23 votes
Posted 10 December 2010 - 11:42 AM
Agreed. He is the best yet on this thread, though some are close.The 85-year-old dude in the thong is interesting because he's pretty thin, unlike most of the older bodybilders. His skin looks surprisingly young. Does he use growth hormones or something? Why doesn't he have that "old man" saggy skin?
Posted 27 December 2010 - 01:23 AM
</div>
Edited by VidX, 27 December 2010 - 01:25 AM.
Posted 27 December 2010 - 07:22 AM
You didn't recognize Chrissy Snow aka the thigh master? Yea she has a good voice, she is a former singer. A lot of singers perform into their 60s and 70s. Tina Turner, Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney, Bing Crosby, Sinatra, Kate Smith, Chuck Berry, Dean Martin, etc... many of those not so healthy otherwise. I think the list is mostly guys because there is just a lot less commercial market for female singers in their 60s. I think her good voice at 63 has more to do with her good voice at 33 then the HRT or anything else she is doing.... PS or not, her VOICE sounds young, and this is the first time I'm witnessing this in a woman her age (as some manage to get good results from ps and fillers and stuff, but voice becomes "old" or "mature").
Posted 27 December 2010 - 10:14 AM
You didn't recognize Chrissy Snow aka the thigh master? Yea she has a good voice, she is a former singer. A lot of singers perform into their 60s and 70s. Tina Turner, Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney, Bing Crosby, Sinatra, Kate Smith, Chuck Berry, Dean Martin, etc... many of those not so healthy otherwise. I think the list is mostly guys because there is just a lot less commercial market for female singers in their 60s. I think her good voice at 63 has more to do with her good voice at 33 then the HRT or anything else she is doing.... PS or not, her VOICE sounds young, and this is the first time I'm witnessing this in a woman her age (as some manage to get good results from ps and fillers and stuff, but voice becomes "old" or "mature").
Edited by VidX, 27 December 2010 - 10:14 AM.
Posted 27 December 2010 - 06:47 PM
Posted 27 December 2010 - 09:50 PM
I would be interested to know if her hair is her's or a weave, so hard to tell these days. She is an interesting HRT case study from another perspective. She started HRT at (about) 48, 15 years ago, and developed breast cancer (about) 53, but seems to have managed the breast cancer. HRT has been linked to increased cancer risk. Is the HRT today less likely to promote cancer than the HRT 15 years ago? Or was she just unlucky at first and lucky now?
Edited by VidX, 27 December 2010 - 09:52 PM.
Posted 09 January 2011 - 11:34 PM
Edited by VidX, 09 January 2011 - 11:42 PM.
Posted 11 January 2011 - 09:44 PM
Posted 11 January 2011 - 10:02 PM
Oh yeah! Unbelievably impresssssive.Just an old vid of R.Robinson (he was 51 in this one):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1PQtk5LKzQ
When I compare this man to some people I know, who are jusr barely over 40 and already horribly "degraded" in terms of health, due to life style choices mainly, it just blows my mind somehow.. a strange contrast. Not to mention that at 54, when he won his Master Olympia, he came in in even a better shape than that above.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScGLVK1f5t8
<div><br></div><div>Fast forward: Almost 65 and moving 22plates on a leg press with a perfect form (newes vid in his blog). SOmething to write home about however you look at it..</div>
Posted 12 January 2011 - 07:50 PM
Well I'm sure he has great genes, tho' after reading his thoughts, interviews and so on it seems that dude was always very conscious about self preservance/health. He mentioned a few times that the shape he is in and the vigour at his current age is "A dream come true"... I guess he had a dream - to be "in the game" for as long as possible...
Edited by TheFountain, 12 January 2011 - 07:52 PM.
Posted 13 January 2011 - 05:24 AM
Look I love this thread, but there is a huge deficit of statistical understanding/analysis present in its theme. You could rename this thread "A collection of outliers". It's easy to say these people committed themselves to being in shape, but the truth of the matter is that for every person shown here, there are 1000's of other people who did the same thing, or even more, and don't look nearly as good (or are dead already!). If this thread was going when Jeanne Calment was 95, she would probably be posted and remarked upon. We would say how good she looks, and try breakdown here lifestyle/regimen for hints behind her youthfulnes and vitality. The point is Jeanne Calment is probably just literally 1 in billions who could have done anything--like say smoke for 100 years--and get away with it to 120 years and beyond.Well I'm sure he has great genes, tho' after reading his thoughts, interviews and so on it seems that dude was always very conscious about self preservance/health. He mentioned a few times that the shape he is in and the vigour at his current age is "A dream come true"... I guess he had a dream - to be "in the game" for as long as possible...
