Eighty to 100 Pound Muscular Gains

Training
241

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Guys, I’m NOT saying Professor X isn’t impressive. However, …
[/quote]

Dude, I don’t even think I am anywhere near where I want to be as a final goal…but what is with these types of posts? It isn’t even about how “impressive” you think I am. This is one of the many pics posted on this forum.
[photo]34601[/photo]

I am not fat here, nor am I so much less muscular than the pic of the guy you posted that you would even need to make a whole post about it.

What is your goal with this? Are you trying to make sure no one thinks I am anywhere near that muscular or that no one thinks I am that lean?

242

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Guys, I’m NOT saying Professor X isn’t impressive. However, …
[/quote]

Dude, I don’t even think I am anywhere near where I want to be as a final goal…but what is with these types of posts? It isn’t even about how “impressive” you think I am. This is one of the many pics posted on this forum.
[photo]34601[/photo]

I am not fat here, nor am I so much less muscular than the pic of the guy you posted that you would even need to make a whole post about it.

What is your goal with this? Are you trying to make sure no one thinks I am anywhere near that muscular or that no one thinks I am that lean?
[/quote]

I am not taking either side on this point but why does it matter what he thinks…do you need him to validate you or something?

243

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

I am not taking either side on this point but why does it matter what he thinks…do you need him to validate you or something?[/quote]

I surely don’t. I am here for the discussion of weightlifting and bodybuilding outside of “contest prep”. I am responding because I find his stance ridiculous and other people are saying the same thing.

I do believe I have the right to respond, no?

244

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

I am not taking either side on this point but why does it matter what he thinks…do you need him to validate you or something?[/quote]

I surely don’t. I am here for the discussion of weightlifting and bodybuilding outside of “contest prep”. I am responding because I find his stance ridiculous and other people are saying the same thing.

I do believe I have the right to respond, no?[/quote]

Of course you do but it’s just spinning your wheels trying to persuade people what level you are at, some people will think you are the same size as the dude posted, maybe bigger whilst others may think you are a smaller.

Just post a pic, like you’ve done several times already, let them make their minds up and if they don’t agree so be it.

245

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Guys, I’m NOT saying Professor X isn’t impressive. However, …
[/quote]

Dude, I don’t even think I am anywhere near where I want to be as a final goal…but what is with these types of posts? It isn’t even about how “impressive” you think I am. This is one of the many pics posted on this forum.
[photo]34601[/photo]

I am not fat here, nor am I so much less muscular than the pic of the guy you posted that you would even need to make a whole post about it.

What is your goal with this? Are you trying to make sure no one thinks I am anywhere near that muscular or that no one thinks I am that lean?
[/quote]

What do my posts on Glen Chabot, Kirk Karwoski, and others have to do with you specifically. I haven’t even been talking about or to you in this thread unless people start comparing these men to you.

What are you trying to prove to me? Did I address or speak of you when posting the pictures of the men here. Although I respect your goals and don’t mind you sharing them with me, why are you trying to convince me of something?

I posted pictures of some people here, and then people start speaking to me about you. I really don’t get it! I’ve seen you in videos. Yes, you have some strength and size, but when compared to people like Glen Chabot and Kirk Karwoski… uh, these dudes were one in a million! It’s not an insult or dismissing your progress.

Again, why are you discussing this with me in this context?

People: Youtube “Glen Chabot” or “Kirk Karwoski” and perhaps you can see what I’m talking about and to “train your eyes”!

246

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

What do my posts on Glen Chabot, Kirk Karwoski, and others have to do with you specifically.[/quote]

What?? YOU mentioned me by name.

[quote]
I haven’t even been talking about or to you in this thread unless people start comparing these men to you. [/quote]

Which you just did.

[quote]

What are you trying to prove to me? Did I address or speak of you when posting the pictures of the men here. Although I respect your goals and don’t mind you sharing them with me, why are you trying to convince me of something?[/quote]

Because you just mentioned me by name with some claim about me.

[quote]

I posted pictures of some people here, and then people start speaking to me about you. I really don’t get it! I’ve seen you in videos. Yes, you have some strength and size, but when compared to people like Glen Chabot and Kirk Karwoski… uh, these dudes were one in a million! It’s not an insult or dismissing your progress.

Again, why are you discussing this with me in this context? [/quote]

Because you mentioned me by name.

Now that you understand why, again the point is, why do you think someone gets to my size at all with below average genetics or even average genetics?

Does that mean I could ever be as good as those guys? Who the fuck knows…but why try so hard to make it seem like I am nowhere near it or in some other universe?

