[quote]brian.m wrote:
we were also designed to work long hard hours, and not eat all this shit we do now…it evens out + much much more if you look at history and the size of everyone (speaking of the majority (see working class) in north america)[/quote]
???
What the heck are you saying?
you were talking about how we were designed to do
well, i figure we were also designed to work hard, and not eat the way we do now
if you weigh out the two things, i think we were not “meant” to be overweight, and as history shows, we are much fatter than say 100 years ago
-i think its pretty clear that before all the junk processed foods and high fructose everything was around, and people worked and played (on average) more phisically (as everything now is designed to allow us to do less phisically), obesity was more of a rarity than normal thing
[quote]rainjack wrote:
dez6485 wrote:
ok, by the CT/Professor X debate, are you talking about the thread about whether or not you can gain muscle while losing fat? the one where 300-400lb obese americans are mentioned?
or is it a different thread? because i read the one that i just referenced above, and didnt see a single comment from CT, although his bulking “method” (or rather the article he wrote about a year ago) were alluded to.
anyway, please clarify, because if CT and Prof X have actually debated recently, id like to read it.
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=866980 [/quote]
thanks
[quote]brian.m wrote:
you were talking about how we were designed to do
well, i figure we were also designed to work hard, and not eat the way we do now
if you weigh out the two things, i think we were not “meant” to be overweight, and as history shows, we are much fatter than say 100 years ago
-i think its pretty clear that before all the junk processed foods and high fructose everything was around, and people worked and played (on average) more phisically (as everything now is designed to allow us to do less phisically), obesity was more of a rarity than normal thing[/quote]
Okay. I could understand that.
I would agree. We are meant, or historically have been designed to store fat, and use it when times got lean - kinda like bears.
We worked long hard hours, and ate comparatively much less than we do today. Our diet used to consist of mainly unprocessed foods. Now it is rare for the average guy to eat an entire meal of whole foods.
In short, things are much different now than they used to be. I just think that there are a lot more naturally fat people out there than there are naturally lean. Just like in the old days, it is still a matter of diet, though.
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
I think CT’s views are perfect for people that aren’t genetically blessed in building muscle or are prone to retaining fat. If a FFB goes on an all out bulk, he will have to diet down for so long he will likely lose the majority of muscle he had gained during the time, thus offsetting any point in bulking. His ideas are also more ideal for those concerned with their health.
Prof. X’s views match well for those with better genetics such as those who can lose fat easier. The all out bulks are also perfect for the potential mass monsters or someone looking to gain mass quickly for powerlifting or to make the football team as a lineman or something similar. [/quote]
I just wanted to comment on what you wrote here. First, not one newbie on the planet, unless they are walking around with arms over 18" before they ever lifted a weight, is going to know how good their genetics potentially are. Only recently has this one FACT been downplayed. It used to be well known that you would have to be in this for 3-4 years before you tried to comparatively judge your genetics against someone else.
That means not one person here knew how well they could gain muscle UNTIL THEY ATE ENOUGH AND TRAINED HARD ENOUGH TO GAIN MUSCLE.
You have newbies ASSUMING based on some articles that they are “FFBs” and several other labels when labeling yourself anything when you first walk in a gym is a huge fucking mistake.
I was a skinny kid. Not one person who knew me at the age of 17 would think I would be the size I am now. That means if I had started this assuming I was a “hardgainer”, I never would have reached my potential. My own self inflicted limitations would have hindered my progress.
Also, just because you were a fat sedentary person before you ever lifted a weight, it does not mean you are so predisposed to carry body fat that you need a label or some off the wall approach. What you would need is to get your sedentary chubby ass into a gym for a long time and see what the hell happens when you clean up your diet yet work your ass off under some heavy weights.
These name tags are stupid. They always have been.
Rainjack is speaking of evolutionary survival principles, ya’ll are attempting to equate to it to ideals of eating clean and working hard. It’s two different things
It’s the difference between idealistic rhetoric and a physiological human survival mechanism.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
These name tags are stupid. They always have been.[/quote]
Agreed, they do nothing cause a mental block which hinders progress.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
brian.m wrote:
you were talking about how we were designed to do
well, i figure we were also designed to work hard, and not eat the way we do now
if you weigh out the two things, i think we were not “meant” to be overweight, and as history shows, we are much fatter than say 100 years ago
-i think its pretty clear that before all the junk processed foods and high fructose everything was around, and people worked and played (on average) more phisically (as everything now is designed to allow us to do less phisically), obesity was more of a rarity than normal thing
Okay. I could understand that.
