[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
IgneLudo wrote:
I think a lot of women like the physique . . .
Then you’re wrong.
Most women would find the pic you posted above revolting.[/quote]
Aren’t you like 170lbs & a Nazi supporter?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What separates people is PROGRESS. [/quote]
PROGRESS based on adequate nutrition, intelligent program design, and fucking hard work is what qualifies people to dish out advice. Any PROGRESS beyond that, based on genetics alone, means jack shit when it comes to dishing out advice.
Obviously, the first guy in your example isn’t progressing because he is NOT putting in adequate nutrition, intelligent program design, and fucking hard work. His genetics has nothing to do with it.
The point is that if a guy invests identical nutrition/program design/hard work and only gains half the muscle of someone who does exactly the same thing, one is no more qualified to dish out advice than the other. Genetics doesn’t magically make you more knowledgeable about nutrition and fitness.
[quote]Westclock wrote:
While I do agree that most gymnasts are small and that women tend to like taller guys everything else you said is borderline retarded. Those “little” dudes are strong as fuck. I’d be willing to bet that the majority of them can bench AT LEAST 1.5x their bodyweight without having spent significant time under a barbell.
again 1.5 times his bodyweight, 130, is still only 195 pounds.
Not to mention his range of motion is about 6 inches due to being 5’4
My 16 year old brother can move 195 6 “whole” inches.
My point is this, if you have to say he can bench alot…for his bodyweight, than that really just means hes weak.
I dont care if hes strong for his size, hes small, just because hes strong for a little guy doesn’t make him less of a little guy.
[/quote]
sorry, the big power lifts are only meaningful in terms of the lifter’s bodyweight. without that context, they are meaningless. that is why there are weight classes in powerlifting, and “best lifter” is always decided by weight lifted as a percentage of lifter’s bodyweight.
Sure, a 400 lb bench is impressive for normal folks, but Chad Aichs bodyweight is 400 when he competes. On the other hand, someone under 200lbs benching 400 is FAR more impressive.
And as for girls, i have (sadly) never been invited to bed based upon my awesome squat. I don’t think most women care about how much you can lift.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
What separates people is PROGRESS.
PROGRESS based on adequate nutrition, intelligent program design, and fucking hard work is what qualifies people to dish out advice. Any PROGRESS beyond that, based on genetics alone, means jack shit when it comes to dishing out advice.
No, the guy who “trains” for 15 years but still has 15" arms does NOT deserve as much praise or respect as the guy who gained 70lbs of muscle and 3 extra inches on his arm or more.
Obviously, the first guy in your example isn’t progressing because he is NOT putting in adequate nutrition, intelligent program design, and fucking hard work. His genetics has nothing to do with it.
The point is that if a guy invests identical nutrition/program design/hard work and only gains half the muscle of someone who does exactly the same thing, one is no more qualified to dish out advice than the other. Genetics doesn’t magically make you more knowledgeable about nutrition and fitness.[/quote]
Look, if someone’s goal is to simply be as big as you are, then give all of the fucking advice you want. That also means you should shut the fuck up the moment someone asks a question about how to get bigger than “maybe he works out”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Look, if someone’s goal is to simply be as big as you are, then give all of the fucking advice you want. That also means you should shut the fuck up the moment someone asks a question about how to get bigger than “maybe he works out”.[/quote]
Judging the progress of others by what YOU have achieved means shit, unless you distinguish between genetics and nutrition/fitness/hard work. Someone with lesser genetics can follow your program to a T, and still end up looking half your size.
God forbid, someone may actually be MORE knowledgeable than you, and not be as big as you are. The only way to know is to look at his nutrition, fitness, and hard work. Unless you separate that out from genetics, you’re in no position to judge his knowledge vs. yours.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Look, if someone’s goal is to simply be as big as you are, then give all of the fucking advice you want. That also means you should shut the fuck up the moment someone asks a question about how to get bigger than “maybe he works out”.
Judging the progress of others by what YOU have achieved means shit, unless you distinguish between genetics and nutrition/fitness/hard work. Someone with lesser genetics can follow your program to a T, and still end up looking half your size.
