[quote]csulli wrote:
Man… The GH guts in those pics… Makes me wish bodybuilding would go back in time a couple decades.[/quote]
Those pics are already a couple of decades old.
very few of the pros today have huge GH guts like that.
It is also why posting pics of those guys at 300lbs by Brick isn’t making much sense.
[quote]steven alex wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Question, if someone had a goal of being really big, why would it be seen as a negative to bulk up like I did?
I mean, am I missing all of the people more muscular than that? Is it really believed I would be anywhere near that size without bulking up to some degree?
Just asking.
These limits seem based on flimsy data.[/quote]
I have said it before but I know of no person so sensitive as to what other people think of them as you. [/quote]
A few days of peace and good conversation around here, and now we are back to full on bitchy X mode again.
Thank God.
[quote]csulli wrote:
Man… The GH guts in those pics… Makes me wish bodybuilding would go back in time a couple decades.[/quote]
One can only dream
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Man… The GH guts in those pics… Makes me wish bodybuilding would go back in time a couple decades.[/quote]
One can only dream[/quote]
That’s almost 3 decades back.
The late 90’s and early 00’s were the breeding ground for huge gh guts (which I would NOT relate to GH so much as a combo of that and insulin and other growth proteins all used together).
Phil heath doesn’t have one…yet…and Kai greene only looks like that because he is packing 500lbs of muscle on a 5 foot frame.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Man… The GH guts in those pics… Makes me wish bodybuilding would go back in time a couple decades.[/quote]
One can only dream[/quote]
That’s almost 3 decades back.
The late 90’s and early 00’s were the breeding ground for huge gh guts (which I would NOT relate to GH so much as a combo of that and insulin and other growth proteins all used together).
Phil heath doesn’t have one…yet…and Kai greene only looks like that because he is packing 500lbs of muscle on a 5 foot frame.[/quote]
No, I know strydom competed mainly in the 80’s.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Question, if someone had a goal of being really big, why would it be seen as a negative to bulk up like I did?
[/quote]
Why would they bulk up like you did if they could get to where you are now WITHOUT bulking up like you did? Maybe a more reasonable bulk could have led to the same amount of muscle gain. Do you think that is not possible for someone to take a more calculated approach and get to where you are at now? Limits…
[quote]
I mean, am I missing all of the people more muscular than that? Is it really believed I would be anywhere near that size without bulking up to some degree?
Just asking.
These limits seem based on flimsy data.[/quote]
Yes you are missing where people are saying that bulking up to “some degree” is a good thing in terms of building a big AND lean physique. Every big and lean bodybuilder bulks up to “some degree.” [/quote]
I’m taking a firm position on this now. No one has ever got freaky huge by staying lean all the time. Absolutely fucking no one. If you disagree, please provide some good examples to prove your point. Because numbers wise there are a ton more massive people out there that did it the “classic” way. Virtually every major heavyweight bodybuilder out there has pics where they are most certainly not lean.[/quote]
I have to agree with this.
There is a reason guys like heavythrower look that thick and dense at that size. There is a reason he had a 22" neck and looks as filled out as he does dieted down (and no, I am not ignoring any anabolics used possibly). It is about the look of the person who has carried that kind of weight and lifted that kind of weight before.
If my goal was to be really big and I thought I had a chance in hell of having the genetics to pull that off, the last thing I would do is hold back my progress by being more concerned with my abs than gaining all of that muscle for years first.
Maybe you can call it a difference in training philosophy, but we definitely agree here.
It seems to me that brick is dropping all these 290-300lb monster pics here to draw a comparison between X, and huge pro bodybuilders. I don’t think he’s saying X is small or mostly fat, just that something seems a little off. For X to be as lean as he thinks he was at those weights, and therefore carrying as much muscle as he seems to think, would put him on the same level as these guys. Either X is carried more fat than he realized, or he has achieved a level of muscularity far beyond any known natural.
This is why every one is calling for a more accurate measurement of bodyfat than callipers or eye balling.I’m not on any side, this just seems to be the jist of what’s going on here.
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
It seems to me that brick is dropping all these 290-300lb monster pics here to draw a comparison between X, and huge pro bodybuilders. I don’t think he’s saying X is small or mostly fat, just that something seems a little off. For X to be as lean as he thinks he was at those weights, and therefore carrying as much muscle as he seems to think, would put him on the same level as these guys. Either X is carried more fat than he realized, or he has achieved a level of muscularity far beyond any known natural.
