Frank Yang - from Brad Pitt to Bane

Off Topic
141

[quote]DSSG wrote:
So, wait a moment… People with fast metabolisms who need very large amounts of calories just to maintain weight are on steroids if they eat some sloppy food, and using steroids enhancing your insulin sensitivity along with changes a vast majority of the processes in your body? I’m sorry if I’m a little lost here, this horseshit is making me all confused… [/quote]

^^you are not understanding what I wrote.

If you eat a certain way, be that “clean” or “sloppy”, to get to a respectable level of development you ARE NOT going to simultaneously drop fat and gain muscle by eating WORSE than you did to get to that size in the first place.

^^as a natural of course.

142

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Yes, Frank really plays violin. He’s also an accomplished pianist and classical sculptor.

The dude a modern-day Renaissance Man![/quote]

For his career where would he be most successful ID?

[/quote]

His own over-the-top TV show. He’d be a huge hit in Asia, and a novelty here in the states. [/quote]

That may be successful monetarily now but not successful as an artist, No? [/quote]

Depends on how the art community responds. If he sells himself as a “performance/concept artist”, he could be golden. Otherwise, he’d have to put all his eggs into one basket and focus on one artform to get any credibility. [/quote]

But isnt Asian TV/Movies pretty out there as it is, wouldnt his brand be pretty much more of the same? Seems to me higher chance of a flash in the pan type career.[/quote]

You’re right. But that crazy Asian stuff is still popular there. Frank would bring a new intensity to it.

Compare Nards’ description of the average Asian gym rat. Now look at Frank.
[/quote]

I agree, but I see things in a business sense (meaning to me make the money now) however as an artist and creative person (which I am very, very far from being), I always wonder if the art is more important. [/quote]

Good discussion. Mature too, shocker!

Yep, Mr. Frank Yang is definitely a Renaissance Man. Imo, unlike some of the other over-the-top characters (I mean that in a complimentary sense.) out there, Frank is actually talented -imagine that!!!
[/quote]

Thats because both ID and I are friends and old or is it old friends or he was my friend and now he is old.

Fuck I dont know [/quote]

All of the above.

143

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]DSSG wrote:
So, wait a moment… People with fast metabolisms who need very large amounts of calories just to maintain weight are on steroids if they eat some sloppy food, and using steroids enhancing your insulin sensitivity along with changes a vast majority of the processes in your body? I’m sorry if I’m a little lost here, this horseshit is making me all confused… [/quote]

^^you are not understanding what I wrote.

If you eat a certain way, be that “clean” or “sloppy”, to get to a respectable level of development you ARE NOT going to simultaneously drop fat and gain muscle by eating WORSE than you did to get to that size in the first place.

^^as a natural of course.[/quote]

Can you prove this?
It doesn’t make much sense from a biological standpoint as that same person would also be carrying more muscle…which means they do not have the exact same body/metabolism they had when smaller.

144

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
Uh oh

Shitstorm afoot…

[/quote]
Not anymore. It takes all of them ganging up together. Gregron can’t do it alone.
[/quote]

Remember, like you said, this isn’t about you.

Im glad you didnt quote me but please stop referencing me in your posts in an attempt to drag this out further.

EDIT: spoke to soon.

I would appreciate it if you stopped following me around the forum trying to drag me into childish debates.

Please and Thank you.

145

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Yes, Frank really plays violin. He’s also an accomplished pianist and classical sculptor.

The dude a modern-day Renaissance Man![/quote]

For his career where would he be most successful ID?

[/quote]

His own over-the-top TV show. He’d be a huge hit in Asia, and a novelty here in the states. [/quote]

That may be successful monetarily now but not successful as an artist, No? [/quote]

Depends on how the art community responds. If he sells himself as a “performance/concept artist”, he could be golden. Otherwise, he’d have to put all his eggs into one basket and focus on one artform to get any credibility. [/quote]

But isnt Asian TV/Movies pretty out there as it is, wouldnt his brand be pretty much more of the same? Seems to me higher chance of a flash in the pan type career.[/quote]

You’re right. But that crazy Asian stuff is still popular there. Frank would bring a new intensity to it.

