MovieChat Forums > Pompeii (2014) Discussion > Sixpack in those times? Laughable

Sixpack in those times? Laughable


I get it, people like to look at guys with sixpacks but in those times even the strongest heroes didn't have sixpacks :)

reply

[deleted]

The drawings and statues of them did.

reply

brilliant!

reply

https://www.google.com/search?q=roman+male+athelete+statues&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#biv=i%7C7%3Bd%7CHSqVn40NXT1ZhM%3A

Check out this link and you'll see how wrong you are. Roman athletes were FIT! He plays a gladiator. They had to be fit or they died! Greeks and Romans were totally into fitness.

reply

Sigh...

The statues were ideological depictions, like photo-shop of the ancient world. I thought everyone would know that by now. As for fitness, sure some were strong, but that doesn't mean RIPPED. Most of their warriors who were strong were probably not ripped as they were well fed, but not in a matter consistent with the diet necessary to maintain what we today consider an ideal physique.

Some gladiators, however, may have been more cut up if only because they were starving. Honestly I don't care about this aspect of this or any movie. It took a good diet and specific exercises to shape every body part to the proportions of a Roman statue or a biology text book. It is highly unlikely that many in Roman society had the knowledge to accomplish this.

reply

So where did they get their ideas about what the ideological body looks like if no one had it?

Did they just take a wild guess and happen to be right?

reply

^^^ This.

reply

Why didn't people have sixpacks(muscles) in those days? Or did they have aot of fat, that covered the muscles?

reply

They did have six packs. They were fitness fanatics. Just google roman athelete sculptures.

reply

Some did some not. Everything else is stupid fck.

reply

[deleted]

Bit touchy about spelling are we?

reply

Bad spelling makes them look stupid, that's all.



--
Grammar:
The difference between knowing your sh**
and knowing you're sh**.

reply

You don't get abs like he has in the movie without doing specific ab focused exercises. It's not about being fat, it's about not working those muscles hard enough to get that kind of definition.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

They were more physically active than people are today, so why wouldn't they work the abs(while being physically active)?

reply

Being active won't give you a six pack. And they serve very little purpose in battle, so it would make no sense for them to focus on ab workouts. Why WOULD they work on their abs? They didn't get fit to be "hot" they got fit so they wouldn't die in battle.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

I agree. Most people in this thread don't seem to be aware that six packs (and also muscles on many parts of the body} are primarily for bodybuilders who want their bodies to LOOK "beautiful" or "impressive". People back in those days had hard lives and were tough, but there was little incentive to do workouts on certain parts of their bodies so that they were more pleasing to the eyes. Regardless whether they were soldiers, gladiators or farmers, they developed their power and strength where they mattered most and got their jobs done.

reply

Exactly. Like I said, they would be much more concerned with being effective in combat than looking hot for all the lovely ladies.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

Oh who cares, this is how they chose to show he was fit and in shape. Big deal, this lady liked it and despite him being hott, it did give the image of him being athletic.

Brian Kinney & Justin Taylor

reply

I'm just pointing out to those arguing against the OP(I presume you're included in their number), that he would not have abs like that, because they would serve no purpose. It's called an anachronism, and is a valid complaint even if you're willing to overlook it.

Nobody gives a *beep* if you liked it or not. Whether you found it arousing or not, the OPs position is correct.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

Abdominal muscles actually serve a function that would have been VERY beneficial in combat. They're vital in maintaining your balance and the stronger your midsection is, the harder you are to knock off balance and push over.

I learned that from reading about Brian Joubert, a figure skater who probably has the best balance in the entire sport - his abdominal muscle is apparently so tough he never loses centrifugal force when he spins.

This would mean that having defined, strong abs would give any soldier an advantage when fighting on uneven surfaces - they'd simply stay on their feet even if everybody else was falling over.

lurk lurkedy lurk kaboom

reply

Certain muscles exist only for bodybuilders?

Perople in those days had little incentive to use their core muscles while being physically active?

reply

A six pack doesn't mean ones abs are stronger than someone without. Muscle definition is not directly related to muscle strength. You will not develop abs like Kit has in this movie throughout combat training. To get a six pack you have to do exercises that focus on that muscle group.

Like I said, you could run until you're blue in the face. It's never going to give you a six pack. But hey, by all means keep arguing from your ignorance of how muscle development works.

