Size or Definition: Which is better? (and why?)

AFPJ · 2016-08-04T03:31:22+00:00

It depends, if you're naked / live in a warm climate, many women will find the first one more attractive. If you're in a cold, northern climate where clothes are virtually never taken off, the second will benefit you more. Also, you just ran into every natural bodybuilder's perpetual dilemma: you can either look good with a shirt on, or without. Your choices to get the best of both worlds (which IS possible) are limited ...lift for a decade with flawless conditioning or do roids.

Refigerator1043 · 2016-08-04T04:28:31+00:00

It doesn't matter. Anyone who asks this question is overanalyzing and wasting time that could be better spent getting their big 3 up.

Il128 · 2016-08-04T03:39:55+00:00

Both are totally legit.

I'm 6' 2" 205 and look more ripped than large.

Honestly, you really don't have a choice. Your body will either look better ripped or bulked.

I'm long waisted and long armed and legged. I look better "ripped" than bulked.

Your body type decides.

brooklynisburnin · 2016-08-04T03:58:35+00:00

First one seems small to me, super low BF% sure, but the shoulders to waist proportion could be way better.

Second one is just bloated, I think what you refer as buff is actually being swole, which is more like this, abs still visible, but no dick-skin type of looks, which I prefer for myself/is my goal.

By experience, women tend to notice more the definition rather than the mass, vascularity and abs are definitely kings, however, low BF% affects the muscle looks a lot, if your goal is definition like in the first pic, you definitely have to reach single digit BF% or close to it, and maintaining that year round means exceptional control over you diet. Also if natty, most likely your muscles are not going to look as you would expect, a huge reason why "physique" types of bodies can maintain single digit BF% while keeping the fullness and roundness of the muscles is because certain compounds work that way, specially Trenbolone.

NapalmOverdos3 · 2016-08-04T04:04:06+00:00

Goldylocks syndrome and go between them

SlothOnRoids · 2016-08-04T15:03:10+00:00

You want to be both big AND lean honestly. Obviously it will take drugs to get that desired effect but you don't want to overdo it like 250 pounds 5% bodyfat or you will look kind of gross.

A good medium depending on your height 180 ish~220 low bodyfat is what you should be aiming for.

trpthrowaway2003 · 2016-08-05T08:23:10+00:00

[deleted]

What is this?

SexySmexxy · 2016-08-06T21:05:02+00:00

Number 1 is not super ripped.

And the ideal body would be something inbetween those two.

GayLubeOil · 2016-08-04T05:15:26+00:00

Women will go for the confident guy. However gay guys like six packs. The only people who care are men.

Title	Size or Definition: Which is better? (and why?)
Author	TheProspecter
Upvotes	1
Comments	23
Date	August 4, 2016 3:29 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/askTRP
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/4w2kdy/size_or_definition_which_is_better_and_why/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/askTRP/size-or-definition-which-is-better-and-why.109263 https://theredarchive.com/post/109263

Comments