247

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am not fat here, nor am I so much less muscular than the pic of the guy you posted that you would even need to make a whole post about it.

What is your goal with this? Are you trying to make sure no one thinks I am anywhere near that muscular or that no one thinks I am that lean?
[/quote]

I didn’t address this specifically.

Trying to make others think you’re not as impressive as you are? No! Those from this board who know me personally (as in hang out with me) know that I’m not malicious. In the past I’ve even said something along the lines of, “Hey bro, why don’t you compete? Imagine what you’d look like shredded?” and “You’d/he’d be even bigger if he got his lower body up to par with his upper body or tried some different things”. Does this sound like someone trying to keep someone down.

The only perhaps negative, but not ill intentioned, things I’ve said or done here are disbelieve some of your claims, disagree with you, not hold the same considerations as you, and because you claim you know what’s best, try VERY HARD to get some information out of you, especially considering nutrition and training for noobs.

248

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Because you mentioned me by name.

[/quote]

Yeah, when people started talking to me about you.

There’s been talk on this board of 80 to 100 pound natural muscular gains and astounding stats like 30 inch thighs (some of the talk by you, but by others as well), so I thought it was appropriate to take a look at men with these stats.

249

It’s the same old tired arguments.

People who disagree with Professor X should ignore him and not respond to his posts because he surely will not do the same. One side needs to take the initiative.

People who think Professor X is big will think he’s big.

People who think Professor X is fat will think he’s fat.

Neither side will convince the other so why drag the forum down?

Why not just discuss the subject of the OP?

250

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

I am not taking either side on this point but why does it matter what he thinks…do you need him to validate you or something?[/quote]

I surely don’t. I am here for the discussion of weightlifting and bodybuilding outside of “contest prep”. I am responding because I find his stance ridiculous and other people are saying the same thing.

I do believe I have the right to respond, no?[/quote]

Of course you do but it’s just spinning your wheels trying to persuade people what level you are at, some people will think you are the same size as the dude posted, maybe bigger whilst others may think you are a smaller.

Just post a pic, like you’ve done several times already, let them make their minds up and if they don’t agree so be it.[/quote]

Come on man this entire thread has been created to passively and not so passively say that X is not a muscular 250-300lbs as he is actually carrying a massive amount of fat. If he were to lose all of this fat he would weigh miles less. He also does not have 28-30" muscular thighs as they are also grossly fat.

I have said many times I like most of Brick’s posts but just read the OP and all of Brick’s posts in this thread. It is BLINDINGLY obvious it is about one person’s statements and one person’s physique.

If he is trolling for the LOLs then that is fine but really a MASSIVE amount of posts in this forum are only trolling these days and it is actually a shame.

If he isn’t trolling I don’t get his point - the OP says have natural’s built 80+lbs of LBM the answer is more or less yes they have - Det has been posted (but he wasn’t actually 125, he was 140 apparently) and X used a pro hormone for a few months a decade ago so he doesn’t count either it seems. KingBeef has also got near I am sure.

In which case hasn’t the question been answered? Yes naturals can built this huge amount of LBM as shown by members here. One has now posted a pic showing this level of development.

HONESTLY what is the point in continuing the thread - examples have been given and if they are “wrong” then fair enough i guess, but why continue with it?

251

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Because you mentioned me by name.

[/quote]

Yeah, when people started talking to me about you.

There’s been talk on this board of 80 to 100 pound natural muscular gains and astounding stats like 30 inch thighs (some of the talk by you, but by others as well), so I thought it was appropriate to take a look at men with these stats. [/quote]

You have a painful habit of responding to the most mundane aspects of a post while ignoring the core.

this was stated:

[quote]Now that you understand why, again the point is, why do you think someone gets to my size at all with below average genetics or even average genetics?

Does that mean I could ever be as good as those guys? Who the fuck knows…but why try so hard to make it seem like I am nowhere near it or in some other universe?[/quote]

How many posts will it take you to get to it>?

252

[quote]stinger70 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Alright, some guys, not knowing that some of the offseason guys I posted were not in “near contest shape” because they probably had 10 to 12 weeks of dieting for competition, were not happy. So I’ll post some softer 250 to 300 pound behemoths, some of them being the quintessential full housers!

