Deal with Eminem Wannabe's?

Training Bodybuilding
101

Nice post. If it came across that I think everyone who does not support the BB style and does not have the same goals as me are pussies, than I was either misunderstood or my choice of words was poor.

What I am saying is that if this is supposed to be a BB site, then why is it that I have to defend my training style and lifestyle against seemingly 60% of the pricks that have ever touched a dumbbell and dont know what the hell they are talking about most of the time.

I am tired of these 17 year old kids talking about shit they dont know anything about it. I have no problem helping out a younger lifter and many on this site who have PM’d me can attest to that. I just have very little patience with the ignorant stuff that is posted on this site.

[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
Even the regular writers on the site address and support non-bodybuilding sports in their recommendations for training. Great articles on MMA strength training and others.

There are some truly huge, ripped guys on this site (props to Prof X) whom I have a great deal of respect. Personally, it’s not my goal to be 260 with 10% BF and able to do combined lifts over 1800 lbs. Due to my job and personal goals, getting to 215 with 10% BF with combined lifts of 1200 and able to run 5 miles in 40 min is my target.

Does that make me a “pussy”? The dietary discipline alone is something I’m unable (not unwilling) to adhere to perfectly due to frequent travel and austere work places. Not to mention the lack of ideal training facilities. Although, I am fortunate enough to have internet access to this website with some great ideas on strength and fitness.

I see no need for a “war”. I’ve already got plenty of that. How about recognizing there are different goals, not everybody is a pure bodybuilder, that those of us who lift hard and train hard will be hard? Those who aren’t willing to commit and get large, let them go, and don’t try to stop them. They just make us look even better and more disciplined.

[/quote]

102

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It makes you wonder why people are putting up boundaries as if they are trying to make bodybuilding look bad. That is where many of these terms come from, like “functional” or the few who seem to log on and bitch about gaining muscle as if everyone wants to look like Ronnie Coleman. [/quote]

The funniest part- The workouts posted by the same people are high rep splits.

It has to be rationalization. The old “I can’t have it, therefore I don’t want it” type of thinking.

I think (but not too well) that there has been an overall shift in thinking on what it takes to get big and strong. Once upon a time, before anybody knew that pro BB’rs did steroids- people would hit the weights, bust their balls, and get some damn good results. Now that the cat is out of the bag- and on t.v., in the papers, and everywhere else- alot of people conclude that you can’t get very big, or get very good results without steroids. Never mind hard work, It must be the juice.

My conclusion is that the majority of people who place limits or talk shit just have a very dim and superficial view of what it takes to get results. Combine that with a lack of work ethic, and you end up with a bunch of “functional” trainers, Eminem wannabes, and guys that want- “a six pack, but not all huge and shit”.

Fuck’em. They become disenchanted and go away soon enough.

103

So you equate the lifestyle with taking gear? There are plenty of natural BB’rs I know who go about the BB lifestyle without taking any gear. I consider myself to be one of them. I will be the first to admit that I started a cycle once before and I have also been the first to admit, it was a complete disaster and I stopped 4 weeks into it.

And who said anything about being fat. Even at 282 without gear my BF% never peaked over 15%, you call that fat?

I think the statement you made about very BB’r ending up as an fat old guy with joint problems is just plain stupid.

So you want to be lean and save your back. I can respect that. Well I want to be the biggest animal in the yard. I agree with you that different people have different goals but your generalizations are ridiculous and make me think you also do not have a clue what you are talking about. I hope you can convince me otherwise.

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Dr. Stig wrote:
Its just harder for those of us who want to be as big as poss, to see the reasoning of just wanting abs or to bring the arms up to get into a bird’s knickers.

When you’ve spent years stuffing your face, putting up with sore legs, injuries, being fat, being bloated, being anxious as hell on stimulants, jabbing gear in yer ass (that bits optional) and general dedication, just wanting to get abs and biceps for the ladies is meaningless.

