LIMITS

rrjc5488 · April 14, 2013, 8:41pm

I would imagine that being flat-out delusional is unhealthier than accepting that there are limits to certain things.

marshaldteach · April 14, 2013, 8:56pm

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
I would imagine that being flat-out delusional is unhealthier than accepting that there are limits to certain things. [/quote]

don’t set the bar too low, better to set it higher and fail than to aim for something lower and fail

50 lbs, 80-100 lbs… not getting into this stupid argument again

depends where they start

telling a 130 lb guy they will only gain 50 or 80 lbs of muscle seems kind of idiotic though

BrickHead · April 14, 2013, 9:02pm

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

telling a 130 lb guy they will only gain 50 or 80 lbs of muscle seems kind of idiotic though

[/quote]

Yeah, because no one knows what someone will gain.

However, it’s not distasteful to say, “the best naturals have gained about 40 to 50 pounds of muscle”, and, “with drugs, you can gain a lot more”.

rrjc5488 · April 14, 2013, 9:21pm

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
I would imagine that being flat-out delusional is unhealthier than accepting that there are limits to certain things. [/quote]

don’t set the bar too low, better to set it higher and fail than to aim for something lower and fail

50 lbs, 80-100 lbs… not getting into this stupid argument again

depends where they start

telling a 130 lb guy they will only gain 50 or 80 lbs of muscle seems kind of idiotic though

[/quote]

First of all, I have absolutely no idea how you decided that your response was the appropriate response to what I wrote considering I mentioned nothing about weight gain.

Secondly, lets think about your statement “don’t set the bar too low, better to set it higher and fail than to aim for something lower and fail.”

I disagree. Since arguing about weight gain on here is about the dumbest thing ever, let’s talk about reading.

According to you, it’s better to set a goal to read 100 books a week and fail to do so than it would be to set a goal to read 1 book a week and fail to do so. The difference, however, is that one is setting the bar too high, and the other’s a reasonabe, achievable goal. No one is setting goals to read one paragraph a week.

And since I think what PX was hoping this thread would turn into was sort of a “what the mind can concieve, the body can achieve” sorta thing. And since we’re talking about psyche and such, Marshall, lets talk about your statement a little further.

If the goals you set are too high and you keep failing, the constant failure will eventually eat away at your ability to see yourself as a winner. When you set REASONABLE goals, you reach them, and your ability to see yourself as a winner is reinforced.

To me, your statement is like this:

Lets say you’ve got two powerlifters in the same weight class. Guy A opens with 500, then hits 550 on his second attempt, then misses 600 on his 3rd attempt. Guy B opens with 500, then hits 560 on his second attempt, then misses 585 on his third attempt.

Who’s stronger? Guy A, who set high and failed? Or guy B who set reasonable goals?

What you’re saying would be the equivalent of guy A saying “I’m stronger because I missed a heavier weight than you did.” When the reality of it is guy B squatted more than him.

My point is, whether you believe in limits or not, having a clear view of your capabilities and goals will yield better results than aiming for the stars and failing.

super_saiyan · April 14, 2013, 9:47pm

BlueCollar has posted several times about a general 3 lb per inch (lean) limit for naturals and has never tested above 14% BF. He looks better than most, including the guy shouting loudest about how discussing limits will destroy gains.

BrickHead · April 14, 2013, 9:58pm

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
BlueCollar has posted several times about a general 3 lb per inch (lean) limit for naturals and has never tested above 14% BF. He looks better than most, including the guy shouting loudest about how discussing limits will destroy gains.[/quote]

Yeah, I got dissed for saying this elsewhere:

[quote]

Perhaps someone can correct me if I have the wrong way of viewing all this. For the life of me, I simply can’t understand the whole “robbing oneself of gains” thing in regards to to talk of long term bulking. And here’s why.

As I’ve said over and over agin, ad nauseum, muscular gains natural lifters come at a snail’s pace after the third year of training provided everything is done right from the start. But let’s be a bit more realistic and flexible and take into account most people stumble and make mistakes when starting out and say gains will slow after the fourth or fifth year or be so small that they will be unmeasurable, unless your scale counts grams or your eyes can visualize grams of LBM. Being that we speak of dedicated people who will be lifting for decades, what is leaning out, or even getting contest-ready shredded over the course of three or four months here and there over the course of decades of lifting going to do for long term gains?

I’m going to use arbitrary numbers for my example, but it’s the best I can do for this discussion. Let’s take a natural lifter for whom nature has deemed to have the potential of gaining 40 or so pounds of LBM.

