Is my body transform possible?

Transform

Overall to be honest Im just actually disappointed that guys consider Zac Effron a role model of what to aspire to, physically.

Yes yes yes everyone has their own personal goals but as someone that was brought up on He-Man, Arnold, Lee, Thunder cats, Hulk (and hogan), Rocky and the ever under rated Swayze (aka pain dont hurt, Roadhouse) and mixed with the attitude and swagger of John McClane, Snake Plissken, Steve Prefontaine And Keanu Reeves,

Im saddened to see guys now aspire to a physique (that was posted) which, with a bit of honest work most guys could achieve in a matter of weeks.

Just my opinion, as i feel it furthers my beliefs on the over pu$$yfication of men in general.

Alf Veedersane

Transform wrote: »

Overall to be honest Im just actually disappointed that guys consider Zac Effron a role model of what to aspire to, physically.

Yes yes yes everyone has their own personal goals but as someone that was brought up on He-Man, Arnold, Lee, Thunder cats, Hulk (and hogan), Rocky and the ever under rated Swayze (aka pain dont hurt, Roadhouse) and mixed with the attitude and swagger of John McClane, Snake Plissken, Steve Prefontaine And Keanu Reeves,

Im saddened to see guys now aspire to a physique (that was posted) which, with a bit of honest work most guys could achieve in a matter of weeks.

Just my opinion, as i feel it furthers my beliefs on the over pu$$yfication of men in general.

Lion-O versus Battle Cat: who wins?

Transform

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Lion-O versus Battle Cat: who wins?

jesus tough call!

jive

Efron is a beast... have you seen him lately? Everyone wanted to look like Brad Pitt Fight Club, now efron is that guy!!

"Im saddened to see guys now aspire to a physique (that was posted) which, with a bit of honest work most guys could achieve in a matter of weeks."

C'mon that's a load of baloney. If you could get a physique like that in weeks then everyone would be ripped, years of dedication would be required to achieve the pic in the OPs post (unless you are, let's say, enhancing yourself).

Mellor

Transform wrote: »

Overall to be honest Im just actually disappointed that guys consider Zac Effron a role model of what to aspire to, physically.

Yes yes yes everyone has their own personal goals but as someone that was brought up on He-Man, Arnold, Lee, Thunder cats, Hulk (and hogan), Rocky and the ever under rated Swayze (aka pain dont hurt, Roadhouse) and mixed with the attitude and swagger of John McClane, Snake Plissken, Steve Prefontaine And Keanu Reeves,

Im saddened to see guys now aspire to a physique (that was posted) which, with a bit of honest work most guys could achieve in a matter of weeks.

Just my opinion, as i feel it furthers my beliefs on the over pu$$yfication of men in general.

You lost me at Keanu Reeves. :eek:

vangoz

Transform wrote: »

Im saddened to see guys now aspire to a physique (that was posted) which, with a bit of honest work most guys could achieve in a matter of weeks.

Just my opinion, as i feel it furthers my beliefs on the over pu$$yfication of men in general.

A matter of weeks...... Are you are talking about humans, Homo sapiens or did I miss something?

cmyk

jive wrote: »

C'mon that's a load of baloney. If you could get a physique like that in weeks then everyone would be ripped, years of dedication would be required to achieve the pic in the OPs post (unless you are, let's say, enhancing yourself).

I'm assuming it was very much tongue in cheek.

Dtp1979

Roadhouse

Alf Veedersane

When Bieber was the epitome of swole




To Eden...

jive

cmyk wrote: »

I'm assuming it was very much tongue in cheek.

My sarcasm detector is with professor Frink at the moment!!

ThinkProgress

Mellor wrote: »

I agree. But that has little to do with their routine, and much more to do with their intake. Some like like a physiques model is essentially a bodybuilder with lower calories and pharma. And most of the general public would consider them to have a much great "all round physiques".

I agree that you can make a lot of alterations to your physique by lifting weights and tweaking your nutrition. However, I still think it has many limitations... I don't think ANY/EVERY physical appearance is achievable with just weights/strength training and nutrition.

The focus is too narrow imho. As important as strength training is, that singular approach neglects too many other important aspects of fitness and so will produce inferior results.

