And to illustrate the fallacy of your “logic”:
Lee Haney averaged gains of 3 lb per year during his years as Mr Olympia. He used steroids.
Therefore, if Aragon claims better than 3 lb per year results for natural trainers following his advice, he is claiming “better than steroids” and he is a liar. Burn him at the stake.
You guys are full of shit. You really and truly should just sit down, shut up, and go away. You add nothing. There is precisely zero value to your posts.
[quote]Tillerman wrote:
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
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]
Oh yes, you are champion interwebs argue man. You win the internets argue award.
Don’t you feel special now? Should I post a lolcat for you to celebrate your interwebs supremacy?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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.
[/quote]
No, Alan provided data that had been scientifically observed. Feel free to provide your own scientific data to refute. No Al Bundy stories please.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Why don’t you provide the quote where this was said?
[/quote]
“Christian gained 27 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks”
“Sebastien gained 20 pounds of muscle in 8 weeks and added 100 pounds to his front squat, while cutting body fat for the bodybuilding contest.”
“Kevin gained 24 pounds of muscle in 8 weeks, while losing 14 pounds of fat and adding 50 pounds to his bench press.”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Oh yes, you are champion interwebs argue man. You win the internets argue award.
Don’t you feel special now? Should I post a lolcat for you to celebrate your interwebs supremacy?
[/quote]
I like lolcats. You can’t go wrong posting a lolcat to a thread.
And I didn’t know one could win the internets just by pointing out a strawman argument. It must take more than that. To win the internets, you have to put on a lot of internet muscle and get internet lean.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
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?
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]
I’m sorry I can’t help it, this is better than TV and making the workday fly by.
[quote]PublickStews wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Why don’t you provide the quote where this was said?
“Christian gained 27 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks”
“Sebastien gained 20 pounds of muscle in 8 weeks and added 100 pounds to his front squat, while cutting body fat for the bodybuilding contest.”
“Kevin gained 24 pounds of muscle in 8 weeks, while losing 14 pounds of fat and adding 50 pounds to his bench press.”[/quote]
You are conveniently omitting where it was said that this is more than can be done on steroids. That is the part I said was being made up: steroids were nowhere mentioned, except by you folk coming here for utterly no useful purpose.
Very simply: you Aragon-bots are a complete waste of space and time. Boo-hoo, some gained more than you think possible, because of your own chronic personal failure in the gym. So sad, but vent your resentment at the success of others elsewhere. It is only a waste of time for everybody else. Associate with your own kind, who likewise enjoy disparaging achievements of others that exceed theirs and therefore like reading it as well. You form a nice little club, but no one else finds your crap of value. Thanks.
End of thread, as far as I am concerned.
[quote]Tesauro wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[…] In true contest shape I would be around 192lbs. […]
I,BB teaser wrote:
[…] Christian gained 27 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks […]
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.”[/quote]
Last time I competed I was 184 at weigh-ins. When I started the experiment I had less muscle than when I started my diet for that contest, mostly because I put more emphasis on my career than training.
[quote]Tillerman wrote:
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
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]
It feels good to randomly litter this shit pile of a thread with snarky comments.
/snark
[quote]Tillerman wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
Oh yes, you are champion interwebs argue man. You win the internets argue award.
Don’t you feel special now? Should I post a lolcat for you to celebrate your interwebs supremacy?
I like lolcats. You can’t go wrong posting a lolcat to a thread.
And I didn’t know one could win the internets just by pointing out a strawman argument. It must take more than that. To win the internets, you have to put on a lot of internet muscle and get internet lean.
[/quote]
Good response, I lol’ed… Thanks
http://www.liveleantoday.com/article.cfm?id=358
rofl, this is absurd.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And to illustrate the fallacy of your “logic”:
Lee Haney averaged gains of 3 lb per year during his years as Mr Olympia. He used steroids.
Therefore, if Aragon claims better than 3 lb per year results for natural trainers following his advice, he is claiming “better than steroids” and he is a liar. Burn him at the stake.
