I Deleted the Amazing New Supplement Thread--TC

Training Bodybuilding
321

I have something else to add. Biotest has earned my trust through their solid reputation, consistency, product quality, and free, thought-provoking internet articles. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent guy whose achieved a good amount of success in my personal life and career who approaches things with a certain level of skepticism but is also an open-minded thinker and is always looking to improve my results in the gym.

The funny thing is when I read about I, BODYBUILDER I don’t think to myself “those results are utter bullshit”. I look at who participated, CT, who I have a lot of respect for and see what they’re saying and what they did and I think “man, if this can help me improve results faster and better than I’m doing now I’m going to have to give this thing an honest try”. If I gain half of what CT gained I would have considered a success. I would also look objectively of what I did and be honest with myself if I followed every protocol and busted my ass. I’m not a genetic freak and I understand that. I don’t think “if I don’t gain exactly what they have claimed others have gained that this program and supplement program is a complete failure and Biotest is full of crap”.

Of course part of my attitude again is based on trust with Biotest. Their products have already proven themselves to me since I’ve experienced the differences in my physique since taking them along with the training parameters I’ve learned through these free articles. I also bust my ass consistently which has a lot to do with it.

I just don’t understand why there is much vitriol over a program whose details haven’t even been released yet. I’m a firm believer that there are always a lot of things I haven’t discovered yet about how my body responds that would allow me to gain muscle at a faster rate than I ever have yet in my training career. I suppose if I had a failure mindset and I never achieved anything and I needed to tear down others success and call it impossible by throwing around scientific studies maybe I would react the same way as some of these other posters. Hmmm…I wonder if that’s what’s going on here.

322

[quote]wrathchild wrote:
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. [/quote]

Any reasonable person with some experience in training will realize that ymmv when it comes to gains no? Does the video say YOU can gain 27 pounds of muscle in 8 weeks?

323

Why does the double standard apply to him?

He criticized someone’s physique, then demanded others put up pictures - why does his own standard of evidence not apply to himself? If he’s going to apply a standard of evidence, he should be held to it himself.

Why does he get a pass because he labels himself a powerlifter? Going by Professor X’s standard, which seems to be accepted here, he should have as little say in the argument as anyone else; after all, he’s not a bodybuilder, right?

In other words, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Since the majority of posters in this thread have rejected any sort of objective standards, such as science and even analytical thinking, there’s not much else to rely on. By your own requirements, Jacked Diesel does not fit the bill.

If you don’t like those standards, perhaps you shouldn’t rely on them?

324

[quote]Aggro wrote:
Any reasonable person with some experience in training will realize that ymmv when it comes to gains no? Does the video say YOU can gain 27 pounds of muscle in 8 weeks? [/quote]

I suppose our definitions of “reasonable person” differ, then, because merely by including such claims in the advertising, it’s implicitly assumed that it’s something the reader can expect to experience.

Otherwise, why include the claim at all?

325

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
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.

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]

Well, granted, your interpretation of the analogy could be applied to me (and you). But Alan and Lyle do have the “trench” experience, the books, the “coaching” results, etc. So in this scenario they would be the Kiffin, Spurrier, etc.

326

I wonder what training and nutrition debates on the internet would be like if every forum had a sticky on critical thinking and the logical fallacies that inform it.

327

[quote]randman wrote:
I just don’t understand why there is much vitriol over a program whose details haven’t even been released yet. [/quote]

Lemmings. They are simply parroting what their leader has written elsewhere.

328

[quote]wrathchild wrote:

He criticized someone’s physique [/quote]

Don’t act your Shepard hasn’t been plastering “your” site with pictures of members here criticizing them, without public pictures of himself. You know, basically acting like a cowardly child…

Funny how you people continue to ignore this fact.

329

[quote]wrathchild wrote:
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.

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. [/quote]

It may be “intellectually dishonest” but what the fuck do you expect from an advert for a product? Do you hold every billboard or TV ad to this level of scrutiny? This is how advertising works.

Does it make sense to you to advertise a product by listing every one of its qualities both good and bad and everything that happened during its conception? It makes no claims in the ad that CT is an athlete currently in peak condition before testing the supplements and program. I’d wager that anyone who regularly frequents the site (which will form a large part of the consumers) know that CT actively tries to keep his weight down most of the time.

Why the fuck is this discussion even happening? Is everyone really so bored? Are the people from the other forum really this vindictive?

330

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
wrathchild wrote:

He criticized someone’s physique

Don’t act your Shepard hasn’t been plastering “your” site with pictures of members here criticizing them, without public pictures of himself. You know, basically acting like a cowardly child…

Funny how you people continue to ignore this fact.[/quote]

You mean after everyone here continually asked for photographic evidence of “jackedness” in order to serve as proof?

I’m perplexed as to why it’s OK for posters here to ask for that, yet when the same standard is applied to those asking for visual evidence, it’s somehow wrong.

If you’re requiring a good physique as authority, one should have a good physique, no?

331

[quote]The other Rob wrote:
It may be “intellectually dishonest” but what the fuck do you expect from an advert for a product? Do you hold every billboard or TV ad to this level of scrutiny? This is how advertising works. [/quote]

Actually, yes. I’m quite critical of lies and/or deception in advertising.

How is this relevant to the point?

Why is it so troubling to you?

Which is worse: those asking questions and having a discussion, or those coming in to complain about it?

332

[quote]wrathchild wrote:
Aggro wrote:
Any reasonable person with some experience in training will realize that ymmv when it comes to gains no? Does the video say YOU can gain 27 pounds of muscle in 8 weeks?

