I Deleted the Amazing New Supplement Thread--TC

Training Bodybuilding
261

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Seeing as how the debate here has dropped to about 3rd grade level, I’m out. Any jokers debating BODYBUILDING and gains made who are afraid to post their own stats should never be taken seriously. We simply got overrun by a bunch of guys who read an article and now think they are smarter than everyone growing faster than them. Congrats, guys. You made it. I’m sure life will be rosy from here on out.[/quote]

Do you have a pic without a shirt on? If not, then I can not take nutrition advice from you. See how that works.

Or better yet. If Thibs and R. Coleman were in the same gym, by your standards, R. Coleman would know more about how to train (and be able to explain it) than Thibs. I think not.

262

[quote]Aggro wrote:
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.

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]

Exactly… Tim called me up in January and started to ask me how I would design the ultimate ‘bad ass’ program. The original intent was NOT bodybuilding related; the goal was to design a program aimed at building bad motherf*ckers. The intent was a program that would make someone muscular but also agile, powerful and with good work capacity. Heck, we even discussed making game show out of it!!!

But as I started to experiment with the program and methods with my clients, they started to grow fast. Some guys who had been stuck for 6-10 months were making sudden progress.

When I reported this to Tim he decided to switch this to a bodybuilding program. The supplements were not even part of it yet.

It’s when I reported fat initial gains, followed by symptoms of overwork that he suggested a few products. It worked very well. Then we contacted Dr. Tim Ziegenfuss to see where we could take the supplement program. It is with talking to him and Dr. Lowery that we came up with the supplement protocol.

As you noticed it was not our intent to make this into a groundbreaking bodybuilding program, the results just steered the program another way.

263

[quote]Tillerman wrote:
Professor X wrote:
My broad claim? What claim was that? That we do not have enough data to try to put a specific limit on what humans can achieve in terms of muscle growth? This is a “broad claim”? The only people making CLAIMS here are you and the guys you brought with you.

I thought you claimed we could not set limits on biological entities. That’s pretty broad. As for data about what people can achieve in terms of muscle growth – we may not have enough data to say what is possible or impossible, but we do have enough data to say what is improbable and warrants scrutiny. See Casey Butt’s work.

Uhm, Kai Green just gained like 60-70lbs of what looks to be lean mass in about two years. Who the fuck here is making claims like that? I’ve been lifting for over a decade to reach the size I am now so what are you talking about? CT has been bigger…which means muscle memory along with his training knowledge and length of time training had much to do with results he saw. Guys like you…you know, the ones who turn their nose up if they see someone bigger than them at the gym…have nothing to fear as far as coming close to that.

I do not turn my nose up at anyone in the gym. You need not assume anything like that to disagree with me.

Is Kai Green’s situation analogous to CT’s? Did he gain 60-70 pounds of muscle after years of training and proper diet? How much fat did he gain during that two-year period? And doesn’t CT claim to have gained 30-40 pounds in a matter of weeks?

I doubt your gains up to this point would impress too many people at all…but of course, you posting a picture could clear that right up.

I am not a bodybuilder. My picture is not relevant.
[/quote]

Do you know nothing about HTML? If you are going to post something, you post it outside of the “[/ quote]”

This: / signifies the end of something in HTML, therefore, if you are going to continue something seperately, such as a response to a quote, you place it OUTSIDE the parameters of the original quote.

264

Fair enough, Thib.

DH

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
DH wrote:
True, X. But it also leads to the core issue. Thib may well have gained the same if he would have eaten for it and done his new program regardless of any supps (Anaconda).

Well I did try the program with the full supplement protocol, with all the supplements in half the quantity, without some of the elements of the protocol and without any supplements and I can honestly say that I had much better gains with the full program.

