.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1