I Deleted the Amazing New Supplement Thread--TC

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
stevo_ wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
juverulez wrote:
noone has mentioned the ’ An Objective (!) Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery’ article so far…

That’s because it’s shit. I’ve used both. One is far and above superior to the other…and I can feel the difference. Besides, is someone REALLY going to argue that the high fructose corn syrup is a superior source of carbs to dextrose/malto, or even a good source of carbs to begin with??? That’s lunacy. Besides, milk doesn’t have 6 grams of BCAAs in it.

I wonder if the author of that article – assuming the above is in reference to something real – is the same as the idiot who was arguing with me on this site that the best advice for a given young athlete (12 years old or something like that) was that his post-hockey-game nutrition should be sucrose-sweetened chocolate milk?

I got a PM that the idiot was in fact a bb’ing author, so perhaps it is the same person.

Yes, it is nearly incomprehensible that someone could actually argue sucrose-sweetened chocolate milk as being the ne plus ultra of post-training nutrition, but it has been done.

The article i think he refers to was written by Alan Aragon, i think he wrote some articles here (not sure though)? I know there a few authors such as Alywn Cosgrove and others who have cited his work/ linked to his products from time to time on this site.

Yeah, that was the guy. In the thread in question, he was an idiot. (Don’t know about overall, as I know nothing about him other than having seen his performance on that topic.)
[/quote]

Has that thread been deleted? Because I would love to see it.

He surely seems to “know” you, Bill.

He rips you quite a bit on other websites and brags about how he “schooled you” in the thread you mentioned…I didn’t read any of it, so the only knowledge I have is from him mentioning it in other places. Aragon regularly gets touted by many strength coaches as knowing his stuff and being a stickler for reviewing research and placing it in the proper context so that it can be applied to real-life situations. But for someone who is touted for taking a levelheaded approach to nutrition and research, he gets remarkably testy in his forum replies, which often reek of as much smugness as purported common sense.

And I don’t know you from a hole in the wall, but you seem to be a guy who knows his stuff too, so I find it hard to fathom that Aragon could school you in a debate as he regularly claims to have done.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
stevo_ wrote:
Anybody that doesn’t respond with skepticism to a claim of an advanced trainee gaining 26 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks hasn’t been around the iron game for very long i’m afraid, or take the “trust” concept to a whole new level.

I realize these claims are dialed back a little in other areas of the site, but this is the claim that is being marketed most visibly.

Maybe they have made something so reveloutionary that it outperforms AAS and I will be the first to sigh up if they have, as will countless others including who knows how many professional sports teams and Olympic athletes across the world but right now i think that “you havent tried it so it you cant say its not 100% true” isn’t going to be enough for a lot of people with any degree of experience and supplement knowledge…and thats fair enough

LOL. So your stance is that he didn’t gain 27lbs?

That blurb doesn’t read, “average among all subjects who used it was 27lbs of lbm gain”…it specifically speaks of CT’s gains. CT has the genetics to carry more size than he has been lately. He just maintained a lighter body weight. How magical does this really seem to you?[/quote]

I don’t get it either. A lot of us just watched daily as Kevin Levrone put on 40 lbs in 8 weeks… Both have it in them to be even bigger.

–EDIT: Yes, I realize that KL’s case there was some serious muscle memory. Probably some for CT (assuming there).

His article was rejected eh?

Every time I see “I, BODYBUILDER” mentioned I can’t help but to think of the “Colorado Experiment.” You take an obvious genetic freak like Casey Viator, you take him out of the gym for months and months, throw in an industrial accident where he loses a finger, mix in a nearly fatal allergic reaction, an extended hospital stay, not to mention the fact that he is off all anabolics during this time period. The man loses over 40 pounds of body weight. Now you take him out of that environment, send him to Colorado, get him back to training, eating, resting and taking care of himself, and presumably back on anabolics. Low and behold, he gains the 40 pounds back in relatively quick order. Now you take these events and you discuss them solely in the context of your training methodologies and equipment. Smart marketing, but not necessarily honest marketing.

