I Deleted the Amazing New Supplement Thread--TC

Training Bodybuilding
341

[quote]The other Rob wrote:
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.[/quote]

  1. I’ve not claimed CT is a steroid user, and I’m not sure anyone has; all that’s been suggested is that the claimed rate of muscle gain was suspect. Since Christian has cleared up his circumstances, I consider that a dead issues.

  2. Regarding advertising, yes, a reasonable person would assume that the claims being made are relevant to the results that the product can provide.

  3. The alleged mocking only occurred once it became clear that “post pics or shut up” was the de facto standard of competence here.

And it’s become very clear that this is a standard most of you applying it won’t even adhere too - very telling, in itself.

You didn’t answer my question: which is worse, having the discussion, or spending your time complaining about it?

If it’s not interesting to you, why not simply avoid it?

342

[quote]kribrg wrote:
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.
[/quote]

The only thing you have put up is mindless drivel on an Internet forum. I respect CT for his knowledge and the physique he’s built. Same with Profx. I respect Bill R for his incredible knowledge in everything pharmacological with respect to enhancing the human body.

You have nothing to respect. All you are to us is an anonymous petty Internet boy that has nothing better to do than attack respected personalities on a respectable site. Go run along now.

343

[quote]wrathchild wrote:
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.

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? [/quote]

So you’re not impressed at arms over 18" at a level of leaness that means that measurement is mostly muscle? The guy Military presses around 300lbs for fuck sake, what are your standards? Are you incapable of seeing muscle in someone over 10%bf?

344

I don’t care about this discussion, it’s just fun to read.

But what’s wrong with questioning the claims and presenting data to support what you’re saying? Nothing.

Get this: Nobody’s attacking Biotest,here. Nobody’s attacking CT. Nobody’s attacking the program. People are questioning the claims being made on the promo, and there nothing wrong with that. You say this is normail in the advertising industry. well, then don’t get your panties in a twist when you’re called on it and be prepared.

Just my 2 cents. Now, carry on.

345

[quote]cycomiko 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.

To be a bodybuilder, one would have to diet down and don a speedo. Done it recently?
[/quote]

LOL

346

[quote]kribrg wrote:
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.

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.

[/quote]

I may be mistaken, but I’ve read that Ronnie got his pro card naturally.

347

[quote]randman wrote:
kribrg wrote:
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.

The only thing you have put up is mindless drivel on an Internet forum. I respect CT for his knowledge and the physique he’s built. Same with Profx. I respect Bill R for his incredible knowledge in everything pharmacological with respect to enhancing the human body.

You have nothing to respect. All you are to us is an anonymous petty Internet boy that has nothing better to do than attack respected personalities on a respectable site. Go run along now.[/quote]

So instead of refuting the point, you actually quote the point and then don’t even mention it in lei of a personal attack. Lovely! I’ve been nothing but respectful to CT in my posts and I only call Bill out because he uses the same tactics you do. I ask him to refute the point with his own data and he takes his ball and goes home by saying he is done because I am worthless. Prof X did the same exact thing!

Refute the point son!

348

Damn this is getting out of hand. I actually respect Alan for some of his work which I have read. However, I do believe that he made an uncalled for reaction by discrediting a program to which no one knows the details about.

I for one look forward to seeing it. I may not try it for a while, because I’m not one of those individuals who just stop a program for a new one (though I used to be, sadly).

I highly doubt CT and the others behind this program would risk their profound reputation if they truly believed that this wouldn’t work.

349

[quote]wrathchild wrote:
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.

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?[/quote]

People here asking for pictures have them up. No need to ask. We offer from the get go. Too bad the favor isn’t returned.

None of you have public pictures… hmmm… Even your Shepard didn’t have enough nut to put a picture up from the safety of his “home turf”… hmmm

But don’t worry keep making irrelevant derogatory remarks to yourselves in order to make yourselves feel superior. Okay bro? Because in the end, no one here gives a fuck about you after this thread, but unfortunately the feeling isn’t mutual. Your Shepard seems to know an awful lot about the people that post here.

Nice try at avoiding what I said too… Haven’t you guys been bitching about that for 15 pages now, and you are actually doing it? hmmm…

This is what the “scientific” side has to offer the community huh?

350

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

I may be mistaken, but I’ve read that Ronnie got his pro card naturally. [/quote]

For debates sake…let’s say that is true. So there are guys in every gym, prof x, and anyone else is able to get to a “clean” 220lbs contest ready physique just like arguably the most genetically gifted bodybuilder in history?

351

[quote]wrathchild wrote:
The other Rob wrote:
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.