This is why every one is calling for a more accurate measurement of bodyfat than callipers or eye balling.I’m not on any side, this just seems to be the jist of what’s going on here. [/quote]
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean someone can’t gain 80lbs of lean body mass?
If someone goes from 130lbs of lean body mass to 210lbs of lean body mass, they did it.
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean this can’t happen?
I have been body fat tested recently.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Question, if someone had a goal of being really big, why would it be seen as a negative to bulk up like I did?
I mean, am I missing all of the people more muscular than that? Is it really believed I would be anywhere near that size without bulking up to some degree?
Just asking.
These limits seem based on flimsy data.[/quote]
I have said it before but I know of no person so sensitive as to what other people think of them as you. [/quote]
A few days of peace and good conversation around here, and now we are back to full on bitchy X mode again.
Thank God.
[/quote]
PX posts a grainy, dark shirtless pic taken at the absolute most flattering angle, then another sleeveless pic that’s clearly been enhanced (that shiny semblance of definition was nowhere to be found in the CO vids) and has now carried on for two straight pages about how jacked he is. He also used the term “growth proteins” in relation to anabolics. What the fuck is a “growth protein”?
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
It seems to me that brick is dropping all these 290-300lb monster pics here to draw a comparison between X, and huge pro bodybuilders. I don’t think he’s saying X is small or mostly fat, just that something seems a little off. For X to be as lean as he thinks he was at those weights, and therefore carrying as much muscle as he seems to think, would put him on the same level as these guys. Either X is carried more fat than he realized, or he has achieved a level of muscularity far beyond any known natural.
This is why every one is calling for a more accurate measurement of bodyfat than callipers or eye balling.I’m not on any side, this just seems to be the jist of what’s going on here. [/quote]
DING DING DING
Winner
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
It seems to me that brick is dropping all these 290-300lb monster pics here to draw a comparison between X, and huge pro bodybuilders. I don’t think he’s saying X is small or mostly fat, just that something seems a little off. For X to be as lean as he thinks he was at those weights, and therefore carrying as much muscle as he seems to think, would put him on the same level as these guys. Either X is carried more fat than he realized, or he has achieved a level of muscularity far beyond any known natural.
This is why every one is calling for a more accurate measurement of bodyfat than callipers or eye balling.I’m not on any side, this just seems to be the jist of what’s going on here. [/quote]
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean someone can’t gain 80lbs of lean body mass?
If someone goes from 130lbs of lean body mass to 210lbs of lean body mass, they did it.
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean this can’t happen?
I have been body fat tested recently.[/quote]
The point of posting those pro’s pics has always been…
If you were the weight you claimed to be, at the BF you claimed to be at your height.
You would have been the same as those offseason IFBB pro’s.
And round we go.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
He also used the term “growth proteins” in relation to anabolics. What the fuck is a “growth protein”?
[/quote]
IgF-1 is a growth protein.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
It seems to me that brick is dropping all these 290-300lb monster pics here to draw a comparison between X, and huge pro bodybuilders. I don’t think he’s saying X is small or mostly fat, just that something seems a little off. For X to be as lean as he thinks he was at those weights, and therefore carrying as much muscle as he seems to think, would put him on the same level as these guys. Either X is carried more fat than he realized, or he has achieved a level of muscularity far beyond any known natural.
This is why every one is calling for a more accurate measurement of bodyfat than callipers or eye balling.I’m not on any side, this just seems to be the jist of what’s going on here. [/quote]
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean someone can’t gain 80lbs of lean body mass?
If someone goes from 130lbs of lean body mass to 210lbs of lean body mass, they did it.
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean this can’t happen?
I have been body fat tested recently.[/quote]
The pictures of professional bodybuilders became relevant when you started using yourself as an example. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, because depending on what starting point you look at, it is possible. Really the whole debate hinges on all this grey area. Started lifting at 15? Well you were still growing, even without lifting weights, estimates of body fat from both sides, etc. Chalk it up to interesting stuff for kicking around in a debate, but no one is being limited by these discussions.