God forbid, someone may actually be MORE knowledgeable than you, and not be as big as you are. The only way to know is to look at his nutrition, fitness, and hard work. Unless you separate that out from genetics, you’re in no position to judge his knowledge vs. yours. [/quote]
Dude, you seem to think you look BUILT. You don’t. No one disrespects someone for simply not being “as big” as someone else. You can tell by looking at someone who has their shit together and who doesn’t. It is not as simple as “the biggest guy knows more”…however, it is also not as simple as “all people deserve the same respect because they all worked hard”.
Onemorerep on this site is over 100lbs smaller than me, however, I am sure he knows a thing or two about bodybuilding and you can tell this BY LOOKING AT HIM. Are you saying we all need to listen to you the same way we would listen to him?
Really?
How much weight have you gained?
How much do you weigh now?
Any recent pics showing how much progress you are making or at least showing you know what you are doing in the gym?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Look, if someone’s goal is to simply be as big as you are, then give all of the fucking advice you want. That also means you should shut the fuck up the moment someone asks a question about how to get bigger than “maybe he works out”.
Judging the progress of others by what YOU have achieved means shit, unless you distinguish between genetics and nutrition/fitness/hard work. Someone with lesser genetics can follow your program to a T, and still end up looking half your size.
God forbid, someone may actually be MORE knowledgeable than you, and not be as big as you are. The only way to know is to look at his nutrition, fitness, and hard work. Unless you separate that out from genetics, you’re in no position to judge his knowledge vs. yours. [/quote]
Oh for crying out loud.
At least stop talking about “others”, “someone” and so on.
What you are saying is that you yourself are knowledgeable despite being small, so drop the third person bullshit.
[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
Oh for crying out loud.
At least stop talking about “others”, “someone” and so on.
What you are saying is that you yourself are knowledgeable despite being small, so drop the third person bullshit.[/quote]
WTF? I don’t consider myself any more knowledgeable than the majority of guys here on the board. PX knows a shitload more than I do, and I never said otherwise. Feel free to address the actual point being discussed though.
I’m 5’7", so I’d like to believe relative strength is all that matters, and forlifes’s “do the best with what you have” attitude is what I tell my kids when necessary to make them feel better. But absolute achievement matters! Progress of humanity comes from the absolute best things the most gifted of us manage to do. I think almost everyone is instinctively drawn to that, certainly my boys are. To be impressed by an ant requires conscious analysis; a T-rex is just obviously awesome. Except maybe for his arms.
I’ve always been impressed by Olympic gymnasts for what they can do, and for a short guy, it’s a pretty good look to try for.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dude, you seem to think you look BUILT.[/quote]
Dude, I don’t think I look BUILT and I never claimed I know more than you do about nutrition and fitness.
I respect what you have to say because you eat big and have busted your ass to get where you are, NOT because of your genetics. If someone is smaller than you but has been just as intelligent and committed, I think he is equally qualified to dispense advice, regardless of his genetic potential.
I’m not that guy, and I never claimed to be.
The discussion seems to be going downhill at this point, so I’ll leave it at that.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m not that guy, and I never claimed to be.
[/quote]
Oh, so we’re talking about some hypothetical person who works just as hard and consistantly as (for example) Prof X, but has barely half the muscle mass to show for it.
Your posts seem to have a recurring theme of “small guys are just as good”, and the concept annoys me. If you don’t want to be bigger and heavier, fine, but stop acting like you CAN’T, because of age or genetics.
[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
Oh, so we’re talking about some hypothetical person who works just as hard and consistantly as (for example) Prof X, but has barely half the muscle mass to show for it.
Your posts seem to have a recurring theme of “small guys are just as good”, and the concept annoys me. If you don’t want to be bigger and heavier, fine, but stop acting like you CAN’T, because of age or genetics.[/quote]
Yeah, but less also not claim that those aren’t factors. All the time on this site I hear people readily admit that people who start lifting over the age of 35 are never going to be able to add serious amounts of muscle to their frame, it’s just too late for them. Then when these guys start talking they are told they aren’t big enough and to stop blaming age and genetics.
Where is the middle ground? How big should forlife be before he gets respect taking into consideration how late he started?
This is a serious question.
I’m not so much sticking up for forlife but really, should guys that start lifting past 35 who obviously won’t ever get that big be respected for what they have accomplished or should they start posting on another forum?