  1. I’ve not claimed CT is a steroid user, and I’m not sure anyone has; all that’s been suggested is that the claimed rate of muscle gain was suspect. Since Christian has cleared up his circumstances, I consider that a dead issues.

  2. Regarding advertising, yes, a reasonable person would assume that the claims being made are relevant to the results that the product can provide.

  3. The alleged mocking only occurred once it became clear that “post pics or shut up” was the de facto standard of competence here.

And it’s become very clear that this is a standard most of you applying it won’t even adhere too - very telling, in itself.

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

You didn’t answer my question: which is worse, having the discussion, or spending your time complaining about it?

If it’s not interesting to you, why not simply avoid it? [/quote]

Do you understand how downright fucking rude you all are? It’s ok though because you’re on teh internets.

I explained to you that there is no question being asked here. All that you have provided is slanderous comments.

The post pics or shut up mentality became necessary to shutup endless kids with 0 muscle mass telling big guys how to get jacked.

Why do you think its necessary to protect the world from the evils of biotests marketing? What is it that grates against the core of your soul that drives you to spew this rubbish on a decent forum?

I sincerely hope that you have contacted every creator of every beauty product ever made that has ever produced an advert to complain about the “lack of honesty”. Why start here? Who are you saving? From whence do your pseudo morals come? This site has proven to deliver quality products and this program was made by a proven author.

Finally, IT’S NOT EVEN OUT YET. Why are the claims being attacked so harshly? If I claimed I could do a one arm handstand wouldn’t you at least wait for me to put up a video before calling foul? I could understand this discussion happening in a few months but before it’s even released?

You have achieved your goal of pissing off a bunch of people. Feel free now to fuck off back where you came from now.

352

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
People here asking for pictures have them up. No need to ask. We offer from the get go. Too bad the favor isn’t returned.

None of you have public pictures… hmmm… Even your Shepard didn’t have enough nut to put a picture up from the safety of his “home turf”… hmmm[/quote]

You’re still not following.

What I’m suggesting is that it’s ridiculous from the outset to require “pics” as proof of competence.

I’ve already shown you why that’s a lousy argument - what you consider “awesome” will not be universally so. Subjective standards are subjective.

The point I’m trying to make is that pics have virtually zero relevance to the validity of an argument. It’s like going to a cooking board, asking a question about cakes, and being told you have to put up a picture of your best cake in order to ask a question.

It’s a non-sequitur from the get-go.

I’m not making any derogatory remarks, so I’m not sure why you’re saying I am.

Which part did I avoid? If you’ll remind me, I’ll do my best to answer.

The “scientific” side [sic] isn’t the one that brought the discourse to this level.

Demanding pictures as evidence of competence, then complaining when that standard is applied against you, is not a compelling basis for a debate.

353

[quote]kribrg wrote:
So instead of refuting the point, you actually quote the point and then don’t even mention it in lei of a personal attack. Lovely! I’ve been nothing but respectful to CT in my posts and I only call Bill out because he uses the same tactics you do. I ask him to refute the point with his own data and he takes his ball and goes home by saying he is done because I am worthless. Prof X did the same exact thing!

Refute the point son! [/quote]

Bill et al has already written quite a bit on this subject on this thread and has refuted many points quite well. I’m not spending any more time on you nor should he or anyone else. Again, if you came across as someone worth arguing with maybe I would. But like I said before, these others posters have earned my respect. All you have earned here is scorn.

Why should anyone listen to you? What have you achieved? What’s your credentials? Where’s your results. What have you proven/disproven with real world application? The only thing you’ve accomplished is coming across as a petty Aragon lemming. It seems to me that a majority of the posters on this thread are coming to the same conclusion about you as well except for yourself and a couple of your lemming buddies. You and your lemming buddies are are launching pathetic attempts as coming across as respectable, knowledgeable posters who have actually done something with themselves worthy of notice.

354

[quote]The other Rob wrote:
So you’re not impressed at arms over 18" at a level of leaness that means that measurement is mostly muscle? The guy Military presses around 300lbs for fuck sake, what are your standards? Are you incapable of seeing muscle in someone over 10%bf?[/quote]

Firstly, his leanness is part of the subjectivity. You claim he’s 18%, but his pictures say at least 20% to my eye - and that’s being generous. Without an accurate measure, we’re both going by an eyeball, so again subjectivity comes into the picture.

Secondly, no, 18" arms are not in themselves a measure of competence, for a variety of reasons. That his leanness is in question is only one of them.

Thirdly, his lifts are largely irrelevant without videos. His overhead press especially, given the disparity between that lift and his squat and deadlift. Again, another subjective variable.

Do you still not see how applying a subjective standard like this is pointless?