Compare Nards’ description of the average Asian gym rat. Now look at Frank.
[/quote]

I agree, but I see things in a business sense (meaning to me make the money now) however as an artist and creative person (which I am very, very far from being), I always wonder if the art is more important. [/quote]

Good discussion. Mature too, shocker!

Yep, Mr. Frank Yang is definitely a Renaissance Man. Imo, unlike some of the other over-the-top characters (I mean that in a complimentary sense.) out there, Frank is actually talented -imagine that!!!
[/quote]

Thats because both ID and I are friends and old or is it old friends or he was my friend and now he is old.

Fuck I dont know [/quote]

At my age I’m very, very easily confused. And your post ^^ is not helping![/quote]

Well it all happened in the fall of 1987 or was that 1986 or the year after the war when was that again? I was driving a 1967 Mustang with 351 Cleveland, cherry bomb exhaust with sweet ass rims. ID was drawing me in my natural state, you know drunk and mounting a horse. It was respect at first site.

146

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
hello all, following up to my old thread about finally looking like Brad Pitt :

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/i_finally_look_like_brad_pitt_from_fight_club

Finally said goodbye to that body, and got close to 200 pounds steroid free…while playing the violin. Going to start cutting at around 205?

[/quote]

Fucking awesome.

Great job, man.

147

Well, as long as it is clear greggy is talking out his ass, all is cool.

I think Cortes was spot on with everything said in this thread. Bro-science needs to die.

148

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Oh, Choco-Puff, we love you just the way you are…marshmallowee and comically plagiarized from Sesame Street.[/quote]

Eat a dick[/quote]

Lol.

What’s up between the two of you? Mmmm… I sense some strong flirting goin’on…

Yo, Rock, remember telling me how Prof didn’t have any rhythm at all? Has he improved in that department?

149

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Well, as long as it is clear greggy is talking out his ass, all is cool.

I think Cortes was spot on with everything said in this thread. Bro-science needs to die.[/quote]

I am not talking out of my ass… But I ask again, will you please stop following me around trying to nitpick my every post? It is doing nothing but dragging the forums down and ruining a perfectly good thread.

Sorry Frank, I tried to stop this before it got to where it is now but to no avail.

150

I know that there are a lot of people reading this thread that are not commenting on the discussion (at a minimum ID, Derek, punnyguy and Ct Rock)

I pose this question to you:

Am I off base or “talking out of my ass” when I say that

A natural trainee who has built himself up to a respectable level of development (220lbs @ 14% BF) is NOT going to lose bodyfat/gain muscle at the same time (now 220lbs @ 10%) while eating WORSE than they did in order to get to their original 220?

What are your thoughts? I am not attempting to drag anyone into this debacle, as I myself will not be participating in it. If you do not feel comfortable posting about it I would appreciate a PM with your thoughts… Just for my own knowledge.

This question is intended for those of you who have not yet commented on this current topic.

Thanks guys and gals.

151

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Yes, Frank really plays violin. He’s also an accomplished pianist and classical sculptor.

The dude a modern-day Renaissance Man![/quote]

For his career where would he be most successful ID?

[/quote]

His own over-the-top TV show. He’d be a huge hit in Asia, and a novelty here in the states. [/quote]

That may be successful monetarily now but not successful as an artist, No? [/quote]

Depends on how the art community responds. If he sells himself as a “performance/concept artist”, he could be golden. Otherwise, he’d have to put all his eggs into one basket and focus on one artform to get any credibility. [/quote]

But isnt Asian TV/Movies pretty out there as it is, wouldnt his brand be pretty much more of the same? Seems to me higher chance of a flash in the pan type career.[/quote]

You’re right. But that crazy Asian stuff is still popular there. Frank would bring a new intensity to it.

Compare Nards’ description of the average Asian gym rat. Now look at Frank.
[/quote]

I agree, but I see things in a business sense (meaning to me make the money now) however as an artist and creative person (which I am very, very far from being), I always wonder if the art is more important. [/quote]

Good discussion. Mature too, shocker!

Yep, Mr. Frank Yang is definitely a Renaissance Man. Imo, unlike some of the other over-the-top characters (I mean that in a complimentary sense.) out there, Frank is actually talented -imagine that!!!
[/quote]

Thats because both ID and I are friends and old or is it old friends or he was my friend and now he is old.