Now fast forward 35 plus years. You take another genetically gifted individual, de-train him to a degree. Get his weight down a bit, etc. Now you put him on an intense, meticulously designed training program, provide him with a best case scenario of state-of-the art supplements and sufficient recovery and surprise, he gains 26 pounds. This time you discuss these events solely in the context of training methodologies and cutting edge supplementation not yet available to the mere mortal (but soon to be). Mix in a little mystery, terms like “black ops” etc. and you again have a very good, if not exactly honest marketing campaign.

Tim, TC and the gang took a chance. They sent up a trial balloon to gauge interest. However, in my personal opinion, they pushed the envelope a little too far. I would venture to guess that if given the opportunity for a “do over” they would tone it down a bit. Oh well, live and learn.

That being said, I just opened my latest shipment of Biotest gear. I think Metabolic Drive is a good of a protein as it gets and I run off Power Drive and Spike. I have not intention of changing in the foreseeable future. But, as a loyal and long time customer I believe I have earned to right to deliver honest feedback.

We all know after years here how heavily moderated these forums are, so its no biggie at all. It is odd that TC would reject his articles given that he is regarded by almost the entire industry (inc the big name authors here), as one of the truly elite in the industry. Must have been good reasons though.

[quote]OrangeCrush wrote:
He surely seems to “know” you, Bill.

He rips you quite a bit on other websites and brags about how he “schooled you” in the thread you mentioned…

[/quote]

The fact that he feels the need to posture to all corners of the internet about supposedly “schooling” Bill Roberts says it all (or what little there is to say).

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
On the main topic: all this hub-bub from apparently perpetual naysayers sort of reminds me of the naysayers denying that Levrone could without drugs accomplish what he recently did. It reeks of ignorance.

Back when I trained people personally it was not unusual to get results of 10-15 lb without apparent significant fat gain in time frames such as 6 weeks. Without drugs and without enhanced nutrition techniques such as exist today. Outside of personal experience, there are countless examples of this having been done. Such things are not new.

And I had nothing novel in terms of training techniques. Without drawing on I, BODYBUILDER at all (also because I know no more about it than everyone else) while in the rare cases I’ve come across old papers that had workout plans drawn up for trainees I haven’t had the view “man that sucked,” still I am sure I could do somewhat better today.

Now, if the person is or was someone who knows quite expertly what he is doing, is dedicated and driven, and has been consistent for quite some time, then no result like that was ever achieved by me. However for the majority of lifters at least one of the above is not the case. They have a lot of untapped potential that a better approach can bring out, fast.

Yes, the numeric figure given above is a weight gain and not, according to CT, the exact muscle mass gain.

I don’t need any other aspect about it beyond the fact that CT has trained very seriously for strength for quite some time, obviously very expertly, and has tried his best for bb’ing as well (while not going for offseason large weight increases, but staying pretty lean), and never before have his shoulders or arms looked anything like this nor has he put up such weights. There cannot be nothing to whatever method accomplished this.

I would expect such a method to outperform for typical people the very ordinary methods I used to employ for them. That does mean quite substantial muscle increases in 6 weeks.

I am pretty sure that had CT followed my old or current advice over the same time frame, and with typical nutrition instead of the protocols involved, he’d have accomplished jack squat versus simply sticking with what he’d been doing before. Rather than moving to a new level, he’d have stayed the same. Not so with what he actually did. Thus I think it’s reasonable to conclude his method is better than routines I used to write, or would currently do.

I don’t read other forums or websites and do not directly know what they say, but if it is as reported above, it shows the ignorance of the naysayers, IMO. Not their expertise; that is for sure.

It’s about as expert as insisting high-sucrose chocolate milk is the optimum post-workout nutrition.[/quote]

Let me sum this up for you:

Proof means nothing; trust me, and you can be superhuman too, bro. Buy my expensive shit, it’s better than drugs. And if it doesn’t work, you’re just not trying hard enough; buy more.

Also, I think everyone here should take note that CT currently weighs far more than any natural pro in the history of bodybuilding.

He wrote the Chocolate Milk article BECAUSE he indeed was schooling Bill but his posts weren’t passing moderation. So Bill was able to write what he wanted without reproach. So he basically kept misrepresenting Alan’s point and then attacking them as if Alan had made them (kinda like what he is doing now).

