LIMITS

Training
341

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Um, you started this thread quoting a specific individual and posting a picture of a crying baby. You expect him NOT to come into the thread? No, you deserve some of the blame. But weve all been down this road. You refuse to accept any blame. That’s okay, people know. It’s not a good look for you.[/quote]

I did expect HIM to come into the thread. I expected a discussion WITH HIM about exactly what I asked.

he instead skirted those questions and no one else has answered them either.[/quote]
Then why dont you two PM each other and discuss it?
[/quote]

Because I don’t want other people thinking this limit is legit because it has no solid basis other than hearsay.

Why would I need a better reason than that?

It isn’t just between me and him because I truly don’t care what he alone believes.

he has stated that it is impossible for a natural to do this. I started this thread t question the basis for this number.

342

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
There was a time where he was helpful and not NEARLY as confrontational as he is now. He was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, guy on the site for a while, so people generally listened to him.

Then there was a shift in the fitness industy over the recent years where people started to realize that you don’t NEED to gain too much bodyfat to be big and strong. People started realizing there just might be a better way than “just fuckin’ eat!”

Then people started using these new methods and seeing huge amounts of progress. Guys like waylanderx, doh crazy, hungry4more, carlcorps, zraw, and those guys all got fucking massive (and in my opinion, much more impressive than PX - however, I’d imagine that it’s the opinion of most that being bigger and leaner is more impressive than weighing less and carrying more BF) using these new methods. So people started listening to them, which meant that less and less people started listening to Professor X.

He’s bitter that times are changing and that he doesn’t get the recognition that he used to as being the most impressive guy on the site. Now, he just thinks screaming “I’M A DOCTOR” in everyones face is the way to gaining that respect back. Which is just fucking stupid.

Either way, people have realized that he’s not nearly as impressive as he leads on to be and arrogance of his caliber is just assanine beyond words.[/quote]

That’s a pretty decent summary of how I’m sure most people view things. Sadly, if we accept that X is all the things he claims (eduction wise), then it’s really a loss for everyone that he’s not more of a humble, and sane individual (constructing a well worded reply doesn’t always mean that you’re being ‘professional’, and apparently the old adage about not being able to teach class holds true.) When you look at the posters who’ve left in recent years, it really has lessened the quality of the site as a whole.

S[/quote]

Thanks for sticking around and still contributing :slight_smile:

343

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
For the record…5’11" and 230lbs near single didgit bodyfat would be nuts…a CT Fletcher level freak.

You started at 150 and 11%…get tested at 230…if you are at 11% or less, you prove EVERYBODY WRONG

Why not do it and prove everybody wrong once and for all.[/quote]

344

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
For the record…5’11" and 230lbs near single didgit bodyfat would be nuts…a CT Fletcher level freak.

You started at 150 and 11%…get tested at 230…if you are at 11% or less, you prove EVERYBODY WRONG

Why not do it and prove everybody wrong once and for all.[/quote]
[/quote]

Do you understand that being 11% does not even mean you are carrying the same amount of body fat at 150 as you are at 230?

That is why what you are writing isn’t making sense.

Your body wouldn’t even be the same after several years and over 80lbs of lean body mass gain so hitting a number doesn’t mean anything.

By even stating that you must hit “11%” you miss that the body wouldn’t even be of the same composition at that percentage.

345

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
For the record…5’11" and 230lbs near single didgit bodyfat would be nuts…a CT Fletcher level freak.

You started at 150 and 11%…get tested at 230…if you are at 11% or less, you prove EVERYBODY WRONG

Why not do it and prove everybody wrong once and for all.[/quote]
[/quote]

Do you understand that being 11% does not even mean you are carrying the same amount of body fat at 150 as you are at 230?

That is why what you are writing isn’t making sense.

Your body wouldn’t even be the same after several years and over 80lbs of lean body mass gain so hitting a number doesn’t mean anything.

By even stating that you must hit “11%” you miss that the body wouldn’t even be of the same composition at that percentage.
[/quote]

So if a bodyfat percentage is different at different bodyweights?

You are saying that 11% bodyfat on a 150 lb person and 11% on a 230lb person is different? Of course they have more fat at 230…but also more muscle.

How else can you prove that a 80 muscle gain is possible for a natty?

What test would you use to prove it?

Just saying you weigh more now does not prove that it included 80lbs of muscle without a bodyfat check?

Right?

346

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What am I leading on that I am beyond that?[/quote]

Your inability to be wrong.

347

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:

Because I have no idea of who this King beef is. Why do you always feel people are singling you out? I was only asking if Bricks claims were ludicrous about gains of eighty pounds there would be lots of pics from all over the web and perhaps blogs and stuff[/quote]

Then go look him up.

I am not sure what to tell you. My pics are all on the forum as well as his. What exactly do you want?[/quote]

Theae are serious questions and are not intended to drag on this debate. Do you know KingBeef personally? Do you know what his current height weight and body fat percentage are vs where he started? I have not seen him post consistently here in a long time and have not seen any updated stats regarding his progress, which I will easily admit is incredible.

