http://c34i.imgup.net/Untitled228927.jpg

The easiest and most universal method would probably be if you look like you lift even with clothes on.

Lots of mass in certain areas of the body are essential for this. Traps, shoulders, biceps, chest, and quads basically. Big lats will give you that "can't walk straight through doors" wide-arm posture.

Keep in mind, women can be impressed by relatively low musculature. You don't have to be a body builder with 20" arms or some shit like that. I've had girls ooh and ahh at my arms, chest, and quads and I consider myself skinny by gymrat standards.

15.5" Biceps
42" Chest
24.5" Quads

You're "jacked" when it has a noticeable effect on your social life. When girls give you IOI's and/or get approached because your body. When people make comments assuming you work out. Etc.

Quote: (04-03-2016 06:53 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

The easiest and most universal method would probably be if you look like you lift even with clothes on.

This.

Quote: (04-03-2016 10:41 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

In terms of numbers, I think if you are about six feet tall you need to have a bench press at least close to 300 lbs. and not be too fat.

Minimum strength goals should roughly be:

Bench 300
Squat 400
Deadlift 500

Quote: (04-03-2016 04:26 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

The only numbers that matter are height, weight and body fat %.

We are talking about a visual thing here.

Completely agree with CrashBangWallop. Unless you're training for powerlifting there is no 'minimum strength standard'. No girl is going to care about the number you lift. The only people you'll impress are other dudes in the gym.

When it comes to impressing girls its entirely visual - how strong do you LOOK? Not how strong are you.

edit: the number of 6ft 0 guys benchpressing 300lb+ while maintaining a respectable bf% is also absolutely tiny, while we're on the subject. That's a very unrealistic 'minimum' goal.

The most jacked guys are usually strong, specially the guys with big backs. But it isn't a given.

I'm not saying you need to hit those numbers to impress people, but by virtue of achieving them, you'll build up the necessary size.

I would guess that most "jacked" guys over 6' have gotten at least within 10% of those. I mentioned bench numbers specifically first because it's more important in having the upper body look big*. (Hence, "skipping leg day"...)

Otherwise...are you saying you can "look strong" without getting strong?

*The overhead press almost always tracks the bench press by about 70%.

Quote: (04-04-2016 05:31 AM)zatara Wrote:  

Completely agree with CrashBangWallop. Unless you're training for powerlifting there is no 'minimum strength standard'. No girl is going to care about the number you lift. The only people you'll impress are other dudes in the gym.

When it comes to impressing girls its entirely visual - how strong do you LOOK? Not how strong are you.

I think for the vast majority of hot girls once you get to 15"-16" biceps anything past that is gravy. Past that I don't even think it is how strong you look, it is how lean and athletic you look.

There are guys with low body fat that are big, they have that crossfit or powerlifter look 6 pack barrel abs. Not nearly as attractive to the majority of girls in my experience as a Ronaldo type lean though. Along the line of swimmers, rowers, and so on. Ronaldo to me doesn't look very strong. However I think in most places even if he wasn't a famous soccer player (especially at the beach or pool) he would get more attention than a lot of guys that look stronger.

The leanness has a contour to it and isn't so blocky. That said bigger size with good proportions is great, I think past a certain point though leanness and athletic look weighs a lot more heavily than size. If you can do both that is the best and toughest to achieve.

Looking like a 240lbs cut contoured Olympic swimmer haha.

Quote: (04-04-2016 02:44 PM)Travesty Wrote:  

Quote: (04-04-2016 05:31 AM)zatara Wrote:  

Completely agree with CrashBangWallop. Unless you're training for powerlifting there is no 'minimum strength standard'. No girl is going to care about the number you lift. The only people you'll impress are other dudes in the gym.

When it comes to impressing girls its entirely visual - how strong do you LOOK? Not how strong are you.

I think for the vast majority of hot girls once you get to 15"-16" biceps anything past that is gravy. Past that I don't even think it is how strong you look, it is how lean and athletic you look.

There are guys with low body fat that are big, they have that crossfit or powerlifter look 6 pack barrel abs. Not nearly as attractive to the majority of girls in my experience as a Ronaldo type lean though. Along the line of swimmers, rowers, and so on. Ronaldo to me doesn't look very strong. However I think in most places even if he wasn't a famous soccer player (especially at the beach or pool) he would get more attention than a lot of guys that look stronger.

