I Deleted the Amazing New Supplement Thread--TC

Training Bodybuilding
81

The ignorance is astounding.

You think no natural competitor is CT’s size off-season?

You think CT’s size in competition condition was the biggest ever, or now would be if he got back into competition condition again?

He’s a jacked dude, but the idea that no one in the world can be that size without drugs is woefully ignorant. Pick 100 guys at random and probably none of them can do it, but select for those who are competitive strength athletes in the first place, as he was, and of course some can.

Again, I’m reminded of the ignorance of the naysayers claiming what Levrone was doing was impossible without drugs.

Some people just have no idea of what is not only possible but in fact happens in bb’ing and has happened many, many times when talking about the gifted.

82

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
An ironic thing is that I am a scientist, yet I’m quite sure that in 4000 posts – or a lot more if counting before 2001 – a person could not find a single one wherein I say, “Train this way because of” some study, or “This training method is better because of” some study, etc.

When people want to know about what mechanisms a drug or supplement may work by, that is a different matter, but citing studies on training is just not getting it.

[/quote]

Agreed. The smallest most judgmental people I know…are the ones claiming their efficiency at study-reading…which is hilarious to me considering my education actually includes quite a bit of scientific research yet most of these guys are just lay people with little formal education.

I learned more from the big guys in the gym than I ever did in a medical journal. Science has always been largely BEHIND bodybuilders to begin with (for instance, finally jumping on a “low carb” bandwagon after bodybuilders had dieted like that for decades previous).

Anyone who truly lifts only according to research doesn’t really understand what a poor master they serve.

83

[quote]Tesauro wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
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.

I love guys like you, let me sum up for you why:

  1. Use of the word “bro” as a derogatory term. Mainly because you think that someone doesn’t read 6,000 studies and base their training around skinny guys in lab coats testing untrained individuals.

  2. You assume everyone else is a “sheep” and “nuthugger” when you are too blind to see you are a sheep, you just have a different Shepard than those you are here to bash. And you also ignore the vets that post here obviously. But that leads me to:

  3. You will call me a “bro” and act all smug and superior because I won’t listen to you, or your studies unless you have reached my goal, or trained people that have. Now when I ask you for stats your response will be something along the lines of: “LMAO that is the epitome of broscience, ha ha you don’t even get it. What does my size or strength have to do with my ability to reason and have a quality diet and training program.” The silly part is, I’m sure you are 180lbs at 6’0" and have a whole host of excuses of why you “don’t want” to look like a bodybuilder. It can’t have anything to do with the fact you ignore what huge people say in favor of “science” could it?

DISCLAIMER: I have nothing against science or it’s application to BB’ing. Just making a point.

  1. You made the obligatory “he must use steroids” attack. You read Casey Butts on the regular don’t you?

Open your mind dude.

If the guys who are determined to have the largest natural physiques in the world (pro BB’ers) can’t get near CT’s LBM level, something is clearly fishy.

I really can’t be bothered to respond to the rest of your garbage, because you’re implying that you somehow know my motivation.

There’s lots of “vets” on this site have been misled into believing that if they eat tons, get a huge bicep measurement, and workout hard, they’ll be super human. You need drugs to be super human. Remember caveman? That’s a drug fueled physique, and it’s what many of us aspire to. That’s just reality.[/quote]

First, what idiot would think that all of the people on the planet with the BEST genetic ability for muscle gains all became bodybuilders?

That alone makes any further assumption unstable.

I have known people bigger than CT who are natural. They just don’t compete.

84

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If people had to show their own progress before posting, there would be like 23 threads in this forum.[/quote]

Not true. There would be at least 29,170 :slight_smile:

85

All of this “Roberts vs. Aragon” begs the question – what happened to the thread?

No offense, but we all remember what became of a thread the last time a poster schooled a site author in a debate.

What other reason could there be for it vanishing? T-Nation is notorious for not allowing non-Biotest products any mention on the forum (rightfully so, I guess), but are they that insecure about chocolate milk stealing their customer base?

As far as the whole “how can people from other forums know so much about this?” subject… it’s not uncommon for people to frequent multiple sites at a time (I try to stay on the ball in regards to both here and IM, for instance). Plus, supposing someone from this site makes a thread about a heated debate between a contributor here and an author on Site B, it would make sense that many people from this site would follow along.

86

Seeing as then debate has degenerated to “CT’s big so he cheated” figured i’d try and save it.

9pm EST Tonight on FOX - Family Guy - Episode: Stewroids, everything you need to know about being natural vs enhanced.

87

Wait, you mean chocolate milk doesn’t come from a chocolate cow?

:wink:

88

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Anyone waiting on this to “save them” and anyone not growing on their own right now is a lost cause to begin with. [/quote]

QFT.

I don’t think another list of set/rep schemes and rest periods will help those who are lost…

But for those of us who work our asses off, it might be nice to try something new and hit our muscles with a method we may have not tried before.

89

Why are we humoring these idiots? Guys that have just signed up to tell us how we can’t gain that much mass? Read some of the first posts. I don’t have respect for someone who believes that muscle gain is limited to half a pound to eight tenths of a pound a month for someone who’s been lifting for four plus years. I don’t respect someone who believes (which they must as they put it in thier article) that AAS use of less than 10 weeks equals a total BODYWEIGHT gain of 2kgs.

I wouldn’t want to take advice from someone who thinks in such small terms, I wouldn’t reccomend anyone to them, and I certainly would call into question every article they’ve ever written. Why? Because those claims are easily refutable and patently false.