You guys are full of shit. You really and truly should just sit down, shut up, and go away. You add nothing. There is precisely zero value to your posts.[/quote]
I can’t figure out if you don’t comprehend or if you are indeed trying to trick me by actually making my point.
And Alan isn’t claiming anything. He presented the data. Those aren’t his numbers. They are numbers pulled from many studies.
Let’s try this. http://www.thebiguniverse.com/coleman/transform.html
Between the years of 1992 and 2004 (12 years) he gained 76 lbs of muscle. Keep in mind we are comparing contest shape to contest shape. That works out to roughly a ~.5 increase of muscle per month!!! I don’t think that anyone would argue that Ronnie is 1) a genetic freak 2) uses drugs (HGH, Insulin, steroids, etc. etc.) 3) trains with intensity (lightweight baby!!) 4) has more time to dedicate to this than you do
With all that said he averaged .5 lbs of muscles per month over a 12 year period. Before you get your panties in a wad and contend that I am saying that you can’t build more muscle per month over the short term than Ronnie…I am not.
Also notice that in 1992 he was 220lbs. So how are we getting all of these 225-250 lean guys?
[quote]kribrg wrote:
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]
No, Bill Belichick has more than enough experience coaching football to be considered a proper reference when it comes to coaching football.
What you are suggesting is akin to me reading a lot of books about Bill Belicick and then telling everyone that I would make a better football coach than Steve Spurrier (God, as a Clemson man, I hate to admit he’s good!) and certainly a better coach than that Lane Kiffin fellow…he’s a fucking lunatic!
[quote]Jacked Diesel wrote:
rofl, this is absurd.[/quote]
ABSURD? THIS IS SPAR… Oh sorry wrong thread.
I suggest the wankers go to the quilting forum. Judging by Aragons lack of muscle, the ladies there are more likely to be close to your level of development and probably love chocolate milk.
I got a turtle.
I’ve just read this entire clusterfuck of a thread and I’m amazed at this shitty little “raid”. A number of posters with no stats listed attacking products which they have never seen or tried based on claims that were never made.
WTF?
My personal favourite is talking shit about the picture of a powerlifter for not being insanely lean and then complaining that you can’t put a picture up because you’re not a bodybuilder.
Both kribrg and John Blackthorne are trying to come across as the objective intellectuals that are merely trying to challenge the results of I, BODYBUILDER based on a few initial subjects’ results. When in reality they are really coming across as sniveling, petty, jealous, low-lifes that seem to have nothing better to do than disparage another company’s product and reputation because they hitched their star to some self-created God named Aragon that has done some “scientific” research that is apparently beyond reproach that they use as the dogma and absolutes as to refute the I, BODYBUILDER result claims as impossible.
Based on reading their posts here, I would never want anything to do with this other board or this Aragon’s research. Are people really this petty and lead such insignificant lives as to post this type of garbage? You guys sound like “Branch Davidiens” back in the day in Waco, Texas with this Aragon character serving as your David Koresh. Freaking weird as all get out. I feel less intelligent for having read all of this drivel.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
Mr. Roberts,
Would you not agree that the rate of muscle gain is, in any instance, at the very least deceptive if context is not provided?
Case in point: a natural lifter returning from a layoff may in fact be capable of rapid, if temporary, progress in a short period of time - progress that under different circumstances would be highly unlikely (if not impossible).
That’s an entirely different scenario from that same lifter in peak condition, claiming to have accomplished the same thing.
The number alone is largely irrelevant, IMO; what is important is the context
In that light, I would suggest that it is intellectually dishonest to simply attach a number to the process and not provide context.
Christian cleared the issue up previously, to my satisfaction. However, it’s also true that the advertisement did not clarify his particular circumstances; in that light would you not agree that the phrasing was disingenuous? At least in spirit, if not by intent.
I can certainly understand how a reasonable person with some experience training would be put off by that kind of claim, regardless of how willing they may be to put up their pictures.