[quote]baretta wrote:
You are so full of it man. Do you honestly think you know more about body building than coleman or cutler? Yeah, these guys need strength coaches for sure.
[/quote]
Uhh, it depends on what you mean by “bodybuilding”. I wouldn’t (and didn’t) claim to know more than them about every aspect of it, such as, for example, pre-contest dieting, steroid cycling and stacking, tanning, and other quirks associated with the “sport”. I certainly do claim to know more about biomechanics, and therefore the training aspect. That was the gyst of my post.
And the fact that I said they need strength coaches does not mean I am suggesting that they should be training for strength. It means they need somebody with a solid understanding of what the hell is going on in all those movements they do, on a physiological level.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Some of you guys who are quick to give advice to Cutler and Colemen better take a very huge step back and think about it.[/quote]
Donno about you, but I really don’t need to think all that hard to tell somebody that when he uses practically every muscle in his body to heave up a weight in a “biceps exercise” (and lest you forget, BB’ers train muscles, not movements), he’s not exactly stimulating his biceps all that much. Ditto for every single other lift that they cheat on, and most of them aren’t nearly as simple as the one pointed out above (thus nullifying the often-repeated claim that they’re “cheating intentionally”).
I hope Nominal Prospect isn’t one of those guys that throws around words and phrases to sound important… cause thats what it feels like when I read his posts.
Have no fear…I’m pretty sure I threw a couple of points in there, as well.
Oh, and I don’t think I’ve used any terms that aren’t routinely tossed around in articles posted on this website. So if Waterbury et al. can use them, why not me?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
So if Waterbury et al. can use them, why not me?[/quote]
Waterbury, Berardi, Thibadeau, Poliquin, Cosgrove…Recognize those names around here?
Everyone of them is one smart motherfucker, and knows more about biomechanics/Nutrition/Training/Muscle Gain/Fat Loss/etc etc than any one of us on this forum, however how often have you EVER seen them criticize what people like Jay Cutler do?
A little bit of knowledge is a dengerous thing! It sounds like thats the case. Most people who spout off claims like you have have a little bit of book knowledge, and not much else.
If you knew as much as these cats, you would look like these cats. Regardless, I dont see “Nominal Prospect” on the Authors list on the side bar. If you have so much wisdom, Im sure T-Nation would be eager to tap in to it…
[quote]summa wrote:
Professor X wrote:
summa wrote:
Observations.
Aerobics, aerobics, aerobics.
Momentum, momentum, momentum.
Short ROM, Short Rom, Short Rom.
These are all things we are told to fear. Do drugs and superior genetics trump everything else?
What bodybuilders completely avoid aerobics when contest dieting? There is a also a huge difference between someone advanced cheating a very heavy weight up in order to stress the muscle more and some newbie cheating because he is lifting 50lbs more than he should be. As far as ROM, the goal is to stress the muscle through the part of the movement that does that best. No beginner should be training like an advanced trainer. If your arms aren’t even half the size of his, don’t train like him.
[quote]EnTransit wrote:
Everyone of them is one smart motherfucker, and knows more about biomechanics/Nutrition/Training/Muscle Gain/Fat Loss/etc etc than any one of us on this forum, however how often have you EVER seen them criticize what people like Jay Cutler do?[/quote]
Current pro’s get shit on all the time here. Practically every mention of modern bodybuilding in one of the articles is a reference to bloated guts, or the quantity of drugs they ingest. I’m pretty sure I have a higher opinion of modern-era BB’ers than do the T-Nation contributors you cited above.
I know that controversy and criticism of the establishment are not alien to this forum, even though it is highly conservative in some aspects. So I’m a bit perplexed as to why I’m getting so much flak for stating my views on bodybuilding. Perhaps it’s because I’ve taken the time to think through and formulate my argument well, so that it can’t be brushed off with a single remark, and this must be irksome to my “opponents” (for lack of a better word).
[quote]EnTransit wrote:
A little bit of knowledge is a dengerous thing! It sounds like thats the case. Most people who spout off claims like you have have a little bit of book knowledge, and not much else.[/quote]
Everyone has an opinion on practically everything. Just ask them. Mine simply happen to be more developed and thought out than the average Joe’s. The basis for my opinions is what I observe, day-in and day-out. Not something that I read from a book, or a message board. I consider myself a scientist, with the entire world as my laboratory.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
He just happens to be very very wrong.[/quote]
Hey, then prove me wrong by addressing my argument. No point in dwelling on unrelated topics.
