Isn’t that pretty much the Rock in his own words? He’s a pretty good counter example to the usual ‘actor got super buff in ten week’ nonsense. He’s maintained a pretty insane routine for more than 20 years. He boasts of last eating candy in 1989.
There’s a really interesting blog by a guy who followed the Rock’s routine for a month. You can see the results in this post. It’s a pretty impressive transformation, but he didn’t load on massive slabs of muscle in that time.
Except the way to cut fat while keeping muscle is by juicing.
As a pro/college athlete, they test you for that stuff. And strength is a lot more important than low body fat so your muscles pop. It’s a lot easier to keep muscles on when you can keep a couple extra pounds of body fat and aren’t simultaneously stuffing your body with protein and starving it of calories. So athletes don’t do that.
For actors, models, and entertainers like wrestlers strength is secondary to looking good, and they don’t get tested for anything.
I feel like it’s probably more a combination of diet and exercised to get ripped by losing fat, plus padding in their super suit, plus camera angles. They don’t actually need to gain 40 lbs of muscle. They just need to look like they did.
I had read that Afleck’s suit was padded and that he is nowhere as big as his massive bodybuilder double.
Ryan Reynolds suit wasn’t padded for Deadpool because his naturally tall and lean build was more appropriate for the character.
I feel like Bradley Cooper just ate a shitload of food for American Sniper. He just looked big, but not particularly ripped. Again, who cares if it was cheeseburger muscle? He’s not actually becoming a SEAL.
I suppose it’s not out of the question that some take steroids. But doesn’t that make them look…I don’t want to say…“puffy”?
I’m more interested in how actors like Christian Bale go from Mechanic skinny to Batman jacked or Chris Pratt goes from skinny baseball player to Navy SEAL / StarLord.
I mean 30-40 lbs is a lot
I read that Ben Affleck had “17” arms" for BM vs SM.
Yeah, right. Another Hollywood exaggeration, like age or weight.
Pratt may have had a bit of latent muscle just by virtue of having been a bit pudgy. Having a lot of excess weight is, in some ways, equivalent to walking around with a bunch of weight equipment strapped to you all of the time. Losing weight may simply have helped to reveal all the muscles he already had.
Just conjecture, mind.
There was a pretty good article a few years ago about how the increasing demands for male action-stars to have really defined muscles and low body-fat had made the job much more physically demanding than it used to be. The routines people have to go through sound pretty miserable.
Another factor is that a lot of people start getting those jobs in their twenties, when its possible to keep that physique naturally, but then are expected to keep it for films in their 30’s and 40’s, when trying to remain a muscle bound adonis becomes increasingly unrealistic, even if your spending all your time in the gym.
Hugh Jackman is a good example. He had a muscular but fairly natural physique 16 years ago when playing Wolverine when he was 29. Now at 47, he’s pretty clearly turned to some artificial help to continue playing the frequently shirt-less mutant.
Anyhoo, the take-away of the article is that pretty much every male action star over the age of 30 is using some sort of steroids.
This study says 6.5% of males have used steroids:
So yeah, they’re pretty much all juiced. It is enormously difficult to be 30+, have visible abs, and be muscular. What people picture today when they think of a superhero male type body is essentially impossible without steroids. It’s a bit like how the high rate of obesity has reset our definition of fat.
I wouldn’t say enormously…
Just difficult.
It is certainly hard to be super-hero huge and cut without chemical help, but lean, muscular and defined is possible well past your 50’s with just dedication and determination.
That said, Chris Evans went shirtless to look like a superhero who took steroids.
I’m basically a human pudding, so I know fuck all about weight training. But this bit here, about overtraining - does it just make you weaker, or does it also reduce muscle definition? Because Chris Hemsworth only has to look strong. If overtraining gives you big, useless muscles, that’s all they really need for the movies.
But you’re probably right about steroid use anyway.
Mostly, you just get stuck.
So, your muscles stay the same size, you might lose a bit of strength, but you make no progress.
So, yeah, it’s probably OK for a actor.
It is impossible to put on 40lbs of lean mass in 10 weeks without drugs. Impossible. 10 pounds of lean mass in one year would be an excellent gain naturally.
