Bulking How Its Done

Training
941

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I would love to see someone who did this approach be able to get lean again in a couple months.

[/quote]

Why the time constraint? Couple of months = 8 weeks.

Will they not be allowed to go to the prom or something?

ABZZ BY THE SUMMER SOLSTICE OR U LOOZE!!![/quote]

If you would not just quoted me you would seen wannabenig said you bulk hard ect ect and in a couple months you can get back to lean again. [/quote]

LOL. Ryan, I am wholly amused at your extreme fat phobia. You’re a good kid, I like you. You’re gonna go far in life, and dammit, you’re going to be LEAN and MEAN.[/quote]

Well as of right now from research fat does nothing good and harms the body and gains past a certain point which is really not that high. It negatively affects health as well I am not a PLer so leverages are no issue for me. So IMO fat is bad yes. Until research shows some benefit being over 15% or w/e the number is I see no reason for it. [/quote]

Own it, dude! :wink:

942

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Well as of right now from research fat does nothing good and harms the body and gains past a certain point which is really not that high.[/quote]

Please define the point at which you have seen research show harm to the body.

Any research I have seen sets that point at the state of obesity. Do you disagree with this?

[quote]
Until research shows some benefit being over 15% or w/e the number is I see no reason for it. [/quote]

What research have you seen that shows that literally being under 15% alone causes a a benefit? Have you seen any?

943

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Well as of right now from research fat does nothing good and harms the body and gains past a certain point which is really not that high.[/quote]

Please define the point at which you have seen research show harm to the body.

Any research I have seen sets that point at the state of obesity. Do you disagree with this?

I already said there is research that shows its at obese levels and lower than that.

To the second part JMs express site has a great article that I won’t regurgitate here but go read that if you are interested

944

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

I already said there is research that shows its at obese levels and lower than that. [/quote]

Could you show at least one site or source of research that supports the “lower than that” statement as I have seen none that show it happening at body fat levels “lower than that”.

945

These threads are mind numbingly terrible.

I can appreciate X’s semi subtle trolling though.

946

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

I already said there is research that shows its at obese levels and lower than that. [/quote]

Could you show at least one site or source of research that supports the “lower than that” statement as I have seen none that show it happening at body fat levels “lower than that”.

[/quote]

I jsut said to read the md site I have nothing further until that is done

947

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
These threads are mind numbingly terrible.

I can appreciate X’s semi subtle trolling though.[/quote]

Where else can you get this much entertainment though

948

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

I already said there is research that shows its at obese levels and lower than that. [/quote]

Could you show at least one site or source of research that supports the “lower than that” statement as I have seen none that show it happening at body fat levels “lower than that”.

[/quote]

I jsut said to read the md site I have nothing further until that is done [/quote]

WTF? The MD site isn’t a respected source of info in the medical community…so could you please provide support for what you just wrote that falls in line with what science knows of the human body and can be supported?

If the MD site is the only place this info is located, then it means nothing to me.

You don’t seem able to support much of what you write yourself. You always fall back on the name dropping.

949

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

I already said there is research that shows its at obese levels and lower than that. [/quote]

Could you show at least one site or source of research that supports the “lower than that” statement as I have seen none that show it happening at body fat levels “lower than that”.

[/quote]

I jsut said to read the md site I have nothing further until that is done [/quote]

WTF? The MD site isn’t a respected source of info in the medical community…so could you please provide support for what you just wrote that falls in line with what science knows of the human body and can be supported?

If the MD site is the only place this info is located, then it means nothing to me.

You don’t seem able to support much of what you write yourself. You always fall back on the name dropping.[/quote]

Not a respected resource? Really so the articles that are written and interview with doctors and PhDs are not a good source of info. The heavily refunded and sourced articles aren’t good info? Ok

950

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

I already said there is research that shows its at obese levels and lower than that. [/quote]

Could you show at least one site or source of research that supports the “lower than that” statement as I have seen none that show it happening at body fat levels “lower than that”.