First up, Glen Chabot, who got up to 300 pounds at one time, and had the raw bench record before Scot Mendelson. Please take note of just how big this man was. [/quote]

hasn’t Professor X posted tons of pictures where he looks similar to this guy
[/quote]

This, lol. From what i’ve seen of prof X, he looks somewhere close to that size and also looks to be a taller guy. Also unless kingbeef is on steroids and we don’t know it, didnt he precisely gain about 80lb LBM with no fat gain?[/quote]

No offense, but PX looks NOTHING like this guy. Look how dense this dude is. He looks like he’s capable of insane feats of strength, which he is. Go watch the infamous lunge and bench vids with PX. The guy’s obviously big, but he’s not overly developed and actually looks pretty soft. You put these two next to each other and the difference is night and day.

253

Sorry bout that.

I think someone with average genetics will gain the amount of muscle you have with adequate training and nutrition, consistency, and lifestyle–you know what you have tried and are trying to do.

I think if someone in their mid 30’s, after training consistently since teenage years, will not be on par with those greats in size without some hefty drug use if they’ve been natural this whole time.

I don’t know if I’m trying to make it seem like those men are on another universe, but figuratively speaking they are, in the same way Michael Jordan was in basketball. We’re talking about people who had the muscle mass to bench 550 to 700+ and squat 1,000.

Again, as I said several times, there has been talk of 80 to 100 pound muscular gains and 250 to 300 pound “not fat” behemoths. So I said, how about we look at some men who have those characteristics. What is defeating about looking at examples?

254

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]stinger70 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Alright, some guys, not knowing that some of the offseason guys I posted were not in “near contest shape” because they probably had 10 to 12 weeks of dieting for competition, were not happy. So I’ll post some softer 250 to 300 pound behemoths, some of them being the quintessential full housers!

First up, Glen Chabot, who got up to 300 pounds at one time, and had the raw bench record before Scot Mendelson. Please take note of just how big this man was. [/quote]

hasn’t Professor X posted tons of pictures where he looks similar to this guy
[/quote]

This, lol. From what i’ve seen of prof X, he looks somewhere close to that size and also looks to be a taller guy. Also unless kingbeef is on steroids and we don’t know it, didnt he precisely gain about 80lb LBM with no fat gain?[/quote]

No offense, but PX looks NOTHING like this guy. Look how dense this dude is. He looks like he’s capable of insane feats of strength, which he is. Go watch the infamous lunge and bench vids with PX. The guy’s obviously big, but he’s not overly developed and actually looks pretty soft. You put these two next to each other and the difference is night and day.
[/quote]

I tried to post videos of KK and Glen but embedding YT videos isn’t working, People can You Tube “Glen Chabot 600 x 3 Bench”.

255

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]stinger70 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Alright, some guys, not knowing that some of the offseason guys I posted were not in “near contest shape” because they probably had 10 to 12 weeks of dieting for competition, were not happy. So I’ll post some softer 250 to 300 pound behemoths, some of them being the quintessential full housers!

First up, Glen Chabot, who got up to 300 pounds at one time, and had the raw bench record before Scot Mendelson. Please take note of just how big this man was. [/quote]

hasn’t Professor X posted tons of pictures where he looks similar to this guy
[/quote]

This, lol. From what i’ve seen of prof X, he looks somewhere close to that size and also looks to be a taller guy. Also unless kingbeef is on steroids and we don’t know it, didnt he precisely gain about 80lb LBM with no fat gain?[/quote]

No offense, but PX looks NOTHING like this guy. Look how dense this dude is. He looks like he’s capable of insane feats of strength, which he is. Go watch the infamous lunge and bench vids with PX. The guy’s obviously big, but he’s not overly developed and actually looks pretty soft. You put these two next to each other and the difference is night and day.
[/quote]

I tried to post videos of KK and Glen but embedding YT videos isn’t working, People can You Tube “Glen Chabot 600 x 3 Bench”. [/quote]

Not sure why a couple (yes, literally a couple) of people are having a hard time understanding the physical difference between someone who can manhandle a quarter ton and someone who struggles with roughly their own bodyweight with the assistance of bands? Remember what Twain said: “Common sense ain’t that common”.

256

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]stinger70 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Alright, some guys, not knowing that some of the offseason guys I posted were not in “near contest shape” because they probably had 10 to 12 weeks of dieting for competition, were not happy. So I’ll post some softer 250 to 300 pound behemoths, some of them being the quintessential full housers!

