Can't Even Believe This Man

Off Topic
141

[quote]dylan10507 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dylan10507 wrote:
stuff[/quote]

You really missed the point of superfreakonomics. Its interesting statistical approach using economic tools they apply to all sorts of situations because the analysis is interesting, not because a side is being argued. The talent part is just a small section, and there are some really interesting trends noted in it. Like the disproportionate distribution of birthdays throughout the calendar year for a given sport, as I mentioned.

He also takes a look into why so many professional athletes raise professional athletes and what happens when you adjust for genetic inheritance vs. adoptive children.

Anyways, my whole point being, if someone is better than you at something, it’s most probably because they work harder at it.[/quote]

K gotcha.

Superfreakanomics isn’t the main book. Just has the same concepts of talent is overated, and gladwells books both have the birthday thing which is pretty interesting gladwells was the worst he works hard to discredit hard work AND talent basically saying you put anyone in the world in say bill gates situation or einsteins theyd achieve the same don’t like that pussy knocking people down.

Anyway just I found it so funny the bestseller TALENT IS OVERATED and you’ve got all these like 30 something year olds reading it freaking out like omg look what I just read this is crazy I never knew this about stuff any 13 year old on middle school sport team will tell you. Just 200 pages describing this "new’ concept of “deliberate practice” Its the “secret of those who suceed”.
and it is basically the same thing showing up in a bunch of bestsellers now (what I said had nothing to do with uour point or what you said just reminded me of it since I;ve seen it in a lot of books now). I just can’t beleive people need a book to explain this to them are these people who need this book to learn this actually going to achieve anything? Damn I need to get into the self help/stupid fad book industry people will buy anything.

Another gem of self help books to achieve something you need to beleive you can achieve it. REALLY? I am just getting sick of these bullshit magic pills and secrets and shit. Like cmon selling practice as a secret pill? It’s a joke but hey at least it works.

Secret pill stuff doesn’t apply to freakanomics just the talent is overated book those more I just hink are funny about useing all this statistics. I mean look at any wrestling room what your being taught about putting in the time etc. and it needs a book with statistics to replace life experiences for the general public .[/quote]

It seems you also missed the point of Outliers then along with Superfreakonomics. Gladwell doesn’t say that ANYONE in the position of Gates or the Rockafeller bankers would have ended up the same, but he makes the point that it wasn’t through pure hard work alone that they came to success, they also had the help of some extremely convenient environmental factors that combined with their drive and work ethic propelled them to the front of the pack. It’s like if you take 2 children at the same age, and have them start training the exact same way, except one kid is from a family taht can afford to feed him like the growing boy he is, and the other family is poor and has to ration their meals, the kid who gets adequate nutrition will become bigger and stronger simply because IN ADDITION to his hard work and training, he was also fortunate enough to be in a family that provides for his caloric needs.

142

Holy shit!

143

[quote]nz6stringaxe wrote:

I think this really demonstrates the power of genetics in bodybuilding. I don’t believe everyone is capable of doing this. The fact that he was 19 and looked the way he did…well, that just speaks for itself.

It makes me think of any before/after pictures of top bodybuilders and how while some have some notable changes, most of them just look like more mature and developed versions of their previous selves. Arnold comes to mind. (Lou Ferrigno comes to mind on the other side, those who did make significant changes, but again, he was big by 20.)

I’m still in disbelief from seeing this kid.
He better take it to the hole and sweep the Olympia in several years.[/quote]

I think he looks incredible. But let’s not kid ourselves here, he is not natural, and if someone is as dedicated as him, they are going to make incredible gains. While I agree his genetics seem incredible, only time can tell if he will be a champion bodybuilder. This is after all, his first few years of training, let the role of diminishing returns step in and watch his progress greatly slow down.

It reminds me of Trey Brewer. I saw a picture of him and thought he looked incredible, of course you can imagine my shock when I found out he was 21. He looked to be about 30 or so. I cant imagine him adding a significant amount of new muscle, even considering drugs and genetics.

144

[quote]deadlift655 wrote:

[quote]nz6stringaxe wrote:

I think this really demonstrates the power of genetics in bodybuilding. I don’t believe everyone is capable of doing this. The fact that he was 19 and looked the way he did…well, that just speaks for itself.