I think this is the root of the perceived problem. There are a bunch of guys here who live this lifestyle. Some of us choose a different lifestyle. I’m in the military.

I am subject to random urinalysis. I can get court martialed and discharged for taking “gear”. I am also required to maintain a certain body composition. “being fat, being bloated” is not a good thing and can also get me kicked out. Being able to run fast is something all military folks get graded on. Hugeness won’t help there. Everyone has different goals in the weightroom. That doesn’t make anyone more or less dedicated simply because they don’t share your goals.

Also, at age 36, I’m not interested in gaining a lot of weight, getting fat and having constantly sore joints. I don’t want to be that huge old fat guy limping around the gym bragging about squatting 600lbs “back in the day” who has a bad back and blown out knees. The metabolism only slows down. If I don’t get lean and stay lean now it will be almost impossible later. When I was in my 20’s I was all about getting huge, took all kinds of supplements, did all kinds of crazy lifts. Now I have a torn disk in my back and a bad shoulder to show for it.

Different goals, that’s all.

[/quote]

104

Time to get this thread back on the original track. Not much has changed as far as role models go. The “hot” guys in magazines and TV have always been lean. Jim Palmer (pitcher, Baltimore Orioles) was not a muscular guy, but his poster with him in his underwear was probably the most popular poster of all time (next to Farrah Faucett in the red one-piece. I actually had that on a T-Shirt). Just a lean athletic guy.

Steve Reeves was a freak in his day, but the Marlon Brando/James Dean look was what people wanted. Arnold did a lot to popularize muscle, but bodybuilding was still an underground endeavor and huge muscles were mostly undesireable to the general public.

However, today’s lean guys are more muscular then before. Compared to 20, 30, 40 years ago, today’s popular Brad Pitt look is very muscular. Guys are a lot bigger on average than they used to be. Your average high school football team is as big as pro teams from the 50’s. Those skinny guys in the gym today are bigger than the skinny guys from a generation ago (today’s big guys are freakin’ massive). Vince Lombardi played offensive line in college on a national powerhouse team 180lbs!

We all started somewhere. I started lifting at 130lbs with little 5lb dumbbells in my bedroom back in the late 70’s. Didn’t know what I was doing, but I was doing something. Give the “skinny” guys a break. 180lbs isn’t small. Compared to today’s giants, yes, but in historical perspective that’s a decent sized dude.

105

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

The funniest part- The workouts posted by the same people are high rep splits.

It has to be rationalization. The old “I can’t have it, therefore I don’t want it” type of thinking.

I think (but not too well) that there has been an overall shift in thinking on what it takes to get big and strong. Once upon a time, before anybody knew that pro BB’rs did steroids- people would hit the weights, bust their balls, and get some damn good results. Now that the cat is out of the bag- and on t.v., in the papers, and everywhere else- alot of people conclude that you can’t get very big, or get very good results without steroids. Never mind hard work, It must be the juice.

My conclusion is that the majority of people who place limits or talk shit just have a very dim and superficial view of what it takes to get results. Combine that with a lack of work ethic, and you end up with a bunch of “functional” trainers, Eminem wannabes, and guys that want- “a six pack, but not all huge and shit”.

Fuck’em. They become disenchanted and go away soon enough.

[/quote]

Good post.

106

180 is skinny if you are tall. Trust me, I know. I came here in 95 at 6 '4.5 , weighing 170 and even at 180 I looked skinny as shit. My coach would not even talk to me, he came out of his office and said “weight room” The next time I saw him was bball practise three months later.

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Time to get this thread back on the original track. Not much has changed as far as role models go. The “hot” guys in magazines and TV have always been lean. Jim Palmer (pitcher, Baltimore Orioles) was not a muscular guy, but his poster with him in his underwear was probably the most popular poster of all time (next to Farrah Faucett in the red one-piece. I actually had that on a T-Shirt). Just a lean athletic guy.

