CT & Professor X's Discussion

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.

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]

I feel you on that X, when I was young I played outside all day long and never gain a pound. I hated being in the house and they had video games back then, but they also had basketball courts and football fields. I was 5 ‘10’ weighing in at 155lbs.

When I got into college and stop playing sports I went up to 210lbs. I ate the same as I did in High School. Change my diet and walk a mile a day and lift weights and I was back to 165lbs in 2.5 months. The problem is kids are getting lazy.

62

[quote]dannyrat wrote:

Maybe.

You (professor x) becried the youth’s ignorance of the ‘vacuum pose’ in the thread alluded to by tribulus, and linked by rainjack. If you re-read what you said, you were criticisng those who disliked/disrespected this ‘small waist’. [/quote]

Dude, this thread was linked because of a discussion between me and CT AT THE END OF THAT THREAD. It has nothing to do with some discussion we started 3 years ago about vacuum poses. You still aren’t making much sense by relating a pose that was meant to show off more than just someone’s waist to anorexia.
No one is in the dark about people having different goals.

63

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I will say one thing, though, with all the information available now in a second, there sure do seem to be a shit load MORE clueless people walking around.

Bodybuilding should have remained underground.

Did somebody wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

[/quote]

That was in response to dannyrat’s comment about info being easier to find in the 70’s.

64

Look man, i read that stuff then, i revised it just then looking for some insight i din’t already had, and all i read was confusion. If there’s a point to what i’m saying- it’s why argue. I feel that it’s far better to help. That’s all.

I agree that vacuum thing had limited relevance to the whole discussion. It was just ironic that the dude alluding to greater food and periodically lax waistline at the same time acknowledged the merit of having a thin stomach, even for men, as men like to be sexy and all that too.

The #1 reason why i eat in excess in moderation when i do, and not all-out (cos its hard to eat 7000 totally clean kcals) is because due to shit i won’t go into, when i was younger, i was a bit chubby, despite activity. I have a beautiful girlfriend but still want to have some semblance of leanness most of the time, cos it’s just my pride.

I don’t like this ‘it should be underground’ shit. Maybe duchaine, and gironda, or poliquin, or starr, or any fucking one who shed some light on esoteric things, should have kept it to themselves?

Humbly, please could you help me out and supply a few bulletpoints to clarify how, in your experience, someone who tends to chub could get bigger and stronger, but also lean.

(ie do you suggest that people bulk 20% above lean weight then have a diet period of concentrated intensity, or what? If it’s plain to you, can you explain?) Maybe you don’t want to “gracefully surrender the things of youth” but if you do, i’d appreciate it.

65

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
Look man, i read that stuff then, i revised it just then looking for some insight i din’t already had, and all i read was confusion. If there’s a point to what i’m saying- it’s why argue. I feel that it’s far better to help. That’s all.

I agree that vacuum thing had limited relevance to the whole discussion. It was just ironic that the dude alluding to greater food and periodically lax waistline at the same time acknowledged the merit of having a thin stomach, even for men, as men like to be sexy and all that too.

The #1 reason why i eat in excess in moderation when i do, and not all-out (cos its hard to eat 7000 totally clean kcals) is because due to shit i won’t go into, when i was younger, i was a bit chubby, despite activity. I have a beautiful girlfriend but still want to have some semblance of leanness most of the time, cos it’s just my pride.

I don’t like this ‘it should be underground’ shit. Maybe duchaine, and gironda, or poliquin, or starr, or any fucking one who shed some light on esoteric things, should have kept it to themselves?
Humbly, please could you help me out and supply a few bulletpoints to clarify how, in your experience, someone who tends to chub could get bigger and stronger, but also lean. (ie do you suggest that people bulk 20% above lean weight then have a diet period of concentrated intensity, or what? If it’s plain to you, can you explain?) Maybe you don’t want to ‘lay down the fruits of your years’ but if you do, i’d appreciate it. [/quote]

SHow me an argument in this thread. Hell, show me an argument between ProfX and CT. I wanted to see one, and was sadly disappointed.

You have a history of showing up on threads and trying to offer insight, and assistance where none is needed, or wanted - at least not from you.

You have no tangible understanding of the vacuum pose, as if that had a damn thing to do with the discussion at hand. Your grasp of BBing is that of a beginner.

Try to go somewhere else to sound relevant. You get so caught up in trying to sound smart that your posts are largely unintelligible.

Please, don’t soil this thread by continuing to post in it. You need to be quiet and read. You may actually learn something.

66

I try to learn, or help TRUE beginners, cos i have empathy for them, and i’m able to lift fairly well. I don’t ever go in and say “look what you need to do to get a 500lb bench is…” cos i don’t know. Also, to Clarify,

GOAL OF THE VACUUM POSE= THIN STOMACH
GOAL OF ANOREXIA= THIN STOMACH.

