BeefyBoy is annoying.
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
BeefyBoy is annoying.
[/quote]
Word. Squared.
[quote]rcfromdb wrote:
BeefyBoy wrote:
rcfromdb wrote:
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:RgJG4W4AZc8J:www.umich.edu/~exphysio/mvs.240/Lectures/Ch6.BodyComp.ppt+essential+fat+for+males&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA53794
Pro female bodybuilders walk on stage with a MINIMUM 6% bodyfat. Most land around 8%.
Now go away.
Congrats… you know how to use Google.
I’m embarrassed for you… And here I thought these forums were for the elite of bodybuilding. You guys have shown that you have no capacity to cite actual scientific studies nor do you understand the need to do so. Have you ever paid attention to the articles that routinely cite their references at the bottom of the article?
That’s exactly the point. It took 30 seconds to pull it up on google. Meaning it’s not new information that can only be found in scientific journals. Everyone who has even an inkling of knowledge of body composition knows these general guidelines.
These forums are not for the elite of bodybuilding. They’ll let anyone sign up, ergo, you see keyboard warriors standing defiant against professionals in the field and demanding ‘scientific studies’. If you think a professional is going to take the time to pull up research you are sorely mistaken. Shut your pie hole and take 5 years out of your life to read and get under the bar, then come back and see how frustrated you are at the newbie shit that is slung around on these forums by people like yourself.[/quote]
Are you so blinded by your ignorance that you can’t see the need to cite scientific studies when making a claim? Do you think that citing random references on the Internet is sufficient (especially when these pages are basically people just regurgitating the same garbage over and over)?
Enjoy your blue pill, Neo.
Biggest strawman argument I have ever seen. We are the ignorant ones because we don’t want to spend time going through medical journals to site a study to prove an already painfully obvious point. Yet, beefyboy here won’t take the time to do the same to prove us wrong and he, (or rather Oleena), is apparently the enlightened one.
Right…
[quote]shaunar25 wrote:
BeefyBoy wrote:
rcfromdb wrote:
Congrats… you know how to use Google.
I’m embarrassed for you… And here I thought these forums were for the elite of bodybuilding. You guys have shown that you have no capacity to cite actual scientific studies nor do you understand the need to do so. Have you ever paid attention to the articles that routinely cite their references at the bottom of the article?
Well honestly, rcfromdb has done more for this argument than you have.
And I believe the answer to your question is that no one NEEDS to go do a few hours of research on a database flipping through scholarly journals to prove something that is visually obvious. I would absolutely encourage you though, to go and find these articles and references that you are so embarrassed no one else could find…or would bother with such a ridiculous task to find.
No offense, but you are becoming the example of your criticism.
[/quote]
Wait a minute… I agreed with you that it’s visually obvious that the test was wrong and that she wasn’t 3%. I’m not about to look for proof of that.
My point is, you can’t just say that “a woman can’t achieve 3% body fat” without backing it up with some actual scientific studies.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Biggest strawman argument I have ever seen. We are the ignorant ones because we don’t want to spend time going through medical journals to site a study to prove an already painfully obvious point. Yet, beefyboy here won’t take the time to do the same to prove us wrong and he, (or rather Oleena), is apparently the enlightened one.
Right…[/quote]
I made no claim that it’s possible for a woman to achieve 3% body fat. I personally don’t believe it to be possible. But I can’t just state that it’s fact without basing it on proof.
Why do you think they post the references at the end of articles? Do they do it just to look enlightened? No, they do it because they know you can’t make a claim without backing it up.
I think it’s funny that everyone is getting so pissed at someone asking them to back up a claim. This conversation isn’t going to go anywhere because apparently no one has enough energy to try and find a scientific journal on the internet (except Beefyboy. I do recall seeing an actual reference on one of his posts). Sad. Maybe I’ll try when I get back from squatting.
Instead of doing actual work, all I see here are insults. Nice. Lazy bastards.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think it’s funny that everyone is getting so pissed at someone asking them to back up a claim. This conversation isn’t going to go anywhere because apparently no one has enough energy to try and find a scientific journal on the internet (except Beefyboy. I do recall seeing an actual reference on one of his posts). Sad. Maybe I’ll try when I get back from squatting.