ETA: Shit, 40lbs of muscle in 10 weeks just sounds impossible, even with drugs.
Sorry, but I have to disagree; gyms are full of fit, lean, and muscular people over 30 years of age. Hell, I’m 38, and after 6 weeks of serious lifting and nutrition (i.e. heavy duty barbell exercises, 6 nutrient dense meals a day, tons of water) my muscles are starting to pop and I can see my abs (in good lighting, or first thing in the morning)…it’s what prompted the question.
Of course, I owe my development to my formative years in my late teens and early 20’s, when I never skipped workouts and went for years exercising intensely. I’m basically “getting back” in shape now, which I consider eminently doable. And I expect that something similar often happens when actors get ready for roles: they cut fat and pump up the muscles they already have. John Krasinski looks like he could have done that, in my opinion.
What I question, though, is the ridiculous claims of putting on 20, 30, or 40 pounds of muscles in just months…it’s not realistic, unless a) it is a lie, or b) it is accompanied by performance enhancing drugs.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I’m basically a human pudding, so I know fuck all about weight training. But this bit here, about overtraining - does it just make you weaker, or does it also reduce muscle definition? Because Chris Hemsworth only has to look strong. If overtraining gives you big, useless muscles, that’s all they really need for the movies.
[/QUOTE]
Muscle definition is a function of bodyfat. But overtraining does more than just cause a plateau; muscle building is an adaptive response to the stress of exercise, and occurs when your body has a chance to rest. If you overtrain, your body never gets sufficient rest, and your muscles will break down. Symptoms of overtraining are very much like being sick - you may lose appetite, get depressed, feel tired. It actively sabotages muscle gains.
[QUOTE=Ambivalid]
It is impossible to put on 40lbs of lean mass in 10 weeks without drugs. Impossible. 10 pounds of lean mass in one year would be an excellent gain naturally.
ETA: Shit, 40lbs of muscle in 10 weeks just sounds impossible, even with drugs.
[/QUOTE]
I completely agree.
Gyms are also full of people that use steroids.
I just turned 40, have never used steroids, and have visible abs (not to the Hollywood extent because I do like the occasional slice of cake!) and muscular. But, that said, I’ve done it largely by working out 4-5 times per week for the past 23 years, not in 12 weeks!
Also, I’ve looked into HGH and other things we’ve discussed up thread. For the most part moderate use of performance enhancing drugs is something that I will likely initiate in the next 5-10 years. There is a Reefer Madness level of hysteria around this issue that is completely disproportionate to the actual data.
Not to the Hollywood extent because the Hollywood extent requires steroids. I think we need to talk about the degree here. When I said what I did I was picturing something Hugh Jackman:
That level of musculature and leanness isn’t possible natural at his age.
What about the flip side, where actors lose a ton of weight for a role, like Matthew McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club? Could he have used illegal weight loss supplements?
According to this, he ate five ounces of fish and a cup of vegetables twice a day, did get a small breakfast and some wine, and exercised vigorously.
I can’t see how these rapid weight gains and losses for a role are at all healthy in the long run.
I know athletes like Michael Phelps eat a ton, but they’re also working out and training all day, since it’s their job.
I would guess that even if done 100% without drugs or chemicals, it still isn’t healthy. I’m sure that Christian Bale has shortened his lifespan considering the extremes he’s gone to of skinniness and bulkiness, though I wouldn’t be able to guess how much. I’m far from an expert, but I’d guess that getting skinnier or bulkier might be okay, or maybe getting super skinny or super buff for that one star making role and it’s just a short time and then mostly staying around your normal weight is okay, but that going to extremes in relatively short periods of time repeatedly can’t be good overall.
Not only that, but that level of size and leanness wasn’t even seen in bodybuilding competitions until steroid use became commonplace.
Re: Overtraining…I know you must give your body a rest while strength training. IIRC, strength training involves making microscopic tears in your muscles. Resting gives them time to heal, which makes them bigger/stronger. I’ve heard multiple times you must give yourself at least 24 hours rest.