It makes me think of any before/after pictures of top bodybuilders and how while some have some notable changes, most of them just look like more mature and developed versions of their previous selves. Arnold comes to mind. (Lou Ferrigno comes to mind on the other side, those who did make significant changes, but again, he was big by 20.)

I’m still in disbelief from seeing this kid.
He better take it to the hole and sweep the Olympia in several years.[/quote]

I think he looks incredible. But let’s not kid ourselves here, he is not natural, and if someone is as dedicated as him, they are going to make incredible gains. While I agree his genetics seem incredible, only time can tell if he will be a champion bodybuilder. This is after all, his first few years of training, let the role of diminishing returns step in and watch his progress greatly slow down.
It reminds me of Trey Brewer. I saw a picture of him and thought he looked incredible, of course you can imagine my shock when I found out he was 21. He looked to be about 30 or so. I cant imagine him adding a significant amount of new muscle, even considering drugs and genetics.[/quote]

This is bodybuilding. What do PED’s have to do with anything? They are as much apart of the sport as chicken and yams are. That is the honest truth.

Of course his progress will greatly slow down. That’s one of the stupidest points anyone’s ever made. Obviously he isnt going to weigh 400lbs lean in 20 years no matter how much food or drugs he takes in.

Who cares if he reaches his peak at 25 or 35? Which do you think will have a greater benefit for his competative career? Everyone is trying to peak as fast as possible and then simply refine and ‘mature’ their muscles.

Are you really attempting to predict how big this kid or Brewer can get based on pictures of them in their early 20s? That is a completely impossible feat. No one has any clue what their genetic potential is. Not even they do. Just because Trey’s face looked old when you saw him depleted from being in competition shape doesnt mean shit when it comes to how much muscle he can hold.

I actually expect Brewer to make big changes soon. He’s done with his previous supplement contract and wont have the same amount of pressure on him.

145

[quote]JLu wrote:

[quote]dylan10507 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dylan10507 wrote:
stuff[/quote]

You really missed the point of superfreakonomics. Its interesting statistical approach using economic tools they apply to all sorts of situations because the analysis is interesting, not because a side is being argued. The talent part is just a small section, and there are some really interesting trends noted in it. Like the disproportionate distribution of birthdays throughout the calendar year for a given sport, as I mentioned.

He also takes a look into why so many professional athletes raise professional athletes and what happens when you adjust for genetic inheritance vs. adoptive children.

Anyways, my whole point being, if someone is better than you at something, it’s most probably because they work harder at it.[/quote]

K gotcha.

Superfreakanomics isn’t the main book. Just has the same concepts of talent is overated, and gladwells books both have the birthday thing which is pretty interesting gladwells was the worst he works hard to discredit hard work AND talent basically saying you put anyone in the world in say bill gates situation or einsteins theyd achieve the same don’t like that pussy knocking people down.

Anyway just I found it so funny the bestseller TALENT IS OVERATED and you’ve got all these like 30 something year olds reading it freaking out like omg look what I just read this is crazy I never knew this about stuff any 13 year old on middle school sport team will tell you. Just 200 pages describing this "new’ concept of “deliberate practice” Its the “secret of those who suceed”.
and it is basically the same thing showing up in a bunch of bestsellers now (what I said had nothing to do with uour point or what you said just reminded me of it since I;ve seen it in a lot of books now). I just can’t beleive people need a book to explain this to them are these people who need this book to learn this actually going to achieve anything? Damn I need to get into the self help/stupid fad book industry people will buy anything.

Another gem of self help books to achieve something you need to beleive you can achieve it. REALLY? I am just getting sick of these bullshit magic pills and secrets and shit. Like cmon selling practice as a secret pill? It’s a joke but hey at least it works.