Part if why this debate went so long is how you talked yourself up so much. It just came across as arrogant. “look at me, I’m awesome and I did it. End of debate. P.s. don’t limit yourselves”
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
It seems to me that brick is dropping all these 290-300lb monster pics here to draw a comparison between X, and huge pro bodybuilders. I don’t think he’s saying X is small or mostly fat, just that something seems a little off. For X to be as lean as he thinks he was at those weights, and therefore carrying as much muscle as he seems to think, would put him on the same level as these guys. Either X is carried more fat than he realized, or he has achieved a level of muscularity far beyond any known natural.
This is why every one is calling for a more accurate measurement of bodyfat than callipers or eye balling.I’m not on any side, this just seems to be the jist of what’s going on here. [/quote]
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean someone can’t gain 80lbs of lean body mass?
If someone goes from 130lbs of lean body mass to 210lbs of lean body mass, they did it.
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean this can’t happen?
I have been body fat tested recently.[/quote]
The pictures of professional bodybuilders became relevant when you started using yourself as an example. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, because depending on what starting point you look at, it is possible. Really the whole debate hinges on all this grey area. Started lifting at 15? Well you were still growing, even without lifting weights, estimates of body fat from both sides, etc. Chalk it up to interesting stuff for kicking around in a debate, but no one is being limited by these discussions.
Part if why this debate went so long is how you talked yourself up so much. It just came across as arrogant. “look at me, I’m awesome and I did it. End of debate. P.s. don’t limit yourselves” [/quote]
I am not talking myself up. I just stated what I did and posted pictures and said that other people are better than me.
If you do believe it is possible, then we do not disagree.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
It seems to me that brick is dropping all these 290-300lb monster pics here to draw a comparison between X, and huge pro bodybuilders. I don’t think he’s saying X is small or mostly fat, just that something seems a little off. For X to be as lean as he thinks he was at those weights, and therefore carrying as much muscle as he seems to think, would put him on the same level as these guys. Either X is carried more fat than he realized, or he has achieved a level of muscularity far beyond any known natural.
This is why every one is calling for a more accurate measurement of bodyfat than callipers or eye balling.I’m not on any side, this just seems to be the jist of what’s going on here. [/quote]
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean someone can’t gain 80lbs of lean body mass?
If someone goes from 130lbs of lean body mass to 210lbs of lean body mass, they did it.
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean this can’t happen?
I have been body fat tested recently.[/quote]
The pictures of professional bodybuilders became relevant when you started using yourself as an example. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, because depending on what starting point you look at, it is possible. Really the whole debate hinges on all this grey area. Started lifting at 15? Well you were still growing, even without lifting weights, estimates of body fat from both sides, etc. Chalk it up to interesting stuff for kicking around in a debate, but no one is being limited by these discussions.
Part if why this debate went so long is how you talked yourself up so much. It just came across as arrogant. “look at me, I’m awesome and I did it. End of debate. P.s. don’t limit yourselves” [/quote]
I am not talking myself up. I just stated what I did and posted pictures and said that other people are better than me.
If you do believe it is possible, then we do not disagree.[/quote]
True lol.
The problem is the methods used to determine your body fat vs lbm. There are much more accurate methods than callipers or the mirror. If we are going to use you as an example, people just want more tangible proof. Irrefutable so to speak.
An example: I work for a local fire department and every year we get in depth physicals. One part is bodyfat measurement with callipers. We have one guy who is obese who tested lower than a guy just overweight, because he was too fat to get a good pinch on.
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
It seems to me that brick is dropping all these 290-300lb monster pics here to draw a comparison between X, and huge pro bodybuilders. I don’t think he’s saying X is small or mostly fat, just that something seems a little off. For X to be as lean as he thinks he was at those weights, and therefore carrying as much muscle as he seems to think, would put him on the same level as these guys. Either X is carried more fat than he realized, or he has achieved a level of muscularity far beyond any known natural.
This is why every one is calling for a more accurate measurement of bodyfat than callipers or eye balling.I’m not on any side, this just seems to be the jist of what’s going on here. [/quote]
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean someone can’t gain 80lbs of lean body mass?
If someone goes from 130lbs of lean body mass to 210lbs of lean body mass, they did it.
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean this can’t happen?
I have been body fat tested recently.[/quote]
The pictures of professional bodybuilders became relevant when you started using yourself as an example. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, because depending on what starting point you look at, it is possible. Really the whole debate hinges on all this grey area. Started lifting at 15? Well you were still growing, even without lifting weights, estimates of body fat from both sides, etc. Chalk it up to interesting stuff for kicking around in a debate, but no one is being limited by these discussions.