[/quote]

I jsut said to read the md site I have nothing further until that is done [/quote]

WTF? The MD site isn’t a respected source of info in the medical community…so could you please provide support for what you just wrote that falls in line with what science knows of the human body and can be supported?

If the MD site is the only place this info is located, then it means nothing to me.

You don’t seem able to support much of what you write yourself. You always fall back on the name dropping.[/quote]

Not a respected resource? Really so the articles that are written and interview with doctors and PhDs are not a good source of info. The heavily refunded and sourced articles aren’t good info? Ok[/quote]
If there aren’t hard copies stored under lock and key in the Historical Dental Archives then it doesn’t count.

951

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Not a respected resource? Really so the articles that are written and interview with doctors and PhDs are not a good source of info. The heavily refunded and sourced articles aren’t good info? Ok[/quote]

A study is a good source from a respected medical journal. That will tell us some FACTS. I asked you for PROOF that not being obese causes problems from fat.

952

[quote]Professor X wrote:
WTF? The MD site isn’t a respected source of info in the medical community…so could you please provide support for what you just wrote that falls in line with what science knows of the human body and can be supported?
[/quote]

I understand your need to back things up ‘medically’, but I think most of the intelligent posters on this site realize there are certain people in the industry/sport that seem to possess an extreme amount of knowledge, supported by actual educational credentials as well as extensive demonstrations with themselves or their athletes/clients. As such, they are wide viewed as quality sources of information and thoughtful conjecture.

In these forums, I’ve seen people make references to ‘experts’ such as Meadows, Norton, Klemzewski, Kalman,… and they all seem to get brushed over in lieu of your dental background in ‘discussions’. Still, you’ll reference Christian Thibaudeau’s off the cuff comments when it suits a particular argument.

In court rooms, the legal teams make a case to accept an individual’s status as an ‘expert’ to a specific subject area. This expert is then allowed to give their educated opinions on a specific matter, despite the fact that it may not have been previously studied to the point of having actual research to back it up. What would you say if the minimum credentials someone needs to be cited as an expert source in terms of what gets discussed on here? (This is of course keeping in mind that the crap we discuss in terms of bodybuilding isn’t usually the subject of too many peer reviewed research write ups.)

S

953

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
WTF? The MD site isn’t a respected source of info in the medical community…so could you please provide support for what you just wrote that falls in line with what science knows of the human body and can be supported?
[/quote]

I understand your need to back things up ‘medically’, but I think most of the intelligent posters on this site realize there are certain people in the industry/sport that seem to possess an extreme amount of knowledge, supported by actual educational credentials as well as extensive demonstrations with themselves or their athletes/clients. As such, they are wide viewed as quality sources of information and thoughtful conjecture.

In these forums, I’ve seen people make references to ‘experts’ such as Meadows, Norton, Klemzewski, Kalman,… and they all seem to get brushed over in lieu of your dental background in ‘discussions’. Still, you’ll reference Christian Thibaudeau’s off the cuff comments when it suits a particular argument.

In court rooms, the legal teams make a case to accept an individual’s status as an ‘expert’ to a specific subject area. This expert is then allowed to give their educated opinions on a specific matter, despite the fact that it may not have been previously studied to the point of having actual research to back it up. What would you say if the minimum credentials someone needs to be cited as an expert source in terms of what gets discussed on here? (This is of course keeping in mind that the crap we discuss in terms of bodybuilding isn’t usually the subject of too many peer reviewed research write ups.)

S[/quote]

Good post.

And as I always say, I respect academia, but it is unnecessary to be a good lifter or bodybuilder. I highly doubt Lee Haney and Dorian and Arnold were reading studies, if any.

954

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Not a respected resource? Really so the articles that are written and interview with doctors and PhDs are not a good source of info. The heavily refunded and sourced articles aren’t good info? Ok[/quote]

A study is a good source from a respected medical journal. That will tell us some FACTS. I asked you for PROOF that not being obese causes problems from fat.[/quote]

They cite many many studies as references? So studies are used to back it up. You seem to be missing that.

