You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] Swolebroshitlord1 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

There's a misconception here obviously.

If your score is shit, it means you are weaker pound-for-pound than the majority of your peers, which indicates that you either have underdeveloped muscles, excessive amount of body fat, or both.

I can look around and see what the average Joe is lifting and struggling with, to compare my strength, if I feel my ego needs a handjob. I don't need to plug in 3 lifts to a mathematical formula to see I'm stronger than 95% of the population.

You're not gonna "look good naked" with a shit Wilks score simply because that's predicated on a combination of well-developed musculature with low bodyfat percentage.

All I need to do is look in a mirror or see the reactions of people when I walk in their direction.

Speakers of runners and scores, it shows that maybe high Wilks scores are as meaningless as I suspected. A skinny DYEL runner can have a relatively decent Wilks score and still look like a little bitch.

I'm coming off pretty defensive but I have about the same stats as the OP being mocked in this post. All of the skelly DYEL fucks would report me to the mods until I got verified. It just goes to show that most people don't really know just how small someone who is 5'11" @ 195lbs and swole is. I see guys that are massive at my gym with easily 40lbs of more muscle than me. I just feel like if you're a "powerlifter" with a high "Wilks score" but you're 5'11" and 145lbs, you just have to exit the conversation. You're just not even close to having any say on the matter. That'd about the majority of the users on here I hate to say. Don't claim to be about lifting and athleticism when you can't even lift.