Head Shaving Topic Makes Me Uncomfortable

[dda]

I'm surprised I'm the first one to mention this in this thread, but this is what I have been thinking in regards to this...

I'm about 5 ft 8 and hovering around 150 lbs. I'm white and im in my early 20s. I'm not to the point where I have to shave it completely yet but prob will be towards my late 20s if I don't get on fin. I WILL look like a ****ing cancer patient if i shave my head. I know you will say, go to the gym and get big. Well I've always had a problem putting on weight so it would take years for me to see noticable gym results. I can grow a ton of facial hair but I have a prominent roman nose, and I would just look goofy with no hair. I just don't have the muscle and height to pull off the shaved look in my mind. My older bro who is 32 has balded, but he is covered in tats, and has darker skin then I do.

I definately think its easier to rock the shaved head look if you are black, or really tan. And its everywhere you look too. I'm talking about your everyday average black dude whos bald that you would see walking down the street with the shaved head. It just fits them better. When ever you see a beer commercial or some other social commercial, there are 3 or 4 white guys with perfect hair and then the one black dude with them whos clean shaven and with a clean shaven head, and looks fine. You pretty much never see shaved white dudes on TV, besides some movies. But all in all I think its easier to be shaved if your black or darker hispanic. Your opinions?

[NotBelievingIt]

"Problems putting on (muscle) weight" are always the result of two simple things:
1. you are not eating enough
2. you are not getting enough protein

Attempts to argue otherwise are futile, the science is there. You just have to listen and follow it. #1 is actually way more important for 90% of skinny fat guys.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain

FWIW I'm 5'8.5" and weigh 153 and have around 10-12% body fat.

----

As for black guys having an easier time shaving -- yes. I agree completely and on another forum I made the LDO statement of: its because of their skin color.

Black people have a melanin production way above white people all over their body. This means when they take off their hair, their head is black. Shave the head of a tanned jersey shore white boy and his pale white head will stand out like a beacon in the fog.

If you're going to shave your head, you need consistent coloring across whatever skin you expose and that includes your face and neck.

[LPSboxing]

Originally Posted by NotBelievingIt

"Problems putting on (muscle) weight" are always the result of two simple things:
1. you are not eating enough
2. you are not getting enough protein

Attempts to argue otherwise are futile, the science is there.

the science is there?? the bro-science you mean?

well this ain't a bodybuilding or fitness forum but as a matter of facts, 90% of the 'rules' you are given by those so-called bodybuilding experts are NOT backed by any actual science.

just show me, for example, any actual study ( not done by proteins makers obviously ) demonstrating that a high intake of proteins - that retarded 2grams for pound of lean mass for example - is required for muscle hypertrophy.

You won't find any, and actually the actual studies find the opposite.

After all, when you 'build' a muscle, in reality you ain't building shit. It's not like adding bricks to a wall.
Muscle cells are like water baloons, all you can do is inflate them, and over 70% of it is water. The actual protein increase is nowhere near those retarded bodybuilders advices want people to believe.

After all, if they told people that building muscle is all about dedicated effort and a simple, balanced diet they would not able to sell all the stupid shit they sell to people

[NotBelievingIt]

Originally Posted by LPSboxing

the science is there?? the bro-science you mean?

well this ain't a bodybuilding or fitness forum but as a matter of facts, 90% of the 'rules' you are given by those so-called bodybuilding experts are NOT backed by any actual science.

just show me, for example, any actual study ( not done by proteins makers obviously ) demonstrating that a high intake of proteins - that retarded 2grams for pound of lean mass for example - is required for muscle hypertrophy.

You won't find any, and actually the actual studies find the opposite.

Whoa.

First off I made the point of saying eating more is way more important, for most guys who complain about putting on weight, than the protein intake because its simply the truth. It doesn't hurt by virtue of eating more protein intake will go up either, given you aren't just cramming down donuts and non-protein calories.

Second, you've inspired me to (maybe) go find some NIH published studies surrounding this. I've kind of taken it for granted that decade upon decade of why some succeed and some fail coming to the conclusions about what is 'required' becoming accepted fact. I've read many things that talk about the protein intake being anywhere from 1.2 to 2g per LBM. Its all about goals and speed at which you want things to occur and the frequency and intensity at which you lift heavy - please keep that in mind. It reads like you know what you're talking about which surprises me how quickly you attacked my post.

