'Full House' ???

Training
1041

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]jdrannin1 wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Really? Where have you seen me write “ignore nutritional changes”? in fact, I wrote to initially not make huge changes in diet. You seem to see what you want…which makes discussions pointless.[/quote]

…

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Someone new should first get in the gym with minimal changes to diet.

[/quote]
[/quote]

Minimal changes to diet equals “ignore it”? Since when?[/quote]

min�??�??�??�?�·i�??�??�??�?�·mal
/Ã???minÃ???mÃ???l/
Adjective
Of a minimum amount, quantity, or degree; negligible.[/quote]

Minimal changes means exactly that. Maybe you should stop trying to “read into” what is written and actually just read it.

minimal changes does not imply ignoring anything. If anything at all, it means pay more attention so you can avoid making huge changes.

At least debate at a level worth the time to type this.

Right now, it is like you are just looking for anything to complain about.

Stating that “minimal” now means “ignore” is ridiculous and childish.
[/quote]

My point is that, depending on what their habits are like, something more than minimalchanges may be necessary. If you have a kid come to you wanting advice and his daily food looks like:

Breakfast: mountain dew, cheetos
Lunch: subway sandwich
Dinner: 2 slices of pizza
Late night: cheezits

Do you still recommend “minimal” changes?[/quote]

No one working out hard is going to have such a minimal appetite to begin with.
[/quote]

That’s pretty much what I ate for my first 8 months of training and I was lifting with some big guys who did their absolute best to murder me each workout.[/quote]

Hmm I’m not calling you a liar but that I don’t know how on earth that could make someone full. Everything you ate in one day is more or less what I eat in 1 meal lol

1042

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dear Lord.

Kids, I am not obese. If you see someone who looks like I did in that pic, calling them obese will make you look dumb.

Please don’t be stupid, kids.[/quote]

Just for clarification i think you are in no way obese or even close to it (IMO).

1043

[quote]Iron_Made wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dear Lord.

Kids, I am not obese. If you see someone who looks like I did in that pic, calling them obese will make you look dumb.

Please don’t be stupid, kids.[/quote]

Just for clarification i think you are in no way obese or even close to it (IMO).[/quote]

I SERIOUSLY doubt most of the people on this forum would peg me as over 20% in that pic, but as we can see, logic and civil minded discussion isn’t even wanted here. Most of these guys are just here to troll apparently.

If you are teaching newbs that someone in my condition is obese, you are just being an ass.

1044

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

That’s pretty much what I ate for my first 8 months of training and I was lifting with some big guys who did their absolute best to murder me each workout.[/quote]

Gee, then that would mean you did NOT do what was recommended here and watch the scale and the mirror and the weights used.

No one said eat the same no matter what. What was said was get in the gym FIRST and see what the fuck happens so you can make changes based on the results.

THAT is what is IMPLIED and BLATANTLY WRITTEN OUT.[/quote]

Now, before I get into the actual post, I just want to point out that this response is part of the reason people have a problem with you. You post as if you’re having a shouting match with someone and talking down to them.

So now, since you’re so adamant that I remember every detail of this thread, I want you to go back and look and see where I said I gained 20 lbs during the first 4 months. 5 lbs of lean gains per month, not too bad. So, according to your logic, a newbie should accept moderate gains when they could have made even more progress by taking the time to sort out some basic issues beforehand and adjusted from there instead of wasting arguably the most productive period of an individual’s training career waiting for the time to come when they could no longer out-train a shitty diet.

You are saying that, as long as a newbie is making decent progress, they should continue to eat their diet of 1800 calories of cheetos, pizza, and subway. No tapdancing around that, you’ve said right here in the above post that changes should be contingent only on a lack of progress.

1045

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Iron_Made wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dear Lord.

Kids, I am not obese. If you see someone who looks like I did in that pic, calling them obese will make you look dumb.

Please don’t be stupid, kids.[/quote]

Just for clarification i think you are in no way obese or even close to it (IMO).[/quote]

I SERIOUSLY doubt most of the people on this forum would peg me as over 20% in that pic, but as we can see, logic and civil minded discussion isn’t even wanted here. Most of these guys are just here to troll apparently.

If you are teaching newbs that someone in my condition is obese, you are just being an ass.[/quote]

It sends the wrong message to beginners too

1046

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Iron_Made wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dear Lord.

Kids, I am not obese. If you see someone who looks like I did in that pic, calling them obese will make you look dumb.

Please don’t be stupid, kids.[/quote]

Just for clarification i think you are in no way obese or even close to it (IMO).[/quote]

I SERIOUSLY doubt most of the people on this forum would peg me as over 20% in that pic, but as we can see, logic and civil minded discussion isn’t even wanted here. Most of these guys are just here to troll apparently.

If you are teaching newbs that someone in my condition is obese, you are just being an ass.[/quote]

Everyone is playing nice with you today and you’re still bitching and moaning about being persecuted, even in threads where no such thing has happened.

Is it because you’re being persectued or is it because people are disagreeing with you, albeit in a civilized manner?

