three beefy guys

this is such a hot picture. three really beefy guys, graduated in height with different physical attributes. they're all muscular, but different.

the guy in the middle looks the buffest to me. he's got mass. his body is thick with muscle and his arms look ever so slightly too large for the rest of him. i'd bet that he's the alpha male in this group, the leader of the pack.

the taller guy is buff, but his build is more proportional. he looks more conventionally athletic than the other guys. his height is an advantage to his overall look.

the shorter guy looks like he's a relative newcomer to the muscle game. his chest however, looks pretty darned impressive; certainly out of proportion to his arms. i bet if he flashed his pecs he'd get some beads from both his buddies.

personally, i prefer the two shorter guys. there is something more interesting to me about a shorter guy with muscle than a taller guy with muscle. the little guys are compensating for a lack of height by building up muscle. that acknowledgement, however unconscious, of an apparent inadequacy, however real or imagined, is critical.

the smaller guys have something to prove, to the world or themselves. they want to enlarge their presense in the world. they want to be seen and respected. they want the world to see how big and strong they are. they want to be able to dominate bigger men through both the intimidation factor of big muscles, and thru shear strength if it comes to that.

more about morphs

this is another of my favorite "morphs". elijah wood never looked so good as he does in this image.

why do i like these kinds of morphs so much? where the head of a normal, cute guy is transposed onto the body of a beefy muscle man?

i've seen the original picture. the guy whose body this is is actually pretty cute, and his body is smokin'. but when you put elijah wood's head on his body, daaaaamn, now that's hot!

i'm not crazy about all celebrity morphs, though. guys who are already somewhat beefy, or have an "image" of strength about them, put their heads on a bodybuilder body and i'm not so impressed.

but put the head of a little guy on a muscle man's bod and i'm all over it.

muscle morphs

this was the first muscle "morph" i ever saw on the internet. it looks fairly amateurish to me now, but back when i first saw it.... let's just say that this image featured in many of my dreams.

i'd never SEEN a picture of a guy with this kind of outsized muscle before. he didn't look like any bodybuilder i'd ever seen. he was even better! just the thought of a guy with arms so over developed compared to the rest of him....

whew. the idea still gets me hot.

i enjoy a skillful morph. they tap into the fantasy aspect of the muscle growth fascination. if they're well done, they give you pause, is that real? it's hot. oh, it's a morph.

for a fleeting moment, the possibility of really freakish muscle is real. i like that.

daryl gee and statistics

daryl gee. short, ripped, muscular guy who likes to show it off. what more can a guy want?

this guy is just a beast. if only his waist and hips were a bit more narrow. then he would have the kind of exaggerated physique that i dream about; like a human morph.

i have, for several years, kept a data base of muscle. in the excel spread sheet, i've noted the stats of men of varying muscularity. height, weight, chest, waist, quads, arms, calves, neck and fore arms. those are the basic numbers. not many of my entries have numbers for all those measures. for some reason calves, neck and fore arms aren't very popular to measure.

but then i have other numbers i've calculated that i find interesting. the first is the least esoteric: the drop. the drop is the difference between the chest dimension and the waist dimension. for example if you have a 40 inch chest and a 32 inch waist, you have an 8 inch drop. the drop is a number tailors use. it determines if a shirt is regular cut or athletic cut. generally a 10 inch or greater drop is considered "athletic".

another number i've tracked is weight in pounds per inch of height. it allows me to compare more readily a tall muscle guy with a short muscle guy. for instance, if a guy is 6 feet tall [72 inches] and weighs 200 pounds, 200 divided by 72 = 2.77 pounds per inch of height. if a guy who is 5'-6" [66 inches] and weighs 190 pounds, 190 divided by 66 = 2.87 pounds per inch. the shorter guy would be, though lighter, more muscular, assuming they had the same bodyfat levels.

another number i've tracked is the difference between the waist size and the arm. the bigger the arm is and the smaller the waist is, the bigger that number is. for example, if a guy has a 32 inch waist and 16 inch arms, the number is 16. but if the guy has a 34 inch waist and 20 inch arms, the number is 14. this is one of the ways i track that exaggeration factor i'm so weird about.

i've also calculated the relative size of men's chests to their height by percentage. like if you're 6 feet tall [72 inches] with a 48 inch chest, your chest is 66.66% of your height. if you're 5'-6" tall [66 inches] with a 46 inch chest, your chest is 69.69% of your height.

