x
Click to expand

killerkost

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:9/29/2011
Last Login:5/21/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#26268
Highest Comment Rank:#9284
Comment Thumbs: 499 total,  639 ,  140
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level 148 Comments: Faptastic → Level 149 Comments: Faptastic
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:85
FJ Points:483

latest user's comments

#129 - amen to that brother 05/05/2015 on Good God @_@ +1
#128 - Check this guy out, Adam Raw, now that is what i call a "…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/05/2015 on Good God @_@ +1
#130 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Fuck but that guy is a beast.
#126 - that is true, but I hate it when people use the word "fun…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/05/2015 on Good God @_@ +1
#127 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Yeah I agree with you on that.
Bodybuilder will be stronger than an average person. Functionally stronger, because they put in quite a lot of effort in it. Their goal is aesthetical muscle build, which is still MUSCLE.
And neither could compete with a track runner or a swimmer in their fields because those groups exercise different muscles for different reasons.
People who practice western sword combat have wide shoulders, thin waist strong wrists. Form always follows function in human body.
Anyone who thinks bodybuilders are weak is deluding himself.
#129 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
amen to that brother
#125 - man, say what you want, but he is definitely not defined. He h… 05/05/2015 on Good God @_@ 0
#121 - But if what you said was true then all bodybuilders would be f…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/05/2015 on Good God @_@ 0
#123 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Ok, lets set the body fat one aside.
There will still be a difference in a strongman and bodybuilder, and it comes with where the muscle is defined and for what reason.
Strongman will need stronger midsection and are actually hindered with bulging chest muscle.
Body builder want a tiny waist and large chest, which is less functional, but far more aestheaticly pleasing.
#128 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
Check this guy out, Adam Raw, now that is what i call a "functional" body.

I mean the word "functional" always depends on the function and if your function is lifting a rock and you can do that then you are functional. but if you look at the word functional in the way that your body functions the way you want it to ( body control) then this guy wins the "functional-award".

And here's a vid.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKfOuHJ_EXA
#130 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Fuck but that guy is a beast.
#126 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
that is true, but I hate it when people use the word "functional". its like all those crossfit retards yelling about "functional strength". It is true however that strongmens' core muscles have to be A LOT stronger than the ones of a bodybuilder and therefore look thicker.
#127 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Yeah I agree with you on that.
Bodybuilder will be stronger than an average person. Functionally stronger, because they put in quite a lot of effort in it. Their goal is aesthetical muscle build, which is still MUSCLE.
And neither could compete with a track runner or a swimmer in their fields because those groups exercise different muscles for different reasons.
People who practice western sword combat have wide shoulders, thin waist strong wrists. Form always follows function in human body.
Anyone who thinks bodybuilders are weak is deluding himself.
#129 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
amen to that brother
#118 - Man I know that Björnsson is a beast, but he is also like 3 m…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/05/2015 on Good God @_@ 0
#120 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Well, yes, but there is also the fact that very little of it is fat, that's why i posted a picture with his hands over the head to show how defined he is in that position.
#125 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
man, say what you want, but he is definitely not defined. He has like 15-17% bodyfat which is still quite lean for the "average" person, but real definition starts below 10%bf. And the pic that you posted... well, its perfect overhead lighting and he is sweaty, so a visible sixpack is nothing special under those conditions.
#116 - You know I was actually interested in what you had to say unti…  [+] (8 new replies) 05/05/2015 on Good God @_@ 0
#119 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
No, but the competitions last entire day. They don't do just one feat of muscle, but they keep doing it for hours. They can't overload on food, because that would make them drowsy, so for prolonged tests they drink water with carbs and rely on reserves.
#121 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
But if what you said was true then all bodybuilders would be fat, except they are not, because there are quite shredded strongmen out there (mariusz pudzianowski). The second thing is that if what you said were true then it still would make sense to lose fat, because you get more endurable with less %bf, i mean look at all the marathon runners. Your logic would be "they need to run 42km so they need to be fat, because they need the reserves". what actually is fact is that they are skinny as fuck because they want to burn the least amount of energy as possible over the 42km run. now i know this example is not perfect, but i still call bullshit on your argument.

have a pic of tiny trips as compensation.
#123 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Ok, lets set the body fat one aside.
There will still be a difference in a strongman and bodybuilder, and it comes with where the muscle is defined and for what reason.
Strongman will need stronger midsection and are actually hindered with bulging chest muscle.
Body builder want a tiny waist and large chest, which is less functional, but far more aestheaticly pleasing.
#128 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
Check this guy out, Adam Raw, now that is what i call a "functional" body.