Secret pill stuff doesn’t apply to freakanomics just the talent is overated book those more I just hink are funny about useing all this statistics. I mean look at any wrestling room what your being taught about putting in the time etc. and it needs a book with statistics to replace life experiences for the general public .[/quote]

It seems you also missed the point of Outliers then along with Superfreakonomics. Gladwell doesn’t say that ANYONE in the position of Gates or the Rockafeller bankers would have ended up the same, but he makes the point that it wasn’t through pure hard work alone that they came to success, they also had the help of some extremely convenient environmental factors that combined with their drive and work ethic propelled them to the front of the pack. It’s like if you take 2 children at the same age, and have them start training the exact same way, except one kid is from a family taht can afford to feed him like the growing boy he is, and the other family is poor and has to ration their meals, the kid who gets adequate nutrition will become bigger and stronger simply because IN ADDITION to his hard work and training, he was also fortunate enough to be in a family that provides for his caloric needs.[/quote]

I didn’t miss the point. The book is called outliers and is meant to explain that outliers are not true outliers but a product of there environment.

He uses only examples of people that where in the right situations no examples of people in shit situation who had to for example escape slavery to accomplish things. The book was biased and does downplay the importance of the individual and blames there environment/ situation more than the individual no getting around that.

Why doesn’t he show the real outliers? the people who got rich outside of the time period he mentioned the hall of fame hockey players born in the wrong month. Another example is he had a guy who didn’t get into college due to lack of social skills or something but was the same intelligence of a guy who was very savy. He put it off as if that was part of his environment and out of his control. BULLSHIT social skills and building realationships is a key to success.

I know he does mention hard work like once. But he would say bill gates had to be of course very driven. (that was it) then had like four pages explaining how it was his situation that got him where he was. Of course people take advantage of situations but he only mentions them proceeds to claim that is true for all successful people and does not include any opposing examples. (genghis khan born a slave in lowest class an outcast look wha he did all because of his drive, intellegence and talents). (not saying he was all good just he is a super glaring example of lowest of low with every possible environmental disadvantage to basically conquering the world. Also the great people turn there disadvantages in there environment into advantages(many pro fighters) which I am sure gladwell would try to use against them.

I’ll say it again there is absoluetly no getting around that he is biased, that the point of the book is that success relies more on environment then the individual, and that he is at least mildly discrediting accomplishments of those who are successful.

146

[quote]JLu wrote:

[quote]dylan10507 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dylan10507 wrote:
stuff[/quote]

You really missed the point of superfreakonomics. Its interesting statistical approach using economic tools they apply to all sorts of situations because the analysis is interesting, not because a side is being argued. The talent part is just a small section, and there are some really interesting trends noted in it. Like the disproportionate distribution of birthdays throughout the calendar year for a given sport, as I mentioned.

He also takes a look into why so many professional athletes raise professional athletes and what happens when you adjust for genetic inheritance vs. adoptive children.

Anyways, my whole point being, if someone is better than you at something, it’s most probably because they work harder at it.[/quote]

K gotcha.

Superfreakanomics isn’t the main book. Just has the same concepts of talent is overated, and gladwells books both have the birthday thing which is pretty interesting gladwells was the worst he works hard to discredit hard work AND talent basically saying you put anyone in the world in say bill gates situation or einsteins theyd achieve the same don’t like that pussy knocking people down.

Anyway just I found it so funny the bestseller TALENT IS OVERATED and you’ve got all these like 30 something year olds reading it freaking out like omg look what I just read this is crazy I never knew this about stuff any 13 year old on middle school sport team will tell you. Just 200 pages describing this "new’ concept of “deliberate practice” Its the “secret of those who suceed”.
and it is basically the same thing showing up in a bunch of bestsellers now (what I said had nothing to do with uour point or what you said just reminded me of it since I;ve seen it in a lot of books now). I just can’t beleive people need a book to explain this to them are these people who need this book to learn this actually going to achieve anything? Damn I need to get into the self help/stupid fad book industry people will buy anything.

Another gem of self help books to achieve something you need to beleive you can achieve it. REALLY? I am just getting sick of these bullshit magic pills and secrets and shit. Like cmon selling practice as a secret pill? It’s a joke but hey at least it works.