Muscular strength does not mean size necessarily. Nor does size correlate with strength - but size does mean strength. Plenty of people can get stronger and lean out and appear muscular by not doing a weight lifters more bulk diet - but they aren't putting on significant size or strength in the time frame they usually want and thus give up.

After all, when you 'build' a muscle, in reality you ain't building shit. It's not like adding bricks to a wall.

Actually thats almost exactly what it is. No disagreement on water content, but that doesn't mean the size someone has is all water. With strength comes size and with size comes strength. Its not an absolute correlation that the biggest body builder has the highest strength though - they simply have hypertrophy. Even someone like Ronnie Coleman admits that a bodybuilders goal isn't strength, its hypertrophy. Strength just happens as a result.

Also, steroid users are the ones who experience "size" that is nothing but water retention. Hence users who rely on it alone for size end up getting hooked. They aren't using nature to keep natural size.

After all, if they told people that building muscle is all about dedicated effort and a simple, balanced diet they would not able to sell all the stupid shit they sell to people

They call them supplements for a reason. No genuine supplement maker is going to tell you their stuff is "required". They sell as they do because a fair amount of people do not eat enough to get in that sweet spot range of 1.5-2g of brotein / LBM. Whether thats a result of just poor planning or inability who knows. Its relatively easy to hit 75-125g throughout the day but when those numbers you're shooting for require an extra 30-50, brotein supplements are the quick and easy way of doing it.


Someone who is staying 100% natural will get big, don't get me wrong based on the above. It may take longer and be a more arduos process of keeping on top of their food intake types, but they will. They will never push past genetic potential though and many guys want to push past that.

But back to your original broscience statement....as I said above. Decades of weight lifters and body building may not amount to "science" done by "scientists" - but when consistent failure and consistent success ends up getting tied back to the same thing over and over...thats pretty darn good evidence.

[LPSboxing]

Originally Posted by NotBelievingIt

Whoa.

First off I made the point of saying eating more is way more important, for most guys who complain about putting on weight, than the protein intake because its simply the truth. It doesn't hurt by virtue of eating more protein intake will go up either, given you aren't just cramming down donuts and non-protein calories.

Second, you've inspired me to (maybe) go find some NIH published studies surrounding this. I've kind of taken it for granted that decade upon decade of why some succeed and some fail coming to the conclusions about what is 'required' becoming accepted fact. I've read many things that talk about the protein intake being anywhere from 1.2 to 2g per LBM. Its all about goals and speed at which you want things to occur and the frequency and intensity at which you lift heavy - please keep that in mind. It reads like you know what you're talking about which surprises me how quickly you attacked my post.

Muscular strength does not mean size necessarily. Nor does size correlate with strength - but size does mean strength. Plenty of people can get stronger and lean out and appear muscular by not doing a weight lifters more bulk diet - but they aren't putting on significant size or strength in the time frame they usually want and thus give up.

Actually thats almost exactly what it is. No disagreement on water content, but that doesn't mean the size someone has is all water. With strength comes size and with size comes strength. Its not an absolute correlation that the biggest body builder has the highest strength though - they simply have hypertrophy. Even someone like Ronnie Coleman admits that a bodybuilders goal isn't strength, its hypertrophy. Strength just happens as a result.

Also, steroid users are the ones who experience "size" that is nothing but water retention. Hence users who rely on it alone for size end up getting hooked. They aren't using nature to keep natural size.


They call them supplements for a reason. No genuine supplement maker is going to tell you their stuff is "required". They sell as they do because a fair amount of people do not eat enough to get in that sweet spot range of 1.5-2g of brotein / LBM. Whether thats a result of just poor planning or inability who knows. Its relatively easy to hit 75-125g throughout the day but when those numbers you're shooting for require an extra 30-50, brotein supplements are the quick and easy way of doing it.


Someone who is staying 100% natural will get big, don't get me wrong based on the above. It may take longer and be a more arduos process of keeping on top of their food intake types, but they will. They will never push past genetic potential though and many guys want to push past that.

But back to your original broscience statement....as I said above. Decades of weight lifters and body building may not amount to "science" done by "scientists" - but when consistent failure and consistent success ends up getting tied back to the same thing over and over...thats pretty darn good evidence.

NotBelievingIt,

please understand the post was in no way a personal attack to you nor an attempt for flaming or trolling.

