Was anybody else annoyed by bodybuilder type 6 pack in the illustration. While ancient man would have been realtively lean I doubt a 6 pack is an accurate representation. A quick Google of modern hunter gatherer societies shows lean people but no 6 packs. Maybe I'm wrong or being too picky?
A 6 pack would be normal, it's dictated by body fat and even the weakest people would have visible, albeit tiny, 6 packs showing.
The inaccurate representation in the photo is the fact that you'd need a shitload of calories to be able to put on that much mass, while working out pushing serious weight a few times a week. So yeah, completely inaccurate unless this guy was benching deer before eating them solo.
But annoyed? No. That's sounds like insecurity. Time to hit the gym bro.
If you wear anything more than a t-shirt nobody would even suspect that you have a sixpack. Unless you're actually big, even a basic button-down shirt hides all your gains. How many and how often do other people see you shirtless?
I've been lean 165lbs / 5'10" (75kg, 178cm) since 15 till like 21. I've had a sixpack, but nobody knew about it because I don't usually go to the high school and university shirtless. When I got to 187lbs (85kg) I actually started to look like I lift even when dressed. At 200-210lbs (90-95kg) I actually look strong even in sweater. At my height to get the grotesque "bodybuilding big" I'd have to weigh ~120kg (260lbs).
Getting big has had a dramatic positive effect on my attractiveness.
Um, what I said: "...the most you'd see is a little excess belly fat if I took my shirt off..."
I know I have some fat. I'll start stressing about it when my lifts stop going up, or when it becomes visibly excessive.
As for being "jacked", I wasn't describing myself now, but rather a hypothetical future self. You can infer this based on my use of the future tense: "When I hit 253, I'll be obese, just like pretty much everyone in the NBA...I'll be eating just as much..."
I know I've got a long way to go. That's why I'm describing the future rather than the present.
First you looked "very athletic" at 170, now your abs were "slightly defined" at 160. Uh huh. If that means anything, that means you had a lot of visceral fat, or it's more stored in the legs.
So what? The previous 34lb gain happened about 8 years ago and that was probably his main focus at the time. Then, he was in his late 20s. Now, he's in his late 30s and obviously spread thin.
I love HN, but damn the negativity and dismissal. The guy is opening up on some pretty personal stuff and I for one appreciate it.
[edit: I've explained why I think the original 34lb gain is possibly legitimate in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6669680 (though you should note that wasn't the point of this comment.)]
reply