First year gain: 20 or so pounds LBM
Second year gain: 10 or so pounds LBM
Third year gain: 5 or so pounds LBM
Fourth to seventh year: very small or negligible gains
Eighth year: no more gain

I am not talking about strength here or what can be accomplished by adding more body mass to get stronger. I am talking solely about LBM!

So, what is going to happen if a young lifter decides to compete in second or third year if he wants or just to even go on a highly restrictive, yet rational cutting phase for whatever reason? What is this going to do over the course of the first decade of training and possibly decades to come provided that we’re talking about someone who loves lifting? Granted, I’ve heard the whole “but a natty is gonna lose muscle during a cut?” Yeah, how much?! One to three pounds that can be gained in a couple of WEEKS after the cut or contest! Seriously, what will be the advantage of permabulking if we’re simply talking about LBM gains. YES, there might be a bit of a disadvantage for the guy who cuts here and there in the short run, but in the long run, if the two compared stay natural, there won’t be much of a difference in LBM gain by the seventh to ten year mark!

Disclaimers:

If you like permabulking, have at it. You’re NOT “doinitrong”!
If you’re someone involved in something in which permabulking aids in your absolute strength, hats off!
If you like the “full house” look, that’s fine; that’s your preference.
I don’t mind if you get mad at me for using an example of a natural with an upper ceiling of a 40 pound LBM gain. It’s besides the point, and you can go on thinking natty gains just continue and continue so long as you eat and lift and that a permabulk will lead to an outrageous 80 to 100 pounds muscular gain that wouldn’t have been able to be accomplished if one were not to trim down or enter a show here and there.
My outlook might be wrong, but I don’t think it is. If you think something else, please explain it in a civil manner and I’ll talk to you in a civil manner. Not in the mood for further talk like, “C’mon man! You’re nuts! We got a guy here who did it! No one would say he’s fat! Why are you using the word permabulker?!”
I’m a hater. Always was, always will be. [/quote]

heavythrower · April 14, 2013, 11:04pm

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]hastalles wrote:
I don’t know why I’m even posting this. It’s probably just gonna cause a ton more shit. But I can’t keep my mouth shut anymore about it.

I honestly have no idea at all where all this hatin on Professor X comes from. I mean for fucks sakes, it seems to be the fashionable thing now to say he’s got all kinds of personality disorders!?? (As if you could possibly diagnose someone over the internet)

Pretty much every post from Professor X I’ve ever seen has been reasonable and well-stated. The crowds of you who instantly pick apart everything he posts for very unclear reasons (I can only assume insecurity and jealousy) are the ones that I’m far more disturbed by, to be honest.

From a relatively outside perspective, it’s quite disturbing how some of you behave to another human being.

Steely’s two posts made the most sense in this whole thread (as his posts almost always do). I’m gonna follow in the footsteps of his last post. So bye.[/quote]

to each his own my friend, everybody is different and responds to things in their own way, but more than one young poster has had your attitude and made similar statements, i wont call them out, dont want anymore trouble than already here, but after a few years, they too got their fill of this guys (x) bs and attitude and started firing back eventually.

i have been here nearly 10 years and it got old day one for me.

but no hard feelings, like i said, not everybody likes me, just some personalities just dont mesh, its very individual. [/quote]

what is BS about X?

at least he provides arguments in his posts

some posters here talk up their background in nutrition and their years training, and then expect not to be questioned about making statements without any evidence. How is that not BS?

I prefer people who put up arguments instead of telling you how long they’ve studied something. A lot of people claim to know everything, including all the small fitness idiots with their youtube channels. Provide some arguments with some logic and evidence in your posts or it is BS.

[/quote]

what is BS is how he talks to people. that is NOT how you talk to other adults in real life friend, trust me, he does not act that way in person with other people, unless like i said he like to duck a lot.

that is what i am saying, i dont have issues with his opinion, everybody has them, its how he talks to people on these boards.

i think it is funny and entertaining how people are giving him shit back finally.

carry on.

rrjc5488 · April 14, 2013, 11:56pm

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
i think it is funny and entertaining how people are giving him shit back finally.
[/quote]

Not to mention, making more progress than him.
I’m pretty sure he realized this when he decided to start telling everyone he weighed 150lbs and wouldn’t post his actual weight on here anymore.

marshaldteach · April 15, 2013, 12:45am

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
I would imagine that being flat-out delusional is unhealthier than accepting that there are limits to certain things. [/quote]

don’t set the bar too low, better to set it higher and fail than to aim for something lower and fail

50 lbs, 80-100 lbs… not getting into this stupid argument again

depends where they start

telling a 130 lb guy they will only gain 50 or 80 lbs of muscle seems kind of idiotic though

[/quote]

First of all, I have absolutely no idea how you decided that your response was the appropriate response to what I wrote considering I mentioned nothing about weight gain.

