Bear Mode or Otter Mode?

start pinning

statue of david mode

Attached: Screen Shot 2020-04-11 at 2.26.22 PM.png (352x697, 278.16K)

>And natty always looks better.
>shows a roided hollywood star

this mode

Attached: Screenshot_4.png (1339x1315, 3.26M)

I think you missed the picture on the right man. Left and middle are non natty, but if you're saying that his look in Immortals was achieved through roids, you dont know what you're talking about, sorry

Attached: a63a1b61961ff777d79c984daba07fd3.jpg (1000x1466, 203.37K)

I don't say this often but post body. Literally everything you said is wrong.

Otter mode because I can actually do more than 10 minutes of cardio without having a heart attack

no one admires bloatlords outside of gymcels communities on the internet

Attached: 1_hAOOSc9Bb9rW6dcBmBnqHA.jpg (560x800, 125.7K)

>caring about what others think

yikes!

How many more lbs before this is bearmode?

Attached: 20200408_182612.jpg (821x720, 368.27K)

you probably need to lose at least 5% of your weight in pure fat, maybe 7% body weight total unless you're on some gear that can help preserve muscle

all of this is completely true and red pilled

women will tolerate a bear mode guy, but they will lust after and gossip about otter mode dudes all day

source: I used to be otter mode, and thought when I bulked up I would get even more girls. Dead wrong. They preferred me at 150 lbs with cut abs to 190 lbs with a lot more size and almost no abs by huge margin.

>Literally everything you said is wrong.

>Ripped is more realistic. Bearmode can be pilled off only with roids.
Ripped is a more realistic goal. What is consireded ideal bearmode can only be achieved with roids. A natural would not be able to develop enough muscle to look like the guy in OP.

>natty always looks better.
Because the muscles remain within their natural limits of development. They dont grow to exagerated proportions. Same with bodyfat% and vascularity. A healthy, natural physique always looks better.

>bearmode = strength is a cope meme. Muscle is muscle
A bodyfat of more than 15% is a hindrance to performance. Is simply overweight (provided Max muscle development). An optimal bf% is around 13%. Below 10, too weak. Above 15, too fat.
And the point remains: any state that forces the body to go where it doesnt want to go (too low bf, too high bf, develop more muscle than it naturally can, etc.) Just looks and performs bad (because Its unhealthy

>performs bad
Sorry. That, of course, doesnt apply to ped use

Damn nice... I'd say you're close to perfect but a bit more of muscle wouldn't hurt you.

which one """"""""""""""""""""""""would"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" you chose.

you are pathetic OP or 12 years old. I assume the second

Otter because it's cheaper. I'm a greedy fuck I don't want to spend more on food.

Swole easily without a doubt

so what about shot putters? or wrestlers? they are usually bear mode and have an immense amount of explosive strength. they can move fast, jump high and can endure much.

First pic is my dream body lads. Hope i will achieve It one day

some fag really photoshopped chest hair on that man lmao

What's the name of the porn actor on the right again?

Nothing to do with strength. Its physics.
Wich is why you see shot putters spin before launching. Or sumo wrestlers putting special emphasis on their stand. They use their body weight and mass in their favor.
But moving weight making use of your whole body mass and producing strength in a more concentrated fashion is different. For example: bench press and pushing a car. Pulling yourself up a rope and pulling a car.
>They have an immense amount of explosive strength
Nothing to do with their bf%. They have a ton of muscle.
>They can move fast, jump high and can endure much.
Even if this were true, I dont think it would be incorrect to assess that they would, undoubtedly, be much faster, jump higher, and endure much more if their bf% wasnt so high that it becomes a burden.

Attached: PepperyIdolizedCornsnake-size_restricted.gif (288x360, 2.86M)