I'm not sure who this body without a head is in the OP? General consensus suggests that it's Zach Efron?

Well if it is indeed him, I find something very odd about this thread... and the advice given so far. (not looking to rag on anyone - I know people are trying to help the OP)

A quick google image search of something generic like "zach efron workout" brings up many different activities.

It's very easy to look at all the images of weight training, tire flipping, rope climbing etc... (which all play their part no doubt) But what many people don't seem to see or factor in, is all the other variety of activities he does, that IMO are every bit as important to how he looks as the strength training.

Just at a quick glance, I see swimming / jogging / Basketball / skateboarding / horse riding (makes his hair look great :P) / BBQing with beer and hot babes (essential component - NEVER neglect this part!!).

My point? He looks like a guy who enjoys keeping active, playing various sports, trying different things AND doing strength training!

If you wanna look like that, you need to live like that... (minus the millions of dollars and possible steroid use). Be very active, play a sport(s), do some strength training... eat quality healthy food 95% of the time. Have a beer every now and then with hookers who's names you likely don't know - and don't care to know. Enjoy yourself. :pac:

Consistency is the most important factor. If you consistently live that life, sooner or later your body will resemble the life you've been living.

Apologies - that turned into a bit of a rant.

jive

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The focus is too narrow imho. As important as strength training is, that singular approach neglects too many other important aspects of fitness and so will produce inferior results.

Disagree on this point. If you want a physique like in OP then strength training is exactly the way to go about it. Get your nutrition right, train intelligently and consistently for many years and you will get there. That's what it takes to look good naked. Now I'm just looking at the end-result and agree completely that there are many other important factors to fitness - you can look really good and still be unhealthy/unfit. If you want to look good and feel good then you need to do a combination of strength and cardio training plus couple that with a good variety of quality food sources.

The fitness industry has to be one of the most bizarre things out there. Something so simple yet so many different, often conflicting, sources of information. Eat well (anything that grows - animal or plant - as close to it's original form as possible), do something which involves getting off your arse for an hour 5 days a week and maintain a normal sleep/wake cycle.

But that just ain't sexy enough for people; pre-workout energy blast so I can bring it hot to the gym, intra-workout nutrition so I don't burnout during my workout, post-workout so I make gains during my anabolic window, carb cycling so my leptin levels blow my scalp off, refeeds to keep my body guessing, jumping from one cool programme to the next, ZMA tabs to help me sleep, creatine to help me lift, caffeine tabs to wake me up, zero carb energy drinks to curb my sweet tooth, etc. etc...

Now I'm totally ranting and talking nonsense but it's no wonder nobody knows what to do for their health and fitness when there's so many 'natty' idiots pushing supplements trying to make a quick buck promising instant gratification upon consumption of their powdery shíte.

JakeArmitage

That picture on the right is Zak efron and I highly suspect there's s little bit of pharceutical assistance going on here , not do much of how he looks but the time it takes to get here naturally and the time it too him . Listen , there's no doubt about it you can make a major transformation , you need to lose fat which is a matter of months but the hard thing to accept is that you also need to gain a significant amount of muscle which takes years and that's with a consistent approach

JakeArmitage

Transform wrote: »

Overall to be honest Im just actually disappointed that guys consider Zac Effron a role model of what to aspire to, physically.

Yes yes yes everyone has their own personal goals but as someone that was brought up on He-Man, Arnold, Lee, Thunder cats, Hulk (and hogan), Rocky and the ever under rated Swayze (aka pain dont hurt, Roadhouse) and mixed with the attitude and swagger of John McClane, Snake Plissken, Steve Prefontaine And Keanu Reeves,

Im saddened to see guys now aspire to a physique (that was posted) which, with a bit of honest work most guys could achieve in a matter of weeks.

Just my opinion, as i feel it furthers my beliefs on the over pu$$yfication of men in general.

No one is going to look like a toy or action figure plus Arnold and Stallone were in drugs

Alf Veedersane

JakeArmitage wrote: »

No one is going to look like a toy or action figure plus Arnold and Stallone were in drugs

That wasn't really the point.

