[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
LOL @ e-magic. Good post.[/quote]
Bout fucking time.
Can you just mop up so we can let this thread die already?
and PS. Stronghold has been killing it this thread. He’s da man.
I still think it is funny that an army of aragonaughts have been sent over here to attack the T-Nation forums.
[quote]Aggro wrote:
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.
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?[/quote]
Not you. Its clear that you make up your mind on your own and no one else will change it. I’m talking about the naive kids. The children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside.
[quote]Aggro wrote:
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.[/quote]
I’m not drinking koolaid. I’m a proponent of a diet focused on whole foods. I think there are a few more billion drinkers of that than there are people who buy bbing supplements. I might be a “nobody” but Mr. Aragon and Mr. McDonald are not nobodies. If Brofessor X is already at 12%, I think he should try out the UD 2.0 to get shreddit.
May I please see this scientific study?
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
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]
No, I am saying that a persons physique or what they lift does not necessarily imply training or nutrition intelligence.
You don’t think that Lyle has shown results? I like Thibs and for the most part his advice. Far more important to me than what CT has done personally with his own physique is how he is able to take his theories and apply them to other people to get results.
Or I could give you the cliche answer and ask if you would also not take football advice form Bill Belichick because he was never an elite football player.
[quote]John Blackthorne wrote:
Not you. Its clear that you make up your mind on your own and no one else will change it. I’m talking about the naive kids. The children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside.[/quote]
So you’re the protector of children? Picking up the dropped torch from MJ?
[quote]John Blackthorne wrote:
I’m not drinking koolaid. I’m a proponent of a diet focused on whole foods. I think there are a few more billion drinkers of that than there are people who buy bbing supplements. I might be a “nobody” but Mr. Aragon and Mr. McDonald are not nobodies. If Brofessor X is already at 12%, I think he should try out the UD 2.0 to get shreddit.[/quote]
I’m confused as to where I, BODYBUILDER, CT, TC, PX, or anyone else on this site downgrades whole foods? And the billions who drink that koolaid? A large majority of them are overweight, or skinny / skinny fat. Obviously they’re correct and that’s who you should be listening to. If GIS is giving me the right guy than why can’t LM put his “theory” into practice? Why does he look like Harold Ramis in ghostbusters? Not knocking the guy, but the few pics I saw aren’t very impressive size wise. Maybe it’s functional strength he builds? AA sort of shot his wad on the chocolate milk fiasco at least IMO.
[quote]John Blackthorne wrote:
May I please see this scientific study?[/quote]
If I ever get around to scanning my log book I guess I could email you the last 3 years of it or so. What’s your email address?
[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]
To be a bodybuilder, one would have to diet down and don a speedo. Done it recently?
[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]
The actuality:
A recommendation was posted, before I ever posted anything, that the kid should get chocolate milk. Period, just chocolate milk. Not chocolate milk along with a good meal or any recommendation like that. And not unsweetened milk, but sweetened milk (virtually all grocery-store chocolate milk is highly sweetened, usually with HFCS.)
I am not sure if it was Aragon who posted that in the first place or it was bad advice given by one person and then affirmed by Aragon.
I criticized this as bad advice – which it is, offering a hungry kid in that situation nothing but chocolate milk – and also recommended she not use Surge. Just no need. The fairly high glucose load of Surge, though only half the amount of sugar of a quart of chocolate milk and in a differing form, is appropriate to the bodybuilding application but for the kid having finished his hockey training, let him have a good meal. For example chicken and rice (all kinds of other options would be fine too.) If he wants regular milk with that, fine.
Aragon then repeatedly defended chocolate milk as his recommendation and presented glycogen resynthesis rate data that was from studies involving quite different amounts of sugars and in different applications and rates of intake. I pointed out the flaws in his argument and continued to insist that this much HFCS in one shot was not called for.
The debate did not go on for long, not because he wasn’t able to post – he was and did – but because I rather quickly announced I was through with him and would not reply to him further, as his thesis – that chocolate milk alone was the best thing to recommend for this kid in this situation – did not merit any further reply.
I had no idea that this would be such a big thing to him that he would feel the need to claim alleged victory all over the Internet and write an article about it. Very strange.
There are some people though that react very badly to publicly appearing wrong or worse, an idiot, which he certainly did appear. And was. The thesis was just too stupid: that the recommendation for this kid should be chocolate milk, period, for what to offer him for food or nutrition in this situation where he was very hungry. There was no way he could avoid looking like an idiot with that one, and he didn’t.
I just left the gym, swung by the QuickyMart, grabbed a quart of chocolate cow juice, and now I feel Jacked!
You haters don’t know what you’re missing.
[quote]Jacked Diesel 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.
Rofl, you created a profile solely for going to my training log, saving my image, and posting in this thread with the most assanine comment attached? I am flattered.
First of all, I am not a bodybuilder, nor do I claim to be one, nor are those remotely my goals. If you think I have 30%, or even 20% BF, you are smoking crack.
