[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
The most hilarious part of this argument is that kribrg and john blackthorne are small and undeveloped. It’s always the same story with the guys who want to get all scientific and debate about how things should work.[/quote]
I almost cut myself when N=1 was brought into the debate
CT, I know that my bulks start at about 225 and move to about 240. Strong a a mooose, but I don’t feel so hot. l feel much better when I come back down to 230. Insomnia and narcolepsy start to take their toll.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
The most hilarious part of this argument is that kribrg and john blackthorne are small and undeveloped. It’s always the same story with the guys who want to get all scientific and debate about how things should work.[/quote]
the most hilarious part of this argument is that you aren’t actually arguing.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
flyingXknee wrote:
K2000 wrote:
Bottom line, if the “I, BODYBUILDER” program is bunk, it’s going to be obvious, and if it works it will be obvious. I have to believe that in this case, no publicity is bad publicity, if it works. .
this is def what this thread should be about not focusing on attacking other tnation readers
i am willing to bet though that 90% of people who try I, BODYBUILDER wont gain 10 lbs of muscle in 10 weeks and when they speak up they will be called pussies
If everything is done the way it is supposed to, NOT gaining 10lbs in 8 weeks would be a rare “feat”. The least gains we had a guy have in 8 weeks is 10lbs, and this guy is over 50 and has been lifting for over 30 years… and he is a doctor with a very complex schedule.
That is why the program is taking some time to be published: We are filming every single workout of every single phase. Not make-believe workouts, but real ones with the level of intensity, effort and workout tempo required.
EXERCISE, SETS, REPS AND METHODS ARE NOT THE MAIN INGREDIENT IN SUCCESS…
HOW you execute the workout is the real key and this is why we have to film everything so that people will know how to train for the program.
One thing I came to realize when I went to train with Tate and his gang, and something I had forgotten, is how FEW people (even those who call themselves hardcore) train hard enough to grow optimally.
Anyway, we have two guys (Sebastien and Keven) doing the workouts… there are 5 phases within the program, each of which has 4-5 workouts. So that is 20-25 workouts to film. Keven was preparing for a contest so we could not ask him to train 3 times a day to get everything done in a week![/quote]
So, the execution of training program itself is more important than the supplement protocol?
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
So 192 would be a safe bet.[/quote]
I think that is an honest answer. Thibs probably works out harder than most and due to filming and testing the supplement probably worked out with even more intensity than normal and he would compete at under 200 lbs. I would say that most on here including me would be happy with his physique. No? He consistently worked out for years to get there including olympic lifting, the beast mutation, etc. So I am not sure what all of the fuss is about in regards to the Casey numbers.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
The most hilarious part of this argument is that kribrg and john blackthorne are small and undeveloped. It’s always the same story with the guys who want to get all scientific and debate about how things should work.[/quote]
If I posted my numbers you would just say I was lying and then where would that leave us?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Haven’t you noticed that non-athletes, just general kids in junior high and high school, average considerably bigger than say 30 years ago let alone 50?
If you want to imagine their parents have all of them on growth promoting drugs, you are free to think that.
[/quote]
Height is one of the factors in Butt’s equation so time is irrelevant.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Is it a documented fact that John Grimek never used any anabolic drugs? Just curious, because supposedly the York Barbell lifters did know about (and some used) steroids.[/quote]
Joh Grimek? Are you fucking serious? Why is it so hard to believe he isn’t taking steriod. He ain’t fucking huge to any degree.
We have natties on this site much much bigger than him. Give me a break. Anytime a small guy sees a big guy they’re always steriod accusations but hard work and many years of training is never the reason for big muscles. It makes me sick. Most of you need to get to the gym and to stop accusing people of steroid use.
[quote]Jacked Diesel wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
The most hilarious part of this argument is that kribrg and john blackthorne are small and undeveloped. It’s always the same story with the guys who want to get all scientific and debate about how things should work.
I almost cut myself when N=1 was brought into the debate[/quote]
Just remember, its down the road not across the street.
[quote]Jacked Diesel wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
The most hilarious part of this argument is that kribrg and john blackthorne are small and undeveloped. It’s always the same story with the guys who want to get all scientific and debate about how things should work.
I almost cut myself when N=1 was brought into the debate[/quote]
Why?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Okay, now on to a new subject: the bringing up of Casey Butt to supposedly prove that CT is on steroids.
…
Yeah, to people who like pretending they are armchair scientists.[/quote]
Mr. Roberts, I would like your opinion on this study:
Specifically, I would like to know what you see as flaws in the methodology.