Secondly, lets think about your statement “don’t set the bar too low, better to set it higher and fail than to aim for something lower and fail.”

I disagree. Since arguing about weight gain on here is about the dumbest thing ever, let’s talk about reading.

According to you, it’s better to set a goal to read 100 books a week and fail to do so than it would be to set a goal to read 1 book a week and fail to do so. The difference, however, is that one is setting the bar too high, and the other’s a reasonabe, achievable goal. No one is setting goals to read one paragraph a week.

And since I think what PX was hoping this thread would turn into was sort of a “what the mind can concieve, the body can achieve” sorta thing. And since we’re talking about psyche and such, Marshall, lets talk about your statement a little further.

If the goals you set are too high and you keep failing, the constant failure will eventually eat away at your ability to see yourself as a winner. When you set REASONABLE goals, you reach them, and your ability to see yourself as a winner is reinforced.

To me, your statement is like this:

Lets say you’ve got two powerlifters in the same weight class. Guy A opens with 500, then hits 550 on his second attempt, then misses 600 on his 3rd attempt. Guy B opens with 500, then hits 560 on his second attempt, then misses 585 on his third attempt.

Who’s stronger? Guy A, who set high and failed? Or guy B who set reasonable goals?

What you’re saying would be the equivalent of guy A saying “I’m stronger because I missed a heavier weight than you did.” When the reality of it is guy B squatted more than him.

My point is, whether you believe in limits or not, having a clear view of your capabilities and goals will yield better results than aiming for the stars and failing.[/quote]

yes, 100 books a week, but if you are actually aiming for 100 you might get more than 1

if you only aim for 1, the maximum you will get is 1

as for your powerlifting analogy, since it’s a competition I would think the person wouldn’t be an idiot and would attempt a weight he can actually do.

All I’m saying is if you have a guy who says “I want to deadlift 400” vs a guy who says “I want to deadlift 700”… I think the guy who legitimately wants to deadlift 700 will end up further

obviously there are limits and people have to be realistic, but in reality no one knows where everyones limit is… it is all individual.

what you can say is, here are pro bodybuilders who are on massive amounts of steroids and drugs, and they end up around 250+ lean

and you guys can act like no one believes what you say, but I’ve seen posts from small guys(like 150-180 and not lean) on this site talking about going on a cycle because they really believed they’ve exhausted all their natty gains… when in reality their diet and training is complete shit

heavythrower · April 15, 2013, 12:51am

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Thanks for the compliment heavythrower![/quote]

that was sort of a joke, but, seriously, you have sick quads, almost to the point they look overdeveloped for the rest of your body, like some olympic level weightlifters i have seen.

have you always been “quad-heavy” or have you due to a particular training style just did lots of quad dominant exercises?

heavythrower · April 15, 2013, 12:54am

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I have lost many pics recently from my computer because it broke and I don’t have a smart phone and I’m not the biggest picture taker, but here’s one I have (yeah, it’s not shirtless). X, you can say I look worse all you want. I don’t look terrible. And at least I can wear a pair of Under Armor which some people think looks good on me. [/quote]
you > X and it’s a landslide. At least you have some quads lol.
[/quote]

I didn’t think my quads were non-existant even with the injuries.

But yes, Brick has nice quads.[/quote]

??? i dont get you man. your a BIG dude, you have a very good build, i would love to look like you.

nobody is saying you have not built a way above average head turning physique.

if you really think that is the points being debated here, and every other shit storm you are part of…

waitaminute, of course you do, this is just how you have fun f-ing with people. lol

BrickHead · April 15, 2013, 12:58am

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Thanks for the compliment heavythrower![/quote]

that was sort of a joke, but, seriously, you have sick quads, almost to the point they look overdeveloped for the rest of your body, like some olympic level weightlifters i have seen.

have you always been “quad-heavy” or have you due to a particular training style just did lots of quad dominant exercises?

[/quote]

Thanks.

They used to be even bigger!

I’ve always been quad heavy, partially because of genetics (my whole mom’s paternal side has a short legs, long torsos, and good quads) and because in the beginning I focused too much on quad dominant exercises. It was only later on when I experienced back pain did I understand the cause of it: overdeveloped quads and relatively weak glutes and hamstrings. Later on I started to do mobility and glute activation drills, lunges, stepups, and GHR’s to fix that. I’ve never had pain since and got some better hamstring and glute strength.

