[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
The boob analogy is the definition of a straw man.
MassiveGuns, two questions for you if you don’t mind. A. What two lifters are you talking about questioning their natural status two their face? B. Do you in fact have massive guns? If so do you have a picture and training tips? Thank you.[/quote]
Explain why it is a straw man.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
The boob analogy is the definition of a straw man.
MassiveGuns, two questions for you if you don’t mind. A. What two lifters are you talking about questioning their natural status two their face? B. Do you in fact have massive guns? If so do you have a picture and training tips? Thank you.[/quote]
Explain why it is a straw man.
[/quote]
Do you know what a straw man is? I am not talking about this kind.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
The boob analogy is the definition of a straw man.
MassiveGuns, two questions for you if you don’t mind. A. What two lifters are you talking about questioning their natural status two their face? B. Do you in fact have massive guns? If so do you have a picture and training tips? Thank you.[/quote]
Everyone who brings up an analogy gets accused of creating a strawman.
Whats the difference between a strawman and analogical reasoning?
To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar (BOOBS) yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position"
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
The boob analogy is the definition of a straw man.
MassiveGuns, two questions for you if you don’t mind. A. What two lifters are you talking about questioning their natural status two their face? B. Do you in fact have massive guns? If so do you have a picture and training tips? Thank you.[/quote]
Explain why it is a straw man.
[/quote]
Do you know what a straw man is? I am not talking about this kind.[/quote]
Yes I do. The un-educated see them whenever an analogy is drawn. Or, if you happen to disagree with the validity of an analogy then automatically it becomes a strawman.
Pulling the strawman card is a cop out unless you can directly point out in a logical fashion why the analogy doesn’t hold, instead of just shouting “its different so its a misrepresentation!”
lol ok
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar (BOOBS) yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position" [/quote]
You still haven’t explained why its a strawman.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
WTF are you babbling about. You sound like you just took a hit off a crack pipe.
[/quote]
Nice response to my peaceful response and after elsewhere you seem like a nice guy. Seems my opinion was wrong. So because you’re a crude person, I’ll be crude here as well: screw your delusional, infantile self and have a nice day in your fantasy land of 5’7", 6% bodyfat, 220+ naturals who walk around in that sort of condition year long and your crass “will it” attitude. [/quote]
It’s pretty funny when I jokingly accuse you of crack use, you do the internet equivalent of trying to punch me in the face. Ironic considering the subject matter with regard to steroid use…
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
WTF are you babbling about. You sound like you just took a hit off a crack pipe.
[/quote]
Nice response to my peaceful response and after elsewhere you seem like a nice guy. Seems my opinion was wrong. So because you’re a crude person, I’ll be crude here as well: screw your delusional, infantile self and have a nice day in your fantasy land of 5’7", 6% bodyfat, 220+ naturals who walk around in that sort of condition year long and your crass “will it” attitude. [/quote]
It’s pretty funny when I jokingly accuse you of crack use, you do the internet equivalent of trying to punch me in the face. Ironic considering the subject matter with regard to steroid use…
[/quote]
I took your comment the wrong way and overreacted. I am sorry.
??
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]lemony2j wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]lemony2j wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Obesity leads to more muscle, that’s why all the competitors on The Biggest Loser are so jacked.[/quote]
Miss the point much?
The issue is, NO ONE GAINS JUST FAT. They usually gain lean body mass and fat mass even in obesity…so saying that gaining some extra fat has ZERO use to a bodybuilder is a little off.
Is it ideal? maybe not, but let’s not ignore blatant biology working right in front of us.[/quote]
Come on man, there’s an interesting discussion going on in this thread that is actually in FAVOUR of your preferred method of putting on muscle and you pick out the one silly comment that is obviously a joke… Grow up
That aside it’s an interesting idea about higher body weight=lifting bigger=more muscle gained, meganewb/geoleeman (sp?)springs to mind here. I suppose its just another hypothetical as we will never easily be able to compare that to a more conservative approach.
However, I lost 30 lbs on a 14 wk diet last year and 12 wks in I set a new PR on deadlift… Make of that what you will!
[/quote]
Was the PR about 30lbs over your previous max? Probably more like 10 to 15 id imagine. If you lose significant weight, you still largely have the same strength levels. So less bodyweight = more weight on the bar.
Food for thought for mr stay leans…
[/quote]
It was 22lbs over my previous.