Fuck I dont know [/quote]

At my age I’m very, very easily confused. And your post ^^ is not helping![/quote]

Well it all happened in the fall of 1987 or was that 1986 or the year after the war when was that again? I was driving a 1967 Mustang with 351 Cleveland, cherry bomb exhaust with sweet ass rims. ID was drawing me in my natural state, you know drunk and mounting a horse. It was respect at first site. [/quote]

So: you’re a natty, with a bomb ass, and was caught drunk while on a rim job as a mountie on a Mustang? Did I get that right?

152

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]punnyguy wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Yes, Frank really plays violin. He’s also an accomplished pianist and classical sculptor.

The dude a modern-day Renaissance Man![/quote]

For his career where would he be most successful ID?

[/quote]

His own over-the-top TV show. He’d be a huge hit in Asia, and a novelty here in the states. [/quote]

That may be successful monetarily now but not successful as an artist, No? [/quote]

Depends on how the art community responds. If he sells himself as a “performance/concept artist”, he could be golden. Otherwise, he’d have to put all his eggs into one basket and focus on one artform to get any credibility. [/quote]

But isnt Asian TV/Movies pretty out there as it is, wouldnt his brand be pretty much more of the same? Seems to me higher chance of a flash in the pan type career.[/quote]

You’re right. But that crazy Asian stuff is still popular there. Frank would bring a new intensity to it.

Compare Nards’ description of the average Asian gym rat. Now look at Frank.
[/quote]

I agree, but I see things in a business sense (meaning to me make the money now) however as an artist and creative person (which I am very, very far from being), I always wonder if the art is more important. [/quote]

Good discussion. Mature too, shocker!

Yep, Mr. Frank Yang is definitely a Renaissance Man. Imo, unlike some of the other over-the-top characters (I mean that in a complimentary sense.) out there, Frank is actually talented -imagine that!!!
[/quote]

Thats because both ID and I are friends and old or is it old friends or he was my friend and now he is old.

Fuck I dont know [/quote]

At my age I’m very, very easily confused. And your post ^^ is not helping![/quote]

Well it all happened in the fall of 1987 or was that 1986 or the year after the war when was that again? I was driving a 1967 Mustang with 351 Cleveland, cherry bomb exhaust with sweet ass rims. ID was drawing me in my natural state, you know drunk and mounting a horse. It was respect at first site. [/quote]

So: you’re a natty, with a bomb ass, and was caught drunk while on a rim job as a mountie on a Mustang? Did I get that right?
[/quote]

Good times.

Loved that movie

153

[quote]gregron wrote:
I know that there are a lot of people reading this thread that are not commenting on the discussion (at a minimum ID, Derek, punnyguy and Ct Rock)

I pose this question to you:

Am I off base or “talking out of my ass” when I say that

A natural trainee who has built himself up to a respectable level of development (220lbs @ 14% BF) is NOT going to lose bodyfat/gain muscle at the same time (now 220lbs @ 10%) while eating WORSE than they did in order to get to their original 220?

What are your thoughts? I am not attempting to drag anyone into this debacle, as I myself will not be participating in it. If you do not feel comfortable posting about it I would appreciate a PM with your thoughts… Just for my own knowledge.

This question is intended for those of you who have not yet commented on this current topic.

Thanks guys and gals.[/quote]

I tread lightly here, not wanting to be a sider or a wedge between 2 guys I genuinely like and respect on these forums.

I took Cortes’ statements at a basic physiological level. I am aware that steroids do enhance multiple systems in the body (no one would bother with them if they didn’t), however, some of the things in my own experience (as a natty) have shown me that what Cortes had said COULD have been said without a mention of steroid use at all. In my own experience, while taking a long bulk, or a slow cut, once the ball is rolling, a day or two of poor dietary habits along the way has no negative effect on the progress of said bulk or cut. Again, I believe this is due to a long duration within a cycle.

Years ago I was on a slow bulk. My wife and I went to the Caribbean for 4 days. I barely ate a thing the whole time (we were just so busy and didn’t have access to food). When we returned home, I ran up to the bathroom and looked in the mirror. I couldn’t believe how cut and full-looking I was! I looked bigger than when we left. I thought it was an illusion until I stepped on the scale and noted a 5 lb increase in weight.