I never had to much special for them because of the quad heavy genetics, just squat variations, lunges or stepups, and regular deadlifts. I’ve slimmed down now, but when I was obsessed some time ago, they used to get a pump from almost anything.

heavythrower · April 15, 2013, 1:03am

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Thanks for the compliment heavythrower![/quote]

that was sort of a joke, but, seriously, you have sick quads, almost to the point they look overdeveloped for the rest of your body, like some olympic level weightlifters i have seen.

have you always been “quad-heavy” or have you due to a particular training style just did lots of quad dominant exercises?

[/quote]

Thanks.

They used to be even bigger!

I’ve always been quad heavy, partially because of genetics (my whole mom’s paternal side has a short legs, long torsos, and good quads) and because in the beginning I focused too much on quad dominant exercises. It was only later on when I experienced back pain did I understand the cause of it: overdeveloped quads and relatively weak glutes and hamstrings. Later on I started to do mobility and glute activation drills, lunges, stepups, and GHR’s to fix that. I’ve never had pain since and got some better hamstring and glute strength.

I never had to much special for them because of the quad heavy genetics, just squat variations, lunges or stepups, and regular deadlifts. I’ve slimmed down now, but when I was obsessed some time ago, they used to get a pump from almost anything. [/quote]

were you ever a sprinter? or did sprints play a heavy part of your training at any time?

BrickHead · April 15, 2013, 1:17am

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Thanks for the compliment heavythrower![/quote]

that was sort of a joke, but, seriously, you have sick quads, almost to the point they look overdeveloped for the rest of your body, like some olympic level weightlifters i have seen.

have you always been “quad-heavy” or have you due to a particular training style just did lots of quad dominant exercises?

[/quote]

Thanks.

They used to be even bigger!

I’ve always been quad heavy, partially because of genetics (my whole mom’s paternal side has a short legs, long torsos, and good quads) and because in the beginning I focused too much on quad dominant exercises. It was only later on when I experienced back pain did I understand the cause of it: overdeveloped quads and relatively weak glutes and hamstrings. Later on I started to do mobility and glute activation drills, lunges, stepups, and GHR’s to fix that. I’ve never had pain since and got some better hamstring and glute strength.

I never had to much special for them because of the quad heavy genetics, just squat variations, lunges or stepups, and regular deadlifts. I’ve slimmed down now, but when I was obsessed some time ago, they used to get a pump from almost anything. [/quote]

were you ever a sprinter? or did sprints play a heavy part of your training at any time?

[/quote]

Nah, never involved in serious athletic stuff–just a regular gymrat, lol. Only recently, after I gave up the idea of ever doing a bodybuilding show have I been doing some sprints (probably in a clumsy manner according to any serious sprinter or S&C coach, but I try, lol).

rrjc5488 · April 15, 2013, 2:57am

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
yes, 100 books a week, but if you are actually aiming for 100 you might get more than 1

if you only aim for 1, the maximum you will get is 1
[/quote]

Personally, I don’t feel that that’s necessarily true. If it’s someones goal to read a book a week and they finish their book by thusrday, it doesn’t mean they won’t start another book until monday.

The only difference between having a goal of reading one book per week or a hundred books per week while ACTUALLY reading a book and starting another the same week is that in one situation, you didn’t reach your goal and in the other situation, you surpassed your goal.

Repeated failure will eventually catch up with you in a very negative way. Repeated success will snowball into more success.

But that’s the thing with a competition/life (as well as reachable goals/limits) - you don’t know what you can do. My point is that despite not knowing what you can and can’t do/lift/gain, you CAN have delusionally out of reach goals. (like the 600 missed squat, for example, which you called the guy an idiot for attempting, lol.)

I see what you’re saying and you may be right, but what about this:

Guy A’s goal is to DL 400lbs. Guy B’s goal is to DL 700lbs.

Both guys start at a 275 DL the first time they’re at the gym. Both guy A and guy B hit a 400lb DL 9 months later. They both made the same amount of progress, whereas guy A’s mindset might be “Fuck yeah, I just reached a goal” and then sets 455/495/whatever as his next goal. Guy B’s mindset, though, might be “Fuck yeah, I just pulled 400… but I got a fuckload more to go before I reach my goal.”

The accomplished feeling that guy A has will likely snowball into more positive thoughts, results, etc. The “Fuck, I got a long way to go” mindset that guy B has MAY actually be the thing to make him start to think that he’ll never pull 700!