Steve Reeves was a freak in his day, but the Marlon Brando/James Dean look was what people wanted. Arnold did a lot to popularize muscle, but bodybuilding was still an underground endeavor and huge muscles were mostly undesireable to the general public.

However, today’s lean guys are more muscular then before. Compared to 20, 30, 40 years ago, today’s popular Brad Pitt look is very muscular. Guys are a lot bigger on average than they used to be. Your average high school football team is as big as pro teams from the 50’s. Those skinny guys in the gym today are bigger than the skinny guys from a generation ago (today’s big guys are freakin’ massive). Vince Lombardi played offensive line in college on a national powerhouse team 180lbs!

We all started somewhere. I started lifting at 130lbs with little 5lb dumbbells in my bedroom back in the late 70’s. Didn’t know what I was doing, but I was doing something. Give the “skinny” guys a break. 180lbs isn’t small. Compared to today’s giants, yes, but in historical perspective that’s a decent sized dude. [/quote]

107

[quote]Amsterdam Animal wrote:
So you equate the lifestyle with taking gear? There are plenty of natural BB’rs I know who go about the BB lifestyle without taking any gear. I consider myself to be one of them. I will be the first to admit that I started a cycle once before and I have also been the first to admit, it was a complete disaster and I stopped 4 weeks into it.

And who said anything about being fat. Even at 282 without gear my BF% never peaked over 15%, you call that fat?

I think the statement you made about very BB’r ending up as an fat old guy with joint problems is just plain stupid.

So you want to be lean and save your back. I can respect that. Well I want to be the biggest animal in the yard. I agree with you that different people have different goals but your generalizations are ridiculous and make me think you also do not have a clue what you are talking about. I hope you can convince me otherwise.

[/quote]

My reference to gear was in response to another post. I know you can get really big without it. I never said all BB’rs end up fat and broken. I said I have personally known many who ended up that way. I screwed up my back trying to get huge. TO ME, I’m not going to risk another major injury just to be a hero in the gym. I also said I have personally know many skinny runners who also screwed themselves up. I made no generalizations, I made reference to people I have personally known. And with over 17 years of serious gym-rat experience (a lot of which, in retrospect, was wasted time), I’ve met a lot of fellow gym-rats. I’m not trying to start a fight or criticize anyone. I respect your goals and progress. I hope you can respect mine. There’s room for all of us on this site.

108

amsterdamn…youre needlessly hostile…i feel like im on a message board with a bunch of hormonal 15 year old girls sometimes…

i asked a simple question earlier regarding the view of bodybuilders to normal guys like myself, and was rudely asnwered. i even gave several compliments to people like yourself, who i am trying to learn from. now you start talking about a war and all this bullshit?.. take a chill pill. youre obiously much older than myself. but it is also obvious that your maturity level has not progressed with your age.

noone has attacked the bodybuilding lifestyle, some have simply stated they prefer an alternate one, and noone is arguing with you. take a deep breath and relax.

109

[quote]Amsterdam Animal wrote:
180 is skinny if you are tall. Trust me, I know. I came here in 95 at 6 '4.5 , weighing 170 and even at 180 I looked skinny as shit. My coach would not even talk to me, he came out of his office and said “weight room” The next time I saw him was bball practise three months later.

PGJ wrote:
Time to get this thread back on the original track. Not much has changed as far as role models go. The “hot” guys in magazines and TV have always been lean. Jim Palmer (pitcher, Baltimore Orioles) was not a muscular guy, but his poster with him in his underwear was probably the most popular poster of all time (next to Farrah Faucett in the red one-piece. I actually had that on a T-Shirt). Just a lean athletic guy.

Steve Reeves was a freak in his day, but the Marlon Brando/James Dean look was what people wanted. Arnold did a lot to popularize muscle, but bodybuilding was still an underground endeavor and huge muscles were mostly undesireable to the general public.