Instead of doing actual work, all I see here are insults. Nice. Lazy bastards.[/quote]
I’m not asking anyone to do any work here… I’m just letting them know that they can’t state something as fact unless they have proof to back it up. Until they can cite their reference, it’s just an opinion.
Isn’t it ironic that the only person that happens to understand my point is the one that everyone loves to hate? But wait, this happens to be the person who actually showed us the printout. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that she understands.
I suppose we’re in collusion with each other… like they’ve all been saying.
can someone splain please???
This is hurting my brain thing.
[quote]mom-in-MD wrote:
can someone splain please???
This is hurting my brain thing.[/quote]
Cliffs Notes:
Oleena claimed that she trained a girl and made some impossible claims.
Oleena posted “proof” that actually disproved his claims.
People pointed this out.
Oleena created a new account and started posting under it backing himself up.
New account argues with people.
Oleena has a conversation with himself and his other account.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
mom-in-MD wrote:
can someone splain please???
This is hurting my brain thing.
Cliffs Notes:
Oleena claimed that she trained a girl and made some impossible claims.
Oleena posted “proof” that actually disproved his claims.
People pointed this out.
Oleena created a new account and started posting under it backing himself up.
New account argues with people.
Oleena has a conversation with himself and his other account.[/quote]
Any of the mods that can see IP addresses can prove half of your claims to be false. And my account has been around longer than today.
.
[quote]BeefyBoy wrote:
I made no claim that it’s possible for a woman to achieve 3% body fat. I personally don’t believe it to be possible. But I can’t just state that it’s fact without basing it on proof.
Why do you think they post the references at the end of articles? Do they do it just to look enlightened? No, they do it because they know you can’t make a claim without backing it up.[/quote]
I hope what you just said doesn’t even make sense to you…
The theory is that 3% is impossible because no woman has ever been observed at a bodyfat that fucking low, it is up to you to provide evidence otherwise in the form of references because it is you snubbing convention - otherwise you have no grounds for arguing.
The truth is you don’t even know what you are arguing anymore, do you? You keep going on about proving something as ‘fact,’ with scienctific references yet on the other hand you undermine the very thing that science bases fact on - observation. The theory that it is impossible to get below 3% is such because it has never once been OBSERVED on stage, I repeat, it has not been OBSERVED.
Why do you think that no one has done studies on women with 3% bodyfat??? Even at that you think the money men who fund biological research give a flying fuck about the %bodyfat of women on a bodybuilding stage??? Let me tell you as an insider, biologically funded grants don’t come about that easy.
Hey guys, how can you say Big Foot doesn’t exist without pics???
^this is how ridiculous your arguement is.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
mom-in-MD wrote:
can someone splain please???
This is hurting my brain thing.
Cliffs Notes:
Oleena claimed a coworker made some claims which everyone claimed impossible.
Oleena posted her coworker’s “proof” that led to further argument.
People pointed this out.
Oleena came back from work today to find that another person by the name of Beefyboy was asking for proof and everyone on the thread thinks this person is her.
New account argues with people in agreement with Oleena, throwing himself under the suspicion bus.
Oleena makes two posts, neither of which address anyone in particular.[/quote]
Edited for truth.
[quote]NIguy wrote:
BeefyBoy wrote:
I made no claim that it’s possible for a woman to achieve 3% body fat. I personally don’t believe it to be possible. But I can’t just state that it’s fact without basing it on proof.
Why do you think they post the references at the end of articles? Do they do it just to look enlightened? No, they do it because they know you can’t make a claim without backing it up.
I hope what you just said doesn’t even make sense to you…
The theory is that 3% is impossible because no woman has ever been observed at a bodyfat that fucking low, it is up to you to provide evidence otherwise in the form of references because it is you snubbing convention - otherwise you have no grounds for arguing.
The truth is you don’t even know what you are arguing anymore, do you? You keep going on about proving something as ‘fact,’ with scienctific references yet on the other hand you undermine the very thing that science bases fact on - observation. The theory that it is impossible to get below 3% is such because it has never once been OBSERVED on stage, I repeat, it has not been OBSERVED. Why do you think that no one has done studies on women with 3% bodyfat??? Even at that you think the money men who fund biological research give a flying fuck about the %bodyfat of women on a bodybuilding stage??? Let me tell you as an insider, biologically funded grants don’t come about that easy.
