"Fullness"

**bodydouble** · 10-06-2010, 02:10 PM

I'll post this because I know at least Dave P. will agree with me.

It's the issue of fullness at the expense of conditioning.

Obviously, you want to get as close as you can to maximizing fullness, but I have a feeling some bodybuilders intentionally sacrifice conditioning in order to come in more full.

In my opinion, fullness only matters when you're dry and peeled to the bone...does this makes sense? You have to have the conditioning to see the density.

This is how I see it:
1. Max conditioning is an absolute requirement
2. Maximizing fullness without sacrificing conditioning is also important

I know bodybuilding is subjective, and there are probably two camps... I do think fullness is important, just not at the risk of spilling over (and perhaps even coming in a little flat) to be as lean and as dry as possible.

**jacshelb** · 10-06-2010, 02:21 PM

Yep, I agree. Basically you are going to theoretically look more full if your conditioning is on and slightly flat vs. if you are a little spilled over. But, the worst is when you end up coming in flat and spilled over- and, yes, it does happen.

**powergraham** · 10-06-2010, 03:09 PM

I agree. I'm still a fattie, but I can feel the difference between being full and flat, but I'll be damned if it looks any different.

**ScottyMac710** · 10-06-2010, 04:06 PM

i definitely agree, when you're peeled, dry, and skin is tight in around your muscle bellies you're gonna look more full even if you so sacrifice some actual fullness. If you're holding fat/water sub-q then you lose the tightness that helps to define and separate muscles you wont have the same contrast between the tightened in sections between bellies and near joints and the full muscle bellies. Still sucks to see a competitor come into a show too flat, but as said above, albeit in other words: flatness over fatness any day