I don’t understand what you mean by ‘less bodyweight=more weight on the bar’. I could understand this logic for pull-ups or other BW exercises but deadlifts? Please explain[/quote]
When you do a deadlift, you are lifting a large percentage of your bodyweight. So if you lose bodyfat, then your dead will go up because you can lift the same max weight, but you have “taken some off the bar” by losing fat. Its no co-incidence its about the same as the weight you lost.
[/quote]
So my original PR was 200kg @ 240lbs bw, the PR in question was 210kg @ 210lbs bw. So by that logic if I got down to 190lbs I would be able to add another 10kg’s to the bar…?
[quote]lemony2j wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]lemony2j wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]lemony2j wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Obesity leads to more muscle, that’s why all the competitors on The Biggest Loser are so jacked.[/quote]
Miss the point much?
The issue is, NO ONE GAINS JUST FAT. They usually gain lean body mass and fat mass even in obesity…so saying that gaining some extra fat has ZERO use to a bodybuilder is a little off.
Is it ideal? maybe not, but let’s not ignore blatant biology working right in front of us.[/quote]
Come on man, there’s an interesting discussion going on in this thread that is actually in FAVOUR of your preferred method of putting on muscle and you pick out the one silly comment that is obviously a joke… Grow up
That aside it’s an interesting idea about higher body weight=lifting bigger=more muscle gained, meganewb/geoleeman (sp?)springs to mind here. I suppose its just another hypothetical as we will never easily be able to compare that to a more conservative approach.
However, I lost 30 lbs on a 14 wk diet last year and 12 wks in I set a new PR on deadlift… Make of that what you will!
[/quote]
Was the PR about 30lbs over your previous max? Probably more like 10 to 15 id imagine. If you lose significant weight, you still largely have the same strength levels. So less bodyweight = more weight on the bar.
Food for thought for mr stay leans…
[/quote]
It was 22lbs over my previous.
I don’t understand what you mean by ‘less bodyweight=more weight on the bar’. I could understand this logic for pull-ups or other BW exercises but deadlifts? Please explain[/quote]
When you do a deadlift, you are lifting a large percentage of your bodyweight. So if you lose bodyfat, then your dead will go up because you can lift the same max weight, but you have “taken some off the bar” by losing fat. Its no co-incidence its about the same as the weight you lost.
[/quote]
So my original PR was 200kg @ 240lbs bw, the PR in question was 210kg @ 210lbs bw. So by that logic if I got down to 190lbs I would be able to add another 10kg’s to the bar…?[/quote]
You are thinking too small. Just imagine if you got down to 145 pounds.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
He may be an inch taller, but he is definately shorter than me and I’m 5 10. Weight I’m sure of, and body fat also sure.
[/quote]
Doug Miller, Natural Pro Bodybuilder, and easily one of the thicker Pros out there. 5’9 (shorter than 5’10), competes at 186-192 lbs. Contest shape here, estimated at about 6-7% (4% is basically dead and dessicated according to all doctors I’ve spoken with).
Your buddy must be quite a sight.
S[/quote]
Never seen him with a tan like that, but he is lean as shit. He has retardedly huge legs. Forearm detail and serratus always visible.
[/quote]
Bro, I’m sure your friend is impressive. However, like I alluded to before, I think your perception is off. AND… your bodybuilder friend might be, like many lazy and mealy mouthed bodybuiders… LYING to you.
[/quote]
either he or his friend is lying, not even debatable. this man at 5’7 225 while being 6% bodyfat is over 40lbs heavier than any natty his height. elite genetics or not this doesn’t happen…
i occasionally train with a guy at my gym, who is 6’2 220 @ about 8-10% bodyfat. hes natty and looks like a fucking beast. do you even know what someone 5 inches smaller and heavier than this man would look like? bigger than even most pros his size. if you still truly believe he is natty you are so deluded its not even funny!
[/quote]
Daniel Martin, natural powerlifter. Over 300lbs at 5 7 (I believe from what I have found but I could be wrong).