I used to be a rock solid 199, I have been bulking for 9 months and plan to continue to 260. My numbers are solid, I have posted pics and stats, there is no lie about who I am or what my goals are, if you want to laugh, then laugh, But I can promise you this, I will get bigger and stronger following the methods I have learned from fellow members on this site and at elite FTS than you ever will follow that cock sucker aragon’s chocolate milk nutrition plan.
Again, I powerlift, I dont bodybuild, but if you wanna keep it up, come back next year when I will be around a lean 250.[/quote]
So, now that you have disparaged Alans physique, you get all defensive when somebody else does the same to you?
You are gonna have to gain an awful amount more bodyweight before you can ever diet back down anywhere near a lean 250, and most likely, include some drugs on top of that.
[quote]John Blackthorne wrote:
The video promoting the supplement makes claims to gains greater than steroids. That’s why we’re “bashing” it.
[/quote]
Why don’t you provide the quote where this was said?
And furthermore, though I think you are making it up – or just parroting it from your master – that this was ever said, you’re not aware that in different situations, a natural bb’er may make faster gains than a differing steroid user in a different situation? Both training hard?
Not that that is a needed point, as to my knowledge you’re making the thing up in the first place, but it is an added point that I bet you don’t comprehend.
[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.[/quote]
Thanks for the guidance. Note, however, that (1) correctly used HTML quoting in several earlier posts and (2) I corrected the HTML error a few minutes after the screwed up post appeared.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
John Blackthorne wrote:
The video promoting the supplement makes claims to gains greater than steroids. That’s why we’re “bashing” it.
Why don’t you provide the quote where this was said?
And furthermore, though I think you are making it up – or just parroting it from your master – that this was ever said, you’re not aware that in different situations, a natural bb’er may make faster gains than a differing steroid user in a different situation? Both training hard?
Not that that is a needed point, as to my knowledge you’re making the thing up in the first place, but it is an added point that I bet you don’t comprehend.
[/quote]
No, steroids are a magic bullet that completely override all nutrition and training strategies and genetics. No natty can ever make gains like any steroid user.
/snark
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
John Blackthorne wrote:
The video promoting the supplement makes claims to gains greater than steroids. That’s why we’re “bashing” it.
Why don’t you provide the quote where this was said?
And furthermore, though I think you are making it up – or just parroting it from your master – that this was ever said, you’re not aware that in different situations, a natural bb’er may make faster gains than a differing steroid user in a different situation? Both training hard?
Not that that is a needed point, as to my knowledge you’re making the thing up in the first place, but it is an added point that I bet you don’t comprehend.
[/quote]
If your writing style wasn’t so Derridan, it would be easier to understand what you are saying.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
John Blackthorne wrote:
The video promoting the supplement makes claims to gains greater than steroids. That’s why we’re “bashing” it.
Why don’t you provide the quote where this was said?
And furthermore, though I think you are making it up – or just parroting it from your master – that this was ever said, you’re not aware that in different situations, a natural bb’er may make faster gains than a differing steroid user in a different situation? Both training hard?
Not that that is a needed point, as to my knowledge you’re making the thing up in the first place, but it is an added point that I bet you don’t comprehend.
[/quote]
ummm Bill, that was what the article was about. Did you read it? The claims are that it will add muscle at a certain rate…which was above what most steroid users gain from drugs.
[quote]cycomiko wrote:
So, now that you have disparaged Alans physique, you get all defensive when somebody else does the same to you?
[/quote]
AT least he has a public picture available, unlike some people, including your Shepard…
Now run off and call us Bro’s to make yourself’s feel all superior .
[quote]Jacked Diesel wrote:
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.[/quote]
Everybody knows that chocolate milk is bad for you. And how can something that everybody knows not be true?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
LOL @ e-magic. Good post.
Bout fucking time.
Can you just mop up so we can let this thread die already?[/quote]
If I mopped up now you crazy assholes would just dirty it all up again. It’s like shoveling snow off the sidewalk when it’s still snowing, it makes no damn sense.
[quote]conorh wrote:
No, steroids are a magic bullet that completely override all nutrition and training strategies and genetics. No natty can ever make gains like any steroid user.
/snark
[/quote]
It just feels good to shoot down a strawman argument, doesn’t it? Because no one came close to arguing the position you just cleverly demolished.
[quote]kribrg wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
John Blackthorne wrote:
The video promoting the supplement makes claims to gains greater than steroids. That’s why we’re “bashing” it.
Why don’t you provide the quote where this was said?
And furthermore, though I think you are making it up – or just parroting it from your master – that this was ever said, you’re not aware that in different situations, a natural bb’er may make faster gains than a differing steroid user in a different situation? Both training hard?
Not that that is a needed point, as to my knowledge you’re making the thing up in the first place, but it is an added point that I bet you don’t comprehend.
ummm Bill, that was what the article was about. Did you read it? The claims are that it will add muscle at a certain rate…which was above what most steroid users gain from drugs.[/quote]
You are the one supplying the steroid claims with your own ideas of what constitutes the impossible due to supposedly being “more than steroids.”
In other words, you are making stuff up out of your own head (or Aragon’s, I don’t know), weighing it in that balance, and then re-presenting it in different words that you claim were said.
Bogus.