Oddly enough, the results of this research are very much congruent with Casey Butt’s analysis.
Of course, I’m not sure if anyone was claiming that there won’t be genetically gifted individuals a few standard deviations from the mean; nor can we assume that a sample drawn from a largely American populace will be representative of everyone, everywhere.
Yet, which is more prudent: assuming you are the outlier, or assuming that you are not unless you have reason to believe otherwise?
As far as real limits, I’ve not seen anyone in this thread actually present math to dispute the claims of either Casey’s analysis, nor this research study.
Why not run numbers and see what happens?
[quote]kribrg wrote:
countingbeans wrote:So is asking the biggest guys in the gym what they did to get there anecdotal or scientific?
That would be anecdotal. Chances are you will get different responses from each one you ask. As a natural I personally wouldn’t lend much credence to their responses either.
[/quote]
How much lean mass have you gained since you started training? Do you honestly preemptively discredit advice from those who are where or far beyond where you want to be? Can you really be so arrogant? Do you feel so inferior that you must immediately compensate for your lack of success in an activity as simple as lifting weights by flaunting your “natural trainee disadvantage” merit badge?
Do you approach all aspects of your life in this manner? Do you honestly believe that exogenous hormones fundamentally alter human physiology to such a great degree that the same basic tenants are no longer applicable?
Being a natural trainee, should I have ignored the advice of my assisted training partner? Having done so would have short changed me of the roughly 1.5 inches that I’ve gained on my upper arms over the past several months. Should I have ignored all of the advice I received from steroid-taking world record holders during my time training at a certain reputable powerlifting gym in Columbus, Ohio? It appears that your ignorance is only matched by your arrogance.
You start to get yourself into trouble when you set up these intellectual monopolies on how to gain muscle. It seems that there is some sort of invasion going on here with members from Lyle’s site suddenly springing in to throw in their opinions.
I find this entire thing laughable and the arrogance expressed by people such as yourself even more entertaining. Lyle is a very intelligent man, no doubt, but that in no way makes you intelligent by association. The implication here and on the other site seems to be that those posting there possess some sort of intellectual superiority over those posting here simply because of their affiliation with Lyle.
I agree with Mr. Aragon’s common assertion that bodybuilding is not nearly the rocket science it is often portrayed to be, but I find it laughable that he associates with a group of people so entirely unfamiliar with application of their endlessly researched knowledge. I am a member on Lyle’s site and I do occasionally venture over there, but the smug attitudes and theory-over-practice ideals often cause me to cut my visits short.
As my father so eloquently told me once: “You can write a thesis on shovels, but at the end of the day that still doesn’t mean you can dig for shit.”
Mr. Aragon and Mr. McDonald-
On this site, we have several men carrying 230+ lbs of lean body mass as natural trainees of average height. We have champion power lifters and sport-specific coaches whose livelihoods (not pubmed e-cred) rely on their ability to produce results. We have medical and pharmacological experts giving real world, first-hand advice based not only through their extensive study, but also through their extensive application of their knowledge.
If Mr. Aragon feels so strongly that he needs to defend members of this community from Biotest’s claims, then I would assert that Mr. Aragon has arrogantly and vastly underestimated the established members of this site. If you two are out to slay dragons, there are many, much larger ones in the supplement industry to slay.
It seems your continued assault on Biotest (going all the way back to Misc. Fitness Weights) is centered more on a deep seeded bitterness towards Tim or TC. Of course, being unable to distinguish between the company itself and those posting on it’s message boards, you attack us equally. Our community is doing just fine without your input. Kindly take your condescension and shove it.
12 yr old on chocolate milk?
Hell, I knew an 11yr old who had 2 Twinkies, a scone, 4 Skittles, and a marshmallow, and damn he was jacked. (22 inch arms too.)
OK, seriously, how exactly can people critique a supplement / workout program that has not been released yet?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I read the article on chocolate milk by Alan. I thought it was a piece of shit.
Ha! All this time I thought you were him![/quote]
Fucking hell! I hope you were joking…my sarcasm meter is off today. NO, I am NOT him.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
The most hilarious part of this argument is that kribrg and john blackthorne are small and undeveloped. It’s always the same story with the guys who want to get all scientific and debate about how things should work.[/quote]
More pathetic than hilarious. I apparently look like a sumo wrestler now to these fuckers who have no pictures up. Anyone who discounts the advice of people who actually got big in favor of only looking at studies (especially those without the formal education to support this stance) is nowhere near as intelligent as they THINK they are.