I really wish people would stop perpetuating the 'genes' argument already, especially when it comes to people who choose to commit themselves to something. Saying it's 'genes' is kind of insulting to the personal integrity of the individual who makes the choice. It makes it sound like they don't have to work hard to get what they want. Or that somebody else who works just as hard won't get there.
Posted 14 January 2011 - 02:31 AM
Look I love this thread, but there is a huge deficit of statistical understanding/analysis present in its theme. You could rename this thread "A collection of outliers". It's easy to say these people committed themselves to being in shape, but the truth of the matter is that for every person shown here, there are 1000's of other people who did the same thing, or even more, and don't look nearly as good (or are dead already!). If this thread was going when Jeanne Calment was 95, she would probably be posted and remarked upon. We would say how good she looks, and try breakdown here lifestyle/regimen for hints behind her youthfulnes and vitality. The point is Jeanne Calment is probably just literally 1 in billions who could have done anything--like say smoke for 100 years--and get away with it to 120 years and beyond.Well I'm sure he has great genes, tho' after reading his thoughts, interviews and so on it seems that dude was always very conscious about self preservance/health. He mentioned a few times that the shape he is in and the vigour at his current age is "A dream come true"... I guess he had a dream - to be "in the game" for as long as possible...
I really wish people would stop perpetuating the 'genes' argument already, especially when it comes to people who choose to commit themselves to something. Saying it's 'genes' is kind of insulting to the personal integrity of the individual who makes the choice. It makes it sound like they don't have to work hard to get what they want. Or that somebody else who works just as hard won't get there.
I'm not hating on this thread. Anecdote is powerful, and sometimes all we have to work on. I base many of my decisions on anecdote when the hard science is right down the line or not yet robust enough. But this thread is Sampling Bias in its highest form.
Posted 14 January 2011 - 09:59 PM
I think genes do contribute; some people just look older at a given age than their peers based purely on their genetic predisposition. Likewise, some people look younger ("baby face") despite an average or below average lifestyle. That said, beyond a certain age, lifestyle probably comprises most of the "looking younger" effect. I'd reckon that after 30 years of age, lifestyle begins to make huge contributions to one's appearance. If you started with good genetic predisposition, lifestyle will take that effect even further.Look I love this thread, but there is a huge deficit of statistical understanding/analysis present in its theme. You could rename this thread "A collection of outliers". It's easy to say these people committed themselves to being in shape, but the truth of the matter is that for every person shown here, there are 1000's of other people who did the same thing, or even more, and don't look nearly as good (or are dead already!). If this thread was going when Jeanne Calment was 95, she would probably be posted and remarked upon. We would say how good she looks, and try breakdown here lifestyle/regimen for hints behind her youthfulnes and vitality. The point is Jeanne Calment is probably just literally 1 in billions who could have done anything--like say smoke for 100 years--and get away with it to 120 years and beyond.Well I'm sure he has great genes, tho' after reading his thoughts, interviews and so on it seems that dude was always very conscious about self preservance/health. He mentioned a few times that the shape he is in and the vigour at his current age is "A dream come true"... I guess he had a dream - to be "in the game" for as long as possible...
I really wish people would stop perpetuating the 'genes' argument already, especially when it comes to people who choose to commit themselves to something. Saying it's 'genes' is kind of insulting to the personal integrity of the individual who makes the choice. It makes it sound like they don't have to work hard to get what they want. Or that somebody else who works just as hard won't get there.
I'm not hating on this thread. Anecdote is powerful, and sometimes all we have to work on. I base many of my decisions on anecdote when the hard science is right down the line or not yet robust enough. But this thread is Sampling Bias in its highest form.
On the contrary the anecdote is the genes argument, there is absolutely zero studies showing a correlation between people who look better and 'genes'. Every single person I have either known or known of, when making maximun effort with diet, exercise and supplementation, looks better than most people their ages.
Posted 15 January 2011 - 12:50 AM
Edited by VidX, 15 January 2011 - 01:15 AM.
Posted 15 January 2011 - 01:43 AM
I think genes do contribute; some people just look older at a given age than their peers based purely on their genetic predisposition. Likewise, some people look younger ("baby face") despite an average or below average lifestyle. That said, beyond a certain age, lifestyle probably comprises most of the "looking younger" effect. I'd reckon that after 30 years of age, lifestyle begins to make huge contributions to one's appearance. If you started with good genetic predisposition, lifestyle will take that effect even further.Look I love this thread, but there is a huge deficit of statistical understanding/analysis present in its theme. You could rename this thread "A collection of outliers". It's easy to say these people committed themselves to being in shape, but the truth of the matter is that for every person shown here, there are 1000's of other people who did the same thing, or even more, and don't look nearly as good (or are dead already!). If this thread was going when Jeanne Calment was 95, she would probably be posted and remarked upon. We would say how good she looks, and try breakdown here lifestyle/regimen for hints behind her youthfulnes and vitality. The point is Jeanne Calment is probably just literally 1 in billions who could have done anything--like say smoke for 100 years--and get away with it to 120 years and beyond.Well I'm sure he has great genes, tho' after reading his thoughts, interviews and so on it seems that dude was always very conscious about self preservance/health. He mentioned a few times that the shape he is in and the vigour at his current age is "A dream come true"... I guess he had a dream - to be "in the game" for as long as possible...