1047

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

Now, before I get into the actual post, I just want to point out that this response is part of the reason people have a problem with you. You post as if you’re having a shouting match with someone and talking down to them.[/quote]

That is your perspective…which is wrong. No one was talked down to. You ahve repeatedly misunderstood what was written to the point of literally claiming that “minimal” now means “ignore”. How is it talking down to you after that much misunderstanding on your part?

You either are trying to misunderstand what is written or you have a reading comprehension problem, one of the two.

[quote]
So, according to your logic, a newbie should accept moderate gains when they could have made even more progress by taking the time to sort out some basic issues beforehand and adjusted from there instead of wasting arguably the most productive period of an individual’s training career waiting for the time to come when they could no longer out-train a shitty diet.[/quote]

“My logic” doesn’t say that at all. If someone is making changes based on the results seen, how are they “accepting moderate gains”?

[quote]

You are saying that, as long as a newbie is making decent progress, they should continue to eat their diet of 1800 calories of cheetos, pizza, and subway. No tapdancing around that, you’ve said right here in the above post that changes should be contingent only on a lack of progress.[/quote]

Uh, if someone is making decent progress, they need to keep doing what they are doing.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t like exactly what they eat.

1048

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

Everyone is playing nice with you today and you’re still bitching and moaning about being persecuted, even in threads where no such thing has happened.

Is it because you’re being persectued or is it because people are disagreeing with you, albeit in a civilized manner?
[/quote]

? Uh, the simple point is that the pic posted is NOT of someone who is obese or near it.

Acting like it is makes no sense

That has nothing to do with persecution. It has everything to do with some of you acting very juvenile in this forum still.

1049

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

Now, before I get into the actual post, I just want to point out that this response is part of the reason people have a problem with you. You post as if you’re having a shouting match with someone and talking down to them.[/quote]

That is your perspective…which is wrong. No one was talked down to. You ahve repeatedly misunderstood what was written to the point of literally claiming that “minimal” now means “ignore”. How is it talking down to you after that much misunderstanding on your part?

You either are trying to misunderstand what is written or you have a reading comprehension problem, one of the two.

[quote]
So, according to your logic, a newbie should accept moderate gains when they could have made even more progress by taking the time to sort out some basic issues beforehand and adjusted from there instead of wasting arguably the most productive period of an individual’s training career waiting for the time to come when they could no longer out-train a shitty diet.[/quote]

“My logic” doesn’t say that at all. If someone is making changes based on the results seen, how are they “accepting moderate gains”?

[quote]

You are saying that, as long as a newbie is making decent progress, they should continue to eat their diet of 1800 calories of cheetos, pizza, and subway. No tapdancing around that, you’ve said right here in the above post that changes should be contingent only on a lack of progress.[/quote]

Uh, if someone is making decent progress, they need to keep doing what they are doing.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t like exactly what they eat.[/quote]

So you disagree that they are potentially robbing themselves of even more progress if they don’t sort out basic nutritional issues ahead of time and take advantage of the most productive period of their training careers?

If someone could gain 30 lbs of lean mass in their first 6 months of training instead of 20 just by fixing glaring inadequacies in their diet, you’re saying that the 20 lbs is good enough and they shouldn’t change anything else until later?

1050

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That has nothing to do with persecution. It has everything to do with some of you acting very juvenile in this forum still.[/quote]

Can you be more specific than “some of you”, because from what I’ve seen, everyone has been quite civil over here today.

1051

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

So you disagree that they are potentially robbing themselves of even more progress if they don’t sort out basic nutritional issues ahead of time and take advantage of the most productive period of their training careers?[/quote]

Yes, I disagree. Most of the biggest people on this board learned how to eat for their own body over the course of YEARS. It is NOT some paint by numbers approach for all people. Some can eat this and do fine, some can eat that and do fine. Acting like there is any ONE right approach to how to eat is dumb as hell.

This is about PROGRESS MADE…and if someone is making good progress, why would you act like they aren’t simply because you don’t like exactly what they eat?

[quote]
If someone could gain 30 lbs of lean mass in their first 6 months of training instead of 20 just by fixing glaring inadequacies in their diet, you’re saying that the 20 lbs is good enough and they shouldn’t change anything else until later?[/quote]

The premise of this question is flawed. This is like Schrodinger’s cat. You are claiming to know the state of being of the cat without looking in the box.

My guess is, you will need to take some time and think about that one.

1052

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That has nothing to do with persecution. It has everything to do with some of you acting very juvenile in this forum still.[/quote]

Can you be more specific than “some of you”, because from what I’ve seen, everyone has been quite civil over here today.[/quote]

No, they have been passive aggressive and Iron Made has done well at pointing that out.

Passive aggressive action isn’t fooling anyone.

Simply put, that pic is NOT of an obese person…so anyone saying it is would probably be a biased individual.

1053

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

You said he has visible musculature in the traps, chest, and arms, which can remain “neat” (opposite of sloppy perhaps?) even in obesity provided the person has non-severe obesity or overweight.