BTW, the full program is:

30 minutes prior = 2 scoops Workout Fuel, 1-2 Finibars
15-20 minutes prior = 2 scoops Surge Recovery
Before workout = 1 serving Anaconda
Mid-workout = 1 serving Anaconda, 1 Finibar
30 minutes post-workout = 1 serving MAG-10 protein
60 minutes post-workout = 1 serving MAG-10 protein

With half of the protocol (1 scoop of Workout fuel instead of 2 and 1 scoop of Surge Recovery instead of 2, only 1 Finibar) I still had good progress, but strength didn’t go up as fast.

Without Surge Workout fuel (keeping the protocol complete besides the WF) my strength progress was much slower
Without Surge Recovery (keeping the rest of the protocol complete) my strength gains were good but my bodyweight didn’t go up as fast
Without the protocol I stagnated and started to have joint pains.[/quote]

265

[quote]kribrg wrote:

Do you have a pic without a shirt on? If not, then I can not take nutrition advice from you. See how that works.

Or better yet. If Thibs and R. Coleman were in the same gym, by your standards, R. Coleman would know more about how to train (and be able to explain it) than Thibs. I think not.[/quote]

I imagine you’d gain benefit if you listened to either in regards to training. Doesn’t have to be an either or, you shouldn’t limit yourself like that. oh wait…

266

[quote]kribrg wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Seeing as how the debate here has dropped to about 3rd grade level, I’m out. Any jokers debating BODYBUILDING and gains made who are afraid to post their own stats should never be taken seriously. We simply got overrun by a bunch of guys who read an article and now think they are smarter than everyone growing faster than them. Congrats, guys. You made it. I’m sure life will be rosy from here on out.

Do you have a pic without a shirt on? If not, then I can not take nutrition advice from you. See how that works.

Or better yet. If Thibs and R. Coleman were in the same gym, by your standards, R. Coleman would know more about how to train (and be able to explain it) than Thibs. I think not.[/quote]

Dave Tate told me a funny story about when Louie Simmons tried to give tips to Ronnie regarding how to make his triceps bigger…

267

Glad to hear the origins on this.

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Aggro wrote:
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.

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.

Exactly… Tim called me up in January and started to ask me how I would design the ultimate ‘bad ass’ program. The original intent was NOT bodybuilding related; the goal was to design a program aimed at building bad motherf*ckers. The intent was a program that would make someone muscular but also agile, powerful and with good work capacity. Heck, we even discussed making game show out of it!!!

But as I started to experiment with the program and methods with my clients, they started to grow fast. Some guys who had been stuck for 6-10 months were making sudden progress.

When I reported this to Tim he decided to switch this to a bodybuilding program. The supplements were not even part of it yet.

It’s when I reported fat initial gains, followed by symptoms of overwork that he suggested a few products. It worked very well. Then we contacted Dr. Tim Ziegenfuss to see where we could take the supplement program. It is with talking to him and Dr. Lowery that we came up with the supplement protocol.

As you noticed it was not our intent to make this into a groundbreaking bodybuilding program, the results just steered the program another way.[/quote]

268

[quote]Aggro wrote:
I imagine you’d gain benefit if you listened to either in regards to training. Doesn’t have to be an either or, you shouldn’t limit yourself like that. oh wait…[/quote]

Watchout when I said that pages ago, the Shepard called me a cocksucker…

269

[quote]Jacked Diesel wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
the kid in question should get only chocolate milk as the only nutrition offered when quite hungry post training.

I am sorry but this claim still blows my fucking mind, is anyone else at a loss for words when this keeps coming up?

His kids will be the shittiest athletes on earth.[/quote]

According to Aragon (and as is reflected in the thread detailing some “behind the scenes” commentary as the debate as it went down), the original poster was a mother who was wondering if it was OK for her son to have Surge post-workout instead of chocolate milk to hold him over until he can get a solid meal in him.

From what I can gather (as the thread mostly just offers commentary on the actual debate), Aragon made the assertion that chocolate milk would be just as good for her son. Bill then claimed that it would be worse due to the extremely high sugar content (a figure he came to after matching the protein in low-carb Metabolic Drive with that of chocolate milk, obviously creating an extremely high carb “recommendation”).