355

I was all for the debate earlier, but this is getting old and going no where. Time for a lock down IMO.

356

[quote]kribrg wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:

I may be mistaken, but I’ve read that Ronnie got his pro card naturally.

For debates sake…let’s say that is true. So there are guys in every gym, prof x, and anyone else is able to get to a “clean” 220lbs contest ready physique just like arguably the most genetically gifted bodybuilder in history?

[/quote]

I haven’t read the entire thread. Did anyone claim this? If not, you really don’t have a point.

Not to mention you haven’t taken into consideration why Ronnie is a pro. Sure, he’s big. But it’s also about how he looks. I’m sure there are a lot of people who are able to attain 220 lean pounds at average height naturally. The problem is they still won’t look like Ronnie looked.

You’re also assuming all of the people with the best genetics are avid weight trainers. I’m sure there are some guys out there who are pretty in shape and could accomplish these things over a training career but they don’t even like to work out.

357

[quote]The other Rob wrote:
Do you understand how downright fucking rude you all are? It’s ok though because you’re on teh internets.

I explained to you that there is no question being asked here. All that you have provided is slanderous comments.[/quote]

Where have I been rude or slanderous? I’ve done my best to be exactly the opposite of that; if I’ve been insulting, it’s not by intent and I apologize for it.

That’s fair enough, but you do see how quickly it can backfire. You would do better to consider the content of the argument, rather than the individual making the argument.

Ad hominems don’t go very far in a real discussion.

What’s given you this idea?

I am personally here to discuss the matter. Again, if I’ve insulted or slandered anyone, I do apologize.

Because a claim that many feel to be questionable, based on experience and empirical evidence, has been released now?

That’s been the crux of the discussion. I for one have no idea what’s actually in the program, and have no reason to criticize it.

I do however understand why the claims surrounding the program are being called into question. It’s nothing more than that.

358

[quote]randman wrote:

Why should anyone listen to you? [/quote]

I’d like to highlight this point. I honestly want to know what gives these guys the idea that we should actually listen to them. Don’t come at me with the rhetoric, don’t come at me with the circular arguments, try not to parrot what you read on “your” site. Paint me a picture as simplistic as you can about why you are more “right.”

k go

359

[quote]wrathchild wrote:
What I’m suggesting is that it’s ridiculous from the outset to require “pics” as proof of competence.

I’ve already shown you why that’s a lousy argument - what you consider “awesome” will not be universally so. Subjective standards are subjective.

The point I’m trying to make is that pics have virtually zero relevance to the validity of an argument. It’s like going to a cooking board, asking a question about cakes, and being told you have to put up a picture of your best cake in order to ask a question.

It’s a non-sequitur from the get-go.

[/quote]

If I’m on a cooking board and claim I’m the greatest at decorating cakes, you don’t think people will ask for proof of some cakes I’ve decorated? No one is asking for proof to ASK the question, we’re asking for proof that you’re qualified to ANSWER the question.

It’s the same thing with the whole Bill Belichek analogy. He’s already GOT the proof that he knows what he’s doing. If you don’t look like you lift, at least show us some pictures of people you’ve trained. We need SOMETHING that shows you know what you’re talking about.

360

[quote]randman wrote:
kribrg wrote:
So instead of refuting the point, you actually quote the point and then don’t even mention it in lei of a personal attack. Lovely! I’ve been nothing but respectful to CT in my posts and I only call Bill out because he uses the same tactics you do. I ask him to refute the point with his own data and he takes his ball and goes home by saying he is done because I am worthless. Prof X did the same exact thing!

Refute the point son!

Bill et al has already written quite a bit on this subject on this thread and has refuted many points quite well. I’m not spending any more time on you nor should he or anyone else. Again, if you came across as someone worth arguing with maybe I would. But like I said before, these others posters have earned my respect. All you have earned here is scorn.

Why should anyone listen to you? What have you achieved? What’s your credentials? Where’s your results. What have you proven/disproven with real world application? The only thing you’ve accomplished is coming across as a petty Aragon lemming. It seems to me that a majority of the posters on this thread are coming to the same conclusion about you as well except for yourself and a couple of your lemming buddies. You and your lemming buddies are are launching pathetic attempts as coming across as respectable, knowledgeable posters who have actually done something with themselves worthy of notice.[/quote]

Damn, you did it again. This time, instead of spending 2 paragraphs telling me how I’m not worthy of your response and how you don’t have time for me…why don’t you spend two paragraphs addressing the point.

Let me reframe for you. Ronnie Coleman. 220lbs. Naturals can achieve that. Not only naturals but guys in every gym, prof x, etc can achieve that. Now tell me how I am wrong to think that is “absurd”. ok, go!