Now, should Biotest put out this I, BODYBUILDER program and the supplementation to go along with it and across the board NO ONE sees any results…then I will call into question every article they have ever published. But everyone cried bs with Surge Workout Fuel and I know alot of people that seem to love it now…count me as one of those.

Until this is put forward though, I can’t see how anyone can critique it. And the guys who think they can only ever put on 26 pounds in thier whole lifting careers…well if they don’t gain anything I won’t be surprised.

90

Intellectual Masturbation

91

i dont see how anyone believes anyone is naturally putting on 26lbs of muscle in 6 weeks
i know i have never seen close to that by anyone in my years of lifting
i dont expect Biotest to not try to hype up their supps as they would be doing a disservice to them selves since every company makes ridiculous claims
i do await the hordes of logs and before and after photos once I, BODYBUILDER is released
so i can see what people are really getting for results

92

[quote]anonym wrote:
All of this “Roberts vs. Aragon” begs the question – what happened to the thread?

No offense, but we all remember what became of a thread the last time a poster schooled a site author in a debate.

What other reason could there be for it vanishing? T-Nation is notorious for not allowing non-Biotest products any mention on the forum (rightfully so, I guess), but are they that insecure about chocolate milk stealing their customer base?

As far as the whole “how can people from other forums know so much about this?” subject… it’s not uncommon for people to frequent multiple sites at a time (I try to stay on the ball in regards to both here and IM, for instance). Plus, supposing someone from this site makes a thread about a heated debate between a contributor here and an author on Site B, it would make sense that many people from this site would follow along.[/quote]

I fear we shall never see the “X vs Waterbury” thread ever again.

sob

93

X marks the spot.

94

[quote]John Blackthorne wrote:

Why does that alone make any further assumption unstable?[/quote]

Because the person in question LIMITED his own research to bodybuilders of the 50’s and 60’s that he assumed were natural and used that as a baseline for all others who have gained muscle since that time period.

It ignores that the most logical life route for someone with physical ability to gain more muscle than average and be stronger than average is a pursuit that actually financially rewards that individual more than most bodybuilding contests can.

ie. that means anyone trying to come up with some genetic ceiling while ignoring big football players, baseball players or anyone in any other athletic endeavor that is NOT bodybuilding is creating a false conclusion if they try to apply this to all humans. The data is too limited in scope to begin with to be take as a rule applied to all human beings.

95

[quote]flyingXknee wrote:
i dont see how anyone believes anyone is naturally putting on 26lbs of muscle in 6 weeks
i know i have never seen close to that by anyone in my years of lifting
i dont expect Biotest to not try to hype up their supps as they would be doing a disservice to them selves since every company makes ridiculous claims
i do await the hordes of logs and before and after photos once I, BODYBUILDER is released
so i can see what people are really getting for results [/quote]

Between my junior and senior year of high school I put on 60 lbs (probably 40-50 if which was muscle) without gaining any height. I was completely clean, I only lifted weights, played frisbee, went to football practice, and cleaned out the fridge every couple of days. I most certainly believe people can do it.

96

Someone should PM dathibluline and tell him that he needs to chill out with being so swole this early into his training career.

97

[quote]anonym wrote:
Someone should PM dathibluline and tell him that he needs to chill out with being so swole this early into his training career.[/quote]

He is also only 22 years old yet has already surpassed his “Casey Butt ceiling”.

I feel sorry for anyone whose thinking is that limited.

98

[quote]Professor X wrote:
John Blackthorne wrote:

Why does that alone make any further assumption unstable?

Because the person in question LIMITED his own research to bodybuilders of the 50’s and 60’s that he assumed were natural and used that as a baseline for all others who have gained muscle since that time period.

It ignores that the most logical life route for someone with physical ability to gain more muscle than average and be stronger than average is a pursuit that actually financially rewards that individual more than most bodybuilding contests can.

ie. that means anyone trying to come up with some genetic ceiling while ignoring big football players, baseball players or anyone in any other athletic endeavor that is NOT bodybuilding is creating a false conclusion if they try to apply this to all humans. The data is too limited in scope to begin with to be take as a rule applied to all human beings.[/quote]

Ok great. So where are the people that have surpassed that. Surely in the bodybuilding internet community there has to be at least 10 people who surpass the 50’s and 60’s bodybuilding champions. Where are they? I mean these are people who’s goal is to get as big as they can so there should be at least a handful right?

99

[quote]kribrg wrote:
Professor X wrote:
John Blackthorne wrote:

Why does that alone make any further assumption unstable?

Because the person in question LIMITED his own research to bodybuilders of the 50’s and 60’s that he assumed were natural and used that as a baseline for all others who have gained muscle since that time period.

It ignores that the most logical life route for someone with physical ability to gain more muscle than average and be stronger than average is a pursuit that actually financially rewards that individual more than most bodybuilding contests can.

ie. that means anyone trying to come up with some genetic ceiling while ignoring big football players, baseball players or anyone in any other athletic endeavor that is NOT bodybuilding is creating a false conclusion if they try to apply this to all humans. The data is too limited in scope to begin with to be take as a rule applied to all human beings.

Ok great. So where are the people that have surpassed that. Surely in the bodybuilding internet community there has to be at least 10 people who surpass the 50’s and 60’s bodybuilding champions. Where are they? I mean these are people who’s goal is to get as big as they can so there should be at least a handful right?[/quote]

Here’s one at only 22 years of age.

100

[quote]Professor X wrote:
anonym wrote:
Someone should PM dathibluline and tell him that he needs to chill out with being so swole this early into his training career.

He is also only 22 years old yet has already surpassed his “Casey Butt ceiling”.

I feel sorry for anyone whose thinking is that limited. [/quote]

Casey Butt ceiling.

What an add combination of words.