People in those days had little incentive to focus on ab workouts. Which is the only way you get abs like Kit has in this movie.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

A six pack doesn't mean ones abs are stronger than someone without
"A six pack" = rectus abdominis
Muscle definition is not directly related to muscle strength
So what?
You will not develop abs like Kit has in this movie throughout combat training. To get a six pack you have to do exercises that focus on that muscle group
Why won't combat training involve the use of rectus abdominis?
Like I said, you could run until you're blue in the face. It's never going to give you a six pack. But hey, by all means keep arguing from your ignorance of how muscle development works
What does running have to do with it?
People in those days had little incentive to focus on ab workouts. Which is the only way you get abs like Kit has in this movie
People in those days didn't have machines etc, so they had to do physical labor, i.e. lifting/pulling etc.

The rectus abdominis are part of the human body, the definition depende on body fat/size of the rectus abdominis.

reply

"A six pack" = rectus abdominis


No, "rectus abdominis" is the name for your abdominal muscles. It does not specifically refer to "a six pack."

So what?


So having a six pack doesn't mean someone is more capable in combat.

Why won't combat training involve the use of rectus abdominis?


Are you really this stupid? Using your core muscles isn't the same thing as using targeted exercise to increase definition. I at no point said that core muscles aren't involved. I said they don't add much to effectiveness in combat.

What does running have to do with it?


Seriously?

People in those days didn't have machines etc, so they had to do physical labor, i.e. lifting/pulling etc.


They wouldn't have "worked out" the way you think of it today.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

No, "rectus abdominis" is the name for your abdominal muscles. It does not specifically refer to "a six pack."
The "rectus abdominis" are the muscles refered to as six-pack, and are present on human beings(they might be small, they might be hidden by a layer of fat, but they are always present).

So having a six pack doesn't mean someone is more capable in combat
What does combat got to do with anything? Title of thread: "Sixpack in those times? Laughable", my primary post in the thread: "Why didn't people have sixpacks(muscles) in those days? Or did they have aot of fat, that covered the muscles?"
Are you really this stupid? Using your core muscles isn't the same thing as using targeted exercise to increase definition. I at no point said that core muscles aren't involved. I said they don't add much to effectiveness in combat.
What does targeted "targeted exercise to increase definition"/"effectiveness in combat" have to do with anything? I repeat, Title of thread: "Sixpack in those times? Laughable", my primary post in the thread: "Why didn't people have sixpacks(muscles) in those days? Or did they have aot of fat, that covered the muscles?" Ergo, what I'm discussing is whether or not it was possible for a human being to have visible rectus abdominis in the time this movie takes place.
Seriously?
???
They wouldn't have "worked out" the way you think of it today
So what? The question is, would it be possible for a person living during the time this movie takes place, to have visible rectus abdominis, as a result of eating what they ate, and performing the activities, they performed.

reply

One doesn't use ones core muscles, while being phycically active?

reply

[deleted]

Regardless of whether or not there were sixpacks back then, I would happily eat a full course meal off of Kit Harrington's abs.

reply

I think what the OP is REALLY getting at here is that in the olden days, they were real men and not pretty boys pretending to be men. The kid looks ridiculous in the role.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

If you don't like movies because the lead actors are good looking, than you must not like 99% of movies because almost all lead actors are good looking and almost all movies have good looking leads. That's just Hollywood.

reply

He looks ridiculous in the role. Nothing you said changes that.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

Ridiculously good looking in the role maybe. But to each their own.

reply

Yes they did. A lot of soldiers even spent A LOT of their time in training and making sure they were fit for battle. Some places even took young boys and started training them at young ages so they would be ready to fight when they were older.




Blood is thicker than water and much tastier!

reply

Buddy, training for battle is something completely different than working out 5 days a week at the gym.

Battle training makes you look nothing like a bodybuilder, as only certain muscle groups are trained and others are not.



--
Grammar:
The difference between knowing your sh**
and knowing you're sh**.

reply

Not when going into battle meant getting there on foot while wearing armour including helmet, and carrying a sword, shield. spear, dagger, food, cooking pot, spade and a bed roll as well as a change of clothing. To do all that you needed to be in good shape with developed muscles. There was no way you could cover 20 Roman Miles (about 19.5 miles) in 5 hours without them.
http://www.primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/romans/training.html
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. And I have groupies, Atomic Girl said so.

reply

Abs do virtually nothing when it comes to battle.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

reply

I get it, people like to look at guys with sixpacks but in those times even the strongest heroes didn't have sixpacks.


That is possibly the most hilarious thing I've ever read. Thank you for the huge laugh...

reply