It's just that, being in the sports world for decades, I have grown a little sick of all the bodybuilding industry scam.
I think that bodybuilding ( I personal prefer to reserve the word "weightlifting" to the actual olympic sport ) transformed himself from a very respectable sport - although aesthetics oriented and not performance oriented like every other sport - to a big scam industry not much different than the HAIR LOSS industry.

The thing is : the more I become educated on the human body and actual science, the more I wish to de-learn all the so called rules we are exposed to.

Actually just looking at real life, lots of those rules don't even make sense.

Just some random thoughts, out of my mind, of the top -retarded- rules I heard of :

"the body only grows systemically. you cannot put "X" size on the arms without gaining "Y" total body weight muscle." - This is one of the most retarded ones. Tell this to my mechanic with a normal body and muscular forearms and upper arms after spending some years in heavy hand tasks.
Muscular hypertrophy IS a local adaptation.

"you cannot build muscular arms-shoulders-etc without squats or deadlifts bla bla" - another huge bullshit. Tell this to a male ring gymnast that his upper body is not muscular or functional enough because they don't do heavy squats.

[LPSboxing]

Originally Posted by NotBelievingIt

Actually thats almost exactly what it is. No disagreement on water content, but that doesn't mean the size someone has is all water. With strength comes size and with size comes strength.

Sorry I forgot to answer this point.

Can you please explain what you 'muscle growth model' is?
Do you think you are actually inducing hyperplasia of new muscle fibers?

I didn't say that all you do is adding water.

When you make a muscle cell bigger, you expand both the actual proteins and liquid content, mithocondria etc.

But the protein part accounts for a very limited %, the vast majority is added water.

That's why big protein intake is not required for hypertrophy.

And by the way, the model of pure sarcoplasmic/myofibrillar hypertrophy of that pavel guy is pure bullshit.

It's been demonstrated that the two happen in a fixed ratio, ALWAYS

[NotBelievingIt]

I don't mean to diminish the discussion or your knowledge.

But in ANOTHER forum, full of broscience guys apparently, this was pointed to and I thought it aptly humourous as it applies to the discussion.

Originally Posted by http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Broscience&defid=4222900

A sarcastic term implying that the time tested, muscle building wealth of knowledge developed and utilized by successful, experienced bodybuilders is inferior to the continually shifting hypotheses of articulate, textbook-savvy 155lb. chemists with little or no real world first-person experience to substantiate their conclusions. The term "Broscience" is oft repeated on bodybuilding and fitness oriented internet forums in an attempt to demonstrate online dominance as a substitution for success in the arena of actual bodybuilding.

Professor Shnootgarten: What are you drinking there?

Tommy: Just a protein shake with some carbs; I need to get my 350 grams daily.

Professor Shnootgarten: According to the 30 pubmed studies that I’ve downloaded, any amount greater than 22.341 grams of protein post workout is superfluous for greater protein synthesis. Additionally, insulin spiking, if that’s your intended objective, is neither necessary nor helpful toward replenishing glycogen stores unless, of course, your focus is high rep, time under tension endurance tolerance rather than maximal load, low rep hypertrophy stimulation.

Tommy: Dude, over the last 8 years, I’ve gone from a 148 pound weakling to a 220 pound beast doing the same stuff that worked for my dad, and you’re a buck fifteen and have never actually seen the inside of a gym.

Professor Shnootgarten: Well, according to last year’s in-vitro study of skeletal-muscle glycogen phosphorylase done at the University of Stuttgart School of Bio-Organic Chemistry Deluxe...

Tommy: Spare me the science lesson Mr. Wizard; you’ll change your mind next week when new studies reveal the opposite conclusions. You can take your research and your weak pale self, and I’ll take the 500+lb.deadlift that I got with hard work and a little help from broscience.

[LPSboxing]

LOL! but still I don't think it applies to what I was trying to say.

I am AGAINST all those, you know, training experts popping out everywhere with their mathematical training programs and whatnot.
Those are the kind of people that, by the findings of their latest research, try to tell people that you HAVE to take XX grams of proteins or you're just wasting your training time and bla bla.

If you were to see how I train you'd be surprised how old school I am. Luckily my sport, boxing, is one of the less contaminated ones from the modern fitness scam.

Sorry for hijacking the discussion of shaving heads

peace

[FlightTL]

Originally Posted by Brianf

I'm curious to hear what other guys think of this topic. I'd like to see if I am alone on my feelings about this.

These guys are loved by women and they've gone natural.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv6tg...=results_video