First up, Glen Chabot, who got up to 300 pounds at one time, and had the raw bench record before Scot Mendelson. Please take note of just how big this man was. [/quote]

hasn’t Professor X posted tons of pictures where he looks similar to this guy
[/quote]

This, lol. From what i’ve seen of prof X, he looks somewhere close to that size and also looks to be a taller guy. Also unless kingbeef is on steroids and we don’t know it, didnt he precisely gain about 80lb LBM with no fat gain?[/quote]

No offense, but PX looks NOTHING like this guy. Look how dense this dude is. He looks like he’s capable of insane feats of strength, which he is. Go watch the infamous lunge and bench vids with PX. The guy’s obviously big, but he’s not overly developed and actually looks pretty soft. You put these two next to each other and the difference is night and day.
[/quote]

LOL so what?

one of the strongest men in history is stronger than him… and?

honestly what is the point in this stuff and posting videos of KK etc?

yes in human history there have been extremely strong and muscular people.

is this supposed to be revelatory?

and as far as them looking NOTHING alike - go and poll anyone who has ever set foot in a gym and no fucking way will those be the responses.

257

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]stinger70 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Alright, some guys, not knowing that some of the offseason guys I posted were not in “near contest shape” because they probably had 10 to 12 weeks of dieting for competition, were not happy. So I’ll post some softer 250 to 300 pound behemoths, some of them being the quintessential full housers!

First up, Glen Chabot, who got up to 300 pounds at one time, and had the raw bench record before Scot Mendelson. Please take note of just how big this man was. [/quote]

hasn’t Professor X posted tons of pictures where he looks similar to this guy
[/quote]

This, lol. From what i’ve seen of prof X, he looks somewhere close to that size and also looks to be a taller guy. Also unless kingbeef is on steroids and we don’t know it, didnt he precisely gain about 80lb LBM with no fat gain?[/quote]

No offense, but PX looks NOTHING like this guy. Look how dense this dude is. He looks like he’s capable of insane feats of strength, which he is. Go watch the infamous lunge and bench vids with PX. The guy’s obviously big, but he’s not overly developed and actually looks pretty soft. You put these two next to each other and the difference is night and day.
[/quote]

That vid is from two whole years ago. That pic is more recent.

What are you talking about?

258

[quote]Professor X wrote:
this was stated:

[quote]Now that you understand why, again the point is, why do you think someone gets to my size at all with below average genetics or even average genetics?

Does that mean I could ever be as good as those guys? Who the fuck knows…but why try so hard to make it seem like I am nowhere near it or in some other universe?[/quote]

How many posts will it take you to get to it>?[/quote]

Professor, I mean this with all due respect and am not interested in “debating”, but as far as I can tell the photos that Brickhead posted were of professional body builders, strongmen and power lifters who were near or at the top of their respected games… You (or I or nearly anyone else on this site) are nowhere near as good as these guys and ARE in some other universe.

But that is OK! Especially if your goal isn’t to compete, then who really cares? I lift for my own personal satisfaction and to be happy with what I build… You seem to be the same way considering you have no desire to compete.

Who cares what others think or say? It doesn’t effect you in the gym, at home or at the office. Just keep on doing you.

Again, this is not intended as disrespect at all or to belittle what you or anyone had accomplished.

259

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Sorry bout that.

I think someone with average genetics will gain the amount of muscle you have with adequate training and nutrition, consistency, and lifestyle–you know what you have tried and are trying to do.
[/quote]

Then we disagree on what average is because I don’t think most people can build arms as big as mine.

I consider anyone who can build arms over 18" to have above average genetics.

[quote]

I think if someone in their mid 30’s, after training consistently since teenage years, will not be on par with those greats in size without some hefty drug use if they’ve been natural this whole time. [/quote]

What does this have to do with anything? You don’t any of these guy’s specific drug routine.

[quote]

I don’t know if I’m trying to make it seem like those men are on another universe, but figuratively speaking they are, in the same way Michael Jordan was in basketball. We’re talking about people who had the muscle mass to bench 550 to 700+ and squat 1,000. [/quote]

Then they are powerlifters. I don’t train for powerlifting and never did, thus why I am not good at it.

[quote]

Again, as I said several times, there has been talk of 80 to 100 pound muscular gains and 250 to 300 pound “not fat” behemoths. So I said, how about we look at some men who have those characteristics. What is defeating about looking at examples?[/quote]

But, that pic posted is of a NOT FAT 250LBS’ER…how is it you see otherwise?

260

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Not sure why a couple (yes, literally a couple) of people are having a hard time understanding the physical difference between someone who can manhandle a quarter ton and someone who struggles with roughly their own bodyweight with the assistance of bands? Remember what Twain said: “Common sense ain’t that common”.
[/quote]

The thread is about muscular 250+ physiques

No one is disputing that the strongest bencher in history is ALOT stronger than everyone here.

Again. so what?

Look at the pic of them both - are they both 250+ and muscular? the answer is yes it is as simple as that!