Besides, who wouldn't want to look like He-Man but with some changes to clothing and a better haircut?

Beats she ra

Mellor

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I agree that you can make a lot of alterations to your physique by lifting weights and tweaking your nutrition. However, I still think it has many limitations... I don't think ANY/EVERY physical appearance is achievable with just weights/strength training and nutrition.

The focus is too narrow imho. As important as strength training is, that singular approach neglects too many other important aspects of fitness and so will produce inferior results.

You started out taking about appearance, then segway into some notion of fitness. It's a strawman argement. Nobody mention trying to match Zac Efron's fitness levels.
But as you brought it up, I'm sure he's very active. Being a carefree millionaire and all. But that's doesn't mean you need to exactly match his activity to look like that.

You've said similar in the past iirc. Alternative methods, all-round fitness. All valid ways to get from A to B. But it comes across as being alternative just for the sake of it.

Brian?

JakeArmitage wrote: »

That picture on the right is Zak efron and I highly suspect there's s little bit of pharceutical assistance going on here , not do much of how he looks but the time it takes to get here naturally and the time it too him . Listen , there's no doubt about it you can make a major transformation , you need to lose fat which is a matter of months but the hard thing to accept is that you also need to gain a significant amount of muscle which takes years and that's with a consistent approach

There is absolutely no reason to speculate that he's juicing.

ThinkProgress

Mellor wrote: »

You started out taking about appearance, then segway into some notion of fitness. It's a strawman argement. Nobody mention trying to match Zac Efron's fitness levels.
But as you brought it up, I'm sure he's very active. Being a carefree millionaire and all. But that's doesn't mean you need to exactly match his activity to look like that.

You've said similar in the past iirc. Alternative methods, all-round fitness. All valid ways to get from A to B. But it comes across as being alternative just for the sake of it.

There is no such thing as "appearance training"... everything is fitness. Bodybuilding/strength training is a form of fitness training. (one form)

If Zach Efron spends a considerable amount of time partaking in those activities I mentioned, AND strength trains... it's illogical in my mind to think that it's only the strength training that affects his appearance. As it's only one aspect of his routine!

A game of basketball may not be something you know how to measure like you might measure his strength workouts, but imo it has just as big a role to play in his appearance as the strength workouts.

Obviously we have very different philosophies and ways of looking at these things. I'm not trying to be alternative for the sake of it... actually it just seems very simple and logical to me.

One could make the argument that ignoring everything this dude does and only focusing on one aspect of his fitness - strength training - that's kind of alternative. (it's certainly an alternative to what he's doing;))

But again, I think you and me might be heading for another impasse here... we seem to have very different mindsets. Such is life...

JakeArmitage

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

That wasn't really the point.

Besides, who wouldn't want to look like He-Man but with some changes to clothing and a better haircut?

What was? To have role models you haven't a hope in hell of aspiring to be like??

MightyMandarin

JakeArmitage wrote: »

What was? To have role models you haven't a hope in hell of aspiring to be like??

The point was that the standard of the 'ideal' physique guys want is lower than before, and it's 100% true.

Look at other guys who are idolised for their physique, like Channing Tatum for example. He looks bang average to me and he did a bodybuilding comp when he was young and looked like absolute **** (I saw a thread on r/bodybuilding about it a few months back; I'll link it later) and yet women still go mad about his physique and men aspire to it even though it'd require about 3-4mths of solid training and dieting assuming you weren't fat when starting out.

The general point is, our standards for aesthetics are slipping and in general, men are becoming less aesthetic and physically strong and fit, than we were 20yrs ago and Zac Efron or Channing Tatum being physical 'idols' for men is a glaring example of the 'pussyfication' of men. There's every chance that in 20yrs from now someone like Jonah Hill will be the 'ideal' male physique.

Also, anyone can shout 'but steroids' and claim that's the reason they can't look exactly like Arnold, Lou Ferrigno etc. did in their heyday, and they'd be right (well, sort of), but you'd be surprised how much muscle a man can gain in less than a year, and how great they can look after a few months if they have a clue about progressive overload and nutrition.

It might come as a shock to you but not all aesthetic male physiques you see belong to steroid-users.