However, today’s lean guys are more muscular then before. Compared to 20, 30, 40 years ago, today’s popular Brad Pitt look is very muscular. Guys are a lot bigger on average than they used to be. Your average high school football team is as big as pro teams from the 50’s. Those skinny guys in the gym today are bigger than the skinny guys from a generation ago (today’s big guys are freakin’ massive). Vince Lombardi played offensive line in college on a national powerhouse team 180lbs!

We all started somewhere. I started lifting at 130lbs with little 5lb dumbbells in my bedroom back in the late 70’s. Didn’t know what I was doing, but I was doing something. Give the “skinny” guys a break. 180lbs isn’t small. Compared to today’s giants, yes, but in historical perspective that’s a decent sized dude.

[/quote]

Yes, you are correct. 6’4" and 180 is pretty skinny. Me, at 5’7" and 180 isn’t so bad. In 1983, I was one of two freshmen on the H.S. football team. I was all of 130lbs and only a little undersized for a receiver. By my senior year I was 145lbs and average. Our biggest guy was about 250. There’s a guy here in Georgia playing HS ball at 6’9" and 380lbs, and he’s not fat. Insane! I wish my HS coach pushed the weight room. He was old school and didn’t believe in lifting. 4 years later, my brother is a senior and lifting huge weights as part of the HS football program.

110

[quote]Patrick Williams wrote:
Even the regular writers on the site address and support non-bodybuilding sports in their recommendations for training. Great articles on MMA strength training and others.

There are some truly huge, ripped guys on this site (props to Prof X) whom I have a great deal of respect. Personally, it’s not my goal to be 260 with 10% BF and able to do combined lifts over 1800 lbs. Due to my job and personal goals, getting to 215 with 10% BF with combined lifts of 1200 and able to run 5 miles in 40 min is my target.

Does that make me a “pussy”? The dietary discipline alone is something I’m unable (not unwilling) to adhere to perfectly due to frequent travel and austere work places. Not to mention the lack of ideal training facilities. Although, I am fortunate enough to have internet access to this website with some great ideas on strength and fitness.

I see no need for a “war”. I’ve already got plenty of that. How about recognizing there are different goals, not everybody is a pure bodybuilder, that those of us who lift hard and train hard will be hard? Those who aren’t willing to commit and get large, let them go, and don’t try to stop them. They just make us look even better and more disciplined.

[/quote]

thank you. great post…well thought out i agree 100%

111

[quote]PGJ wrote:

My reference to gear was in response to another post. I know you can get really big without it. I never said all BB’rs end up fat and broken. I said I have personally known many who ended up that way. I screwed up my back trying to get huge. TO ME, I’m not going to risk another major injury just to be a hero in the gym. I also said I have personally know many skinny runners who also screwed themselves up. I made no generalizations, I made reference to people I have personally known. And with over 17 years of serious gym-rat experience (a lot of which, in retrospect, was wasted time), I’ve met a lot of fellow gym-rats. I’m not trying to start a fight or criticize anyone. I respect your goals and progress. I hope you can respect mine. There’s room for all of us on this site. [/quote]

So…why are you trying to be different than the rest of us?

112

Any 17 year old kid that tells me to take a chill pill would absolutely get smacked silly if they did so to my face. Add a few comments like you did in your post below and you have a recipe for disaster. But then again, you are “bigmike”, haha.

Seriously kid, I dont really have the time nor the will to argue with someone who isnt out of puberty yet.

The war reference did not come from me, it was merely supported by me. If you paid attention in high school you would have learned how to read.

[quote]bigmike88 wrote:
amsterdamn…youre needlessly hostile…i feel like im on a message board with a bunch of hormonal 15 year old girls sometimes…

i asked a simple question earlier regarding the view of bodybuilders to normal guys like myself, and was rudely asnwered. i even gave several compliments to people like yourself, who i am trying to learn from. now you start talking about a war and all this bullshit?.. take a chill pill. youre obiously much older than myself. but it is also obvious that your maturity level has not progressed with your age.

noone has attacked the bodybuilding lifestyle, some have simply stated they prefer an alternate one, and noone is arguing with you. take a deep breath and relax. [/quote]

113

Thanks for the clarification. I am not trying to start a fight, i dont think there is such a thing over the internet. If there was, bigmike88 would have been knocked the fuck out over the last post he submitted

With me it is never about not respecting someone’s goals that are different than mine. It is about defending my goals and lifestyle to people who attack that lifestyle b/c their goals are different.

