I guess it must be intellectually “inferior” to understand how the quote functions work.
Hey hey, you fixed em. Good for you. You’re well on your way boyo.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
John Blackthorne wrote:
That’s pathetic and hilarious.
LMAO
You are trolling an internet forum. Who is pathetic?
Tell daddie I said hi. I stopped reading after he called me a cocksucker.[/quote]
I’m not trolling. I came here to respond to TC’s assertions, and then later to discuss the topic at hand. Why don’t you come on over to the “other” forum and we’ll talk there?
[quote]John Blackthorne wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I credit supplements with very little.
Hell, I even tried the V-Diet once and failed before I tossed my opinion of it openly.
How much credit do you give to steroids?[/quote]
Is this serious? Do you really think that he’s on steroids? He has claimed several times that he isn’t, but even if he was, do you think the steroids built all the muscle that he has, and not hard work?
Please tell me you’re kidding.
Perhaps Park, Goodin, Cordova and the boys should have just quit lifting and become drunks? ;D
I must thank you for that quote. I’ve been smiling for half an hour.
[quote]vinigger123 wrote:
30% body fat?
You should definitely enter a natural bodybuilding contest, man. You will beat them all. I mean, after all, your chests, at this point, are already bigger than most females.[/quote]
If you think that’s 30% BF, then you’re an idiot.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
How can you apply a concrete “limit” on a biological entity? Certainly you know that any one of about a trillion variables can skew a person’s fat free mass well above the false limits that you have set. It sounds much more a witch hunt to out users of performance-enhancing drugs than it does legitimate science. Even to that end, it is ridiculously simple-minded and completely unable to stand on its own merits.[/quote]
It is pointless to get lost in examination of the “trillion variables” that can “skew a person’s fat free mass well above the false limits”. The fact is that in years of collecting measurements of the world’s top drug-free bodybuilders no one has passed that limit, despite many approaching it across all eras (data spanning over 60 years).
Of course there will be variations, as Bill Roberts has pointed out eloquently, but to ignore very obvious correlations between structure size and corresponding upper levels of lean body mass development without steroids is much more “simple-minded”.
The basis is explained fairly clearly in the online article and much more detailed in the e-book. This has been discussed here ad nauseum, and doesn’t need to be again. I refer anyone who is interested to the previous threads or the e-book.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
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]
If someone with a profit-motive in a training protocol claimed that the soon-to-be released training protocol would allow an ordinary person to run faster than gold-winning Olympic athletes, would we need to wait for it to be released to question such claims?
I’m not saying that is analogous to the claims made in the advertising of the product at issue in this thread (although one could argue for the analogy), but the simple point is that raising questions about advertising claims before a product is released makes sense if the advertising claims warrant scrutiny.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
vinigger123 wrote:
30% body fat?
You should definitely enter a natural bodybuilding contest, man. You will beat them all. I mean, after all, your chests, at this point, are already bigger than most females.
If you think that’s 30% BF, then you’re an idiot.
[/quote]
Look at his screen name. Blatant troll.
See what kind of awesome specimen the “scientific” community produces?
Oh look guys, how smart, witty, and superior they are… They literally are /b/, NOT on steroids.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Tell daddie I said hi. I stopped reading after he called me a cocksucker.[/quote]
Thank you for proving him wrong.
This thread sure as hell doesn’t make me respect that “other” website if these are the spokespeople for it. This is retarded, inside and out. You have to love armchair pseudo-scientists who are apparently so smart, they “know” they can’t get big.
Please, God, do not allow me to be this “smart”. I have goals to reach.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This thread sure as hell doesn’t make me respect that “other” website if these are the spokespeople for it. This is retarded, inside and out. You have to love armchair pseudo-scientists who are apparently so smart, they “know” they can’t get big.
Please, God, do not allow me to be this “smart”. I have goals to reach.[/quote]
It is so retarded you can’t dis-prove it? Please, God, allow this dude to lose some weight so he can prove how “right” he is.
I think its fine that TC is censoring stuff. Its his site, and his business, and we get free articles and a place to discuss things because they are making money. If the money stops, the site stops. And then i’d probably have to go back to bodybuilding.com which would just suck.
