I Deleted the Amazing New Supplement Thread--TC

Training Bodybuilding
161

I have probably read every article ever posted on this site. At least 50% of the workouts I have done in my training career were inspired directly from here.

You see…I’m a fan of information and don’t discriminate sources based on whether it fits my preconceived model or not. I like to grow in knowledge so I open myself up to many viewpoints that differ so that I may discern the wheat from the chaff myself. The more I do this the more I have come to realize that anecdotal evidence doesn’t amount to much. That goes triple on the web.

162

[quote]kribrg wrote:
Jacked Diesel wrote:I find it funny that you have been a member for over two years, and THIS is the subject you have made all 8 of your posts on.

I have probably read every article ever posted on this site. At least 50% of the workouts I have done in my training career were inspired directly from here.

You see…I’m a fan of information and don’t discriminate sources based on whether it fits my preconceived model or not. I like to grow in knowledge so I open myself up to many viewpoints that differ so that I may discern the wheat from the chaff myself. The more I do this the more I have come to realize that anecdotal evidence doesn’t amount to much. That goes triple on the web.[/quote]

If that is true then why did you wait for this topic to actually jump in and contribute?

163

Damn. I don’t think anyone who works here, but TC, has read every article posted on this site. That is a feat. Congrats.

164

[quote]Redlefty wrote:
I’m just a dumb business guy, but since the “I, BODYBUILDER” promotion explicitly stated that they’re pricing the product at a level that is a significant financial loss, wouldn’t lower sales actually help their bottom line?
[/quote]

You are an example of a naive consumer.

I’m not going to side with anyone on this issue though.

165

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Secondly, we need to consider the condition of the individuals measured. What a surprise, you measure Grimek in then-contest condition and then figure CT’s weight in NON-contest condition at the point in time cited and CT may be heavier for his height. What a surprise. On the other hand, if you take CT’s contest weight he would be lighter. Huh.[/quote]

If we’re to believe I,BB numbers I don’t think this is true.

Are you suggesting there’s a reason more likely than drugs? Can’t parents get their kids on hormone therapy if they’re not within a certain height range?

166

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Bottom line, if the “I, BODYBUILDER” program is bunk, it’s going to be obvious, and if it works it will be obvious. I have to believe that in this case, no publicity is bad publicity, if it works. .[/quote]

this is def what this thread should be about not focusing on attacking other T-Nation readers

i am willing to bet though that 90% of people who try I, BODYBUILDER wont gain 10 lbs of muscle in 10 weeks and when they speak up they will be called pussies

167

[quote]Redlefty wrote:
I have a couple of questions that haven’t come up in the thread yet, based solely on the original post by TC:

  1. He said that he deleted the other thread because the attacker was trying to take money away from Biotest by hurting sales. I’m just a dumb business guy, but since the “I, BODYBUILDER” promotion explicitly stated that they’re pricing the product at a level that is a significant financial loss, wouldn’t lower sales actually help their bottom line?

  2. He also said that it’s not fair to criticize a product that isn’t out yet. So wouldn’t it be easier to just not market it this heavily until it’s ready for release? It seems weird for a company to purposely ignite buzz and then try to squash anything negative leading up to a product release. Any press is good press as long as the product can live up to the claims.[/quote]

Fucken spot on m8.

168

Well I posted in 07 trying to get people to actually come out and say they believed there was a metabolic advantage to low carb.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Damn. I don’t think anyone who works here, but TC, has read every article posted on this site. That is a feat. Congrats.[/quote]

I am dedicated to the acquisition of knowledge which is what makes your posts so disappointing.

169

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Damn. I don’t think anyone who works here, but TC, has read every article posted on this site. That is a feat. Congrats.[/quote]

I read every article from Jan 06-July or August of 2008. I also read all of CT’s older Q&A threads.

170

[quote]kribrg wrote:

Bill Roberts wrote:
Damn. I don’t think anyone who works here, but TC, has read every article posted on this site. That is a feat. Congrats.

