no. the manhomosexuals that populate this board are gonna come HULKING over to this thread and tell you otherwise but they're just wrong. as long as you have mobility, good cardiovascular endurance, and as you said, eat a well balanced diet, you're fine.
its so funny, literally only other hulking manhomosexuals care about a dudes physique. women do like muscles, but nothing you couldn't accomplish by just doing calisthenics. hulkhomosexuals are always coping but NOBODY CARES ABOUT THEIR MUSCLES
I dont think its impossible to be natty and do it. Ive hit 242lbs at 6'4 and i was around 12-15% it wouldve taken some serious effort but im sure i couldve gone sub 10% and maintained weight
You were not even close to the written bf% percentages. Take it from another tall guy who used to underestimated his bodyfat levels on IST, I used to believe I was 14% because I could see some hint of abs but in hindsight I was probably 18% at that point. Lost a shitton of water weight and dropped from 245 to 200 close to actual 10%
> According to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there are healthy body fat percentages based on your age. For people aged 20 to 39, women should aim for 21% to 32% of body fat. Men should have 8% to 19%. For people 40 to 59, women should fall between 23% to 33% and men should fall around 11% to 21%. If you’re aged 60 to 79, women should have 24% to 35% body fat and men should have 13% to 24%.
Lol so basically I can just do whatever the frick I want
Yeah, sunlight can cause cancer too. Does this mean science is telling us we should only use artificial light? Does this mean you should avoid going outside? Hell no dude.
You can't avoid doing the cost/benefit analysis. Science can't do it for you. There are always tradeoffs, and it's up to YOU to decide what the best course of action is-- it is not up to the people wearing lab coats.
2 years ago
Anonymous
> Does this mean you should avoid going outside?
If you’re white then yes lol
2 years ago
Anonymous
Good luck anon. Higher mortality among those who avoid sunlight.
>A reasonable person would interpret that as science saying you shouldn't eat that food.
No cause one study that was probably paid of by someone who wants you to consume food Y instead of X doesn't mean much. I bet you heckin' love science you moron, don't you?
Strength is unbelievably useful.
We have to be able to move ourselves around in the world to achieve some goal or avoid some threat -- which sometimes means running, or climbing, or jumping, etc.
We also have become a creature that uses tools and builds and toils. The currency of this kind of existence is strength and endurance. Technology has eased this somewhat, but it's not as if we can just build machines that build machines that build machines that build machines that do literally every physically demanding task that needs doing. Some things are heavy and there is no reasonable way to design a machine to move them in a way that's useful to us.
Mining is still strenuous.
Logging is still strenuous.
Agriculture is still strenuous.
Construction is still strenuous.
Transportation of goods is still strenuous.
Imagine you're going to move to a new home. Who (or what) moves the furniture onto the truck? Who moves into the new space and puts it right where you want it? I'll contend that it will never be a machine. It will, until the end of humanity, be a pair of human beings who pick up and move that couch. It's not impossible for a machine to exist that does that, but it's not economically or logistically or ergonomically worthwhile.
tl;dr civilization is enabled by the capacity of human beings to do physical work and that will never change. You may not need strength, but you will certainly come to rely on the strength of others.
If you can't carry your mom or loved one into your car from upstairs into the car to take to the er that could be the difference between life and death.
>more bone density >better posture >stronger articulations >generally less prone to injuries
Of course this is only true if you are natty and don't train in a moronic way.
no. the manhomosexuals that populate this board are gonna come HULKING over to this thread and tell you otherwise but they're just wrong. as long as you have mobility, good cardiovascular endurance, and as you said, eat a well balanced diet, you're fine.
its so funny, literally only other hulking manhomosexuals care about a dudes physique. women do like muscles, but nothing you couldn't accomplish by just doing calisthenics. hulkhomosexuals are always coping but NOBODY CARES ABOUT THEIR MUSCLES
seethe harder crossshitter
it’s fun
/thread
god i just want to continuously smash my head against those abs like a brick wall until i get serious brain injury and die
I’d rather just lick the sweat off her abs (and pits, of course) but each to their own, brotein shake!