Let me tell you what you won’t see. Bill represent his ideas in a form where he can’t control the responses. That should “say it all”.

I read the article and the article isn’t about bashing T-Nation but rather refuting the claims made. Will someone defend the claims or is this gonna continue to be a us against them pissing match?

[quote]kribrg wrote:
SBT wrote:The fact that he feels the need to posture to all corners of the internet about supposedly “schooling” Bill Roberts says it all (or what little there is to say).

He wrote the Chocolate Milk article BECAUSE he indeed was schooling Bill but his posts weren’t passing moderation. So Bill was able to write what he wanted without reproach. So he basically kept misrepresenting Alan’s point and then attacking them as if Alan had made them (kinda like what he is doing now).

Let me tell you what you won’t see. Bill represent his ideas in a form where he can’t control the responses. That should “say it all”.

I read the article and the article isn’t about bashing T-Nation but rather refuting the claims made. Will someone defend the claims or is this gonna continue to be a us against them pissing match?

[/quote]

It would be interesting to discover who this “kribrg” is. It will be obvious to anyone who has read my posts over time that this person is a tool and/or a sock puppet.

Aragon’s posts in fact passed moderation. That is how he was able to have his discussion with me on the subject. And btw, how this individual – with only 4 posts – claims to be familiar with how a thread was moderated here nearly a year ago is indeed a thing to wonder at.

Aragon’s basic problem was that his arguing that the best post-training nutrition for a 12 year old is chocolate milk as the sole item recommended to be consumed (32 g protein per quart which is reasonable, but 95 g sugars, of which more than half is, typically, high fructose corn syrup and if not, is added sucrose) is foolish and incorrect. There is no way to “school” anyone about how something as far off as that is supposedly correct.

After I pointed the extreme amount of added sugar involved in his recommendation for the young lad, thus making his recommendation bad, he tried to pretend that a 12 year old, having had nothing before the training and nothing during, wouldn’t consume so much even if it were the only item offered, and supposedly I was being unreasonable in giving a quart as an example. But he provided no figure of his own and the kid’s own mother agreed that if that were the only food offered, a quart at least would be wanted. I think anyone who knows kids that age or remembers drinking milk at that age would agree.

Furthermore, Aragon also ignored that I in fact did not recommend Surge but rather gave a food-based solution, on account of having no evidence that a big glucose hit at any time is the ideal thing for a person so young (what with increased prevalence of Type II diabetes in the young) and that hockey training was not presenting the same situation as resistance training with regard to stimulating muscular growth, therefore what Surge is designed to do was not targeted for the situation at hand. The mom and I settled on some chicken and rice with some NON-sugar sweetened milk, as I recall.

However Aragon had a hard-on for Surge for some reason and continued to bring the argument back to that.

Doing a quick Google search now, I see that the individual is obsessed. It’s quite sad really. I didn’t even remember his name, frankly, and the matter of his idiocy never came to mind a single time between then and now. But apparently he lives with it night and day.

[quote]kribrg wrote:
He wrote the Chocolate Milk article BECAUSE he indeed was schooling Bill but his posts weren’t passing moderation. [/quote]

So, he’s taking Bill to task, but yet his posts aren’t showing up for all to read? Hey Bill, what nootropic are you using to see into the abyss?

[quote]
Let me tell you what you won’t see. Bill represent his ideas in a form where he can’t control the responses. That should “say it all”.[/quote]

Really? Don’t pretend that if I was to haunt Alan on Lyle’s site that no recourse would be taken. It’s the internet; everyone has their sandbox and we can choose who pisses in it.

I like Surge. End. Win. And all that.

[quote]SBT wrote:

He wrote the Chocolate Milk article BECAUSE he indeed was schooling Bill but his posts weren’t passing moderation.

So, he’s taking Bill to task, but yet his posts aren’t showing up for all to read? Hey Bill, what nootropic are you using to see into the abyss?[/quote]

The posts were deleted after Bill read them. See how that works? After that little embarassing episode the T-Mods have blocked posts from Mr. Aragon’s username from appearing on these forums.

