Is it harder to get shredded when over 6' because you need

>>41129144

Mostly depends on how much slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibers you have genetics wise.

>>41129144
i'll never have a gf like her

>>41129144
In a way,
A manlet might be "stronger" than you, be able to bench/DL more, but a lot of it is because they have shorter arms and legs so it's less range of motion, easier to get the weight up

>>41129173
I just did the 23andme genetic testing and they said i'm all fast twitch muscle fiber (said that i'd be a great sprinter). Is that a good thing?

>>41129189
so stupid

>>41129191
Look at pictures of sprinters and the pictures of marathon runners.

>>41129144
No. 6' isn't even tall. All you have to do is lift consistently and eat right and you will look good. If you're 6' you will naturally have a larger frame and more muscle than someone shorter when you start anyways.

Lanklets just use their height as an excuse for their incompetence.

There are just as many 5'7" twink fucks that look like shit at 120 lbs soaking wet.

>>41129144
The taller you are, the harder it will be to build muscle but the easier it will be to lose fat. Fair trade imo.

I'm 6'7 and have been lifting for some years now weighing in at 240lbs ~14% bf and I'm just barely out of dyel category. Yet I'll have friends a foot shorter at 5'7 be able to be out of dyel within a year. I put on muscle mass just as fast if not faster than my shorter counterparts. However due to proportions muscles do not appear as large as they would on a shorter person. Lanklets just need to put on significantly more lean muscle mass to achieve the same proportions as manlets. Still not a good enough excuse to be a skinny faggot.

>>41129144
Do you know what shredded means?