ThinkProgress

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The point was that the standard of the 'ideal' physique guys want is lower than before, and it's 100% true.

Look at other guys who are idolised for their physique, like Channing Tatum for example. He looks bang average to me and he did a bodybuilding comp when he was young and looked like absolute **** (I saw a thread on r/bodybuilding about it a few months back; I'll link it later) and yet women still go mad about his physique and men aspire to it even though it'd require about 3-4mths of solid training and dieting assuming you weren't fat when starting out.

The general point is, our standards for aesthetics are slipping and in general, men are becoming less aesthetic and physically strong and fit, than we were 20yrs ago and Zac Efron or Channing Tatum being physical 'idols' for men is a glaring example of the 'pussyfication' of men. There's every chance that in 20yrs from now someone like Jonah Hill will be the 'ideal' male physique.

Also, anyone can shout 'but steroids' and claim that's the reason they can't look exactly like Arnold, Lou Ferrigno etc. did in their heyday, and they'd be right (well, sort of), but you'd be surprised how much muscle a man can gain in less than a year, and how great they can look after a few months if they have a clue about progressive overload and nutrition.

It might come as a shock to you but not all aesthetic male physiques you see belong to steroid-users.

Maybe it's not lower... perhaps it's just shifting in a different direction?

Personally I've never looked at Arnold or Lou Ferrigno and wished I could look like them. And I'm not saying that out of jealousy... I actually just think they looked like absolute sh*te. Freaks of nature!

But to each their own.

If you suffer from bigorexia, they probably look awesome to you. But I've never tied my self-esteem up in how big my muscles are... I care about fitness and being VERY healthy - but strength is only one aspect of fitness.

Beyond a certain point, excess musculature just becomes junk weight imo. It would prevent me from having the energy to boss my life like I currently do... for that I require high levels of all-round fitness.

But for some people, success is about having the big guns and pecs... which I doubt I'll ever completely wrap my head around. It's an alien thing to me!

MightyMandarin

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Maybe it's not lower... perhaps it's just shifting in a different direction?

Personally I've never looked at Arnold or Lou Ferrigno and wished I could look like them. And I'm not saying that out of jealousy... I actually just think they looked like absolute sh*te. Freaks of nature!

But to each their own.

If you suffer from bigorexia, they probably look awesome to you. But I've never tied my self-esteem up in how big my muscles are... I care about fitness and being VERY healthy - but strength is only one aspect of fitness.

Beyond a certain point, excess musculature just becomes junk weight imo. It would prevent me from having the energy to boss my life like I currently do... for that I require high levels of all-round fitness.

But for some people, success is about having the big guns and pecs... which I doubt I'll ever completely wrap my head around. It's an alien thing to me!

I just knew Mr."Chicken is a source of fibre" would make a ridiculous reply.

Exactly what direction are we heading in if the 'goal' physique is looking average? Because it surely isn't trying to become a better looking human.

I never think that I'll look like Arnold, but he sure as hell looks more aesthetic than Zac Efron. The classic physique of old school bodybuilders like Serge Nubret or Frank Zane is and has been the goal for many young men for decades, but now it's just much more ordinary and bland. I'm not saying anyone should expect to look like them, but you should strive to be the best, and a male physique doesn't get any better than theirs imo.

If I suffered from bigorexia I'd look at Big Ramy or Phil Heath and think of their physique as a goal. But I don't and neither do I tie myself up in aesthetics (which is why I gear my training towards weightlifting) but there's no harm in respecting an aesthetic physique.


Your last point (much like the rest of your posting style) just reeks of an oversized ego. "It would prevent me from having the energy to boss my life like I currently do".

Perhaps it's not oversized biceps you need to worry about but an oversized head instead.

ThinkProgress

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I just knew Mr."Chicken is a source of fibre" would make a ridiculous reply.

Exactly what direction are we heading in if the 'goal' physique is looking average? Because it surely isn't trying to become a better looking human.