I am dedicated to the acquisition of knowledge which is what makes your posts so disappointing.

[/quote]

We have a choice of believing 2 things:

  1. You have in fact read the approximately 4000 articles on this site, or

  2. You are a liar.

Each can come to his own judgment on that.

171

[quote]kribrg wrote:
The more I do this the more I have come to realize that anecdotal evidence doesn’t amount to much. [/quote]

So is asking the biggest guys in the gym what they did to get there anecdotal or scientific?

Is playing around with diet and training techniques to really find what makes me grow anecdotal or scientific?

Wouldn’t the most logical & productive approach be to blend the two? Take the parts from both camps that work, and get fucking large?

I’m not even arguing with you, because it kind of seems that is what you do in the first place.

I don’t understand why there are two sides at all to this shit. Or why there is some childish internet “raid” about it at all. Or why some people feel the need to tear down others, when they aren’t public about their stats or physique.

(And yes I’m about to fuck my wife, in about 15 mins.)

Who is enough of a retard to not use the parts of “broscience” that work to make big muscles, and the parts of “science” that work in conjunction? I mean if it makes big muscles why not do it? We are all trying to make big muscles right?

172

[quote]Tesauro wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

Secondly, we need to consider the condition of the individuals measured. What a surprise, you measure Grimek in then-contest condition and then figure CT’s weight in NON-contest condition at the point in time cited and CT may be heavier for his height. What a surprise. On the other hand, if you take CT’s contest weight he would be lighter. Huh.

If we’re to believe I,BB numbers I don’t think this is true. [/quote]

I didn’t know that I, Bodybuilder ever referred to CT’s contest weight. Why don’t you ask CT on his forum what he would figure he would wind up at in contest weight, from where he is now, if he chose to compete again. Or what his last contest weight was, for that matter.

Haven’t you noticed that non-athletes, just general kids in junior high and high school, average considerably bigger than say 30 years ago let alone 50?

If you want to imagine their parents have all of them on growth promoting drugs, you are free to think that.

173

You know, that’s a good point. I bet Ritalin is anabolic.

174

I bet it’s not.

175

Is it a documented fact that John Grimek never used any anabolic drugs? Just curious, because supposedly the York Barbell lifters did know about (and some used) steroids.

176

I would chime in and say that there is such a thing as innovation. It’s possible products like Anaconda and MAG-10 protein, in addition to CT’s program, are ushering in a new era. It’s also possible they’re not. But, to imagine, as I think Mr. Blackthorne is imagining, that because it hasn’t happened, it can’t happen is silly. A lot of people said humans would never walk on the moon, make light bulbs, or any number of other things. Clearly, they have. Perhaps, and time will tell, it’s time to rethink the rules of what’s possible.

177

[quote]flyingXknee wrote:
K2000 wrote:
Bottom line, if the “I, BODYBUILDER” program is bunk, it’s going to be obvious, and if it works it will be obvious. I have to believe that in this case, no publicity is bad publicity, if it works. .

this is def what this thread should be about not focusing on attacking other tnation readers

i am willing to bet though that 90% of people who try I, BODYBUILDER wont gain 10 lbs of muscle in 10 weeks and when they speak up they will be called pussies [/quote]

If everything is done the way it is supposed to, NOT gaining 10lbs in 8 weeks would be a rare “feat”. The least gains we had a guy have in 8 weeks is 10lbs, and this guy is over 50 and has been lifting for over 30 years… and he is a doctor with a very complex schedule.

That is why the program is taking some time to be published: We are filming every single workout of every single phase. Not make-believe workouts, but real ones with the level of intensity, effort and workout tempo required.

EXERCISE, SETS, REPS AND METHODS ARE NOT THE MAIN INGREDIENT IN SUCCESS…

HOW you execute the workout is the real key and this is why we have to film everything so that people will know how to train for the program.

One thing I came to realize when I went to train with Tate and his gang, and something I had forgotten, is how FEW people (even those who call themselves hardcore) train hard enough to grow optimally.