I remember what disagreeing with ‘rainjack’ is like (long, boring, frustrating, pointless) and i’m not in the mood, so do what you want, i won’t comment any more. Except that you “turned up looking for an argument” is very true.

I don’t get any ego from disagreements or advice on the internet. I believe that would be pathetic.

67

[quote]dannyrat wrote:

I don’t like this ‘it should be underground’ shit. [/quote]

Probably because then there would be no one to relate the vacuum pose to anorexia, or the complication of information (such as a simple thing as bulking). You’d feel pretty lonely, then.

68

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
I don’t get any ego from disagreements or advice on the internet. I believe that would be pathetic.[/quote]

This is an outright lie. You wouldn’t post at all if you truly felt this way.

Like I said, if you stop typing and read, you might just learn something.

69

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I will say one thing, though, with all the information available now in a second, there sure do seem to be a shit load MORE clueless people walking around.

Bodybuilding should have remained underground.

Did somebody wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

[/quote]

With as much as he sleeps he probably doesn’t have a bed

I’m torn about this part of the deal. I like reading a thousand different views on everything and on it’s broadest level it can only be good if more people try to be healthy. On the other hand, for people with ultimate personal size as their goal, the information gets mixed up with the general fitness information and all manner of confusion ensues as we all have seen.

My driving passion since I’ve been here is for people who want to celebrate their 40th birthday virtually unrecognizable to their mother from the neck down, to state it dramatically.

Getting “in shape” is a non accomplishment as far as the actual effort it takes to do it. I’m sorry folks, but with a little will power and desire (ok, maybe a lot) any frickin body can get themselves healthy and toned. They don’t because they lack enough of that desire and will power.

Go ahead and continue writing 12 volume analyses of all the deep hidden troubles these people suffer from, but in the end when the pain of continuing exceeds the pain of change, they will… maybe.

I’m not talking about those people. Don’t eat as damn much and do just about any kind of exercise and you’ll get there. I’m talking about people who want to stand out as being the pinnacle of personal physical achievement. I don’t know at what point the recommended methods for those people became just about the same as for the general fitness group.

70

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I will say one thing, though, with all the information available now in a second, there sure do seem to be a shit load MORE clueless people walking around.

Bodybuilding should have remained underground.

Did somebody wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

With as much as he sleeps he probably doesn’t have a bed

I’m torn about this part of the deal. I like reading a thousand different views on everything and on it’s broadest level it can only be good if more people try to be healthy. On the other hand, for people with ultimate personal size as their goal, the information gets mixed up with the general fitness information and all manner of confusion ensues as we all have seen.

My driving passion since I’ve been here is for people who want to celebrate their 40th birthday virtually unrecognizable to their mother from the neck down, to state it dramatically.

Getting “in shape” is a non accomplishment as far as the actual effort it takes to do it. I’m sorry folks, but with a little will power and desire (ok, maybe a lot) any frickin body can get themselves healthy and toned. They don’t because they lack enough of that desire and will power. Go ahead and continue writing 12 volume analyses of all the deep hidden troubles these people suffer from, but in the end when the pain of continuing exceeds the pain of change, they will… maybe.

I’m not talking about those people. Don’t eat as damn much and do just about any kind of exercise and you’ll get there. I’m talking about people who want to stand out as being the pinnacle of personal physical achievement. I don’t know at what point the recommended methods for those people became just about the same as for the general fitness group.

[/quote]
It isn’t even that complicated, or at least it shouldn’t be. Only recently has this board changed its focus so much that you have BODYBUILDING info being handed out right next to individuals who act like any more muscle than “average” will kill them. We shouldn’t even be catering this discussion to include the “I just want to be toned” crowd.

…and you’re right. I sold my bed to make more room for the stripper pole.

71

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

The truth
[/quote]

I <3 your posts.

72

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
GOAL OF THE VACUUM POSE= THIN STOMACH
GOAL OF ANOREXIA= THIN STOMACH.
[/quote]

Seriously? I can’t fathom how you are comparing the two. Utter nonsense.

73

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
I don’t like this ‘it should be underground’ shit. Maybe duchaine, and gironda, or poliquin, or starr, or any fucking one who shed some light on esoteric things, should have kept it to themselves? [/quote]

I doubt any of those men would foresee an era where bodybuilding was so misunderstood, yet at the same time widely popular and known by the general public, that people would relate vacuum poses to anorexia on BODYBUILDING DISCUSSION FORUMS.

75

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
They are out there.

And let’s not forget those who lack the myostatin gene. Bastards.

Bushy[/quote]

Yeah I know those people exist, what I meant was more along the lines of “unless there was a hyper responder in that group”.

Also the myostatin people, Michael Lockett has that double muscled bull look to him and Flex Wheeler was shown to be deficent/lacking that gene, screw them haha.