You should vist Lyle’s “mean” forum sometime. Google “lyle mcdonald monkey island” and you should be able to find it. Lyle won’t censor your posts or ban you for disagreeing with him or calling Mr. Aragon bad names or whatever. I caution you to be prepared for a lively debate. The posters over there are equal opportunity abusers.

Hey, now it’s a 2-post-wonder replacing the 4-post sock puppet!

And amazingly, he too knows all about how the thread was (supposedly) moderated.

I am sure there are members here who remember how it actually went: perhaps someone can post on it.

(I mean a real member, not a 2-post tool.)

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
kribrg wrote:
SBT wrote:The fact that he feels the need to posture to all corners of the internet about supposedly “schooling” Bill Roberts says it all (or what little there is to say).

He wrote the Chocolate Milk article BECAUSE he indeed was schooling Bill but his posts weren’t passing moderation. So Bill was able to write what he wanted without reproach. So he basically kept misrepresenting Alan’s point and then attacking them as if Alan had made them (kinda like what he is doing now).

Let me tell you what you won’t see. Bill represent his ideas in a form where he can’t control the responses. That should “say it all”.

I read the article and the article isn’t about bashing T-Nation but rather refuting the claims made. Will someone defend the claims or is this gonna continue to be a us against them pissing match?

It would be interesting to discover who this “kribrg” is. It will be obvious to anyone who has read my posts over time that this person is a tool and/or a sock puppet.

Aragon’s posts in fact passed moderation. That is how he was able to have his discussion with me on the subject. And btw, how this individual – with only 4 posts – claims to be familiar with how a thread was moderated here nearly a year ago is indeed a thing to wonder at.

Aragon’s basic problem was that his arguing that the best post-training nutrition for a 12 year old is chocolate milk as the sole item recommended to be consumed (32 g protein per quart which is reasonable, but 95 g sugars, of which more than half is, typically, high fructose corn syrup and if not, is added sucrose) is foolish and incorrect. There is no way to “school” anyone about how something as far off as that is supposedly correct.

After I pointed the extreme amount of added sugar involved in his recommendation for the young lad, thus making his recommendation bad, he tried to pretend that a 12 year old, having had nothing before the training and nothing during, wouldn’t consume so much even if it were the only item offered, and supposedly I was being unreasonable in giving a quart as an example. But he provided no figure of his own and the kid’s own mother agreed that if that were the only food offered, a quart at least would be wanted in that situation. I think anyone who knows kids that age or remembers drinking milk at that age would agree.

(She took the team to a pizza place right after a game and her son ate, if I recall correctly, seven slices, so I think that would put the lie to a theory that all he’d want, if chocolate milk were available, just one glass or one pint or anything substantially less than a quart.)

Furthermore, Aragon also ignored that I in fact did not recommend Surge but rather gave a food-based solution, on account of having no evidence that a big glucose hit at any time is the ideal thing for a person so young (what with increased prevalence of Type II diabetes in the young) and that hockey training was not presenting the same situation as resistance training with regard to stimulating muscular growth, therefore what Surge is designed to do was not targeted for the situation at hand. The mom and I settled on some chicken and rice with some NON-sugar sweetened milk, as I recall.

However Aragon had a hard-on against Surge (or perhaps Biotest or T-mag in general, I don’t know) for some reason and continued to bring the argument back to Surge.

Doing a quick Google search now, I see that the individual is obsessed. It’s quite sad really. I didn’t even remember his name, frankly, and the matter of his idiocy never came to mind a single time between then and now. But apparently he lives with it night and day.[/quote]

This is not what I recall at all. “Everybody knows” that ;).

The above is quite precise. If you wonder why I would remember it that well, it is largely because the mom corresponded with me extensively afterwards.

Also because while I understood the general picture of chocolate milk containing very considerable added sugar, I had not known exactly how much until that thread, which caused me to check the USDA Nutrient Database for the figures. The situation was even worse than I had thought, and quite memorable. Sweetened chocolate milk is a poor quality food. It is just as sugary-per-quart as regular Coca-Cola, for example, or within a few grams.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Hey, now it’s a 2-post-wonder replacing the 4-post sock puppet!