Man? yes its good
Woman? fricks up your menstruations and life after age 30
>Does having a lot of muscle mass do anything for your actual health, quality of life, and longevity?
Yes
more muscle = more time till sarcopenia renders you a withered homosexual = more years enjoying high quality of life with full mobility and autonomy.
If you go ridiculously hard and end up on the obese side of a bmi chart at below 10% bodyfat youll probably have some heart problems or something?
Only happens with non-natty lifters, which you shouldn't even take into consideration when the topic is about health and longevity
I dont think its impossible to be natty and do it. Ive hit 242lbs at 6'4 and i was around 12-15% it wouldve taken some serious effort but im sure i couldve gone sub 10% and maintained weight
You were not even close to the written bf% percentages. Take it from another tall guy who used to underestimated his bodyfat levels on IST, I used to believe I was 14% because I could see some hint of abs but in hindsight I was probably 18% at that point. Lost a shitton of water weight and dropped from 245 to 200 close to actual 10%
women just want HWD
> According to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there are healthy body fat percentages based on your age. For people aged 20 to 39, women should aim for 21% to 32% of body fat. Men should have 8% to 19%. For people 40 to 59, women should fall between 23% to 33% and men should fall around 11% to 21%. If you’re aged 60 to 79, women should have 24% to 35% body fat and men should have 13% to 24%.
Lol so basically I can just do whatever the frick I want
>taking advise from people that despise you and want you to be a placid, insect eating slave
I bet y’all listen to joe rogan too. Neck yourselves and use crystal magic you fricking morons
Science can't tell you what you "should" do. If it's telling you that, it is not science.
>Studies says X food causes cancer
A reasonable person would interpret that as science saying you shouldn't eat that food.
Yeah, sunlight can cause cancer too. Does this mean science is telling us we should only use artificial light? Does this mean you should avoid going outside? Hell no dude.
You can't avoid doing the cost/benefit analysis. Science can't do it for you. There are always tradeoffs, and it's up to YOU to decide what the best course of action is-- it is not up to the people wearing lab coats.
> Does this mean you should avoid going outside?
If you’re white then yes lol
Good luck anon. Higher mortality among those who avoid sunlight.
>A reasonable person would interpret that as science saying you shouldn't eat that food.
No cause one study that was probably paid of by someone who wants you to consume food Y instead of X doesn't mean much. I bet you heckin' love science you moron, don't you?
Never said I was reasonable
Studies also say you are 99% more likely to be raped if you are a white woman around a black male.
thank you for validating my racism
>thank you for validating my racism
It's 2022, you're late to the party
>The "Science" was wrong about eggs
>Milk
>cardio
>global warming
>Covid
Why would you trust them now?
Strength is unbelievably useful.
We have to be able to move ourselves around in the world to achieve some goal or avoid some threat -- which sometimes means running, or climbing, or jumping, etc.
We also have become a creature that uses tools and builds and toils. The currency of this kind of existence is strength and endurance. Technology has eased this somewhat, but it's not as if we can just build machines that build machines that build machines that build machines that do literally every physically demanding task that needs doing. Some things are heavy and there is no reasonable way to design a machine to move them in a way that's useful to us.
Mining is still strenuous.
Logging is still strenuous.
Agriculture is still strenuous.
Construction is still strenuous.
Transportation of goods is still strenuous.
Imagine you're going to move to a new home. Who (or what) moves the furniture onto the truck? Who moves into the new space and puts it right where you want it? I'll contend that it will never be a machine. It will, until the end of humanity, be a pair of human beings who pick up and move that couch. It's not impossible for a machine to exist that does that, but it's not economically or logistically or ergonomically worthwhile.
tl;dr civilization is enabled by the capacity of human beings to do physical work and that will never change. You may not need strength, but you will certainly come to rely on the strength of others.
>Logging is still strenuous.
Eat less fibre. Trust me bro
If you can't carry your mom or loved one into your car from upstairs into the car to take to the er that could be the difference between life and death.
>more bone density
>better posture
>stronger articulations
>generally less prone to injuries
Of course this is only true if you are natty and don't train in a moronic way.
left.in answer to you question: i dunno probably