But I found it funny when they first showed the I, bodybuilder thing. Everyone was going crazy, like this was going to be the “holy grail” of bodybuilding. Now people are going around the site and suggesting that the reason they haven’t made gains is because they dont have their Peri-workout nutrition down.
It is stupid to criticeze something before it comes out though. T-Nation is making big claims with the I, bodybuilder program, and I hope the before and after pictures of CT and others back them up.
But as I said in a previous post (that got deleted by mods), From the video of I, bodybuilder, it doesn’t look like they developed some magical new training system. It looks like a program that CT would normally use, usign “high threshold hypertrophy” and a new supplement.
[quote]kribrg wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This thread sure as hell doesn’t make me respect that “other” website if these are the spokespeople for it. This is retarded, inside and out. You have to love armchair pseudo-scientists who are apparently so smart, they “know” they can’t get big.
Please, God, do not allow me to be this “smart”. I have goals to reach.
It is so retarded you can’t dis-prove it? Please, God, allow this dude to lose some weight so he can prove how “right” he is. [/quote]
Most people on the planet will never compete. I may never compete even though I would like to get under 10% body fat. Why? Because I do just fine in life looking the way I do right now and the ONLY people who seem to have a problem with my development…are little guys like you who will never put their picture up for criticism.
If not having sub-10% body fat allows you to surpass all of these “limits”, then why pray tell are there “limits”?
If walking around at a very comfortable “12%” means I get to be way bigger than my “Butt Ceiling”, then maybe I should be comfortable with “12%”.
I do believe we are still waiting on ONE of you to put a picture up to show us what being so highly evolved and intelligent has allowed you to create in the gym.
It is funny how none of you seem to be proud enough to show us. I mean, that’s down right strange.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
How can you apply a concrete “limit” on a biological entity? Certainly you know that any one of about a trillion variables can skew a person’s fat free mass well above the false limits that you have set. It sounds much more a witch hunt to out users of performance-enhancing drugs than it does legitimate science. Even to that end, it is ridiculously simple-minded and completely unable to stand on its own merits.[/quote]
Doesn’t that depend on the claims made about the biological entity? For example, a trillion variables go into how how high a person can jump, how fast he or she can run. And if you or I claimed to be able to sprint faster that Usain Bolt or to jump farther than the gold-medal winning long jumper, our claims would be subject to scrutiny, right? There would be nothing irrational about scrutiny of such claims, right?
[quote]Tillerman wrote:
MODOK wrote:
How can you apply a concrete “limit” on a biological entity? Certainly you know that any one of about a trillion variables can skew a person’s fat free mass well above the false limits that you have set. It sounds much more a witch hunt to out users of performance-enhancing drugs than it does legitimate science. Even to that end, it is ridiculously simple-minded and completely unable to stand on its own merits.
Doesn’t that depend on the claims made about the biological entity? For example, a trillion variables go into how how high a person can jump, how fast he or she can run. And if you or I claimed to be able to sprint faster that Usain Bolt or to jump farther than the gold-medal winning long jumper, our claims would be subject to scrutiny, right? There would be nothing irrational about scrutiny of such claims, right?
[/quote]
You are relating having 18" or 19" arms to winning the Gold in the Olympics?
I mean, are there just zero large weight lifters where you live?
I see big lifters all day long at the gym. They are a tad more plentiful than there are “Usain Bolts”.
You do see that much of a difference “between preemptively deciding not to lend much credence to those who are the biggest and strongest” and “preemptively discrediting advice”?
Do you believe that ergogenic aids change the game so much that those who have had the most success with them have been able to do so with complete disregard to proper training and nutrition? This seems to be your implication.
I make no bones about never stepping on the Olympia stage, but I also do not approach other aspects of my daily life being more concerned with what I am not capable of than what I may be capable of. Believing that your own personal development is somehow limited by the average is pointless and a clear indication that you do not understand how averages work.
As far as what Louie says…well…Louie says a lot of things. The fact that you’re taking his word for gospel goes to show how little relevant experience you have. I know three lifetime drug free athletes (have competed in tested events for years, not “been off my cycle for 6 months” naturals) who have done the following in the past year:
400 lb RAW box squat at 165 lbs (40 years old)
1940 total (815-505 bench-620) at 200.5 lbs, also has a 405 RAW bench, 23 years old and lifetime natural
1395 total (545-315-535) at 148 lbs, 25 years old and lifetime natural
Obviously these three guys just aren’t on the same level as the assisted guys they train with.