I get irritated when the latest young punk comes around and posts a bunch of ignorant shit in an attempt to be funny. And then turns around and says he wants to learn from guys like us and pays us compliments. Oh how times have changed. When I was 17 I would not even think to talk like that to people who obviously know more than me, regardless of the vehicle of communication.

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Amsterdam Animal wrote:
So you equate the lifestyle with taking gear? There are plenty of natural BB’rs I know who go about the BB lifestyle without taking any gear. I consider myself to be one of them. I will be the first to admit that I started a cycle once before and I have also been the first to admit, it was a complete disaster and I stopped 4 weeks into it.

And who said anything about being fat. Even at 282 without gear my BF% never peaked over 15%, you call that fat?

I think the statement you made about very BB’r ending up as an fat old guy with joint problems is just plain stupid.

So you want to be lean and save your back. I can respect that. Well I want to be the biggest animal in the yard. I agree with you that different people have different goals but your generalizations are ridiculous and make me think you also do not have a clue what you are talking about. I hope you can convince me otherwise.

My reference to gear was in response to another post. I know you can get really big without it. I never said all BB’rs end up fat and broken. I said I have personally known many who ended up that way. I screwed up my back trying to get huge. TO ME, I’m not going to risk another major injury just to be a hero in the gym. I also said I have personally know many skinny runners who also screwed themselves up. I made no generalizations, I made reference to people I have personally known. And with over 17 years of serious gym-rat experience (a lot of which, in retrospect, was wasted time), I’ve met a lot of fellow gym-rats. I’m not trying to start a fight or criticize anyone. I respect your goals and progress. I hope you can respect mine. There’s room for all of us on this site. [/quote]

114

All things otherwise equal, I’d rather be 220 @ 5’9 than 160. However, at some point (which I’m yet to hit and will only know it when I reach it), any more size will not be worth the trade offs.

There are hundreds of trade-offs in the pursuit of size. To name a few:

  • Grocery bill
  • Lipid profile
  • Sprinting speed
  • Aerobic endurance
  • Mainstream visual appeal
  • Injuries
  • Clothing fit
  • Time in gym

We all place different values on these things. The truly hardcore (and ultimately, the truly successful) have a value system that is skewed heavily in one direction.

That said, there are lots of common misconceptions about these trade-offs, but there are grains of truth in most of them. Most people think size = slow, which is not true (up to a point). However, you eventually will reach a level where more size will slow you down, which is why you don’t see 300lb Olympic 800m sprinters. If you place a high priority on sprinting speed, then you’re going to want to keep a close eye on whether any more size would improve your performance or possibly degrade it.

Personally, I’m more of a generalist. I’d rather rate an “8” in as many categories as possible (strength, size, flexiblity, aerobic endurance, etc) than score a “10” in one area if it meant a “5/6” in others. Of course, my perception of an “8” in size is much larger than the average person’s, I’m sure.

I can’t blame 16 year olds who want to look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club. It’s all about chasing the tail in high school, and the pursuit of this physique will probably get you more social success at that age than being larger/softer while you bulk. Also, when I was in high school, a 180lb guy who trained was pretty damn big and is probably the statistical equivalent of a 25 year old at a lean 220lbs.

So to sum up my point here: let’s be tolerant of other people’s value systems, have some patience with the 16 year old crowd because they’re still kids, and realize that goals/values are constantly changing. The Bigmikes of today could very well be the ProfX’s of tomorrow.