Again, I think when the body is on a directional roll, it would take a LOT of resistance, and for a longer period of time to mess that up to any extent.

I hope I understood what you were saying, Greg. This has been my take.

154

[quote]gregron wrote:
I know that there are a lot of people reading this thread that are not commenting on the discussion (at a minimum ID, Derek, punnyguy and Ct Rock)

I pose this question to you:

Am I off base or “talking out of my ass” when I say that

A natural trainee who has built himself up to a respectable level of development (220lbs @ 14% BF) is NOT going to lose bodyfat/gain muscle at the same time (now 220lbs @ 10%) while eating WORSE than they did in order to get to their original 220?

What are your thoughts? I am not attempting to drag anyone into this debacle, as I myself will not be participating in it. If you do not feel comfortable posting about it I would appreciate a PM with your thoughts… Just for my own knowledge.

This question is intended for those of you who have not yet commented on this current topic.

Thanks guys and gals.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say that you are talking out of your ass, but the assumption that the change in diet would cause a net negative effect on a person doesn’t seem to take into consideration the change that took place between the time they started and where they are at currently.

It is the difference between what is needed for growth versus what is needed for maintenance/slower modification that is not being explicitly stated.

To go from 155 lbs. to 175 lbs. required me to down about 7-8 thousand calories a day for several years. To stay at 175 doesn’t require nearly as much, nor any particular attention to content, other than to avoid a diet of Ho-Ho’s and vegetable oil.

Then again, I have the metabolism of a garbage incinerator.

155

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
I know that there are a lot of people reading this thread that are not commenting on the discussion (at a minimum ID, Derek, punnyguy and Ct Rock)

I pose this question to you:

Am I off base or “talking out of my ass” when I say that

A natural trainee who has built himself up to a respectable level of development (220lbs @ 14% BF) is NOT going to lose bodyfat/gain muscle at the same time (now 220lbs @ 10%) while eating WORSE than they did in order to get to their original 220?

What are your thoughts? I am not attempting to drag anyone into this debacle, as I myself will not be participating in it. If you do not feel comfortable posting about it I would appreciate a PM with your thoughts… Just for my own knowledge.

This question is intended for those of you who have not yet commented on this current topic.

Thanks guys and gals.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say that you are talking out of your ass, but the assumption that the change in diet would cause a net negative effect on a person doesn’t seem to take into consideration the change that took place between the time they started and where they are at currently.

It is the difference between what is needed for growth versus what is needed for maintenance/slower modification that is not being explicitly stated.

To go from 155 lbs. to 175 lbs. required me to down about 7-8 thousand calories a day for several years. To stay at 175 doesn’t require nearly as much, nor any particular attention to content, other than to avoid a diet of Ho-Ho’s and vegetable oil.

Then again, I have the metabolism of a garbage incinerator.

[/quote]

Basically this. If you gain 30lbs of muscle, your body will not respond exactly the same as it did when you were 30lbs less.

156

[quote]gregron wrote:
I know that there are a lot of people reading this thread that are not commenting on the discussion (at a minimum ID, Derek, punnyguy and Ct Rock)

I pose this question to you:

Am I off base or “talking out of my ass” when I say that

A natural trainee who has built himself up to a respectable level of development (220lbs @ 14% BF) is NOT going to lose bodyfat/gain muscle at the same time (now 220lbs @ 10%) while eating WORSE than they did in order to get to their original 220?

What are your thoughts? I am not attempting to drag anyone into this debacle, as I myself will not be participating in it. If you do not feel comfortable posting about it I would appreciate a PM with your thoughts… Just for my own knowledge.

This question is intended for those of you who have not yet commented on this current topic.

Thanks guys and gals.[/quote]

Personally, I think you both make good points. Getting back to the main argument, I agree with Gregron that a natural has to worry more about fat gain as they push the weight up, partially because it’s harder for them to gain muscle without adding fat, and also because it’s harder for them to hold on to muscle when they’re dieting. But, I don’t think Cortes necessarily disagrees with that, and his main point was simply that the “worsening insulin sensitivity” part of the increased bodyfat argument is not any different for natty’s vs assisted trainees. And to be honest I don’t know the evidence for or against that, so I can’t really comment.