Giveaways that are more useful are the lower back and abdomen and waist size. If someone is NATURAL (no anabolic drugs), normal height, and sports a 38 to 40 inch pants size, he’s probably quite fat. [/quote]

He said separation and definition…not musculature…and no, no one is OBESE with muscle separation and definition in their delts and chest.

Please stop this nonsense.

1054

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

So you disagree that they are potentially robbing themselves of even more progress if they don’t sort out basic nutritional issues ahead of time and take advantage of the most productive period of their training careers?[/quote]

Yes, I disagree. Most of the biggest people on this board learned how to eat for their own body over the course of YEARS. It is NOT some paint by numbers approach for all people. Some can eat this and do fine, some can eat that and do fine. Acting like there is any ONE right approach to how to eat is dumb as hell.

This is about PROGRESS MADE…and if someone is making good progress, why would you act like they aren’t simply because you don’t like exactly what they eat?

[quote]
If someone could gain 30 lbs of lean mass in their first 6 months of training instead of 20 just by fixing glaring inadequacies in their diet, you’re saying that the 20 lbs is good enough and they shouldn’t change anything else until later?[/quote]

The premise of this question is flawed. This is like Schrodinger’s cat. You are claiming to know the state of being of the cat without looking in the box.

My guess is, you will need to take some time and think about that one.[/quote]

No, I don’t really need any time to think about this one. This isn’t Schrodinger’s cat because we have enough of an understanding of the human body and metabolism to know what are universally favorable and unfavorable conditions for muscle growth.

I am entirely confident that someone who at least increased their protein intake to meet the RDA would make better results than they would eating the diet I posted.

1055

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

You said he has visible musculature in the traps, chest, and arms, which can remain “neat” (opposite of sloppy perhaps?) even in obesity provided the person has non-severe obesity or overweight.

Giveaways that are more useful are the lower back and abdomen and waist size. If someone is NATURAL (no anabolic drugs), normal height, and sports a 38 to 40 inch pants size, he’s probably quite fat. [/quote]

He said separation and definition…not musculature…and no, no one is OBESE with muscle separation and definition in their delts and chest.

Please stop this nonsense.[/quote]

Yeah, and I’ve said repeatedly that there are some obese people with separation in some areas while being obese.

1056

[quote]Professor X wrote:

No, they have been passive aggressive and Iron Made has done well at pointing that out.

[/quote]

IMO, doing what you are doing instead of just calling them out for it in your posts is passive aggressive of you.

Perhaps they just got tired of going in circles on a dumb argument and moved on. That’s the situation in my case, and I’m trying to have a discussion with you about beginners and what they should eat and you’re still acting like we’re having an emotionally charged argument about your bodyfat, a subject I really don’t are enough about to keep talking about.

1057

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

No, I don’t really need any time to think about this one. This isn’t Schrodinger’s cat because we have enough of an understanding of the human body and metabolism to know what are universally favorable and unfavorable conditions for muscle growth.

I am entirely confident that someone who at least increased their protein intake to meet the RDA would make better results than they would eating the diet I posted.[/quote]

You are making huge assumptions based off of one scenario. NO, NO ONE should be basing how they eat strictly off of what someone else just thinks they should eat.

All of this is trial and error. You won’t know how someone will do until they actually do it.

This has nothing to do with that specific diet you alone ate once.

1058

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

You said he has visible musculature in the traps, chest, and arms, which can remain “neat” (opposite of sloppy perhaps?) even in obesity provided the person has non-severe obesity or overweight.

Giveaways that are more useful are the lower back and abdomen and waist size. If someone is NATURAL (no anabolic drugs), normal height, and sports a 38 to 40 inch pants size, he’s probably quite fat. [/quote]

He said separation and definition…not musculature…and no, no one is OBESE with muscle separation and definition in their delts and chest.

Please stop this nonsense.[/quote]

Yeah, and I’ve said repeatedly that there are some obese people with separation in some areas while being obese.
[/quote]

Dear Lord, so in general, you would see someone like that and think OBESE?

Please. You are losing credibility with this crap.

1059

Just had a quick look of images on the net with people both trained and not trained and X looks no where near twenty five percent. Not too sure how accurate the images were and as this is a boring topic I couldnt be bothered to invest more than a quick look at pics

1060

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

No, I don’t really need any time to think about this one. This isn’t Schrodinger’s cat because we have enough of an understanding of the human body and metabolism to know what are universally favorable and unfavorable conditions for muscle growth.

I am entirely confident that someone who at least increased their protein intake to meet the RDA would make better results than they would eating the diet I posted.[/quote]

You are making huge assumptions based off of one scenario. NO, NO ONE should be basing how they eat strictly off of what someone else just thinks they should eat.

All of this is trial and error. You won’t know how someone will do until they actually do it.

This has nothing to do with that specific diet you alone ate once.[/quote]

I’m basing that scenario off of what you said everyone should do, which is change as little as possible with regards to nutrition. That just happens to be a very common scenario for kids getting into lifting. That’s how 95% of teenage/young adult males eat. That’s how every kid I had come to me with parents wanting to shell out a couple hundred a month for training ate.

I don’t know specifically how they will do, but I know they will do better if they meet basic minimal conditions such as consuming adequate (or any) protein.