Ad hominem attacks? You mean like the ones being thrown by your buddies at members of this site? Ironic, isn’t it.
[quote]dankid wrote:
I think its fine that TC is censoring stuff. Its his site, and his business, and we get free articles and a place to discuss things because they are making money. If the money stops, the site stops. And then i’d probably have to go back to bodybuilding.com which would just suck.
But I found it funny when they first showed the I, bodybuilder thing. Everyone was going crazy, like this was going to be the “holy grail” of bodybuilding. Now people are going around the site and suggesting that the reason they haven’t made gains is because they dont have their Peri-workout nutrition down.
It is stupid to criticeze something before it comes out though. T-Nation is making big claims with the I, bodybuilder program, and I hope the before and after pictures of CT and others back them up.
But as I said in a previous post (that got deleted by mods), From the video of I, bodybuilder, it doesn’t look like they developed some magical new training system. It looks like a program that CT would normally use, usign “high threshold hypertrophy” and a new supplement.[/quote]
That was CT’s original role in all of this. He was developing a free muscle building program (was supposed to be released around March I believe) and then him and Tim got together and made it more. Yes there is marketing, yes there is hype, yes it’s tied to Anaconda, but the program will still be free just like CT promised towards the end of last year.
CT put his reputation on the line in regards to what he saw/achieved. Which he said he wouldn’t have believed otherwise. At worst we get a free program, at best we get that as well as a new supplement that preforms half of what is claimed. Will it be the be all end all? Probably not. Will it help with your training? Hopefully so.
Oh and maybe I’m blind, or dumb or intellectually “inferior” (I can use quotes though) but where is this proof that they seem to tout. I see some data presented as facts tied tenuously together, and a whole bunch of nobodies incorporating the big lie technique. So I’m not exactly sure what needs to be disproved.
[quote]kribrg wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
Tell daddie I said hi. I stopped reading after he called me a cocksucker.
Thank you for proving him wrong.
[/quote]
Hey man, I’m not posting pictures of other people shitting on them without my info public.
I’m not making racist screen names.
I’m not trolling “your” site.
I asked you honest questions, you gave me honest answers, and I dropped it. We aren’t going to agree, so it is pointless.
I just don’t approach training the same way you do. Doesn’t mean I’m right and your wrong. Certainly doesn’t make you right and me wrong either. The only wrong one is the one not reaching their goals, and I’m getting to mine just fine, as I’m sure you are too.
Honestly good luck with reaching your goals. I also want to wish all your friends who are posting pictures of people here, over there, to tear them down, when they have zero information public, the best too.
I’m sure you guys help people everyday.
Has he put up my pictures yet? I so what to be an interwebz celebrity.
This has totally gotten out of hand. Here’s a real simple solution to all this crap. Post a picture, and then type your thread. I don’t understand why there are people from this other site, trying to argue with the veterans on this site.
Nor does it do any good to tell knowledgeable posters like Prof. X to lose weight… Seeing how the vets on this site probably will not even attempt the program , or buy the product, I don’t see what good this does other than all you guys simply curing boredom.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Most people on the planet will never compete. I may never compete even though I would like to get under 10% body fat. Why? Because I do just fine in life looking the way I do right now and the ONLY people who seem to have a problem with my development…are little guys like you who will never put their picture up for criticism.
If not having sub-10% body fat allows you to surpass all of these “limits”, then why pray tell are there “limits”?
If walking around at a very comfortable “12%” means I get to be way bigger than my “Butt Ceiling”, then maybe I should be comfortable with “12%”.
I do believe we are still waiting on ONE of you to put a picture up to show us what being so highly evolved and intelligent has allowed you to create in the gym.
It is funny how none of you seem to be proud enough to show us. I mean, that’s down right strange. [/quote]
I don’t put my pic up because it has nothing to do with whether, as a natural, people can surpass the limits of lbm. That is just you 1) diverting from the point (which you can’t dis-prove 2) perpetuating your status on this site as the big guy in a tank top