/fit/ - Fitness, Health, Exercise, Dieting, etc

>>138294

Depends largely on your starting point. Genes will play a factor in how your muscles and muscle insertions look, but I assume you know this.

About tree fiddy

About three.

Three if you have high T. Not achievable if you are average to low.

>>138294

>>138295

To give you a more concrete answer, I'd say let's guess his stats. Maybe 180 lb, 5'10, and in the 12-14% bf range. If you had similar height, insertions, and androgen receptors, it might take you maybe 3 years if you started from, say, 150 lb with similar body fat levels.

>>138317

That dude's way lower than 12-14. More like 9-10.

>>138294

Those arms and legs could be achieved in about a year. His shoulder/chest muscles would take about three years. You could have visible abs in a year at low BF% but for a physically "bulky" core like that, also about 2-3 years.

>>138346

No. You're just one of the many others who underestimate how lean you'll look at low body fat levels. Wishful thinking.

>>138417

They're all in good shape but it's interesting to me that none of them are shredded. Are they always doing a light bulk?

>>138417

It's three years because op's guy is lean. If op didn't care about cutting then he could do it in a year easily.

>>138468

Being absolutely shredded is lowkey bad for you long term. Your body operates best @10-15% bf.

And if you're a seal who might need to survive a week or more in hostile territory with nothing but what they carry on their back and can scavenge then you def want to have some reserves.

>>138597

yea.

I think they work on being strong, fast, and powerful.

for instance, doing 30 reps of clap-push-ups will give you more explosiveness and endurance than 100 regular push-ups

the key to them is burning in the endurance for long turn muscle use