I never think that I'll look like Arnold, but he sure as hell looks more aesthetic than Zac Efron. The classic physique of old school bodybuilders like Serge Nubret or Frank Zane is and has been the goal for many young men for decades, but now it's just much more ordinary and bland. I'm not saying anyone should expect to look like them, but you should strive to be the best, and a male physique doesn't get any better than theirs imo.

If I suffered from bigorexia I'd look at Big Ramy or Phil Heath and think of their physique as a goal. But I don't and neither do I tie myself up in aesthetics (which is why I gear my training towards weightlifting) but there's no harm in respecting an aesthetic physique.


Your last point (much like the rest of your posting style) just reeks of an oversized ego. "It would prevent me from having the energy to boss my life like I currently do".

Perhaps it's not oversized biceps you need to worry about but an oversized head instead.

Hand on heart... I think Arnold, Phil Heath etc look awful... And every other guy that looks anything like them.

I don't admire their physique. I can admire their dedication and hard work... but I would not wish to look like them in a million years.

I don't understand the desire to be huge. Maybe you don't understand the desire NOT to be huge?

So let me get this straight, you admire those physiques you mentioned... but you don't want to look like them? Why not? And what/who do you want to look like?

I think Zach Efron looks great btw. He looks fit and healthy, with a bit of muscular development... but not freakish levels like arnold etc.

To me those giant bodybuilders look just as bad as marathon runners. (for slightly different reasons). And I would not want to look like a skinny marathon runner either.

The perfect physique lies in between those kind of extremes. Not too big, not too small.

And yes, I am the proud owner of a sizable ego. Most of the time I manage to keep it in check... what can I say? Sometimes it just gets loose on me! :P

cmyk

MightyMandarin wrote: »

men are becoming less aesthetic and physically strong and fit, than we were 20yrs ago and Zac Efron or Channing Tatum being physical 'idols' for men is a glaring example of the 'pussyfication' of men. There's every chance that in 20yrs from now someone like Jonah Hill will be the 'ideal' male physique.

I'd debate that men (and women) becoming less physically strong and fit has very little to do with the standard of physiques at the top of their respective fields. In fact if anything I'd argue the opposite, on screen physiques are now so unachievable for the average person, that people are too intimidated to step into gyms, or promised unrealistic results from magazines/some trainers/supplement companies etc. that after 6 weeks they just lose faith.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

and a male physique doesn't get any better than theirs imo.

That's your opinion and your entitled to that, just as others are entitled to their ideals no?

I really don't understand the elitist attitudes in health and fitness, it's no wonder that people get pushed away altogether. The OP asked if that physique was achievable and it's just descended into an argument about male aesthetic standards?

To the OP, the physique you've chosen might be achievable but not within a few weeks I'm afraid. That certainly doesn't mean that you can't achieve that level of development, just set yourself on the path towards it and enjoy the process.

Brian?

Mod note: lads, this back and forth about male aesthetics is of no use to the OP who came looking for advice. Can we leave it there please and stick to advising the OP

MightyMandarin

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Hand on heart... I think Arnold, Phil Heath etc look awful... And every other guy that looks anything like them.

I don't admire their physique. I can admire their dedication and hard work... but I would not wish to look like them in a million years.

I don't understand the desire to be huge. Maybe you don't understand the desire NOT to be huge?

So let me get this straight, you admire those physiques you mentioned... but you don't want to look like them? Why not? And what/who do you want to look like?

I think Zach Efron looks great btw. He looks fit and healthy, with a bit of muscular development... but not freakish levels like arnold etc.

To me those giant bodybuilders look just as bad as marathon runners. (for slightly different reasons). And I would not want to look like a skinny marathon runner either.

The perfect physique lies in between those kind of extremes. Not too big, not too small.

And yes, I am the proud owner of a sizable ego. Most of the time I manage to keep it in check... what can I say? Sometimes it just gets loose on me! :P

There's a massive difference between guys like Arnold and modern-era bodybuilders like Phik Heath. I'd argue that Arnold's era of bodybuilding look the best, but whatever.

I do understand the want to not be huge, and I'm one of them, you're just arguing it rather obnoxiously with some ridiculous notions thrown in there.

Someone I think would be a 'goal physique' would be guys like Rich Froning or even weightlifters like Lu or Max Lang. There's a high chance they're on stuff, but that doesn't stop me from trying to get as aesthetic as possible as long as I'm improving in weightlifting.