I’m leaving work now to catch the train home so I probably won’t be seeing any responses until Monday but I’m interested in what everyone has to say.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Yeah, but less also not claim that those aren’t factors. All the time on this site I hear people readily admit that people who start lifting over the age of 35 are never going to be able to add serious amounts of muscle to their frame, it’s just too late for them. Then when these guys start talking they are told they aren’t big enough and to stop blaming age and genetics. [/quote]
No, I specifically said someone starting over the age of 35 is very unlikely to reach their GENETIC LIMIT. That does not mean they can’t build significant muscle mass.
Also, they need to realize their audience. Does it really make sense for the 40 year old who just started lifting 3 years ago to tell some 20 year old guy that he should follow his approach?
No, it does not.
i’m pretty sure that if someone ‘genetically average’ went on an optimum 10 year quest like the prof has then he would look pretty good by any standard even if not the prof’s size.
Thus, he would gain respect as it is due (and the outcome would be visibly obvious) even while the accomplishment of the prof would have been greater.
Likewise if the 37 year old, taking a different route, returned at 47 after his decade he would also get lots of respect and look really good by any standard, even if he cannot hope to achieve the same as the years 17 to 27 would have got him, and acceping once again that the accomplishment would not be as impressive as the more genetically gifted.
I think i get what ‘forlife’ is trying to say but it’s slightly off target. Accomplishment beats all, however much we can respect anyone with 10 years dedication. It’s something cultural (in most of the west anyway) to at once praise accomplishment (quite rightly) and then also claim equality of opportunity (not accuate) leading to frustration (understandable) and sometimes bitterness and a demand for equality of recognition.
it’s worth noting that no amount of effort beats natural talent plus effort. In the tortoise and the hare story the tortoise may have won, but in real life a wiser hare will come along and win over them all.
Wait so lets say you have a guy 130 pounds and he maxes out 250 on the bench, and you have a 300 pound guy bench 300 pounds, you would be more impressed of the fat ass right? I mean he is moving more weight.
/lmao. Some of you over grown apes are too full of it.
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
over grown apes [/quote]
I can’t wait until I’m big enough for someone to call me an over grown ape…
Ah a boy can dream can’t he?
[quote]Liv92 wrote:
Wait so lets say you have a guy 130 pounds and he maxes out 250 on the bench, and you have a 300 pound guy bench 300 pounds, you would be more impressed of the fat ass right? I mean he is moving more weight.
/lmao. Some of you over grown apes are too full of it. [/quote]
I’m confused…first, why is the 300lbs person fat if they lift weights regularly? Second, why can’t they lift more than just 300lbs?
In fact, what fucking gym have you been in where you see a 300lbs serious weight lifter who can ONLY press 300lbs?
Everyone who weighs 300lbs is fat?
I personally am not impressed with a 250lbs benchpress no matter who is doing it unless they are a 10th grade school girl.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Yeah, but less also not claim that those aren’t factors. All the time on this site I hear people readily admit that people who start lifting over the age of 35 are never going to be able to add serious amounts of muscle to their frame, it’s just too late for them. Then when these guys start talking they are told they aren’t big enough and to stop blaming age and genetics.
[/quote]
I hope to personnally refute this ‘claim’. I’m “Over 35”, yet have gained significant/size strength in a relatively short time. Would the gains come faster if I were 23? Certainly.
However, I don’t think about age in the gym, I just strive for “+1 Rep”, “+X pounds”, or “+1 inch arms”.
The reward comes with the hard work without the mental burden of conceding that “it’s too late for me”. I won’t ever understand that mindset.
[quote]Prof. X:
No, I specifically said someone starting over the age of 35 is very unlikely to reach their GENETIC LIMIT. That does not mean they can’t build significant muscle mass.
[/quote]
This is a fair statement. I would only add “naturally”… I certainly have no problem with folks using assistance to ‘level the playing field’.
The Over 35 forum is full of guys progressing in strength, progress which I’d compare to most in the forums.
These kinda threads are both entertaining and depressing at the same time…
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
The Over 35 forum is full of guys progressing in strength, progress which I’d compare to most in the forums.[/quote]
I believe it. I know the people who train the hardest in my gym are in their 30’s and 40’s…even though most are not beginners. I never even implied that 35+ means you can’t gain muscle. However, if we are talking about who would be more likely to reach “pro level size” after starting as a skinny guy, that person would be the on who started either in their 20’s or before, not the guy who waited until over 35 to just get started.