there are roughtly 125 different men in my data base. most are professional or amateur bodybuilders. the pro's generally have pound per inch numbers in the 3.3 to 4.6 range [4.6 is sean allan]. the amateurs generally have pound per inch numbers in the 2.8 to 3.5 range. the physique/fitness models/porn stars generally have pound per inch numbers in the 2.4 to 2.8 range.

who said math was dull?

my ideal body

once, a long time ago, i trained as a bodybuilder. in my very best shape ever, i had a reasonably muscular physique.

i'm 5'-9" tall. in my best shape ever,
i was 176 pounds,
with a 33" waist.
a 44" chest
with 16" arms
and 25" quads
at about 8% bodyfat.

at my biggest and fittest,
i was 205 pounds,
with a 34" waist,
a 47" chest
with 17-1/2" arms
and 26" quads
at about 12% bodyfat.

most guys would be satisfied with either of those builds. i never was. i wanted to achieve the "three L's: large, lean and limber". i was never large enough or lean enough. and we won't talk about the limber.

i like a physique with exaggerated proportions. i think for most people into bodybuilding, that's true. bodybuilding is all about exaggerating the body's muscle size. but what i mean, is extreme exaggeration.

the body i was shooting for, the body i really wanted would have been more like this:
225 pounds
32" waist,
50" chest
19" arms
27" thighs
at around 10% bodyfat.

never got there.

when i dream about the body i want, this is what i want:
same height, 5'-9" is good.
weight? i don't know. whatever it takes to achieve this:
26" waist,
50" chest
28" thighs
20" arms
at around 6% bodyfat.

that's imposible.

now, years later, with my body limited by injuries and having not worked out in years, we won't talk about my current condition. but i find myself thinking about getting back into the gym and working out again. other than losing the weight i've gained and generally getting closer to "fit", i fantasize about training to exaggerate one or more muscle group.

a couple years ago i went back to the gym with the same idea and i tried to focus my training on my arms. i wanted big ass biceps. i wanted biceps that would be "too big" for my body. that didn't last too long. turns out i have tendon issues in my left fore arm and the arm training only made them worse. that was so discouraging, i stopped going to the gym.

so, here i am on the verge of returning to the gym. in addition to dropping some pounds, for the sake of my heart and my back, not to mention my appearance, i want to train some muscle group to exaggeration. which one?

let's consider the alternatives:
arms: given the ongoing tendon issues, no can do.
chest: possible. i'd love massive muscle pecs protruding from my chest like a shelf. i do have old injuries to both shoulders, however, that would limit my chest work.
shoulders: unlikely. the shoulder injuries just won't allow it.
abs: possible. i'd love a cobbled, washboard stomach, but is that exaggerated? and lets face it, they aren't great "show" muscles.
back: possible. a dramatic "V-taper" would rock. but again, not a great "show" muscles.
quads: possible. i just think tom platz or paul demayo. i'd love great tree trunk thighs. but i have bone spurs in both knees. that could limit my training.
calves: possible. i used to fantasize about having calves so big that they'd press against one another when i put my feet together. not a great "show" muscle, but imagine the gasps and stares when i wore shorts.

there is also the possibility of training to create the illusion of exaggeration. i mean bodybuilding is all about minimizing your short comings and maximizing your positives. for instance, if i worked my chest and my abs, presumably my shrinking waist and growing pecs would make my pecs look even bigger. similarly with quads and abs.

at the moment i'm tending toward working both my chest and my abs for that reason. but if my old shoulder injuries start acting up, i'm thinking i may focus all my attention on my calves.

i really don't know.

once i've moved house and am closer to the gym and my money has sorted itself out, i'll set back to the gym and we'll see what happens.

takeru kobayashi

takeru kobayashi is the world champion hot dog eater...he's won the nathan's hot dog eating contest for 6 straight years now.

doesn't look like a trencherman, does he.

he's 5'-7" tall and weighed in at 160 pounds. the picture on the top shows him this year. the picture on the bottom shows him last year. hard to tell, but his arms look bigger this year.

i love a short, ripped, muscle man that likes to show off! and this guy will flex at the drop of a hot dog. or pork bun.

first post

this is to be a forum for me to exercise my muscle obsession. i'll write about my own desires and progress [if any] in the gym, post pictures i like and post bits and pieces of my own muscle fiction.