Secret pill stuff doesn’t apply to freakanomics just the talent is overated book those more I just hink are funny about useing all this statistics. I mean look at any wrestling room what your being taught about putting in the time etc. and it needs a book with statistics to replace life experiences for the general public .[/quote]
It seems you also missed the point of Outliers then along with Superfreakonomics. Gladwell doesn’t say that ANYONE in the position of Gates or the Rockafeller bankers would have ended up the same, but he makes the point that it wasn’t through pure hard work alone that they came to success, they also had the help of some extremely convenient environmental factors that combined with their drive and work ethic propelled them to the front of the pack. It’s like if you take 2 children at the same age, and have them start training the exact same way, except one kid is from a family taht can afford to feed him like the growing boy he is, and the other family is poor and has to ration their meals, the kid who gets adequate nutrition will become bigger and stronger simply because IN ADDITION to his hard work and training, he was also fortunate enough to be in a family that provides for his caloric needs.[/quote]

Chance definitely favors the prepared mind though.

You ever heard the story of Mr. Goodyear? Guy was fascinated (obsessed) with rubber. He’d tried for years to chemically alter it to make it more stable, unsuccessfully. He was working with a mixture of rubber and sulfur when it accidentally burned some of it. Thus vulcanization was born.

Now the question, was this just a lucky product of his circumstances?

How about this, would anyone else in the entire world have seen that burned rubber for what it was? I don’t think so. It was only because of his focus and study that the accidental burning of some rubber revolutionized the entire world. No one else in making that same accident would have seen vulcanization in it.

My point being, even the best situations can’t make up for the hard work and it is a fine line between an accidental circumstance and a created one. If you fail to take advantage of the opportunities in your life, it’s easy to mistakenly assume there weren’t any. Maybe you just threw away your scrap of burned rubber.

Anyhow, this is so far off topic it’s ridiculous. I shall cease and desist.

147

Of course I am no idiot I know environment is of course a factor to success. But my above post still stands.

148

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]deadlift655 wrote:

[quote]nz6stringaxe wrote:

I think this really demonstrates the power of genetics in bodybuilding. I don’t believe everyone is capable of doing this. The fact that he was 19 and looked the way he did…well, that just speaks for itself.

It makes me think of any before/after pictures of top bodybuilders and how while some have some notable changes, most of them just look like more mature and developed versions of their previous selves. Arnold comes to mind. (Lou Ferrigno comes to mind on the other side, those who did make significant changes, but again, he was big by 20.)

I’m still in disbelief from seeing this kid.
He better take it to the hole and sweep the Olympia in several years.[/quote]

I think he looks incredible. But let’s not kid ourselves here, he is not natural, and if someone is as dedicated as him, they are going to make incredible gains. While I agree his genetics seem incredible, only time can tell if he will be a champion bodybuilder. This is after all, his first few years of training, let the role of diminishing returns step in and watch his progress greatly slow down.
It reminds me of Trey Brewer. I saw a picture of him and thought he looked incredible, of course you can imagine my shock when I found out he was 21. He looked to be about 30 or so. I cant imagine him adding a significant amount of new muscle, even considering drugs and genetics.[/quote]

This is bodybuilding. What do PED’s have to do with anything? They are as much apart of the sport as chicken and yams are. That is the honest truth.

Of course his progress will greatly slow down. That’s one of the stupidest points anyone’s ever made. Obviously he isnt going to weigh 400lbs lean in 20 years no matter how much food or drugs he takes in.

Who cares if he reaches his peak at 25 or 35? Which do you think will have a greater benefit for his competative career? Everyone is trying to peak as fast as possible and then simply refine and ‘mature’ their muscles.

Are you really attempting to predict how big this kid or Brewer can get based on pictures of them in their early 20s? That is a completely impossible feat. No one has any clue what their genetic potential is. Not even they do. Just because Trey’s face looked old when you saw him depleted from being in competition shape doesnt mean shit when it comes to how much muscle he can hold.

I actually expect Brewer to make big changes soon. He’s done with his previous supplement contract and wont have the same amount of pressure on him.

[/quote]
It is hardly stupid to point out that progress will slow down. I have known so many guys who think they are going to blow up and become huge based on what they accomplish in their first year of training. I have known guys who weigh a lean 170-190 at under 6ft who think they are going to continually grow at the same rate.
I also said only time will tell, in terms of his progress. No where in my statement did I try to predict how much muscle he was going to gain.

149

Doubleduce. Really good story, really good post. But ya off topic.

Dudes get a sick physique

151

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What gets me…are the people who felt the need to shit on this guy’s progress.

If you see something like this and the first thing you harp on is whether he used steroids or you start implying that he will die soon, you are probably on the wrong forum.