Aragon then comments that this isn’t what he meant at all, and that Bill is twisting the argument… and then I guess the shit hit the fan.

I like Aragon’s writing, and while he does come off as a little too smug in the commentary thread (we’ve seen worse by many on these forums), I feel you should really give that a read to get a more clear picture of what the discussion was about before casting stones.

270

[quote]kribrg wrote:

Or better yet. If Thibs and R. Coleman were in the same gym, by your standards, R. Coleman would know more about how to train (and be able to explain it) than Thibs. I think not.[/quote]

You are trying to warp the discussion here.

Person A has a fine physique
Person B doesn’t look like he’s seen a gym in his life
Person C has a world class, elite-level physique

The argument is that listening to Persons A and C rather than Person B is recommended.

You are trying to change it to “Since you shouldn’t listen to person B over A, then you shouldn’t listen to person A over C for the same reasons. Therefor (via some sort of e-magic), Person B is more credible than A or C.”

The issue is that Ronnie and Thib both have excellent physiques. Lyle does not. Theory is worthless without application.

I’m not going to take business advice from someone who can’t show his shareholders a profit, Harvard MBA or not.

You’ve read a lot of books. You’ve spent far more time than any person should recreationally browsing PubMed, but you haven’t applied an ounce of that knowledge, then you only know what should work, not what does. No one here is assaulting the validity of science, but rather simply expecting some results to be shown from all of this supposedly superior knowledge.

271

[quote]Aggro wrote:
John Blackthorne wrote:
Its clear from the threads discussing the I,BB article and TC’s follow-up Damage Control (his Think, Don’t Smoke article) that when people claim to have fallen well short of the purported gains the T-Nation boosters will tell them that they didn’t train with adequate intensity or that they couldn’t train with adequate intensity because they didn’t follow the per-workout nutrition protocol.

And he’ll be right. You see people bashing a supplement quite regularly when they cut the dose in half to make it last longer. I’ve done it myself. I didn’t see shit from Surge Recovery, then towards the end of the jug I started using the dose recommended. Which in turn made me see a better benefit from it.[/quote]

The video promoting the supplement makes claims to gains greater than steroids. That’s why we’re “bashing” it.

I can tell you’re not. Have you ever heard of the placebo effect? We’re “bashing” it because the claims are absurd.

[quote]Aggro wrote: It’s also been said before that a majority of people (probably even myself) don’t have the intensity that they should. At the end of the day is that Biotest’s fault? People would claim it is when they do fail. Is that fair? Are you (and your cohorts) the type of people who walk in to someone’s house, piss on the floor, then demand a cooked dinner? Because that’s essentially what it seems like.
[/quote]

Then the answer is to increase your intensity, not pay for an expensive and unecessary supplement program filled with “empty” calories. The kids who will buy this stuff need an intelligent program, instruction on how to properly execute the exercises–I’m happy that the I,BB program includes detailed video instructions–with excellent form, and an adequate diet that supports their goal and provides them with plenty of micronutrients. I am honestly excited that I,BB is aiming at the first two elements.

272

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
kribrg wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Seeing as how the debate here has dropped to about 3rd grade level, I’m out. Any jokers debating BODYBUILDING and gains made who are afraid to post their own stats should never be taken seriously. We simply got overrun by a bunch of guys who read an article and now think they are smarter than everyone growing faster than them. Congrats, guys. You made it. I’m sure life will be rosy from here on out.

Do you have a pic without a shirt on? If not, then I can not take nutrition advice from you. See how that works.

Or better yet. If Thibs and R. Coleman were in the same gym, by your standards, R. Coleman would know more about how to train (and be able to explain it) than Thibs. I think not.

Dave Tate told me a funny story about when Louie Simmons tried to give tips to Ronnie regarding how to make his triceps bigger… [/quote]

I’m guessing Ronnie told him to buz off?