[/quote]
what does posting this guy prove? he looks obese…[/quote]
He is 5 7 (I think) and carrying enough muscle mass to meet the 225 pounds at 5 7 lean bracket naturally that is apparently impossible to achieve. Yes hes fat now, but if he leaned down he’d be pretty big.[/quote]
no he would not make a lean 225 he is easily over 30% bodyfat.
george leeman aka mega newb, bulked up to 400lbs at 6’2. with the aid of drugs he managed to get down to a reasonably lean 230 something. now this is someone who is 5 inches taller and used drugs while leaning down, yet still only ended up at 230 with 8-10% bodyfat. all that fat helped him for power lifting didnt really seem to do to much for physique and muscle gains.
also why are we discussing this powerlifter? im still calling bullshit on your apparent friend who walk around at a natural 5’7 225lb while maintaining 6% bodyfat…
[/quote]
I’ll put it another way. He BUILT that muscle mass NATURALLY and got to 230 at 8-10% (notice I say built) and apparently that fat did nothing for him in regard to muscle gain. See the contradiction?
[/quote]
he did not CUT naturally… more muscle would have been lost had he not cut with aid.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
The only reason he ever stops is injuries and he’s had so many, you’d have to think if he was doing gear and GH then it ain’t doing its fkn job properly
[/quote]
I think it’s really going to depend on the injury. If we’re talking connective tissue stuff here, you realize that a lot of heavy gear users suffer frequent issues as the muscle strength and joint integrity get out of wack. Now I’m certainly no doctor, but I’ve heard enough people with far better knowledge of PEDs than I point out the same issue.
Also, and I know nothing about your friend so I’m not casting any aspersions, I was ‘friends’ with the guy who worked the desk at one of my former gyms for years. The guy swore to me up and down that he was clean. At the time, I honestly had no clue. Years later I was hanging with some mutual acquaintances, and they were reminiscing about their injection parties with this particular buddy of mine. But wait,… he had no reason to lie to me…
Consider what Maiden just pointed out about Heath’s older stats. No one’s saying that you’re lying, merely that most people’s perceptions aren’t as accurate as those who are actually around people with those actual figures.
S[/quote]
Intelligent use of PED’s leads to less injuries over time, not more.
[/quote]
Not true. Some PEDs lead to less collagen syntheiss that coupled with the strength increases lead to injuries
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Not true. Some PEDs lead to less collagen syntheiss that coupled with the strength increases lead to injuries [/quote]
nice to have you back Ryan!
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Not true. Some PEDs lead to less collagen syntheiss that coupled with the strength increases lead to injuries [/quote]
nice to have you back Ryan![/quote]
Thanks been lurking just not posting. Site has gone downhill so much. I just couldn’t help myself
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
The only reason he ever stops is injuries and he’s had so many, you’d have to think if he was doing gear and GH then it ain’t doing its fkn job properly
[/quote]
I think it’s really going to depend on the injury. If we’re talking connective tissue stuff here, you realize that a lot of heavy gear users suffer frequent issues as the muscle strength and joint integrity get out of wack. Now I’m certainly no doctor, but I’ve heard enough people with far better knowledge of PEDs than I point out the same issue.
Also, and I know nothing about your friend so I’m not casting any aspersions, I was ‘friends’ with the guy who worked the desk at one of my former gyms for years. The guy swore to me up and down that he was clean. At the time, I honestly had no clue. Years later I was hanging with some mutual acquaintances, and they were reminiscing about their injection parties with this particular buddy of mine. But wait,… he had no reason to lie to me…
Consider what Maiden just pointed out about Heath’s older stats. No one’s saying that you’re lying, merely that most people’s perceptions aren’t as accurate as those who are actually around people with those actual figures.
S[/quote]
Intelligent use of PED’s leads to less injuries over time, not more.
[/quote]
Not true. Some PEDs lead to less collagen syntheiss that coupled with the strength increases lead to injuries [/quote]
Actually it is true, because using PED’s that lead to less collagen synthesis would be classed as UNINTELLIGENT usage. I’m not disagreeing with your statement, but your conclusion is false, I think you misread my post.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]lemony2j wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]lemony2j wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]lemony2j wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Obesity leads to more muscle, that’s why all the competitors on The Biggest Loser are so jacked.[/quote]
Miss the point much?
The issue is, NO ONE GAINS JUST FAT. They usually gain lean body mass and fat mass even in obesity…so saying that gaining some extra fat has ZERO use to a bodybuilder is a little off.
Is it ideal? maybe not, but let’s not ignore blatant biology working right in front of us.[/quote]
Come on man, there’s an interesting discussion going on in this thread that is actually in FAVOUR of your preferred method of putting on muscle and you pick out the one silly comment that is obviously a joke… Grow up
That aside it’s an interesting idea about higher body weight=lifting bigger=more muscle gained, meganewb/geoleeman (sp?)springs to mind here. I suppose its just another hypothetical as we will never easily be able to compare that to a more conservative approach.