These types are all the same and none of them has actually gotten very big themselves yet. You would think an intelligent person would wonder if they are on the right path if progress was that limited over years.
I am still laughing at their claim that diathibluline isn’t lean enough yet to judge whether he is huge as fuck according to the magical BUTT Ceiling…the limit we all must go by to judge our own progress for some reason.
[quote]Jacked Diesel wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
The most hilarious part of this argument is that kribrg and john blackthorne are small and undeveloped. It’s always the same story with the guys who want to get all scientific and debate about how things should work.
I almost cut myself when N=1 was brought into the debate[/quote]
Eh fuck it.
We are talking about people with no public images posting and tearing down other people public progress.
People that are more concerned with looking smart on the interwebs buy using shit like “n=1” than actually disseminating information.
And people that are overly concerned with whether or not someone is natural. Which I don’t understand. I mean really, why do you guys give a shit? Is it to justify your own size? And why do you need to do that in the first place?
I just don’t understand people that are more caught up in what others are doing rather than their own progress.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So are you “Butt’s Ceiling” folk using his equations that allow for large-structured powerlifters and strength athletes – the latter which CT is – and which allow for the existence of outliers, which Butt does recognize exist? I bet not. Nice “science.” Or if you say you are, then what, using the equation Butt says is appropriate, is the typical limit and then how much when accounting for outliers, at CT’s height? Surely you know since you claim he is above it. If you don’t, then again, nice attempt at playing scientist.
Secondly, we need to consider the condition of the individuals measured. What a surprise, you measure Grimek in then-contest condition and then figure CT’s weight in NON-contest condition at the point in time cited and CT is heavier for his height. What a surprise. On the other hand, if you take CT’s contest weight then there’s probably not much difference. Huh.
Lastly, has everyone not noticed that it is easy to find bigger athletes today just about everywhere you look, and not necessarily because of drugs? Hmmm, isn’t average height bigger, and not because of drugs? Doesn’t that suggest that the most recent generations are enjoying developmental advantages over previous generations? And secondly, that the pool of naturally large people who seriously go into sports today may be larger than in the past because of, back in the 50s, there being quite little financial reward to sports, or bb’ing, vs quite considerable reward today? And perhaps an effect in the past where it tended to be the naturally littler man who was drawn to weight training – e.g. back in Arnold’s day most competitors came in under or not much over 200 lb regardless of drugs – and the naturally huge guy may usually have seen little point, but these days, naturally huge guys do see a point to getting bigger yet? Just maybe the pool of entrants into weight training may have changed over time?
Aw no, no way, anyone heavier than Grimek for his height HAS to be on drugs. That is SCIENCE.
Yeah, to people who like pretending they are armchair scientists.
[/quote]
There are, no doubt, people bigger than the “Casey Butt” limits would project. Isn’t that beside the point? The Casey Butt limits address how much muscle one can carry at a very low bodyfat %. There is no limit on how huge power lifters, some athletes, and anyone willing to get fat can get. That’s beside the point.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
The most hilarious part of this argument is that kribrg and john blackthorne are small and undeveloped. It’s always the same story with the guys who want to get all scientific and debate about how things should work.[/quote]
So, science and debate is for the small and the weak?
As someone who loves to come and read all the post about training and nutrition. I know well enough that the sum is greater than all the parts. Lets not let the few people who will take, try and fail with someones program when they dont follow the program designed.
Any jackhole could take the I’Body builder program, not follow the workout correctly, not follow the nutrition protocol (or use any common senses on workout nutrition) then come on here and bash that the program didnt work. Nobody knows the program yet, If I do the program, put on some size and strength, who is to say it didnt work. This is why there are things called averages.
[quote]kribrg wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
So 192 would be a safe bet.
I think that is an honest answer. Thibs probably works out harder than most and due to filming and testing the supplement probably worked out with even more intensity than normal and he would compete at under 200 lbs. I would say that most on here including me would be happy with his physique. No? He consistently worked out for years to get there including olympic lifting, the beast mutation, etc. So I am not sure what all of the fuss is about in regards to the Casey numbers.
[/quote]
You are aware that CT just stated that due to a condition from birth he can’t really go above the 220s right? In addition, he’s stated numerous times that in his job as a personal trainer he has to have a happy middle between being jacked and not frightening away the average joeschmo with his physique. So, taking all that into consideration…if he didn’t have those limitations you honestly believe he couldn’t come in over 200lbs. in contest shape?