And amazingly, he too knows all about how the thread was (supposedly) moderated.

I am sure there are members here who remember how it actually went: perhaps someone can post on it.

(I mean a real member, not a 2-post tool.)[/quote]

That’s your response? An ad hominem?

What does my post count have to do with the substance of my posts?

I’m beginning to think that your T-Nation post count and level are inversely related to your knowledge of nutrition.

[quote]Tesauro wrote:

Let me sum this up for you:

Proof means nothing; trust me, and you can be superhuman too, bro. Buy my expensive shit, it’s better than drugs. And if it doesn’t work, you’re just not trying hard enough; buy more.

Also, I think everyone here should take note that CT currently weighs far more than any natural pro in the history of bodybuilding.[/quote]

This from the guy who thinks it’s impossible for any natural male trainee to weigh over 200 lbs lean body mass? Yeah…that’s credible. I looked through your posting history just to see if there was an inkling of reasoned thought behind your attack, but no. Just more retard.

[quote]OrangeCrush wrote:
He surely seems to “know” you, Bill.

He rips you quite a bit on other websites and brags about how he “schooled you” in the thread you mentioned…I didn’t read any of it, so the only knowledge I have is from him mentioning it in other places. Aragon regularly gets touted by many strength coaches as knowing his stuff and being a stickler for reviewing research and placing it in the proper context so that it can be applied to real-life situations. But for someone who is touted for taking a levelheaded approach to nutrition and research, he gets remarkably testy in his forum replies, which often reek of as much smugness as purported common sense.

And I don’t know you from a hole in the wall, but you seem to be a guy who knows his stuff too, so I find it hard to fathom that Aragon could school you in a debate as he regularly claims to have done.

[/quote]

I’ve been around research and to compare what you can get the average college aged POS to do in the gym to what I do is laughable. I love science, I even enjoy research, but come on. How many of these research subjects can’t even do a pullup.

There’s a reason we don’t do academic research with actual successful hard-training lifters: they already know what works.

I just add this because I like Aragorn’s research reviews but to use published research to try to refute these claims on the surface seems pointless to me.

Wait…so the argument here is that because CT has the genetics to be bigger and has been bigger in the past that the statement of his gain is false?

Are you guys serious? Dear Lord, if I look in MD magazine I will find about 45 ads making claims that we all KNOW are not true, most of them from a very well known supplement company that will clearly put some unknown NPC bodybuilder in a picture side by side with another where the only difference is either 2 hours in a sauna or simply a pic taken before and after training while reading, “Mr. Brown lost 13lbs of fat and gained 20lbs of muscle by using NO-mesatech-super-drol!!!”. At least he gained the fucking weight.

It seems the crime here is that a business is trying to…be a business. This is apparently ok when it involves skinny-fat newbs who are trying to diet so their “abs of steal” shine at Senior Prom, but God forbid someone try to gain some muscle mass.

In the end, I fault whoever let this site get overrun by non-serious lifters who brag on their functionality in spite of their lack of development. If there were more serious lifters here, this would not be a discussion.

[quote]kribrg wrote:
SBT wrote:The fact that he feels the need to posture to all corners of the internet about supposedly “schooling” Bill Roberts says it all (or what little there is to say).

He wrote the Chocolate Milk article BECAUSE he indeed was schooling Bill but his posts weren’t passing moderation. So Bill was able to write what he wanted without reproach. So he basically kept misrepresenting Alan’s point and then attacking them as if Alan had made them (kinda like what he is doing now).

Let me tell you what you won’t see. Bill represent his ideas in a form where he can’t control the responses. That should “say it all”.

I read the article and the article isn’t about bashing T-Nation but rather refuting the claims made. Will someone defend the claims or is this gonna continue to be a us against them pissing match?

[/quote]

I read the article on chocolate milk by Alan. I thought it was a piece of shit. I thought in the past he’d had some interesting things to say, but that article pretty much single handedly destroyed much of his credibility to me.

Chocolate milk works in a pinch if you don’t have access to anything and need something ASAP. Otherwise I’ll take engineered nutrition any day of the week and twice on squat day. Even if it’s my own custom blend that has nothing to do with Biotest.