Hey guys, how can you say Big Foot doesn’t exist without pics???
^this is how ridiculous your arguement is.
[/quote]
Once again… What are you referencing? Am I just supposed to believe what you say? Can you back up your claim that “it has never once been OBSERVED on stage, I repeat, it has not been OBSERVED”? Or am I just supposed to take your word for it?
Beefyboy, I know that’s not you in your avatar, but if it was, I would punt you across the room.
BeefyBoy, you are a pretentious twat. 3% bodyfat for a man is potentially fatal. Women naturally carry more bodyfat than men. Do the math.
[quote]roybot wrote:
BeefyBoy, you are a pretentious twat. 3% bodyfat for a man is potentially fatal. Women naturally carry more bodyfat than men. Do the math.[/quote]
I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but just stating your opinion does not make it fact. Please back up your claims with some proof.
[quote]BeefyBoy wrote:
NIguy wrote:
BeefyBoy wrote:
I made no claim that it’s possible for a woman to achieve 3% body fat. I personally don’t believe it to be possible. But I can’t just state that it’s fact without basing it on proof.
Why do you think they post the references at the end of articles? Do they do it just to look enlightened? No, they do it because they know you can’t make a claim without backing it up.
I hope what you just said doesn’t even make sense to you…
The theory is that 3% is impossible because no woman has ever been observed at a bodyfat that fucking low, it is up to you to provide evidence otherwise in the form of references because it is you snubbing convention - otherwise you have no grounds for arguing.
The truth is you don’t even know what you are arguing anymore, do you? You keep going on about proving something as ‘fact,’ with scienctific references yet on the other hand you undermine the very thing that science bases fact on - observation. The theory that it is impossible to get below 3% is such because it has never once been OBSERVED on stage, I repeat, it has not been OBSERVED.
Why do you think that no one has done studies on women with 3% bodyfat??? Even at that you think the money men who fund biological research give a flying fuck about the %bodyfat of women on a bodybuilding stage??? Let me tell you as an insider, biologically funded grants don’t come about that easy.
Hey guys, how can you say Big Foot doesn’t exist without pics???
^this is how ridiculous your arguement is.
Once again… What are you referencing? Am I just supposed to believe what you say? Can you back up your claim that “it has never once been OBSERVED on stage, I repeat, it has not been OBSERVED”? Or am I just supposed to take your word for it?
[/quote]
…you really are confused.
Who the fuck goes to shows and looks at the %bodyfat levels of contestants. Moreover even if someone did who the hell would write down, ‘dear journal today I seen a person who wasn’t at 3% bodyfat.’
Do you actually realise how ridiculous this sounds?
What are you actually getting at here?.. how the fuck do you go about referencing a non event? You keep banging on about proving that 3% is impossible, but what that amounts to is a ridiculous experimental design. We can’t prove that 3% is impossible, you can never prove the impossible, only the possible, what is it you do not get about this?
We therefore say things are impossible because they have never been observed and cite possible reasons why they have not been observed. Perhaps you should do some googling yourself because by your retarded logic science goes about proving the impossible possible, but wait, that means it actually is possible doesn’t it? Your arguement isn’t even functional, its a paradox, how can you not see this?
Here is a functional approach to the question, with IMPORTANTLY a measurable outcome…
‘Is it possible for a woman to have a bodyfat of 3%.’ And you would conduct this experiment by observing actual bodyfat measurement of contestants bearing in mind that all evidence to date suggests that the minimum essential bodyfat for a woman is higher than 3% and that 3% bodyfat on a woman has never been reported by science!!!
I ask you to disprove that, with references please.
[quote]BeefyBoy wrote:
roybot wrote:
BeefyBoy, you are a pretentious twat. 3% bodyfat for a man is potentially fatal. Women naturally carry more bodyfat than men. Do the math.
I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but just stating your opinion does not make it fact. Please back up your claims with some proof.[/quote]
Um, how about you do some research? How much effort would it take you to check this shit out for yourself?