Zac looks alright, and Arnold is not freakish looking. Again, big difference between 'golden era' bodybuilders and modern-era bodybuilders.

Brian?

MightyMandarin wrote: »

There's a massive difference between guys like Arnold and modern-era bodybuilders like Phik Heath. I'd argue that Arnold's era of bodybuilding look the best, but whatever.

I do understand the want to not be huge, and I'm one of them, you're just arguing it rather obnoxiously with some ridiculous notions thrown in there.

Someone I think would be a 'goal physique' would be guys like Rich Froning or even weightlifters like Lu or Max Lang. There's a high chance they're on stuff, but that doesn't stop me from trying to get as aesthetic as possible as long as I'm improving in weightlifting.

Zac looks alright, and Arnold is not freakish looking. Again, big difference between 'golden era' bodybuilders and modern-era bodybuilders.

this post came very quickly after the warning so I assume you didn't see it. Let's leave it there

JJayoo

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I just knew Mr."Chicken is a source of fibre" would make a ridiculous reply.

Chicken is a great source of fiber you just have to eat all the feathers and the anus.

Mellor

ThinkProgress wrote: »

There is no such thing as "appearance training"... everything is fitness.

Of course there's such thing as training for appearance. Where the only goal is appearance, with no care for anything else. For somebody talking about simple and logical training, I'm not sure how you can't grasp that.

Bodybuilding/strength training is a form of fitness training. (one form)

Nobody has disputed that.
Bodybuilding and strength training are different btw.

If Zach Efron spends a considerable amount of time partaking in those activities I mentioned, AND strength trains... it's illogical in my mind to think that it's only the strength training that affects his appearance. As it's only one aspect of his routine!

Another strawman!
I never said that only strength affects appearance. I said that just because he does all sorts of random activities (which obviously have an effect), that doesn't mean you have to do the same identical activities to match the results. Again, quite simple.

Obviously we have very different philosophies and ways of looking at these things. I'm not trying to be alternative for the sake of it... actually it just seems very simple and logical to me.

One could make the argument that ignoring everything this dude does and only focusing on one aspect of his fitness - strength training - that's kind of alternative. (it's certainly an alternative to what he's doing;))

But again, I think you and me might be heading for another impasse here... we seem to have very different mindsets. Such is life...

As above, you are going out of your way to misconstrue the point, and be purposely awkward for the sake of "philosophies".

If you weren't told that the pic in the op was Zac Efron, and you were asked how to achieve that. What you you say? Would be be;
"Sorry, It's not possible to achieve that look without knowing all the sports he's played this year"

Irishcrx

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

OP - Don't strive to look like someone else , or lift what someone else if lifting in the gym. The goal should be for you to be the best version of YOU that you can be genetically. Everyone is differant , everyone has a slightly differant body type , shape , size and your body will react slightly differant to training than everyone else.

Follow the process , get your body fat level down while lifting throughout and when your happy start lean bulking up to build muscle and judge how you feel and how you look. Remember the goal is for you to be where you want to be , not where other people say you should be or what to look like.

I'll guarantee you thing , you do this and you stay the course in a year from now your going to be a hell of a lot better version of yourself than where you started , the only thing you'd regret is not doing it.

ThinkProgress

Mellor wrote: »

Of course there's such thing as training for appearance. Where the only goal is appearance, with no care for anything else. For somebody talking about simple and logical training, I'm not sure how you can't grasp that.


Nobody has disputed that.
Bodybuilding and strength training are different btw.


Another strawman!
I never said that only strength affects appearance. I said that just because he does all sorts of random activities (which obviously have an effect), that doesn't mean you have to do the same identical activities to match the results. Again, quite simple.


As above, you are going out of your way to misconstrue the point, and be purposely awkward for the sake of "philosophies".

If you weren't told that the pic in the op was Zac Efron, and you were asked how to achieve that. What you you say? Would be be;
"Sorry, It's not possible to achieve that look without knowing all the sports he's played this year"

Again, I disagree with most of what you said there. We clearly have very different mindsets on many things.