The leanness has a contour to it and isn't so blocky. That said bigger size with good proportions is great, I think past a certain point though leanness and athletic look weighs a lot more heavily than size. If you can do both that is the best and toughest to achieve.

Looking like a 240lbs cut contoured Olympic swimmer haha.

This made me think, do guys with model looks do better with an athletic look? Take a guy like Mike Ohearn, would more chicks dig him if he clocked in at 6'3", 215-220 instead of 245-260?

Or take a guy who has a more rugged face - eg (Duane Rock Johnson), might it make sense for him to go for more muscle for the dominance factor?

@rhodey, I'd say guys with model looks have greater leeway in looking jacked and swole as fuark.
If you're less of a pretty boy you have to find that sweet spot of being big and ripped, but not intimidating. A bit harder.
Source: Girls call me handsome. Fags call me pretty. Lol, Jk brah, but I'm speaking from experience here. Have your looks and your muscle game down pat. Will take you a long way.

Would you consider Brad Pitt in Fight Club jacked? And how about Bruce Lee?

To me, those are great physiques. Just wanted to see what the forum thinks.

Quote: (04-06-2016 12:50 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Would you consider Brad Pitt in Fight Club jacked? And how about Bruce Lee?

To me, those are great physiques. Just wanted to see what the forum thinks.

Lee was ripped not jacked. You just didn't see it in normal clothes enough for him to be jacked although his physique was definitely outstanding. Pitt was on the cusp, just a bit light but enough guys wanted that physique that I think you have to consider it jacked. To me jacked is about the physique that guys want to emulate.

Quote: (04-06-2016 01:21 PM)mikeymike Wrote:  

Quote: (04-06-2016 12:50 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Would you consider Brad Pitt in Fight Club jacked? And how about Bruce Lee?

To me, those are great physiques. Just wanted to see what the forum thinks.

Lee was ripped not jacked. You just didn't see it in normal clothes enough for him to be jacked although his physique was definitely outstanding. Pitt was on the cusp, just a bit light but enough guys wanted that physique that I think you have to consider it jacked. To me jacked is about the physique that guys want to emulate.

Obviously there's no clear definition of "jacked", but I thought most people were talking about a much more muscular physique than Pitt in Fight Club when talking about "jacked". Obviously he has a very aesthetic physicue in that movie, but not much muscle mass. Anyone can achieve his level of muscle mass in that movie, but most people aren't gonna look nearly as good anyway.

Now, take Brad Pitt in "Troy" and we have something closer to what I thought would typically be considered "jacked".

https://www.popworkouts.com/wp-content/u...y-troy.jpg

"jacked" guys look shit in dope ass clothing. they don't make sizes for niggas built like clouds.

All things considered, it's important to note that women are not attracted to extremely vascular shredded up bodies. Good definition is important, but you don't need to be 5% bodyfat, and you definitely don't need 20" arms...






That being said, the bottom line is that muscles do matter.

Brad Pitt in fight club is not remotely large. Hes got sub 10% bodyfat, and favourable camera angles, which means he looks good topless in isolation on screen. He was clocking in at 155lbs at 6ft 0 tall - very very light. Put him on a beach at that size and he'd look small but in good shape because of his low bodyfat. Put him in a tshirt in a club and he'd just look skinny.

He was 185lb in Troy. Again with a fairly low bodyfat % though. He'd look normal in a tshirt at that weight, but decent on a beach.

At 6ft 0 to be noticeably large in clothing he'd need to be 200lbs+.

Quote: (04-03-2016 06:53 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

The easiest and most universal method would probably be if you look like you lift even with clothes on.

This is so true and a real bummer sometimes.
I work my ass off to maintain a low bodyfat % year round, I am talking abdominals, serratus, lats, xmas tree back, extreme vascularity, 365 days a year.

Also, although I have played around with gear in the past, I am currently 100% natural physique.

As a result I weighed in this morning about 173lbs.
Shirt off - people say "Whoa! Your jacked/ripped/shredded!"
Shirt on - I have been told I have a "small frame" or "skinny"

Without Gear, it is hard to looked jacked while maintaing low bodyfat % with clothes on.

If I was to start using gear again I could probably throw on 15 to 20 muscle/glycogen in 16 weeks and looked jacked in clothes too, but I have other goals that are more important to me ($$$)

Basically I agree 100%, gotta look huge and muscular & lean in clothes to be considered truly jacked - this usually involves lots of gear

All depends on your goals.