I would agree. We are meant, or historically have been designed to store fat, and use it when times got lean - kinda like bears.
We worked long hard hours, and ate comparatively much less than we do today. Our diet used to consist of mainly unprocessed foods. Now it is rare for the average guy to eat an entire meal of whole foods.
In short, things are much different now than they used to be. I just think that there are a lot more naturally fat people out there than there are naturally lean. Just like in the old days, it is still a matter of diet, though. [/quote]
I don’t believe this at all. That would be like saying obesity is on the rise because we have evolved into fat asses…and not because we eat like shit, live like shit, and don’t exercise.
I worked with several kids today considering many around this area were off from school for some reason. Just in random conversation, I can tell you that most don’t even go outside to play anymore. Sure, they have video game systems at home that would make me blush…and I have a JOB…but not one of them plays sports, plays outside or just fucking rides a bike around the neighborhood. When these kids turn 25-30 and find themselves on the border of obesity, we shouldn’t claim it was evolution’s fault.
We also shouldn’t call them “FFBs”.
[quote]GetSwole wrote:
Rainjack is speaking of evolutionary survival principles, ya’ll are attempting to equate to it to ideals of eating clean and working hard. It’s two different things
It’s the difference between idealistic rhetoric and a physiological human survival mechanism. [/quote]
I was refuting the kid that said there are just as many predisposed to putting on fat as there are genetic freaks that naturally put on muscle with little effort.
Most everyone will get fat if they don’t take measures not to.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t believe this at all. That would be like saying obesity is on the rise because we have evolved into fat asses…and not because we eat like shit, live like shit, and don’t exercise.[/quote]
You misunderstand if that is what you got from what I said.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I don’t believe this at all. That would be like saying obesity is on the rise because we have evolved into fat asses…and not because we eat like shit, live like shit, and don’t exercise.
You misunderstand if that is what you got from what I said.
[/quote]
How many ways can one take this statement?:
I don’t think there are more naturally fat people than before. I think there are more people who have inherited bad habits and those problems simply compound over generations. How many skinny parents have hugely obese kids?
Short of true rare metabolic disorders, we aren’t that much different than we were 200 years ago…short of having much more estrogen.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
d a physiological human survival mechanism.
I was refuting the kid that said there are just as many predisposed to putting on fat as there are genetic freaks that naturally put on muscle with little effort.
Most everyone will get fat if they don’t take measures not to.
[/quote]
Agreed.
But for now I’m gonna stop commenting. This is getting confusing and clusterfucked.
Transplanted post:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No one has written that someone needs to gain 50lbs of body fat to make gains in muscle mass. I would never recommend that someone gains 50lbs of body fat to gain muscle mass…yet that didn’t stop you from using numbers that ridiculous as if I had.[/quote]
I was specifically referring to Kai Green. He went up to 310lbs this year… last year he competed at around 240. Under the best circumstances he might show up at 255, maybe 260… so that IS a 50lbs gain in fat.
I never said that you recommended getting fat, again, just pointing out one particular case that was mentioned in this thread.
That having been said, I do agree that the approach you take will depend on your goal(s). Some people want to be as big as possible with no intension on ever competing; others want to add as much size as possible while being able to reach peak contest shape; some more people simply want to look good year round… obviously the approach you take will vary in each of those cases.
My good friend is a 2x Junior Canadian National Champion (under 21 years old) and his goal is to turn pro… and he has a legit shot to attain that goal. This year he pulled all the stops and went up to 280 (he is 5’11’'). He kinda reminds me of Trey Brewer. He competed at 220lbs last year and plan on stepping up on stage at 235-240 this year. For this guy, bodybuilding is EVERYTHING and he has the ‘‘true’’ bodybuilder mentality that what you look like the whole year doesn’t mean anything… it’s only how you look on stage that counts.
I will say that this is the FASTEST way to get huge and have success as a bodybuilder IF the proper enhancement is used. Is it the healthy? Probably not. I personally could not do it… I bulked up to 250 last year and felt TERRIBLE and hated the way I looked. To me, it is more important to feel good and look my best most of the year. But I know full well that I will never reach the top echelon of bodybuilding this way, but I do not care about that.
It is true that to be a true mass monster you HAVE to bulk and accept that you will not look great for a good portion of the year.
It is also true that if you want to look good most of the year you will not be able to become a mass freak. It’s all about priorities I guess.
Transplanted post
Professor X wrote:
See, that’s why I like you.