I mean the word "functional" always depends on the function and if your function is lifting a rock and you can do that then you are functional. but if you look at the word functional in the way that your body functions the way you want it to ( body control) then this guy wins the "functional-award".

And here's a vid.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKfOuHJ_EXA
#130 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Fuck but that guy is a beast.
#126 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
that is true, but I hate it when people use the word "functional". its like all those crossfit retards yelling about "functional strength". It is true however that strongmens' core muscles have to be A LOT stronger than the ones of a bodybuilder and therefore look thicker.
#127 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Yeah I agree with you on that.
Bodybuilder will be stronger than an average person. Functionally stronger, because they put in quite a lot of effort in it. Their goal is aesthetical muscle build, which is still MUSCLE.
And neither could compete with a track runner or a swimmer in their fields because those groups exercise different muscles for different reasons.
People who practice western sword combat have wide shoulders, thin waist strong wrists. Form always follows function in human body.
Anyone who thinks bodybuilders are weak is deluding himself.
#129 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
amen to that brother
#114 - well thats mostly true except that bodybuilders are also stron…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/05/2015 on Good God @_@ +1
User avatar #137 - pwnagraphy (05/05/2015) [-]
I'm not even gonna bother saying synthol is for fags because that's a simple fact of life. What I don't understand is WHY WOULD YOU ONLY PUT IT IN YOUR BICEPS TO BE PURPOSEFULLY UNEVEN
#117 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Because they are actually quite weak during a show.
To achieve a maximum definition they dehydrate and go through specific routine that makes them look more defined, but also makes them very weak.
They are obviously quite strong, but during a show they are barely standing on their feet.
#112 - post comment with actual information in response to ******… 05/05/2015 on Good God @_@ 0
#104 - I hope you guys do know that the "form vs function" …  [+] (23 new replies) 05/05/2015 on Good God @_@ -5
#113 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Here's the thing. strongman will not have as bulging chest muscles. Because they are not very useful or functional. Second strongmen need additional bulk in the waist area. sides, back, and yes, stomach, because to lift what they are lifting and not hurt your spine, you need to be focused on muscles that carry.
And its not lazyness why strongmen never lose as much fat as bodybuilders, its logic. They need the energy reserves. Body builders need to look good, their muscles need to be sculpted. Strongmen need to have energy to carry a big fucking rock.
Look at this picture of Björnsson, possibly the strongest man alive now, there is actually very little fat on him. But he still doesn't have a V physique because he needs far more muscle in the stomach, waist, back area. (or the carrying of that log would have killed him).
#135 - anonymous (05/05/2015) [-]
"strongman will not have as bulging chest muscles. Because they are not very useful or functional"

okay
#116 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
You know I was actually interested in what you had to say untill you said this: "And its not lazyness why strongmen never lose as much fat as bodybuilders, its logic. They need the energy reserves." You know that your body doesnt turn fat into energy just because you need to lift a rock right? cardio is what burns fat, you burn fat after a workout, you burn fat if you simply dont eat, but you dont burn fat WHILE powerlifting and it doesn't give you any edge. Creatine and glucose is what you need for instant energy, not fucking fat.
#119 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
No, but the competitions last entire day. They don't do just one feat of muscle, but they keep doing it for hours. They can't overload on food, because that would make them drowsy, so for prolonged tests they drink water with carbs and rely on reserves.
#121 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
But if what you said was true then all bodybuilders would be fat, except they are not, because there are quite shredded strongmen out there (mariusz pudzianowski). The second thing is that if what you said were true then it still would make sense to lose fat, because you get more endurable with less %bf, i mean look at all the marathon runners. Your logic would be "they need to run 42km so they need to be fat, because they need the reserves". what actually is fact is that they are skinny as fuck because they want to burn the least amount of energy as possible over the 42km run. now i know this example is not perfect, but i still call bullshit on your argument.

have a pic of tiny trips as compensation.
#123 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Ok, lets set the body fat one aside.
There will still be a difference in a strongman and bodybuilder, and it comes with where the muscle is defined and for what reason.
Strongman will need stronger midsection and are actually hindered with bulging chest muscle.
Body builder want a tiny waist and large chest, which is less functional, but far more aestheaticly pleasing.
#128 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
Check this guy out, Adam Raw, now that is what i call a "functional" body.

