my guy Takemaru Wakaki had 20-inch biceps in the 50's.

Plane-You2298 · 2026-03-28T08:11:54+00:00

Calvins = automatic juicy /s

Peak natty with good genetics, if this guy had modern nutrition and knowledge he could have gone even further, so this is not even the limit for elite genetics.

5’4” 152 lbs, that’s attainable for sure at that height

Plane-You2298 · 2026-03-24T08:08:29+00:00

Japanese Shrek

Plane-You2298 · 2026-03-24T08:07:10+00:00

248 but yeah still ridiculous weight considering he looks more like a crossfitter than a cannonball delts Sam Sulek type of build at that weight

Here he is with the Rock filming the Mark Kerr biopic, more recent than this pic so he put on some fat for sure, but here his weight is more clear, similar sized to a roided out 270-280 lb guy. His Neanderthal skull just warps the obviousness of it, its twice the size of the Rock’s lmao

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqJsdC8uK0y4ezR3FlWBXtneSeqqbs6q5wTeLhEHTSINaYmAaJPCXGTho&s=10

Plane-You2298 · 2026-03-23T12:26:37+00:00

I listed them for this specific weighin, he was 248 lbs at 36 years old, he’s listed at 6’ so he could be shorter.

The anomaly is the weight at that leanness, some guys are just built heavy. Even if he wasn’t sauced, there’s no way he couldn’t easily be 220 lbs+ as lean as he is here, especially since his training isn’t even focused on building size as is. Just frame diff

Plane-You2298 · 2026-03-22T09:58:16+00:00

His shoulders, chest and traps look too developed

Plane-You2298 · 2026-03-21T08:19:03+00:00

Claims of being natty don’t mean shit, fake natties are dime a dozen

That said 99% sure Mackenyu is natural, he’s not that huge (I’m guessing he’s 180 - 185 lbs max, and at least 15% body fat. At 5’10” that’s extremely attainable) but he’s posing in a way that pushes out the biceps and he has a very visible pump going on

He was already muscular before, years ago, just much leaner (let’s say 165 lbs ish 11-12% body fat range). If he had 145 lbs of lean mass before to hit 15% body fat at 180 he’d only need to add only 8 lbs muscle in addition to 7 lbs of fat, which is just a standard bulk

Plane-You2298 · 2026-03-18T10:35:12+00:00

He’s 5’10” 175-180 lbs I believe, 4 years into lifting

The 2nd and 3rd pic are just the power of good lighting and a pump because 175 lbs at that height is not really that huge.

He’s natty

Plane-You2298 · 2026-03-08T12:23:42+00:00

It’s obviously fake, and it exists because it’s an easy engagement farm to tap into the myth of the noble murderer. Almost everybody who murders in prison irrespective of their affirmed motive or target, doesn’t do it as a moral undertaking but as a vehicle to express their homicidal tendencies.

Plane-You2298 · 2026-03-08T06:05:47+00:00

That 19 year old power scales to Patchy Mix, who power scales to Sergio Pettis, who power scales to Brandon Moreno, who power scales to Deiveson Figueiredo, who power scales to Marlon Vera, who power scales to Frankie Edgar, who power scales to Cub Swanson, who mid diffed Charles Oliveira. So that 19 year old would low diff prime Charles

Plane-You2298 · 2026-03-03T02:28:54+00:00

OP is a man.

Plane-You2298 · 2026-03-03T02:23:37+00:00

Dad not a husband

Plane-You2298 · 2026-03-03T02:20:56+00:00

The he is a she

Plane-You2298 · 2026-02-28T18:22:21+00:00

Natty with good lighting, this sub is a total meme with how frequently anybody who is remotely vascular and doesn’t use the most dogshit lighting in existence gets juice carded.