I just think there’s a huge difference between setting a goal and setting a limit. A difference that seems to be ignored in this particular instance by some.

Using myself as an example, I started PLing a little over 4 years ago squatting ~300lbs. At the point when I squatted 500lbs (in gear), I thought to myself “if I squat 650, I’ll be happy with my PL career.” Just the other week I squatted 793 in competition.

So did my “650 would be nice” mindset limit me? Fuck no! I squatted 650, realized I was stronger than I thought, and started smashing heavier weights.

[quote]obviously there are limits and people have to be realistic, but in reality no one knows where everyones limit is… it is all individual.

what you can say is, here are pro bodybuilders who are on massive amounts of steroids and drugs, and they end up around 250+ lean
[/quote]

I agree with you 100% on this.

You’re 100% right about that, too. I’m not saying there aren’t people like that who exist. I’m just not saying that there aren’t people who are 250+ and screamng “NO LIMITS BRO!” who are just deluding themselves into thinking they’re ACTUALLY as muscular/lean as they think they are, either.

For the record, since this board has turned into a huge clusterfuck of hostility, I am not typing these posts out in a “YOU’RE WRONG, I’M RIGHT” tone. I actually think we both have some pretty decent thoughts that are worth discussing (not arguing about, lol.)

IamMarqaos · April 15, 2013, 1:29am

Stop telling your body what it can’t do.

Start telling it what you want and take massive action.

You body will get the message and adapt accordingly.

Never, ever, give up on what you want.

Never, ever, impose upon yourself a limit.

Don’t even talk about limits. What possible good can come from discussing that topic?

Keep doing that till the day you die.

Who are you to determine my limits?

BrickHead · April 15, 2013, 1:36am

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:

Who are you to determine my limits?[/quote]

No one here determines the physical or mental limitations of someone else. Mother Nature does.

Maiden3_16 · April 15, 2013, 1:52am

It’s strange to me that people look at these “limits” like they are the devil.

Why get your oil changed at 3000 miles? Don’t put that limit on your vehicle! Well some people want to ensure their vehicle stays in working condition.

Why limit yourself to 400 carbs a day?
Well because 400 is more than sufficient and 600 doesn’t help any more.

Why eat 4000 cals/day when you can eat 6000?
well because those extra 2000 are just that, extra. Fat.

If you want to get over 300 lbs and just want to lift some heavy ass weight and look like shit THAT IS FINE! No one is arguing against that.
But if you want to look good, feel good, and be pretty damn strong, you can do that without getting obese or anywhere near fat. Just look at bluecollartr8n, H4m, Stu (I know i’m leaving some good ones out here I apologize) and others. Do they go on bulks? yes. Do they get anyehere near obese or fat? fuck no.

heavythrower · April 15, 2013, 2:04am

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Thanks for the compliment heavythrower![/quote]

that was sort of a joke, but, seriously, you have sick quads, almost to the point they look overdeveloped for the rest of your body, like some olympic level weightlifters i have seen.

have you always been “quad-heavy” or have you due to a particular training style just did lots of quad dominant exercises?

[/quote]

Thanks.

They used to be even bigger!

I’ve always been quad heavy, partially because of genetics (my whole mom’s paternal side has a short legs, long torsos, and good quads) and because in the beginning I focused too much on quad dominant exercises. It was only later on when I experienced back pain did I understand the cause of it: overdeveloped quads and relatively weak glutes and hamstrings. Later on I started to do mobility and glute activation drills, lunges, stepups, and GHR’s to fix that. I’ve never had pain since and got some better hamstring and glute strength.

I never had to much special for them because of the quad heavy genetics, just squat variations, lunges or stepups, and regular deadlifts. I’ve slimmed down now, but when I was obsessed some time ago, they used to get a pump from almost anything. [/quote]

were you ever a sprinter? or did sprints play a heavy part of your training at any time?

[/quote]

Nah, never involved in serious athletic stuff–just a regular gymrat, lol. Only recently, after I gave up the idea of ever doing a bodybuilding show have I been doing some sprints (probably in a clumsy manner according to any serious sprinter or S&C coach, but I try, lol). [/quote]

haha, ok, well your quads are hyooge in proportion to the rest of you, fack, there like hanging over your knee. you can even see them through your jeans in your avatar pic. lol

im envious, legs have always been a weak point of mine, along with chest, arms, rear delts, front delts, um, pretty much everything cept traps and back.

sigh.

Caltene · April 15, 2013, 3:05am