76

350×524 82.5 KB

Does anyone see this picture and have the word anorexic cross their mind at any point? Unless maybe it’s in the context of “Damn I feel freakin anorexic right now compared to that guy”

77

[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< It isn’t even that complicated, or at least it shouldn’t be. Only recently has this board changed its focus so much that you have BODYBUILDING info being handed out right next to individuals who act like any more muscle than “average” will kill them. We shouldn’t even be catering this discussion to include the “I just want to be toned” crowd.[/quote]

I do believe TC when he essentially says that the direction of the site is being driven by popular demand. (feel free to jump in Mr. Luoma, this is my take) The number of hardcore trainees is dwindling thus making it less and less viable to focus on that demographic. That’s not their fault and their commercial survival is at stake.

I don’t know what else their supposed to do. It hasn’t been so much lately, but my dismay arises when size IS the topic at hand and long standing methods of success are viewed as obsolete at best and dangerous at worst. At least by some, I don’t mean to say that this is an actual crusade.

[quote]
…and you’re right. I sold my bed to make more room for the stripper pole.[/quote]

That’s great!!! See now you can dispel all those myths about how functionless big guys like you are. Please keep the g-string though before posting vids.

78

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< It isn’t even that complicated, or at least it shouldn’t be. Only recently has this board changed its focus so much that you have BODYBUILDING info being handed out right next to individuals who act like any more muscle than “average” will kill them. We shouldn’t even be catering this discussion to include the “I just want to be toned” crowd.

I do believe TC when he essentially says that the direction of the site is being driven by popular demand. (feel free to jump in Mr. Luoma, this is my take) The number of hardcore trainees is dwindling thus making it less and less viable to focus on that demographic. That’s not their fault and their commercial survival is at stake. I don’t know what else their supposed to do. It hasn’t been so much lately, but my dismay arises when size IS the topic at hand and long standing methods of success are viewed as obsolete at best and dangerous at worst. At least by some, I don’t mean to say that this is an actual crusade.

…and you’re right. I sold my bed to make more room for the stripper pole.

That’s great!!! See now you can dispel all those myths about how functionless big guys like you are. Please keep the g-string though before posting vids.[/quote]

We run articles about how to build muscle, articles about how to keep that muscle functional and healthy, and occasionally, articles to improve athletic performance.

I don’t put my finger out to test the breezes of public opinion; I simply run articles that I find interesting and that give me pieces of the “puzzle” of weightlifting. It’s not really driven so much by market forces; just my hopefully logical view of weightlifting.

Just about everything we run can be applied to any athlete, whether that athlete wants to build as much muscle as possible, simply look good naked, or whether that athlete simply wants to jump higher.

I’ve personally employed 90% of the training methodologies we’ve run on the site. Often, what constitutes whether they end up being bodybuilding or strength training or performance enhancing routines is how much food I’m eating at the particular time.

Regardless, if I get an article tomorrow about how to turn into the biggest mofo on the planet and it involves eating 10,000 calories a day, I’d run it…as long as it made sense and gave me another piece of the puzzle.

79

[quote]TC wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< It isn’t even that complicated, or at least it shouldn’t be. Only recently has this board changed its focus so much that you have BODYBUILDING info being handed out right next to individuals who act like any more muscle than “average” will kill them. We shouldn’t even be catering this discussion to include the “I just want to be toned” crowd.

I do believe TC when he essentially says that the direction of the site is being driven by popular demand. (feel free to jump in Mr. Luoma, this is my take) The number of hardcore trainees is dwindling thus making it less and less viable to focus on that demographic. That’s not their fault and their commercial survival is at stake. I don’t know what else their supposed to do. It hasn’t been so much lately, but my dismay arises when size IS the topic at hand and long standing methods of success are viewed as obsolete at best and dangerous at worst. At least by some, I don’t mean to say that this is an actual crusade.

…and you’re right. I sold my bed to make more room for the stripper pole.

That’s great!!! See now you can dispel all those myths about how functionless big guys like you are. Please keep the g-string though before posting vids.

We run articles about how to build muscle, articles about how to keep that muscle functional and healthy, and occasionally, articles to improve athletic performance.

I don’t put my finger out to test the breezes of public opinion; I simply run articles that I find interesting and that give me pieces of the “puzzle” of weightlifting. It’s not really driven so much by market forces; just my hopefully logical view of weightlifting.

Just about everything we run can be applied to any athlete, whether that athlete wants to build as much muscle as possible, simply look good naked, or whether that athlete simply wants to jump higher.

I’ve personally employed 90% of the training methodologies we’ve run on the site. Often, what constitutes whether they end up being bodybuilding or strength training or performance enhancing routines is how much food I’m eating at the particular time.

Regardless, if I get an article tomorrow about how to turn into the biggest mofo on the planet and it involves eating 10,000 calories a day, I’d run it…as long as it made sense and gave me another piece of the puzzle.
[/quote]

I think CT’s ecto training article would be a great piece to the puzzle!

80

[quote]Professor X wrote:

…and you’re right. I sold my bed to make more room for the stripper pole.[/quote]

ahaha I love this quote