273

Thibs, I would like to ask you a question that may clear some things up. Let’s put aside training protocols, supplementation, T-Nation, and anything else distorting the facts for a second.

In all of your experience do you believe that there are lean 250 lbers running around who are natural? Do you believe there are a handful of naturals on ANY internet board who if they decided to compete would be above the numbers Casey has gathered?

274

Good thing for Cutler that Ronnie didn’t listen… :0

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
kribrg wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Seeing as how the debate here has dropped to about 3rd grade level, I’m out. Any jokers debating BODYBUILDING and gains made who are afraid to post their own stats should never be taken seriously. We simply got overrun by a bunch of guys who read an article and now think they are smarter than everyone growing faster than them. Congrats, guys. You made it. I’m sure life will be rosy from here on out.

Do you have a pic without a shirt on? If not, then I can not take nutrition advice from you. See how that works.

Or better yet. If Thibs and R. Coleman were in the same gym, by your standards, R. Coleman would know more about how to train (and be able to explain it) than Thibs. I think not.

Dave Tate told me a funny story about when Louie Simmons tried to give tips to Ronnie regarding how to make his triceps bigger… [/quote]

275

[quote]anonym wrote:
Jacked Diesel wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
the kid in question should get only chocolate milk as the only nutrition offered when quite hungry post training.

I am sorry but this claim still blows my fucking mind, is anyone else at a loss for words when this keeps coming up?

His kids will be the shittiest athletes on earth.

According to Aragon (and as is reflected in the thread detailing some “behind the scenes” commentary as the debate as it went down), the original poster was a mother who was wondering if it was OK for her son to have Surge post-workout instead of chocolate milk to hold him over until he can get a solid meal in him.

From what I can gather (as the thread mostly just offers commentary on the actual debate), Aragon made the assertion that chocolate milk would be just as good for her son. Bill then claimed that it would be worse due to the extremely high sugar content (a figure he came to after matching the protein in low-carb Metabolic Drive with that of chocolate milk, obviously creating an extremely high carb “recommendation”).

Aragon then comments that this isn’t what he meant at all, and that Bill is twisting the argument… and then I guess the shit hit the fan.

I like Aragon’s writing, and while he does come off as a little too smug in the commentary thread (we’ve seen worse by many on these forums), I feel you should really give that a read to get a more clear picture of what the discussion was about before casting stones.[/quote]

I read the article, and he ended it by saying something stupid like, “Chocolate milk is better than Surge, IMO”.

I have never had Surge, nor have a had alot of Biotest products, but for someone to say that chocolate milk is better than a post workout supplement is largely incorrect.

276

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
kribrg wrote:

Or better yet. If Thibs and R. Coleman were in the same gym, by your standards, R. Coleman would know more about how to train (and be able to explain it) than Thibs. I think not.

You are trying to warp the discussion here.

Person A has a fine physique
Person B doesn’t look like he’s seen a gym in his life
Person C has a world class, elite-level physique

The argument is that listening to Persons A and C rather than Person B is recommended.

You are trying to change it to “Since you shouldn’t listen to person B over A, then you shouldn’t listen to person A over C for the same reasons. Therefor (via some sort of e-magic), Person B is more credible than A or C.”

The issue is that Ronnie and Thib both have excellent physiques. Lyle does not. Theory is worthless without application.

I’m not going to take business advice from someone who can’t show his shareholders a profit, Harvard MBA or not.

You’ve read a lot of books. You’ve spent far more time than any person should recreationally browsing PubMed, but you haven’t applied an ounce of that knowledge, then you only know what should work, not what does. No one here is assaulting the validity of science, but rather simply expecting some results to be shown from all of this supposedly superior knowledge.[/quote]

yo, is your phone broken?