I suppose our definitions of “reasonable person” differ, then, because merely by including such claims in the advertising, it’s implicitly assumed that it’s something the reader can expect to experience.

Otherwise, why include the claim at all? [/quote]

The Aug 09 onslaught continues…

I was operating under the assumption of what I thought your reasonable person was. If you’re labeling a reasonable person as mildly retarded, then yes I agree that they will buy into the 27#/8week statement. The thing is though that those results DID happen, for 1 person, just like the other 2-3 results happened for THOSE people. Nowhere does it claim in the video that YOU can gain XX#/XXweek on I,bb. You’re quick to paint Biotest out as another BSN, but you’re attempting to do that and put words in their mouth at the same time.

Is that what this all stems from? You guys actually believed that you could gain 27# of muscle in 8 weeks? I’d venture to say that the average T-Nation’er didn’t. Did you also get shredded with Hydroxycut? Do you click the link on banners that proclaim “ripped abs without working out, here’s the secret” every time you see it? Seems to me that some of you guys are a bit pie in the sky’ish when it comes to advertising. Now I understand why you’re so upset, I would be too if I was as gullible.

333

[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]

LOL Do you understand how stupid this is?

334

[quote]wrathchild wrote:
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.

Why does the double standard apply to him?

He criticized someone’s physique, then demanded others put up pictures - why does his own standard of evidence not apply to himself? If he’s going to apply a standard of evidence, he should be held to it himself.

Why does he get a pass because he labels himself a powerlifter? Going by Professor X’s standard, which seems to be accepted here, he should have as little say in the argument as anyone else; after all, he’s not a bodybuilder, right?

In other words, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Since the majority of posters in this thread have rejected any sort of objective standards, such as science and even analytical thinking, there’s not much else to rely on. By your own requirements, Jacked Diesel does not fit the bill.

If you don’t like those standards, perhaps you shouldn’t rely on them? [/quote]

He was complaining that you guys have no proof you’ve even stepped foot in a gym. The guy looks awesome - 19" arms at <20% bodyfat, just because he’s not “shredded” doesn’t make what he’s achieved any less impressive. The guy will probably have abs showing at 12% bf and probably sits at around 18%. So he’s no more than a short cutting phase away from being shredded anyway.

He may not be a bodybuilder but he has proven he knows what the fuck he’s doing. Somehow all of you have failed to grasp this.

335

Prof X,

You seem like a reasonable man. The expensive program and supplement aren’t being criticized, just the seemingly unrealistic claims and hype it’s mired in.

Wouldn’t defending a unreleased program and pricey supplement also be “lemming”-like?

336

[quote]Professor X wrote:
randman wrote:
I just don’t understand why there is much vitriol over a program whose details haven’t even been released yet.

Lemmings. They are simply parroting what their leader has written elsewhere. [/quote]

Why don’t you jump in there and explain to your fan club how, if you wanted to be, you could be a lean 220lbs like Ronnie Coleman was in the post I put up? Except you would do it natural, of course. Then tell us how there are guys in every gym who could attain the same thing.

337

[quote]wrathchild wrote:

Actually, yes. I’m quite critical of lies and/or deception in advertising.
[/quote]

Critical, or naive?

338

[quote]wrathchild wrote:
The other Rob wrote:
It may be “intellectually dishonest” but what the fuck do you expect from an advert for a product? Do you hold every billboard or TV ad to this level of scrutiny? This is how advertising works.

Actually, yes. I’m quite critical of lies and/or deception in advertising.

Does it make sense to you to advertise a product by listing every one of its qualities both good and bad and everything that happened during its conception? It makes no claims in the ad that CT is an athlete currently in peak condition before testing the supplements and program. I’d wager that anyone who regularly frequents the site (which will form a large part of the consumers) know that CT actively tries to keep his weight down most of the time.

How is this relevant to the point?

Why the fuck is this discussion even happening? Is everyone really so bored? Are the people from the other forum really this vindictive?

Why is it so troubling to you?

Which is worse: those asking questions and having a discussion, or those coming in to complain about it? [/quote]

If by asking questions you mean calling CT a steroid user, claiming that Biotest and CT are outright liars, mocking members of this community and all of this from anonymous kids on the internet who still have not proven they have even entered a gym.

If you truly this much about the state of advertising in modern society then you need to check your priorities.

339

[quote]The other Rob wrote:
He was complaining that you guys have no proof you’ve even stepped foot in a gym. The guy looks awesome - 19" arms at <20% bodyfat, just because he’s not “shredded” doesn’t make what he’s achieved any less impressive. The guy will probably have abs showing at 12% bf and probably sits at around 18%. So he’s no more than a short cutting phase away from being shredded anyway.

He may not be a bodybuilder but he has proven he knows what the fuck he’s doing. Somehow all of you have failed to grasp this.[/quote]

The interesting thing about subjective standards is that they’re exactly that: subjective.

I disagree with your assessment of Jacked Diesel’s physique, in that I do not feel it’s impressive.

Therefore, to me, he has not in fact “proven that he knows what he’s doing”.

Do you not see how this quickly falls apart?

340

[quote]The other Rob wrote:

If you truly this much about the state of advertising in modern society then you need to check your priorities.[/quote]

You’d think they’d be championing against the alcohol and tobacco companies first. Maybe take on the HFCS people and their propaganda. Instead of a supplement company who only advertises on their website.

Like I said, nobodies taking a shot at a somebody. Epeen envy, it’s a dangerous thing.