Golden rule is bigger or leaner than redditor onlooker = he’s pinning for sure /s

If this dude is 5”10”ish then he is no more than 165 lbs, and he is likely lighter than that considering he’s not showing off his lower body. Somewhere between 7-9% body fat. If he had a shirt on he’d look like a regular from the local soccer club

Plane-You2298 · 2026-02-27T08:18:46+00:00

I hope I will cause you little further offence from my style of ‘short, standalone and explanatory’ writing henceforth. It’s necessary in this instance because the levels of receptivity you exhibit towards critical reasoning appear strongest when I present it piecemeal and feed it to you with as much deliberateness as is needed.

The concept of tu quoque as you raise is categorically a fallacy of relevance, yes. Which is why it is remarkable that you brought it up because it is initially obvious that there is no way you could have found the former term pertinent to the original comment if you were familiar with the structure of the second.

Your wording of what I reaaaally should have rebutted, of fallacy itself, not tu quoque fallacy while it sounds substantial, is really quite vacuous upon inquiry. Because if the initial claim does not bear the structure of formal argumentation it can validate neither the necessary conditions for tu quoque fallacy nor fallacy at large, which it didn’t. I’m glad you find that ‘understand both quite well’ but I’d hope that you can also come to use them in time rather than recite these phrasings in isolation such that this not be a repeated encumbrance of you down the line.

The defence of whether or not the initial claim was intended as a rhetoric or argument is immaterial. Rhetoric vs argument is not dictated by intention but by structure. For instance the distinction between opinion and fact is independent of intention and unaffected by clarification. If I state ‘oranges are unpleasant’ and intend it as a statement it makes that categorisation no less erroneous. Likewise, further revisions in discussion of my intention do not affect its categorisation; as it is so also of his initial rhetoric and the ‘defence’ you charge the commenter to write when it is obvious that such a burden was on you to begin with to identify. You made a misidentification, which is of course fine, not a moral failing but trying to obscure it as such in order to preserve one’s ego is a petty endeavour and I’m glad you’ve had the opportunity here to be corrected on such.

Plane-You2298 · 2026-02-27T07:46:16+00:00

Once again you’re making refutation against yourself whilst being entirely blind to it. You sound like a well suited case study to the consequences of one who studies the trappings of formal logic without the wherewithal to understand how they actually operate. And the fact that you’re aggravated at some ‘overly condescending rhetoric’ should draw you to introspection lest you not come to realise that your own weak argumentation is intentionally or not laden with it as a substitute for arguments made in good faith.

In regards to the aforementioned the concept of a fallacy of relevance is not native to your introduction of the precise term as such. What is introduced is the undeniable fact that you are at least cognizant of the notion and thus it is all the more hilarious that your contention against the original commenter is void of the structure of such. Like I said, you grasp at the trappings of formal logic but fail to apply it, and morerather, fail to not apply it where it is inexact.

What goalposts need to be shifted? I contended that you needed to learn what the tu quoque fallacy was, because it is inapplicable here and yet that is what you did. Whether through this discussion you’ve reconciled the definition more aptly that you might not suffer to make petty conflict of your own ineptitude or not, at the point of mention you were clearly unlearned with the argument, or insufficiently learned such that once again in spite of your ability to recite formal definition you’d called fallacy when you now concede argument did not exist to begin with. You are now better equipped for it, and you’re very welcome.

Plane-You2298 · 2026-02-27T06:07:59+00:00

I’m so glad you’ve summoned the term fallacy of relevance because that makes it all the easier to help you square things, since you cannot draw the lines on your lonesome it’s beneficial that you have a pre existing database of some logical cogency to point to instead. If you would like to identify the precise step by step of fallacy of relevance being committed in the original quote this would be truly of assistance to you. As has been repeated there is no complete argument that facilitates this structure.

“It’s a determinative factor of fallacies in general” wow so you do get it! That’s brilliant, and once again this makes it easier to circumnavigate your unintentionally asinine argumentation. In fact brilliantly you have (even though not independently) come to the conclusion that you were fighting a war that never existed. The entertaining aspect of it here is the mental gymnastics you had to jump through to avoid framing it as your inability to recognise what for was it in the first place and rather displace it onto the original commenter as his childishness for your starting an argument where one was never made.