277

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
kribrg wrote:

Or better yet. If Thibs and R. Coleman were in the same gym, by your standards, R. Coleman would know more about how to train (and be able to explain it) than Thibs. I think not.

You are trying to warp the discussion here.

Person A has a fine physique
Person B doesn’t look like he’s seen a gym in his life
Person C has a world class, elite-level physique

The argument is that listening to Persons A and C rather than Person B is recommended.

You are trying to change it to “Since you shouldn’t listen to person B over A, then you shouldn’t listen to person A over C for the same reasons. Therefor (via some sort of e-magic), Person B is more credible than A or C.”

The issue is that Ronnie and Thib both have excellent physiques. Lyle does not. Theory is worthless without application.

I’m not going to take business advice from someone who can’t show his shareholders a profit, Harvard MBA or not.

You’ve read a lot of books. You’ve spent far more time than any person should recreationally browsing PubMed, but you haven’t applied an ounce of that knowledge, then you only know what should work, not what does. No one here is assaulting the validity of science, but rather simply expecting some results to be shown from all of this supposedly superior knowledge.[/quote]

LOL @ e-magic. Good post.

278

[quote]John Blackthorne wrote:

Then the answer to increase your intensity, not pay for an expensive and unecessary supplement program filled with “empty” calories. The kids who will buy this stuff need an intelligent program, instruction on how to properly execute the exercises–I’m happy that the I,BB program includes detailed video instructions–with excellent form, and an adequate diet that supports their goal and provides them with plenty of micronutrients. I am honestly excited that I,BB is aiming at the first two elements.
[/quote]

You’re gonna decide how I spend my money? Maybe you’re saying Thibs is full of shit? That you know better? I used to laugh at guys who swore by NO. Used to try to “educate” them. At the end of the day though, I realize who the hell was I to tell them what to do? If the NO was helping them (placebo or not) get to where they wanted goal wise, then how is it skin off of my ass?

Obviously you guys are butthurt over being called to task on things. Butthurt over the fact that this koolaid has a few more hundred thousand drinkers than yours does. Essentially a nobody taking a poke at a somebody in an attempt to earn some sort of e-cred.

Oh and I’m fully aware of the placebo effect, thing is I have a bit of scientific study (as well as my strength/size gain) to back up why I take what I do. Thanks for your concern though. Oh and good job on the quoting, the task is kicking some of your buddies asses pretty handily. Hard to claim intellectual superiority when you can’t operate the interwebz…

279

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[…] In true contest shape I would be around 192lbs. […][/quote]

[quote]I,BB teaser wrote:
[…] Christian gained 27 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks […][/quote]

This would imply that before you started the I,BB program you would have been under 170 in contest shape…

Unless I missed the asterisk that clarified muscle as meaning “not muscle.”

280

[quote]Jacked Diesel wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
kribrg wrote:

Or better yet. If Thibs and R. Coleman were in the same gym, by your standards, R. Coleman would know more about how to train (and be able to explain it) than Thibs. I think not.

You are trying to warp the discussion here.

Person A has a fine physique
Person B doesn’t look like he’s seen a gym in his life
Person C has a world class, elite-level physique

The argument is that listening to Persons A and C rather than Person B is recommended.

You are trying to change it to “Since you shouldn’t listen to person B over A, then you shouldn’t listen to person A over C for the same reasons. Therefor (via some sort of e-magic), Person B is more credible than A or C.”

The issue is that Ronnie and Thib both have excellent physiques. Lyle does not. Theory is worthless without application.

I’m not going to take business advice from someone who can’t show his shareholders a profit, Harvard MBA or not.

You’ve read a lot of books. You’ve spent far more time than any person should recreationally browsing PubMed, but you haven’t applied an ounce of that knowledge, then you only know what should work, not what does. No one here is assaulting the validity of science, but rather simply expecting some results to be shown from all of this supposedly superior knowledge.

yo, is your phone broken?[/quote]

Nah, I was on the phone with the IRS when you texted me.