I only ask because you have repeatedly used him as an example of someone who has gained 80+ pounds of muscle from weight training. Thanks.[/quote]

I used him as an example because he posted his pics before he started and he is much larger now. I can only go by his pictures. I simply stated that I was 15lbs as a newb with 11% body fat. That would mean a 210lbs lean body mass is 80lbs of lean body mass gained.

I am not sure what you want to know besides that.

[/quote]

Just to clarify, you do not know KingBeefs starting height, weight or body fat percentage and don’t know his current height, weight and body fat percentage yet are basing his 80 pounds of muscle gain off of the difference in two sets of photos?[/quote]

I was hoping to get some clarity on this and KingBeef in regards to the 80 pound muscle gain.

348

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What am I leading on that I am beyond that?[/quote]

Your inability to be wrong.[/quote]

Really? I have stated that I am wrong often. I have stated that I learn from my mistakes.

What are you talking about?

I don’t see you mentioning how wrong you are ever.

Hell, I don’t see anyone else here saying how wrong they are all of the time.

Lead by example.

What are YOU wrong about?

349

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

So if a bodyfat percentage is different at different bodyweights?

You are saying that 11% bodyfat on a 150 lb person and 11% on a 230lb person is different? Of course they have more fat at 230…but also more muscle.

How else can you prove that a 80 muscle gain is possible for a natty?

What test would you use to prove it?

Just saying you weigh more now does not prove that it included 80lbs of muscle without a bodyfat check?

Right?[/quote]

All you would have to do is calculate the level of lean body mass. Saying someone has to diet down to “11%” makes no sense because “11%” is not the same at those different weights.

350

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

I was hoping to get some clarity on this and KingBeef in regards to the 80 pound muscle gain.[/quote]

Then look up his posts and threads. He has stated that he reached that before and his pictures show that.

351

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Um, you started this thread quoting a specific individual and posting a picture of a crying baby. You expect him NOT to come into the thread? No, you deserve some of the blame. But weve all been down this road. You refuse to accept any blame. That’s okay, people know. It’s not a good look for you.[/quote]

I did expect HIM to come into the thread. I expected a discussion WITH HIM about exactly what I asked.

he instead skirted those questions and no one else has answered them either.[/quote]
Then why dont you two PM each other and discuss it?
[/quote]

Because I don’t want other people thinking this limit is legit because it has no solid basis other than hearsay.

Why would I need a better reason than that?

It isn’t just between me and him because I truly don’t care what he alone believes.

he has stated that it is impossible for a natural to do this. I started this thread t question the basis for this number.[/quote]
So its all about your altruism then?

352

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Um, you started this thread quoting a specific individual and posting a picture of a crying baby. You expect him NOT to come into the thread? No, you deserve some of the blame. But weve all been down this road. You refuse to accept any blame. That’s okay, people know. It’s not a good look for you.[/quote]

I did expect HIM to come into the thread. I expected a discussion WITH HIM about exactly what I asked.

he instead skirted those questions and no one else has answered them either.[/quote]
Then why dont you two PM each other and discuss it?
[/quote]

Because I don’t want other people thinking this limit is legit because it has no solid basis other than hearsay.

Why would I need a better reason than that?

It isn’t just between me and him because I truly don’t care what he alone believes.

he has stated that it is impossible for a natural to do this. I started this thread t question the basis for this number.[/quote]
So its all about your altruism then?[/quote]

It is all about finding the truth.

Like when we looked up the studies on “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” to only find that there were no studies and everyone was quoting some Russian rat model that wasn’t even in English.

Why would you be more against me getting to the truth than allowing me to have a discussion about it?

353

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

I was hoping to get some clarity on this and KingBeef in regards to the 80 pound muscle gain.[/quote]

Then look up his posts and threads. He has stated that he reached that before and his pictures show that.

[/quote]

He did? Can you link me to that thread please because I would like to read it. Thank you in advance.

354

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Um, you started this thread quoting a specific individual and posting a picture of a crying baby. You expect him NOT to come into the thread? No, you deserve some of the blame. But weve all been down this road. You refuse to accept any blame. That’s okay, people know. It’s not a good look for you.[/quote]

I did expect HIM to come into the thread. I expected a discussion WITH HIM about exactly what I asked.

he instead skirted those questions and no one else has answered them either.[/quote]
Then why dont you two PM each other and discuss it?
[/quote]

Because I don’t want other people thinking this limit is legit because it has no solid basis other than hearsay.

Why would I need a better reason than that?

It isn’t just between me and him because I truly don’t care what he alone believes.

he has stated that it is impossible for a natural to do this. I started this thread t question the basis for this number.[/quote]
So its all about your altruism then?[/quote]

It is all about finding the truth.