Some of the people here suck.[/quote]

Well people have to talk about something. That’s why 70% of the comments in this thread aren’t directly connected to that dude. I mean sure we could just post his pics up and act slightly homosexual by analyzing the guy’s physique but that’s just pointless. People like this guy stir debate; make things interesting.

152

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I once read a bio of Einstein and apparently he wasn’t that great a student and relied on his college roommate to get notes and stuff for his classes. Having said that, it is possible to increase intelligence - learn lots about a variety of things. The more you learn, the more actual, physical connections are built in your brain. And learning about a variety of things builds cross-connections.[/quote]

It’s called neuroplasticity and synaptogenesis. Basically, the more you utilise your brain for a particular task, the beter and better it becomes at that task or tasks that are closely related.

This concept lies with the ‘nurture over nature’ crowd I guess. Because all brains have th capacity for neuroplasticity. However synaptogenesis, whilst universal, is definitely better in some individuals. The kids who could think laterally and grasp a new concept and apply it, long before their classmates. This kind of learning is more in the ‘nature over nurture’ IMO.

And whilst synaptogenesis and neuroplasticity are intimately related, both can be dramatically enhanced through the use of nootropics. However each individual already has the mechanisms that are affected by nootropics, but not every brain responds in the same way or to the same degree, because they already have great (or poor) cognitive characteristics. Again, this lends more to the nature over nurture theory IMO.

So whilst there is a strong developmental aspect, there is definitely a strong genetic component too. Persdonally I think that genetics hold the sronger hand, but I could be wrong.

[quote]
So yeah, learning about art may not a directly marketable skill, but this knowledge will do things to your brain that may make a better engineer, for instance. This is why you can meet people with Ph.Ds who can be complete idiots when they’re not talking about their chosen field, but the guy who barely finished high school because he was too busy reading and learning on his own (I knew guys like this) is a genius and can talk comfortably on a variety of topics. [/quote]

I think you need to re-evaluate your definition of genius, lol. I am the guy who can talk in depth on a lot of topics (except art, politics or economics, ha). People refer to me as ‘fascinating to talk to’, but there is no way in hell that I would label myself as ‘genius’. In fact I would be embarrased if anyone else referred to me as such. Surely genius shiould be reserved for the very few who are completely free thinkers who pioneer new areas and master new fields that have not been traversed before. The kind of folks who don’t have an instruction manual or text book to learn from but have to make it up as they go along.

That’s my opinion anyway.

[quote]
I wonder if participating in a variety of sports activities can also set a person up for building a good physique later in life? Hmmmm…[/quote]

I don’t think so, because muscles are just muscles. Sure they can be adapted in certain ways but ultimately they are nowhere near as complex and therefore multifaceted as the CNS.

Even though muscles are ultimatey controlled by the CNS, they just do not possess the same degree of ‘metamorphosis’ as the higher centres of the brain. Sure you can hone reflexes and muscle memory (the neurological version of that, not the hypertrophic version), through playing lots of different sports and become an all-round great athlete. And yes, the constant activity and high level of fitness will show in your physique, but if your “good physique” is a BBing type physique, then BBing is what it takes to get there. Again, this is my opinion.

I enjoyed your post and it got me thinking, so thanks and I hope you don’t take umbrage at my reply :wink:

BBB[/quote]

Great post, BBB. Hopefully these guys put their flawed arguments to rest. In regards to Gladwell’s books, whomever takes any of them seriously, needs to take an introductory course to statistics. The sheer amount of data cherry-picking that he does to support his arguments is nauseating.

153

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What gets me…are the people who felt the need to shit on this guy’s progress.

If you see something like this and the first thing you harp on is whether he used steroids or you start implying that he will die soon, you are probably on the wrong forum.

Some of the people here suck.[/quote]

You always bitch about the same things.
You’re gonna have retards come in and shit all over him. This is true for everything in life.

You know better and know you are better.
Just ignore them and move on, christ.[/quote]

Why are you bitching because I’m bitching?

No, I doubt I will be ignoring all instances of this. I think I will continue to point out the stupidity of logging onto a site called “testosterone” yet trying to call out people with big muscles.
[/quote]

Cause i’m procrastinating.