I mean the word "functional" always depends on the function and if your function is lifting a rock and you can do that then you are functional. but if you look at the word functional in the way that your body functions the way you want it to ( body control) then this guy wins the "functional-award".

And here's a vid.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKfOuHJ_EXA
#130 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Fuck but that guy is a beast.
#126 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
that is true, but I hate it when people use the word "functional". its like all those crossfit retards yelling about "functional strength". It is true however that strongmens' core muscles have to be A LOT stronger than the ones of a bodybuilder and therefore look thicker.
#127 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Yeah I agree with you on that.
Bodybuilder will be stronger than an average person. Functionally stronger, because they put in quite a lot of effort in it. Their goal is aesthetical muscle build, which is still MUSCLE.
And neither could compete with a track runner or a swimmer in their fields because those groups exercise different muscles for different reasons.
People who practice western sword combat have wide shoulders, thin waist strong wrists. Form always follows function in human body.
Anyone who thinks bodybuilders are weak is deluding himself.
#129 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
amen to that brother
#115 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
And here is the picture of Björnsson with his arms down.
See that his stomach area looks much less defined, that is because he keeps a small amount of fat as an energy reserve for prolonged heavy work.
Also in both pictures AND in yours you will notice lack of bulging chest muscle. That is the main difference between strongman and bodybuilder. Bulging chest muscles are not just useless for actual work, they are also restrictive.
#118 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
Man I know that Björnsson is a beast, but he is also like 3 meters tall or sth like that. this dude weights 200kg. I think for him its simply impossible to sustain that mass without losing musscle if he cuts.
#120 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Well, yes, but there is also the fact that very little of it is fat, that's why i posted a picture with his hands over the head to show how defined he is in that position.
#125 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
man, say what you want, but he is definitely not defined. He has like 15-17% bodyfat which is still quite lean for the "average" person, but real definition starts below 10%bf. And the pic that you posted... well, its perfect overhead lighting and he is sweaty, so a visible sixpack is nothing special under those conditions.
#110 - anonymous (05/05/2015) [-]
This is purely speculation, good chance I'm wrong but.
You can look strong and not actually be strong; body-builder.
You can look fat/weak and actually be strong; Strongmen
You can look strong and actually be strong; Strongmen
You can look fat and actually be fat; I could make a joke about Americans but that would just be too rude.

The way you acquire your shape/strength is also how you can be classified.

If you need stamina you'll need glucose, fat can be turned in glucose with insulin.
(Gluconeogenesis). And if you have fat near a muscle it's more easy for your body to directly apply Gluconeogenesis and use it.

If you need strength you'll need more muscle.
Makes you able do be stronger but also requires more energy.
#111 - anonymous (05/05/2015) [-]
Wow brain did I just wrote that, Ignore line 2 to 4 plz.
I'm tired today.
#114 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
well thats mostly true except that bodybuilders are also strong... i dont know where the myth comes from that they are weak but its simply not true for the most part. As long as it is not synthol or shit like that a big muscle will always be strong. Maybe while competing they are quite weak in comparison to their usual standards because they are dehydrated, on a caloric deficite and on DNP or shit like that, but thats it, they are still stronger than the average "this guy just looks strong but he actually isnt" kind of guy.

I think pic related is where the myth comes from.
User avatar #137 - pwnagraphy (05/05/2015) [-]
I'm not even gonna bother saying synthol is for fags because that's a simple fact of life. What I don't understand is WHY WOULD YOU ONLY PUT IT IN YOUR BICEPS TO BE PURPOSEFULLY UNEVEN
#117 - angelusprimus (05/05/2015) [-]
Because they are actually quite weak during a show.
To achieve a maximum definition they dehydrate and go through specific routine that makes them look more defined, but also makes them very weak.
They are obviously quite strong, but during a show they are barely standing on their feet.
#106 - ashinydoornob (05/05/2015) [-]
#105 - fjacctfucku (05/05/2015) [-]
#112 - killerkost (05/05/2015) [-]
post comment with actual information in response to bullshit content, get shat on by community. Stay classy funnyjunk.
[ 83 Total ]

user's channels

Join Subscribe bendingtime

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 650

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)