Like when we looked up the studies on “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” to only find that there were no studies and everyone was quoting some Russian rat model that wasn’t even in English.

Why would you be more against me getting to the truth than allowing me to have a discussion about it?[/quote]
?? Why are you such a fucking victim? All I hear you do is whinge and whine

355

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

So if a bodyfat percentage is different at different bodyweights?

You are saying that 11% bodyfat on a 150 lb person and 11% on a 230lb person is different? Of course they have more fat at 230…but also more muscle.

How else can you prove that a 80 muscle gain is possible for a natty?

What test would you use to prove it?

Just saying you weigh more now does not prove that it included 80lbs of muscle without a bodyfat check?

Right?[/quote]

All you would have to do is calculate the level of lean body mass. Saying someone has to diet down to “11%” makes no sense because “11%” is not the same at those different weights.
[/quote]

Either way…you were seeking answers about the natty 80lbs of muscle gain.

You used yourself as an example, so all you have to do is go get a hydrostatic bf% and shut everybody up (I think we are all willing to accept your 150lb and 11% starting point).

I still think that a diet thread would be more fun…but at least this way you can have your DEFINITIVE ANSWER.

356

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

I was hoping to get some clarity on this and KingBeef in regards to the 80 pound muscle gain.[/quote]

Then look up his posts and threads. He has stated that he reached that before and his pictures show that.

[/quote]

He did? Can you link me to that thread please because I would like to read it. Thank you in advance.[/quote]

Since I don’t plan on spending the next few hours looking for one thread just so you can read that, you can believe what you want.

I can’t speak for the man. I can only state what I have read from him. You can choose to believe it or not.

357

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Um, you started this thread quoting a specific individual and posting a picture of a crying baby. You expect him NOT to come into the thread? No, you deserve some of the blame. But weve all been down this road. You refuse to accept any blame. That’s okay, people know. It’s not a good look for you.[/quote]

I did expect HIM to come into the thread. I expected a discussion WITH HIM about exactly what I asked.

he instead skirted those questions and no one else has answered them either.[/quote]
Then why dont you two PM each other and discuss it?
[/quote]

Because I don’t want other people thinking this limit is legit because it has no solid basis other than hearsay.

Why would I need a better reason than that?

It isn’t just between me and him because I truly don’t care what he alone believes.

he has stated that it is impossible for a natural to do this. I started this thread t question the basis for this number.[/quote]
So its all about your altruism then?[/quote]

It is all about finding the truth.

Like when we looked up the studies on “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” to only find that there were no studies and everyone was quoting some Russian rat model that wasn’t even in English.

Why would you be more against me getting to the truth than allowing me to have a discussion about it?[/quote]
?? Why are you such a fucking victim? All I hear you do is whinge and whine [/quote]

Why not answer the question I asked you?

358

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Either way…you were seeking answers about the natty 80lbs of muscle gain.

You used yourself as an example, so all you have to do is go get a hydrostatic bf% and shut everybody up (I think we are all willing to accept your 150lb and 11% starting point).
[/quote]

If you accept the previous caliper reading, then you should accept a caliper reading again.

Why state I need to be hydrostatically weighed to prove this?

359

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Um, you started this thread quoting a specific individual and posting a picture of a crying baby. You expect him NOT to come into the thread? No, you deserve some of the blame. But weve all been down this road. You refuse to accept any blame. That’s okay, people know. It’s not a good look for you.[/quote]

I did expect HIM to come into the thread. I expected a discussion WITH HIM about exactly what I asked.

he instead skirted those questions and no one else has answered them either.[/quote]
Then why dont you two PM each other and discuss it?
[/quote]

Because I don’t want other people thinking this limit is legit because it has no solid basis other than hearsay.

Why would I need a better reason than that?

It isn’t just between me and him because I truly don’t care what he alone believes.

he has stated that it is impossible for a natural to do this. I started this thread t question the basis for this number.[/quote]
So its all about your altruism then?[/quote]

It is all about finding the truth.

Like when we looked up the studies on “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy” to only find that there were no studies and everyone was quoting some Russian rat model that wasn’t even in English.

Why would you be more against me getting to the truth than allowing me to have a discussion about it?[/quote]
?? Why are you such a fucking victim? All I hear you do is whinge and whine [/quote]

Why not answer the question I asked you?[/quote]
I couldnt even see a quiestion beyond all that fucking self pitying “why me” bullshit

360

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Either way…you were seeking answers about the natty 80lbs of muscle gain.

You used yourself as an example, so all you have to do is go get a hydrostatic bf% and shut everybody up (I think we are all willing to accept your 150lb and 11% starting point).
[/quote]

If you accept the previous caliper reading, then you should accept a caliper reading again.

Why state I need to be hydrostatically weighed to prove this?[/quote]

Because it is by far the most accurate way of doing it…calipers have a very wide range of human error.

This will be fun, I would love to see it…what do you possibly have to lose?