You do not need to be lean and ripped to have a "jacked" look. Jacked is all about mass. I would say it may possibly take more dedication to maintain very low body fat % while maintaining a strong physique as opposed to just developing mass with relative definition.

You also don't need to have blessed genetics to be big. I mean freak show body builder big sure, but I'd think 18" arms are attainable for any natty with hard work and dedication.

Quote: (04-07-2016 01:00 PM)ScrapperTL Wrote:  

Quote: (04-03-2016 06:53 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

The easiest and most universal method would probably be if you look like you lift even with clothes on.

This is so true and a real bummer sometimes.
I work my ass off to maintain a low bodyfat % year round, I am talking abdominals, serratus, lats, xmas tree back, extreme vascularity, 365 days a year.

Also, although I have played around with gear in the past, I am currently 100% natural physique.

As a result I weighed in this morning about 173lbs.
Shirt off - people say "Whoa! Your jacked/ripped/shredded!"
Shirt on - I have been told I have a "small frame" or "skinny"

Without Gear, it is hard to looked jacked while maintaing low bodyfat % with clothes on.

If I was to start using gear again I could probably throw on 15 to 20 muscle/glycogen in 16 weeks and looked jacked in clothes too, but I have other goals that are more important to me ($$$)

Basically I agree 100%, gotta look huge and muscular & lean in clothes to be considered truly jacked - this usually involves lots of gear

Extremely well written post.

Forget about applying definitions to the term "jacked". Arbitrary meanings are useless.

Unless your life is about beach game, where abs rule, you're better off putting on a bit more muscle and fat to fill out a t-shirt.

The world is full of blokes around 6 foot tall who weigh 82-85kg @ 10-12%. They look good in a singlet and pumped full of blood after an intense chest and tri work out, but are totally unimpressive an hour later when the blood has gone and the t-shirt comes on. Better to lose some leanness and step in to a club closer to 90kg... even up to 95kg if you have the genetics to store half of that fat in your legs. You'll get much, much more interest.

Cheers,

Early 30s Aussie. Steroid user on and off for 9 years.

I've been told i'm "jacked" at 5'6 151 and would never call myself that,but i just look good shirtless when its sunny due to lowish body fat and having some muscle.
I don't really look much better than average in clothes ( you can tell I have a somewhat athletic body,and take care of myself,but its not a game changer); meanwhile on the beach compared to most guys i look like i'm in damn good shape.

I think that if you appear to have impressive musculature in a normal t-shirt while indoors in a public place you can qualify as being jacked.
Looking good while shirtless,and in good lighting isn't very hard or impressive in my mind if you are starting off as a healthy young male (obviously for a fat 30 year old cat the game changes),but having big noticable arms,delts,and chest in a normal t-shirt is going to be hard if you are all natural.

One thing we have to remember is that as guys who train we have higher standards that are a little inaccurate in reality due to looking up to guys online,and going to gyms full of fit people so it can be mentally unhealthy to get caught up in looking 'jacked'.

double post

Depends on your height.

I'm thinking that for the most part, "jacked" refers to guys who are not "natty".

6'1"+, 95kg/210lbs. at 15% BF in clothes is "athletic". (Unless very little of that muscle is in your legs.).

^ I think that's a bit of an overestimation of what it means to be jacked.

6'1 210 at 15% looks big to regular people outside niche cities like Miami. Just think about the time before you started lifting. Everyone with a little bit of size and definition would be considered jacked in your eyes. Hell, i remember thinking 2pac Shakur was jacked before i started lifting.



He looks like a pencil to me now. Most non-lifters would consider that jacked though.

6'1, 215lbs, at a genuine 15% bodyfat IS big everywhere except the internet.

Those "big" pro rugby players are more like 225 to 250.

Quote: (04-03-2016 06:53 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

The easiest and most universal method would probably be if you look like you lift even with clothes on.

/thread

Quote: (04-08-2016 01:01 AM)wilberforceeggmont Wrote:  

Unless your life is about beach game, where abs rule, you're better off putting on a bit more muscle and fat to fill out a t-shirt.

So true. I dropped down to sub-10% as an experiment once - female interest was at an all time low.

Far more interest now I'm ~14% bodyfat because I look so much bigger now with clothes on.