No sense in us both chasing our tails and re-hashing the same points. (you can if you wish, but I won't be joining in)

Actually when I first saw the OP photo, my initial thoughts were that the guy in question must do a lot of cardio mixed with strength training. (my initial guess was boxing training or possibly something else cardio heavy)

Since discovering who this guy is, I was not surprised to discover that he likes to play a lot of sports such as basketball, skateboarding etc... I've seen lots of other people with very similar lifestyles, that have a very similar physique.

To me he doesn't look like a guy who only lifts weights or does calisthenics. I could recognize this straight away.

That's why I think the best course of action for the OP to achieve this look in the quickest and most efficient way, would be to incorporate a wide variety of different cardio activities of their choosing. And supplement this with an intelligent full body strength program.

He doesn't necessarily have to play basketball or skateboard like Mr Efron... he could choose from many other cardio-based activities and still get the same results.

But without a doubt, imo, the cardio activities would be an absolutely vital component in achieving those results. They don't just influence his fitness levels - they play a huge role in his appearance too.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Mellor

I guess in a nutshell, my opinion is that the main obstacle right now is muscle mass. So go and focus on that. When you get to a similar or slightly higher muscle mass (kg), then you should focus on fine tuning.

But the exact approach ultimately depends on the start and end conditions.

Transform

I really hope the OP actions some of this and at the very least is now building towards a 100kg squat and sorting his diet out

IR1SH RANG3R

Thanks for all the replies everyone, some really useful stuff in there. It did get a little sidetracked here and there. Just to clarify, Zach Effron is no idol of mine or anything, that's just the template look I like, it's strong while not freakishly big, this is what I would like eventually. I'm not looking for any quick fix I know it takes dedication and consistency.

I do know a fair bit about weightloss and nutrition theory as I have been researching it for a long time. I had some minor success when I started lifting in losing weight but the consistency is what I was lacking (as you can tell from pics). So like I know my caloric aim to lose weight and have a fair idea of the macros I should be hitting. I just get very bogged down when trying to put together a plan because I think I'm missing stuff. For example I put oats for breakkie with Almond butter then I'm like **** I should have eggs in there for protein. I just tend to get bogged down.

Alf Veedersane

Worry about your calories in the first instance. That's the primary concern for your weight loss. Tweak as needed for macros but don't be stressing about certain choices because of the macros.

Transform

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Worry about your calories in the first instance. That's the primary concern for your weight loss. Tweak as needed for macros but don't be stressing about certain choices because of the macros.

this or simply work your ass off in the gym so the nutrition matters to a lesser degree

Alf Veedersane

Transform wrote: »

this or simply work your ass off in the gym so the nutrition matters to a lesser degree

Agreed

A lot of people training without a trainer don't really know what actually working your ass off feels like. I know I didn't but maybe I'm generalising...

ThinkProgress

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Agreed

A lot of people training without a trainer don't really know what actually working your ass off feels like. I know I didn't but maybe I'm generalising...

I actually think most people don't have much problem with putting hard work/intensity in... but lots of people have problems with consistency.

Longevity and consistency in fitness - and by that I mean lifelong fitness - requires a careful approach. (if you want to avoid major injuries, sickness, burnout etc)

The only person that really knows your body, is you. Trainers can be helpful in certain areas - but they don't know your body. They don't know exactly what intensity you can handle...

Alf Veedersane

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I actually think most people don't have much problem with putting hard work/intensity in... but lots of people have problems with consistency.

Longevity and consistency in fitness - and by that I mean lifelong fitness - requires a careful approach. (if you want to avoid major injuries, sickness, burnout etc)

The only person that really knows your body, is you. Trainers can be helpful in certain areas - but they don't know your body. They don't know exactly what intensity you can handle...

A lot of people need to be more comfortable with being uncomfortable. One might think they're training hard but be nowhere near capacity.

And, as you say, consistency.

MightyMandarin

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I actually think most people don't have much problem with putting hard work/intensity in... but lots of people have problems with consistency.