As for Gregron’s last point, I think once you’ve reached a high level of development, you can’t expect to eat “worse” than you have in order to get there, and expect to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. You will, of course, be eating MORE at 240 pounds (for example) than you were at 200 pounds, as you have more muscle, but I think if, after so many years, you find yourself at 240 pounds and 14% bodyfat, and then start eating “worse”, as a natural trainee, you will not be gaining muscle and losing fat.

To be honest, I’d really like to see you and Cortes continue your discussion, because I think you’re both rational, knowledgeable dudes, with slightly differing opinions on this.

I’m not trying to say PX is not rational or knowledgeable, not trying to take a side, but it’s clear that a “debate” between you and PX simply becomes an “argument”, you guys have too much history to actually keep it on topic (again not taking sides, but look at the past couple pages, it’s obvious), whereas I think you and Cortes both respect each other a bit more and can have a better discussion about it.

157

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

As for Gregron’s last point, I think once you’ve reached a high level of development, you can’t expect to eat “worse” than you have in order to get there, and expect to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. You will, of course, be eating MORE at 240 pounds (for example) than you were at 200 pounds, as you have more muscle, but I think if, after so many years, you find yourself at 240 pounds and 14% bodyfat, and then start eating “worse”, as a natural trainee, you will not be gaining muscle and losing fat.

To be honest, I’d really like to see you and Cortes continue your discussion, because I think you’re both rational, knowledgeable dudes, with slightly differing opinions on this.

I’m not trying to say PX is not rational or knowledgeable, not trying to take a side, but it’s clear that a “debate” between you and PX simply becomes an “argument”, you guys have too much history to actually keep it on topic (again not taking sides, but look at the past couple pages, it’s obvious), whereas I think you and Cortes both respect each other a bit more and can have a better discussion about it.
[/quote]

I have no history with Greg. I think he is way too under-experienced and under-educated to have the attitude he does on this forum.

I also think giving out false info about biology or insulin just because that is the current “bro science” angle has already gone too far.

You have doctors and extremely developed people here…but it honestly seems like some of you literally fight the people who have the actual backgrounds to justify the topics they discuss.

This is not an argument about who competes and who doesn’t. This is about how I would never see this “discussion” go past 5 seconds if they actually involved someone who looked like Cortes vs someone looking like Greg face to face.

Bottom line, steroids didn’t even need to be mentioned here…and we see that quite a lot on this forum lately from the exact same people.

158

[quote]Professor X wrote:
… Bottom line, steroids didn’t even need to be mentioned here…and we see that quite a lot on this forum lately from the exact same people.[/quote]

This is what I had mentioned above. That was Cortes’ ONLY mistake.

159

[quote]gregron wrote:
I know that there are a lot of people reading this thread that are not commenting on the discussion (at a minimum ID, Derek, punnyguy and Ct Rock)

I pose this question to you:

Am I off base or “talking out of my ass” when I say that

A natural trainee who has built himself up to a respectable level of development (220lbs @ 14% BF) is NOT going to lose bodyfat/gain muscle at the same time (now 220lbs @ 10%) while eating WORSE than they did in order to get to their original 220?

What are your thoughts? I am not attempting to drag anyone into this debacle, as I myself will not be participating in it. If you do not feel comfortable posting about it I would appreciate a PM with your thoughts… Just for my own knowledge.

This question is intended for those of you who have not yet commented on this current topic.

Thanks guys and gals.[/quote]

I think you are totally correct. Also,the other arguments about short term changes to ones diet having no effect in the long term, or that after gaining 30lbs of mscle ones body wont react the same way are irrelevant.

If you have gone up in muscular bodyweight,this did not happen overnight. So you would go from 200 to 201 to 202 to 203 etc all the way to 220 over a period of years. Your diet would change likewise incrementally during that process. Your body’s adaptive process would alsoo change incrementally. However to then, over more than the short term, you worsened your diet either in calories or nutrition you would not build muscle and lose fat at the same time. For a day or two, maybe. For a month or two, no chance.

160

[quote]bluebrasil wrote:

I think you are totally correct. Also,the other arguments about short term changes to ones diet having no effect in the long term, or that after gaining 30lbs of mscle ones body wont react the same way are irrelevant.
[/quote]

Irrelevant? If I can literally eat donuts twice a week without concern as opposed to when I was much smaller, you say this is “irrelevant”?