955

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Not a respected resource? Really so the articles that are written and interview with doctors and PhDs are not a good source of info. The heavily refunded and sourced articles aren’t good info? Ok[/quote]

A study is a good source from a respected medical journal. That will tell us some FACTS. I asked you for PROOF that not being obese causes problems from fat.[/quote]

They cite many many studies as references? So studies are used to back it up. You seem to be missing that.

[/quote]

No, what I am getting is that you recommended I read an entire web site for the answer to a statement I have only seen YOU write.

Please provide the link to the evidence that supports this even if it is on that site and we can talk.

That is not a site about body fat percentages so why recommend I read an entire bodybuilding website for the answer to a statement YOU alone made?

956

What medical journal tells us how to be better fitness (bodybuilding, Crossfit, powerlifting, whatever) fanatics?

None.

957

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Not a respected resource? Really so the articles that are written and interview with doctors and PhDs are not a good source of info. The heavily refunded and sourced articles aren’t good info? Ok[/quote]

A study is a good source from a respected medical journal. That will tell us some FACTS. I asked you for PROOF that not being obese causes problems from fat.[/quote]

They cite many many studies as references? So studies are used to back it up. You seem to be missing that.

[/quote]

No, what I am getting is that you recommended I read an entire web site for the answer to a statement I have only seen YOU write.

Please provide the link to the evidence that supports this even if it is on that site and we can talk.

That is not a site about body fat percentages so why recommend I read an entire bodybuilding website for the answer to a statement YOU alone made?[/quote]

You should read the whole site maybe you’d learn something.

express.mountaindogdiet.com/articles.php

I reccomend you read there and I won’t post it because it costs money and I respect JM and will not copy and past info from there

958

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

I understand your need to back things up ‘medically’, but I think most of the intelligent posters on this site realize there are certain people in the industry/sport that seem to possess an extreme amount of knowledge, supported by actual educational credentials as well as extensive demonstrations with themselves or their athletes/clients. As such, they are wide viewed as quality sources of information and thoughtful conjecture.[/quote]

Yes, and the CONJECTURE part is what I am referring to…so I asked for proof to a statement made as FACT and not conjecture.

Why would you try to stop me from getting to the FACTS f this if there are some?

[quote]

In these forums, I’ve seen people make references to ‘experts’ such as Meadows, Norton, Klemzewski, Kalman,… and they all seem to get brushed over in lieu of your dental background in ‘discussions’. Still, you’ll reference Christian Thibaudeau’s off the cuff comments when it suits a particular argument.[/quote]

? Excuse me, sir, but a NAME is not proof of anything. If you showed a statement they actually made it would be different.

Saying, “Well, Meadows agrees with me” is saying nothing at all.

If you don’t understand this, please refresh yourself.

[quote]
In court rooms, the legal teams make a case to accept an individual’s status as an ‘expert’ to a specific subject area. This expert is then allowed to give their educated opinions on a specific matter, despite the fact that it may not have been previously studied to the point of having actual research to back it up.[/quote]

Yes, and the other side can refute that claim with their own expert. Your point?

[quote]

What would you say if the minimum credentials someone needs to be cited as an expert source in terms of what gets discussed on here?
S[/quote]

It has nothing to do with their credentials. I haven’t seen ANY of these men say that a body fat percentage LESS THAN OBESITY causes health problems.

I saw ONE POSTER HERE say that.

Please show me where any of these people agree with this in THEIR OWN WORDS.

959

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
What medical journal tells us how to be better fitness (bodybuilding, Crossfit, powerlifting, whatever) fanatics?

None. [/quote]

Medical journals would provide proof for the statement that a body fat less then obesity causes health problems.

960

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

You should read the whole site maybe you’d learn something.

http://express.mountaindogdiet.com/articles.php

I reccomend you read there and I won’t post it because it costs money and I respect JM and will not copy and past info from there [/quote]

Please post the statement from one professional on that site that supports what you wrote about body fat percentages less than obesity.