115

I know I’m a little behind here, so I’ll try not to rehash anything old, but the above statement surprises me. Aren’t you in the the Marine Corps? I was in the Marine Corps and seen many very large Marines. Not all were competiton ready, but most were a good 6 months away from being ready (in either size or leanness).

Also, back to me being 220. I need to be 220 for people to know I lift. If I was a ripped 175, no one would know I lifted, and no one sees my abs with my shirt on. However, at 220, you can see I lift when I’m fully dressed. And I’m dressed a lot more often than I’m not. So, in my opinion, the six pack doesn’t serve me well. I’m not trying to argue, just explaining my rationale for not being as strict with my diet and body fat.

Yes, I understand you have your goals, and that’s fine. I also know that many USMC units display their “hard core-ness” by running forever and ever everyday. That can make it hard for putting on size. I hated it. (Running doesn’t make you hard, Major Storms!) Anyway, I’m rambling now.

116

youre absolutely ridiculous amsterdamn, real attitude problems.i do know to respect my elders, so im just going to be the bigger man and walk away from this one.

for the record, asshole, i got a 690 on the SAT verbal section, i read and communicate very well.

to everyone else: i hope “we can all just get along” and co-exist on this site, so less-advanced guys like myself can learn something from the real bodybuilders.

117

I’m really going for that Nicole Richie look.

118

[quote]Leafblighter wrote:
All things otherwise equal, I’d rather be 220 @ 5’9 than 160. However, at some point (which I’m yet to hit and will only know it when I reach it), any more size will not be worth the trade offs.

There are hundreds of trade-offs in the pursuit of size. To name a few:

  • Grocery bill
  • Lipid profile
  • Sprinting speed
  • Aerobic endurance
  • Mainstream visual appeal
  • Injuries
  • Clothing fit
  • Time in gym

We all place different values on these things. The truly hardcore (and ultimately, the truly successful) have a value system that is skewed heavily in one direction.

That said, there are lots of common misconceptions about these trade-offs, but there are grains of truth in most of them. Most people think size = slow, which is not true (up to a point). However, you eventually will reach a level where more size will slow you down, which is why you don’t see 300lb Olympic 800m sprinters. If you place a high priority on sprinting speed, then you’re going to want to keep a close eye on whether any more size would improve your performance or possibly degrade it.

Personally, I’m more of a generalist. I’d rather rate an “8” in as many categories as possible (strength, size, flexiblity, aerobic endurance, etc) than score a “10” in one area if it meant a “5/6” in others. Of course, my perception of an “8” in size is much larger than the average person’s, I’m sure.

I can’t blame 16 year olds who want to look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club. It’s all about chasing the tail in high school, and the pursuit of this physique will probably get you more social success at that age than being larger/softer while you bulk. Also, when I was in high school, a 180lb guy who trained was pretty damn big and is probably the statistical equivalent of a 25 year old at a lean 220lbs.

So to sum up my point here: let’s be tolerant of other people’s value systems, have some patience with the 16 year old crowd because they’re still kids, and realize that goals/values are constantly changing. The Bigmikes of today could very well be the ProfX’s of tomorrow. [/quote]

great post sir…again i agree totally…

119

[quote]Leafblighter wrote:

There are hundreds of trade-offs in the pursuit of size. To name a few:

  • Grocery bill
  • Clothing fit
  • Time in gym
    [/quote]

You might as well quit now. Anyone making any progress worth speaking on is affected by these.

120

[quote]malonetd wrote:
I have never seen anyone even remotely close to competitive size in the military. Yes, of the millions who serve there may be a few that have achieved that kind of size.

I know I’m a little behind here, so I’ll try not to rehash anything old, but the above statement surprises me. Aren’t you in the the Marine Corps? I was in the Marine Corps and seen many very large Marines. Not all were competiton ready, but most were a good 6 months away from being ready (in either size or leanness).
.[/quote]

I just gave him several names of guys in the military who compete. I may compete in the future. His entire perspective seems a bit off.