Longevity and consistency in fitness - and by that I mean lifelong fitness - requires a careful approach. (if you want to avoid major injuries, sickness, burnout etc)

The only person that really knows your body, is you. Trainers can be helpful in certain areas - but they don't know your body. They don't know exactly what intensity you can handle...

There's a contradiction in your first point. Part of putting in 'hard work/ intensity' is being consistent. You can't be seen as a hard-worker if you only work once a fortnight. I mean, you wouldn't call someone in any job a 'hard-worker' if they worked intensely but only worked 1 day a week, would you?

It's also hard to overtrain, get major injuries or suffer sickness as a direct cause of sporting activity, like... really hard.

I've heard enough gobsh*tes talk about how they're so overtrained because they 'felt DOMS for the first time in a month' or some sh*t like that. It takes a long, long time training hard before someone is actually 'overtrained'.

My point is that people love to lie to themselves and convince themselves that they're working 'insanely hard', when really they're only doing the bare minimum, or less. I've witnessed this in numerous walks of life, not just in the gym. 99% of the people who actually work hard, do so without telling other people about their 'work', making an IG post etc.

ThinkProgress

MightyMandarin wrote: »

There's a contradiction in your first point. Part of putting in 'hard work/ intensity' is being consistent. You can't be seen as a hard-worker if you only work once a fortnight. I mean, you wouldn't call someone in any job a 'hard-worker' if they worked intensely but only worked 1 day a week, would you?

It's also hard to overtrain, get major injuries or suffer sickness as a direct cause of sporting activity, like... really hard.

I've heard enough gobsh*tes talk about how they're so overtrained because they 'felt DOMS for the first time in a month' or some sh*t like that. It takes a long, long time training hard before someone is actually 'overtrained'.

My point is that people love to lie to themselves and convince themselves that they're working 'insanely hard', when really they're only doing the bare minimum, or less. I've witnessed this in numerous walks of life, not just in the gym. 99% of the people who actually work hard, do so without telling other people about their 'work', making an IG post etc.

If you train year round, every week... not every session you do can always be balls to wall intensity. That's where injuries and burnout occur.

I've suffered over-training many years ago. All it really takes is a few weeks ignoring extreme tiredness and pushing through. It's not as hard as you claim! (well not in my experience anyway)

It should never be viewed as a macho thing either - that's part of the reason it happened to me. But I do agree with you that some people are pussies... they have no idea where the edge of that cliff is.

But once you've been there for real, you understand the dangers. There are people with permanent problems as a result of over-training. (there was a few months in my life where I thought I would become one of them)

With all the junk some people put in their bodies these days, pre-workouts, stacks etc... the signs are not always easy to spot.

I haven't suffered an injury or illness that prevented me from training in over 6 years now. I train every week 5/6 days a week. I know for a fact this would not be possible if I attacked every session with all out intensity.

Don't get me wrong, intensity is the key to high level fitness. But it's powerful medicine too imo. Too much too often will f*ck anyone up - regardless of how tough you think you are!

JJayoo

I think burnout/overtraining is often an excuse for the injuries which occur due to poorly structured training/ego lifting/poor mobility

Alf Veedersane

ThinkProgress wrote: »

If you train year round, every week... not every session you do can always be balls to wall intensity. That's where injuries and burnout occur.

I've suffered over-training many years ago. All it really takes is a few weeks ignoring extreme tiredness and pushing through. It's not as hard as you claim! (well not in my experience anyway)

It should never be viewed as a macho thing either - that's part of the reason it happened to me. But I do agree with you that some people are pussies... they have no idea where the edge of that cliff is.

But once you've been there for real, you understand the dangers. There are people with permanent problems as a result of over-training. (there was a few months in my life where I thought I would become one of them)

With all the junk some people put in their bodies these days, pre-workouts, stacks etc... the signs are not always easy to spot.

I haven't suffered an injury or illness that prevented me from training in over 6 years now. I train every week 5/6 days a week. I know for a fact this would not be possible if I attacked every session with all out intensity.

Don't get me wrong, intensity is the key to high level fitness. But it's powerful medicine too imo. Too much too often will f*ck anyone up - regardless of how tough you think you are!

All of that is prevented by a proper training structure.

I know you like to balk at 'structure' but it is what it is