Even though you still go limp-wristed when it comes time to tell the 17 year old stick figure that simply because he got his body fat tested at 15%, it does not mean he needs to diet down to a “CT inspired 10%” just because he assumed every article on this board was made just for him and he heard you gain more fat the higher your percentage.
Transplanted post:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
See, that’s why I like you.
Even though you still go limp-wristed when it comes time to tell the 17 year old stick figure that simply because he got his body fat tested at 15%, it does not mean he needs to diet down to a “CT inspired 10%” just because he assumed every article on this board was made just for him and he heard you gain more fat the higher your percentage.[/quote]
Heck, even Palumbo mentions that 15% is ideal when trying to add mass (and he is known for staying lean year round).
I have seen enough to know that there is not ONE answer to all the situations.
Transplanted post:
[quote]sloh wrote:
Wouldn’t you say that even though you didn’t feel too good at 250 pounds, it DID contribute greatly to the amount of muslce you are carrying right now?
[/quote]
Transplanted post:
Professor X wrote:
[quote]sloh wrote:
Wouldn’t you say that even though you didn’t feel too good at 250 pounds, it DID contribute greatly to the amount of muslce you are carrying right now?[/quote]
I would like to see CT respond to that also, but I know this is what I believe. Another point is that, like in the case of Kai Greene, it would be very shortsighted to ONLY look at what he may diet down to this next time. By even getting up to over 290lbs while remaining relatively lean, he will find that weight much easier to reach again with even less body fat. It has always worked that way for me.
Transplanted post:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]sloh wrote:
Wouldn’t you say that even though you didn’t feel too good at 250 pounds, it DID contribute greatly to the amount of muslce you are carrying right now?[/quote]
Honestly, not really. I went from 215 to 252… then dieted down and ended back down to 217.
Transplanted post:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Another point is that, like in the case of Kai Greene, it would be very shortsighted to ONLY look at what he may diet down to this next time. By even getting up to over 290lbs while remaining relatively lean, he will find that weight much easier to reach again with even less body fat. It has always worked that way for me.[/quote]
I don’t disagree. But my original point, the one that has not been addressed so far, is that bulking/cutting while using bodybuilding drugs is not the same thing at all as doing it naturally.
Bulking while enhancing your natural physiology by using steroids, hGH, IGF-1, MGF, insulin, etc. DRASTICALLY increases the amount of nutrients that your body can use to build muscle tissue and thus reduces the amount of nutrients that will be turned into fat.
Cutting while using the same physiological agents will prevent muscle loss while dieting. And using fat-loss enhancing drugs like DNP, cytomel, clenbuterol/albuterol and the likes will allow one to shed fat at a MUCH faster pace.
THAT was my original point: that it is a BIG mistake to look at what pro bodybuilders are doing to bulk/cut and apply the same approach if you are natural.
Transplanted post:
Professor X wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Another point is that, like in the case of Kai Greene, it would be very shortsighted to ONLY look at what he may diet down to this next time. By even getting up to over 290lbs while remaining relatively lean, he will find that weight much easier to reach again with even less body fat. It has always worked that way for me.
I don’t disagree. But my original point, the one that has not been addressed so far, is that bulking/cutting while using bodybuilding drugs is not the same thing at all as doing it naturally.
Bulking while enhancing your natural physiology by using steroids, hGH, IGF-1, MGF, insulin, etc. DRASTICALLY increases the amount of nutrients that your body can use to build muscle tissue and thus reduces the amount of nutrients that will be turned into fat.
Cutting while using the same physiological agents will prevent muscle loss while dieting. And using fat-loss enhancing drugs like DNP, cytomel, clenbuterol/albuterol and the likes will allow one to shed fat at a MUCH faster pace.
No one wrote that you should follow everything someone who uses anabolics should do, however, the fundamental action is still the same. The simple fact is, you are as big as you are BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN MUCH HEAVIER…yet you downplay this over and over. You have weighed 250lbs or more yet act like it has NOTHING at all to do with how you look now.
Why do you do this? That is like me dieting down to 240lbs and then telling everyone not to bulk up like I did. Well, gee, that kind of sounds a whole lot like, “do as I say and not as I do”, doesn’t it?
It comes down to this; you seem to believe all of that bulking up you’ve done doesn’t deserve much credit for how you look now…while I believe that it has a very significant part in how you look now.
You have newbies who have no experience with this in fear of gaining any body fat at all. We see it on the forums all of the time.
How do you all keep missing it?