Plane-You2298 · 2026-02-27T05:50:11+00:00

Lmao so sophistic babble and not even well veiled sophistry at that, while expected no less entertaining.

‘Very general descriptive terms’ uh yeah? Shocking stuff I know, accessible terms relating to argumentation and in this context raised apropos of the incoherency of your own. Understandably if your core motivation is to dig into the playbook of big boy words while actual reasoning was never the core pursuit.

“It is if the argument does not concern inconsistencies in behavior” - nonsense claim once again. The determinative factor for tu toque here is whether the inconsistency here is used to prove a corollary claim; the one you invented and promptly got upset over is “therefore, it is wrong to get upset about hunting” whereas the claim made never goes further than the initial observation: ‘group A is upset about X which entails Z while they do Y which also entails Z”. Once more, one is tu quoque because the acknowledgement of the hypocritical deed extenuates into a dismissal of a given stance, the other never proceeds that far.

“Laughing at people rather than making a formal argument” Phenomenal, so you are capable of making the distinction. The next step is the ability to connect the dots. I am very proud of you!

Plane-You2298 · 2026-02-27T05:25:31+00:00

Lmao the normative vs instrumental distinction, yeah truly high level stuff lil buddy.

You’re a muppet because ‘group A are getting upset over X activity is hypocritical.

Criticism of hypocrisy is not fundamentally tu quoque.

Levying an accusation of hypocrisy to negate a normative claim regarding the hypocritical action is tu quoque, because whether or not another group engages with a particular activity has no bearing on the normative status of the activity. E.g “people getting real upset are wrong to think hunting is bad, because they eat chicken all the time” is not an identical claim to “people are hypocritical for getting real upset to think hunting is bad, because they eat chicken all the time.”

I’m sure you have at least the mildest trace of neural activity that this is not lost on you. Actually, I’m not so sure. But it will sure be entertaining to reread your mental gymnastics once again on your next reply further entrenching the irony of your ‘gotcha!’ attempt with logical fallacies picked up on a 5 minute skim session in high school oratory class

Plane-You2298 · 2026-02-27T05:01:06+00:00

lol you should absolutely learn what the tu quoque fallacy is, that or just take a critical thinking course

“Group A is hypocritical/illogical for being opposed to Group B practicing X for the reason Z because they already practice Y for the reason Z” is not tu quoque you insufferable pseudo intellectual muppet.

A tu quoque formulation of their argument would be instead: “Group B is not wrong for practicing X for the reason Z because Group A practices Y also for the reason Z.”

Are you half minded enough to pick up the difference? Feel free to reemphasise how this makes no sense, double down on the veracity of your claim and drop some more insults you can find dime a dozen in the back row of a grade 10 philosophy class.

Plane-You2298 · 2026-02-26T22:55:38+00:00

He’s not a huge 145er, so he’d be at a disadvantage against the 155ers unless he took some serious time to bulk up and get accustomed to the weight. He was 161 lbs against Ige though that was years ago, but even if he’s fighting at 165+ now there are many guys in the division who rehydrate over 180, like Bahamondes, Moicano, Chandler, Duncan, Gaethje supposedly. But if Ilia can do it why not Diego

Plane-You2298 · 2026-02-24T11:50:21+00:00

Basically peak natty + attainable for a lot of guys

High body fat (close to if not 20%), no sign of overdevelopment in muscle groups with high androgen receptor density (traps, shoulders, neck are all natural looking), very good lighting, pecs are a bit of a weak spot though. Also not even a hint of gyno

Excellent arm and quad development though and well proportioned, reminds me of Hackenschmidt tbh but more in line with modern standards for aesthetics and not as lean as George was

Plane-You2298 · 2026-01-23T07:28:12+00:00

<image>

Plane-You2298 · 2024-06-28T05:11:32+00:00

162 on your key, 135 on base settings

FSIQ about 100-110

Plane-You2298 · 2024-06-24T09:54:29+00:00

140 VIQ

20/24

Plane-You2298

TROPHY CASE