You guys are pretty cute, with your unabashed favoritism. Like school boys in a secret club. Definetely a tribal-bonding, testosterone thing (and yeah, I’m a guy too).
Meathead manifesto… Interesting. Gymnasts ring a bell with your little theory (work their techniques a helluva lot [such as rings, which are relatively high intensity], eat pure garbage, and still get impressive physiques). On the flip side, those gymnasts need to train years and years and master those techniques before they start to look physically impressive.
Anyways, I don’t particularly like Jay Cutler (or Ronnie Coleman for that matter), as they’re just, dare I say, “too big” (the bloated/pregnant gut thing is weird too…haha!). However, if I had to choose between the two of them, I’d say Cutler looks a tad better (I emphasize the word “tad”!).
Actually, I think you are a very interesting guy who has some very deep seated opinions.
But, the reason you are getting “flak” is because those opinions are not really based on reality, at least you have not proven that they are.
Some of your more irratating comments (don’t get offended…) are listed below:
Um, I guess that’s it then. It sucks and no one should use any sort of machine to build muscle.
See what I mean? A sweeping generalization which does not promote your position, but weakens it.
Another sweeping generalization.
I know many who have trained for years and years (30+ years) and they don’t look like bodybuilders.
“Anything you do is going to build muscle?”
(Zeb eye roll)
Also, you fail to expand on the term “anabolic zone.”
You brought up the term yet what does it mean?
This makes us think that you really don’t have a meaning for that term but are trying to sound smart…
Um…who cares?
Let me guess, you know about body mechanics and you want them to know all about body mechanics…right?
Another term: “lifting in the dark.” What does it mean exactly and why is it important to bodybuilding?
And “machine specific movement patterns” means what? And again who cares?
Mnay use free weights and machines. In fact I would guess that most use a mix of the two.
No atually they don’t need a good strength coach. They need to become more muscular and do other things that bodybuilders need to do.
This might be the weirdest comment that you made. You have touted yourself as someone who observes and learns from the world around you…no books…just real world observations.
Yet, when bodybuilders do this they are somehow in the dark. These guys have learned from the many that came before them.
They build 20"+ arms. How do you suppose they did this?
They watched and learned sort of like what you say you do. Only they really did it!
We don’t know how many pros do free weight squats, or how low most go. That would entail a fairly long term study.
Also, they build HUGE legs. So we can all guess that what they do works for them. How come you have not observed that?
Yet they do achieve gains. So…either you are wrong in your observation or moveing the weights as they do works for them.
Imagine that.
I would like everyone to read the above over and over again. As the more one reads it the more ridiculous it becomes.
Yes…the body adapts and um…that’s why it’s easy for someone to make gains…all they have to do is look at a weight…Sheesh… Honestly this is a bunch of crap. (sorry I don’t mean to offend you, but seriously kid…)
So if they don’t fully understand the movement they cannot make progress performing that movement?
THINK
Because you are coming off as an expert. Now this would be okay if your thoughts were complete and you were not throwing around bullcrap terms like “anabolic zone.”
Um…you are just over the top and not making sense.
Not really. If you developed some of your thoughts they would be taken more seriously. As it stands you are coming off as a “know it all” and that has been seen before on this forum…a few times…
Then go back to your laboratory and do more study. When you can reach logical conclusions and back up your positions come back and talk to us.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
It’s so funny how people constantly bitch about the squat machine, using momentum in curls and bent-over rows, blah blah blah, and this guy does all of those and has one of the most impressive physiques in bodybuilding.
People around here pretty much bitch about everything.
But if you take a look at the Cutler video he is using every available machine that there is.
Like I have been saying: It’s all good!
Could we please drop the:
“machines are baaaaaaaad…” comments?
[/quote]
That’s typically a comment from an advanced lifter to a beginner, and they’re right. Beginners don’t need to do that shit and they aren’t even expierenced in correctly doing primary lifts so why would they need special methods like bands and portioning out lifts to hit bigger weights. They’re newbs. They’re going to make newbie gains.