I really wish people would stop perpetuating the 'genes' argument already, especially when it comes to people who choose to commit themselves to something. Saying it's 'genes' is kind of insulting to the personal integrity of the individual who makes the choice. It makes it sound like they don't have to work hard to get what they want. Or that somebody else who works just as hard won't get there.
I'm not hating on this thread. Anecdote is powerful, and sometimes all we have to work on. I base many of my decisions on anecdote when the hard science is right down the line or not yet robust enough. But this thread is Sampling Bias in its highest form.
On the contrary the anecdote is the genes argument, there is absolutely zero studies showing a correlation between people who look better and 'genes'. Every single person I have either known or known of, when making maximun effort with diet, exercise and supplementation, looks better than most people their ages.
Posted 15 January 2011 - 10:38 AM
Posted 15 January 2011 - 04:02 PM
Storm Talifero, the RAW food guy from thegardendiet.com, new vid. Age 61. Black skin, raw food, genetics or whatever - dude looks good
(i'd say - amazing. like - not tired at all, skin is smooth and overall complexion is of a much statistically younger person):
Edited by pycnogenol, 15 January 2011 - 04:03 PM.
Posted 16 January 2011 - 08:22 AM
Of course it hasn't been "proven", but we are only beginning to unravel the human genome.I think genes do contribute; some people just look older at a given age than their peers based purely on their genetic predisposition. Likewise, some people look younger ("baby face") despite an average or below average lifestyle. That said, beyond a certain age, lifestyle probably comprises most of the "looking younger" effect. I'd reckon that after 30 years of age, lifestyle begins to make huge contributions to one's appearance. If you started with good genetic predisposition, lifestyle will take that effect even further.Look I love this thread, but there is a huge deficit of statistical understanding/analysis present in its theme. You could rename this thread "A collection of outliers". It's easy to say these people committed themselves to being in shape, but the truth of the matter is that for every person shown here, there are 1000's of other people who did the same thing, or even more, and don't look nearly as good (or are dead already!). If this thread was going when Jeanne Calment was 95, she would probably be posted and remarked upon. We would say how good she looks, and try breakdown here lifestyle/regimen for hints behind her youthfulnes and vitality. The point is Jeanne Calment is probably just literally 1 in billions who could have done anything--like say smoke for 100 years--and get away with it to 120 years and beyond.Well I'm sure he has great genes, tho' after reading his thoughts, interviews and so on it seems that dude was always very conscious about self preservance/health. He mentioned a few times that the shape he is in and the vigour at his current age is "A dream come true"... I guess he had a dream - to be "in the game" for as long as possible...
I really wish people would stop perpetuating the 'genes' argument already, especially when it comes to people who choose to commit themselves to something. Saying it's 'genes' is kind of insulting to the personal integrity of the individual who makes the choice. It makes it sound like they don't have to work hard to get what they want. Or that somebody else who works just as hard won't get there.
I'm not hating on this thread. Anecdote is powerful, and sometimes all we have to work on. I base many of my decisions on anecdote when the hard science is right down the line or not yet robust enough. But this thread is Sampling Bias in its highest form.
On the contrary the anecdote is the genes argument, there is absolutely zero studies showing a correlation between people who look better and 'genes'. Every single person I have either known or known of, when making maximun effort with diet, exercise and supplementation, looks better than most people their ages.
If this is true it certainly has not been proven by any long term study. This 'genes' argument always surprises me coming from such stringent scientific minds. It's kind of a myth really when you think about it. Where did the myth begin? I have seen pictures of my father when he was my age, he looked about 5 years older due to smoking, drinking and probably not eating right.
Edited by Skötkonung, 16 January 2011 - 08:22 AM.
Posted 17 January 2011 - 05:39 PM
shes 43 years old, she never seems to age ;p
Edited by Forever21, 17 January 2011 - 05:43 PM.
Posted 17 January 2011 - 08:16 PM
someone suggested that it was a footage from 1994 and just a re-run ;p and he would be right... it wasn't all that clear as the video said 2009 !lol
0 members, 21 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