Part if why this debate went so long is how you talked yourself up so much. It just came across as arrogant. “look at me, I’m awesome and I did it. End of debate. P.s. don’t limit yourselves” [/quote]
I am not talking myself up. I just stated what I did and posted pictures and said that other people are better than me.
If you do believe it is possible, then we do not disagree.[/quote]
The problem is the methods used to determine your body fat vs lbm. There are much more accurate methods than callipers or the mirror. If we are going to use you as an example, people just want more tangible proof.
[/quote]
YEP.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
It seems to me that brick is dropping all these 290-300lb monster pics here to draw a comparison between X, and huge pro bodybuilders. I don’t think he’s saying X is small or mostly fat, just that something seems a little off. For X to be as lean as he thinks he was at those weights, and therefore carrying as much muscle as he seems to think, would put him on the same level as these guys. Either X is carried more fat than he realized, or he has achieved a level of muscularity far beyond any known natural.
This is why every one is calling for a more accurate measurement of bodyfat than callipers or eye balling.I’m not on any side, this just seems to be the jist of what’s going on here. [/quote]
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean someone can’t gain 80lbs of lean body mass?
If someone goes from 130lbs of lean body mass to 210lbs of lean body mass, they did it.
How does posting a picture of Dorian Yates mean this can’t happen?
I have been body fat tested recently.[/quote]
The pictures of professional bodybuilders became relevant when you started using yourself as an example. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, because depending on what starting point you look at, it is possible. Really the whole debate hinges on all this grey area. Started lifting at 15? Well you were still growing, even without lifting weights, estimates of body fat from both sides, etc. Chalk it up to interesting stuff for kicking around in a debate, but no one is being limited by these discussions.
Part if why this debate went so long is how you talked yourself up so much. It just came across as arrogant. “look at me, I’m awesome and I did it. End of debate. P.s. don’t limit yourselves” [/quote]
I am not talking myself up. I just stated what I did and posted pictures and said that other people are better than me.
If you do believe it is possible, then we do not disagree.[/quote]
The problem is the methods used to determine your body fat vs lbm. There are much more accurate methods than callipers or the mirror. If we are going to use you as an example, people just want more tangible proof.
[/quote]
YEP.
[/quote]
This is also why people asked for examples. The only example given is yourself, but your data is somewhat grey due to innaccuracy. I know you(px) have a decent knowledge of bodybuilding and competitors, maybe you could just provide a few guys you think meet the criteria. You seem to follow it more than a lot of guys, or you did in the past any way.
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
True lol.
The problem is the methods used to determine your body fat vs lbm. There are much more accurate methods than callipers or the mirror. If we are going to use you as an example, people just want more tangible proof. Irrefutable so to speak.[/quote]
I find it interesting they want “irrefutable” proof that someone claims they gained 80lbs of lean body mass but do NOT search for the same from the group they used to come up with that number from.
It is doubtful anyone in the 50’s and 60’s was being under water weighed…which makes the whole pool of data fall right in line with what they ask of me.
Strange the double standard, no?
[quote]
An example: I work for a local fire department and every year we get in depth physicals. One part is bodyfat measurement with callipers. We have one guy who is obese who tested lower than a guy just overweight, because he was too fat to get a good pinch on. [/quote]
But, I am not too fat to get a pinch on so why compare me to some massively obese guy?
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
This is also why people asked for examples. The only example given is yourself, but your data is somewhat grey due to innaccuracy. I know you(px) have a decent knowledge of bodybuilding and competitors, maybe you could just provide a few guys you think meet the criteria. You seem to follow it more than a lot of guys, or you did in the past any way.[/quote]
Anyone who has been posted in the past gets labeled as “unnatural” so what would be the point of doing that again?
I used myself because I know what I accomplished. I also know people better than me so obviously they can do more.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
This is also why people asked for examples. The only example given is yourself, but your data is somewhat grey due to innaccuracy. I know you(px) have a decent knowledge of bodybuilding and competitors, maybe you could just provide a few guys you think meet the criteria. You seem to follow it more than a lot of guys, or you did in the past any way.[/quote]
Anyone who has been posted in the past gets labeled as “unnatural” so what would be the point of doing that again?
I used myself because I know what I accomplished. I also know people better than me so obviously they can do more.[/quote]
The people who are better than you…are they also natty?
And they have gained even more lean mass than you?
Have they competed? They would have to be freaky…any natty competitors we would recognize?