However, I lost 30 lbs on a 14 wk diet last year and 12 wks in I set a new PR on deadlift… Make of that what you will!
[/quote]
Was the PR about 30lbs over your previous max? Probably more like 10 to 15 id imagine. If you lose significant weight, you still largely have the same strength levels. So less bodyweight = more weight on the bar.
Food for thought for mr stay leans…
[/quote]
It was 22lbs over my previous.
I don’t understand what you mean by ‘less bodyweight=more weight on the bar’. I could understand this logic for pull-ups or other BW exercises but deadlifts? Please explain[/quote]
When you do a deadlift, you are lifting a large percentage of your bodyweight. So if you lose bodyfat, then your dead will go up because you can lift the same max weight, but you have “taken some off the bar” by losing fat. Its no co-incidence its about the same as the weight you lost.
[/quote]
So my original PR was 200kg @ 240lbs bw, the PR in question was 210kg @ 210lbs bw. So by that logic if I got down to 190lbs I would be able to add another 10kg’s to the bar…?[/quote]
You are thinking too small. Just imagine if you got down to 145 pounds.[/quote]
Strawman? Only losing bodyfat counts. You can’t just keep losing weight and adding it to the bar. Since that’s almost painfully obvious I’m not sure what you were trying to achieve with this post other than maybe sounding smart? Didn’t work. On the other hand comedy wise, it raised an eyebrow so you get 200 points for that.
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
He may be an inch taller, but he is definately shorter than me and I’m 5 10. Weight I’m sure of, and body fat also sure.
[/quote]
Doug Miller, Natural Pro Bodybuilder, and easily one of the thicker Pros out there. 5’9 (shorter than 5’10), competes at 186-192 lbs. Contest shape here, estimated at about 6-7% (4% is basically dead and dessicated according to all doctors I’ve spoken with).
Your buddy must be quite a sight.
S[/quote]
Never seen him with a tan like that, but he is lean as shit. He has retardedly huge legs. Forearm detail and serratus always visible.
[/quote]
Bro, I’m sure your friend is impressive. However, like I alluded to before, I think your perception is off. AND… your bodybuilder friend might be, like many lazy and mealy mouthed bodybuiders… LYING to you.
[/quote]
either he or his friend is lying, not even debatable. this man at 5’7 225 while being 6% bodyfat is over 40lbs heavier than any natty his height. elite genetics or not this doesn’t happen…
i occasionally train with a guy at my gym, who is 6’2 220 @ about 8-10% bodyfat. hes natty and looks like a fucking beast. do you even know what someone 5 inches smaller and heavier than this man would look like? bigger than even most pros his size. if you still truly believe he is natty you are so deluded its not even funny!
[/quote]
Daniel Martin, natural powerlifter. Over 300lbs at 5 7 (I believe from what I have found but I could be wrong).
[/quote]
what does posting this guy prove? he looks obese…[/quote]
He is 5 7 (I think) and carrying enough muscle mass to meet the 225 pounds at 5 7 lean bracket naturally that is apparently impossible to achieve. Yes hes fat now, but if he leaned down he’d be pretty big.[/quote]
no he would not make a lean 225 he is easily over 30% bodyfat.
george leeman aka mega newb, bulked up to 400lbs at 6’2. with the aid of drugs he managed to get down to a reasonably lean 230 something. now this is someone who is 5 inches taller and used drugs while leaning down, yet still only ended up at 230 with 8-10% bodyfat. all that fat helped him for power lifting didnt really seem to do to much for physique and muscle gains.
also why are we discussing this powerlifter? im still calling bullshit on your apparent friend who walk around at a natural 5’7 225lb while maintaining 6% bodyfat…
[/quote]
I’ll put it another way. He BUILT that muscle mass NATURALLY and got to 230 at 8-10% (notice I say built) and apparently that fat did nothing for him in regard to muscle gain. See the contradiction?
[/quote]
he did not CUT naturally… more muscle would have been lost had he not cut with aid.[/quote]
What is your point?
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
The boob analogy is the definition of a straw man.
MassiveGuns, two questions for you if you don’t mind. A. What two lifters are you talking about questioning their natural status two their face? B. Do you in fact have massive guns? If so do you have a picture and training tips? Thank you.[/quote]
Well put.
I don’t think massive gunz got the memo that his friend has the same dimensions(and a natty to boot) as top(assisted) IFBB pros.
Just astounding.