Anyway, we have two guys (Sebastien and Keven) doing the workouts… there are 5 phases within the program, each of which has 4-5 workouts. So that is 20-25 workouts to film. Keven was preparing for a contest so we could not ask him to train 3 times a day to get everything done in a week!

178

That would be anecdotal. Chances are you will get different responses from each one you ask. As a natural I personally wouldn’t lend much credence to their responses either.

Depends. At most it would be N=1. Look, the guys who are the largest tend to be the most consistent over years and who regularly progress in poundage on the bar.

How do you determine which variable change worked and which didn’t?

[quote]I’m not even arguing with you, because it kind of seems that is what you do in the first place.

I don’t understand why there are two sides at all to this shit. Or why there is some childish internet “raid” about it at all. Or why some people feel the need to tear down others, when they aren’t public about their stats or physique.[/quote]

Being a part of a discussion does not equate to me looking for an argument.

179

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Tesauro wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

Secondly, we need to consider the condition of the individuals measured. What a surprise, you measure Grimek in then-contest condition and then figure CT’s weight in NON-contest condition at the point in time cited and CT may be heavier for his height. What a surprise. On the other hand, if you take CT’s contest weight he would be lighter. Huh.

If we’re to believe I,BB numbers I don’t think this is true.

I didn’t know that I, Bodybuilder ever referred to CT’s contest weight. Why don’t you ask CT on his forum what he would figure he would wind up at in contest weight, from where he is now, if he chose to compete again. Or what his last contest weight was, for that matter.

[/quote]

In true contest shape I would be around 192lbs. People REALLY underestimate how lean they have to get to be in contest shape. In the I, BODYBUILDER pic, Sebastien is 218lbs… at his contest a few weeks after he was 195.

In the picture Keven is 212lbs and at his contest he was 186. And as you notice both of them were already quite lean on the pics.

I had about 10lbs of fat more than them and I was 224. So 192 would be a safe bet.

I did reach a high of 242… but felt horrible. Here is fact that I have mentionned a few times:

LAST YEAR THEY FOUND OUT THAT I HAVE A CARDIAC MALFORMATION FROM BIRTH. They never noticed it before because I never had anything serious enough for them to test my heart.

Last September I tried to ‘bulk up’ and when I reached 228 I suffered a congestive heart failure. Obviously they suspected steroids because of my size… I told them that I wasn’t using anything and the blood test quickly revealed that this was the truth. That’s when they did several tests and found out that one of my heart’s chamber was not fully formed and that my heart’s septum contracted the wrong way (paradoxal septum).

This kinda explained why in the past, every time I got over 220 I started to feel bad.

So when I started experimenting with the protocol, the last thing I wanted was to actually gain weight. I wanted to see the effects on strength and recovery… period. The last thing I would have done would have been to take drugs that would make me heavier and put more strain on my heart.

The thing is that the gains were amazing and I kinda got sucked into seeing how big I could get. But when I reached 235 I started to suffer sleep apnea and from narcolepsy… twice I hit the curb because I fell asleep driving my car IN THE AM!!!

I was constantly out of breath and felt really bad. You could tell the added bodyweight was putting a strain on my heart.

This is why when we were done filming the I, BODYBUILDER video I did everything I could to normalize my bodyweight … heck, I was eating ONCE A DAY!!! In four weeks I lost around 14lbs which is when we shot the I, BODYBUILDER photos. I then came back down to my normal bodyweight of 215.

I really think that I gained weight too fast, that that was the problem. Obviously some of the weight was water, which explained the increase in blood pressure… but I didn’t gain that much water because I am under prescription diuretics (for my heart condition).

So now I am trying to put muscle back on, without going too fast to avoid shocking the system. I think that I can get back up to 225lbs and feel fine, that would be my goal right now.

180

The most hilarious part of this argument is that kribrg and john blackthorne are small and undeveloped. It’s always the same story with the guys who want to get all scientific and debate about how things should work.