Seriously, another thread just to talk about the same things?
First it was several natural vs assisted threads in the bodybuilding section. Then it was body weight factor, body weight factor 2, 80-100 pound gain thread, limits thread and now this? All to whine about the same thing? Just let it go guys. Let it go.
Everyone except BrownDisaster that is. You are cracking me up kid.
[/quote]
and ronnie coleman size would be delusional and unrealistic in the past
trying to surpass #1 isn’t delusional, people are already there
I don’t see how students are related to this. They are confident, but weren’t aware of how dumb they were, because they weren’t tested. With a bodybuilder, they know their weight, LBM, and know their target weight. They know their standing at all times.
“When one has that skewed and distorted perception improvement is difficult because the belief is there that one is already great”. It sounds like you are describing the people who post about limits… not the “delusional” people who have set high goals.
[/quote]
Okay, to clarify, my point here is that mental perception and PMA (again, no one’s down with Bad Brains? How sad.) is an aspect of success sure, but these limits that have been discussed, check that, argued over ad infinitum, provide one with a benchmark that is both realistic within the frame of human experience and still incredibly ambitious. Should one strive to achieve or exceed these so-called limits? (Again, not my phrasing, nor would I use the term limits, I prefer benchmark. As in, the benchmark for development set by the most accomplished natural physique trainers over the years…) Sure, drive is the impetus to progress as a person, a bodybuilder, or a culture. However, while, “man’s reach should exceed his grasp” it can also set one up for abject failure if mismanaged. I was pointing out that while negative self-perception becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy, the other side of this continuum is delusions of grandeur. Both are destructive. I think the benchmarks here, instead of limiting, allow for a more honest measuring stick and become useful tools for evaluating and determining progress.
Re. using Ronnie Coleman as what is attainable; I thought these “limits” were applied to unassisted trainers? Using Big Ron is a bit of a fallacy in that regard.
Students are tested all the time, so they should know where they stand in relation to other more accomplished learners; my point was that confidence/positive thinking in absentia of actual skill or talent isn’t really productive. These students believe in themselves absolutely; despite any real measurable benchmark confirming this they believe they are ah-mazing. For those in education such thinking retards progress because an additional step is tacked on; the, “No, you still need a great deal of work to be as awesome as you think you are.” So, while “If you dream it, you can achieve it” makes a great slogan on a poster, it’s incomplete; the caveat should include “Provided you work your ass off, and possess/develop the skills, talent, and training. Plus a shitload of luck. Get after it.” A positive and realistic, note the key word is realistic, sense of self doesn’t limit one; instead it allows for a better evaluation of actual progress or growth.
And remember, this isn’t the Bodybuilding forum. Many here have no desire to compete, so you cannot use bodybuilding standards of actually knowing LBM/progress as evidence. So, in regards to this forum and many posts–the physique trainer who does not accurately know his/her stats–how do these benchmarks limit him/her? (S)He can never know with certainty if (s)he has surpassed or achieved these benchmarks due to only rough estimates of LBM/leanness/etc.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
If limits are allowed to ‘hinder,’ then the lack of limits can certainly lead to faulty goal setting and bad expectations, which will create negative feedback that as discussed is clinically proven to possibly affect ones actual abilities.[/quote]
Actually, the most overambitious men I know were delusional because their ambitions didn’t match their abilities. That is, they had ambitions of doing things which they clearly don’t have the ability to. And what did they wind up with? FAR LESS than men who understand what they’re made of and had more reasonable ambitions or expectations. Come to think of it, every overambitious guy I know is earning ZERO dollars or far less than his peers and/or has serious problems.
[/quote]
Yes it is obvious that people like that have serious problems.
When we speak of mental perception affecting ability, we’re not talking about those that think they have already “made it” although having accomplished nothing, or those with delusional thoughts about their actual abilities.
We’re talking about how it affects people who have the potential to achieve more than general opinion would have them believe. This mental perception is the major factor that removes doubt when shit happens. Its what keeps us going during the nights without sleep, sacrificing of social and family life, and remaining positive through various setbacks in the PROCESS of achieving goals.
[quote]
I actually know a 34 year old man who’s been unemployed for two years by his own volition and practically refuses to work who asked me last year if I could see him being a millionaire. He actually refuses job offers that pay less than six figures because he believes he’s worth more, whic he’s not considering his training, education, and experience. So he rather earn NO money than earn SOME money because of his inflated sense of worth. And this is a guy talking about becoming loaded. [/quote]
I do know someone like this too. He has been diagnosed with schizophrenia.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Its not the actual setting of limits, its the constant discussion of limits that leads to more and more opinions from others who have achieved much less. Notice how the original limit, when challenged, went from 40lbs to 80lbs?
If this went on one sided, it might have actually dropped to 20lbs.[/quote]
I don’t know who changed the amount a natural could gain. I have stood by my guns the entire time with a reasonable 40 to 50 pound gain for a natural, and my estimation will stay.
When X constantly spoke of 80 pound muscle gains, I said, “No natural has gained 80 pounds of muscle”. Somehow this was misinterpreted as the new limit. He also formed a new limit of his own when I said, "After ten years, if everything is being done properly, gains will have stalled or dried up. This became a new “ten year limit”, when meanwhile I said repeatedly that gains will drastically diminish after the fifth to seventh year mark considering most fumble in the first few years. Then when I asked him how he is going to improve on his body when he’s been training for 15 years, that simple QUESTION to him lead HIM to come up HIS new perceived “15 year limit”.
Oh, I have shown some guys who might have gained 80 pounds LBM. Take a look here.
[/quote]
I didnt’t mean to make it sound like it was an attack on you. I’m saying when some limit is set, even the actual words will start to change more and more chime in with opinions.
Look at it this way. In a self-perceived hardgainer’s mind, how would he interpret it when its written that people with the BEST genectics can only gain 45lbs over an entire lifetime? If it is a bell curve to him, where would he logically place himself?
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Its not the actual setting of limits, its the constant discussion of limits that leads to more and more opinions from others who have achieved much less. Notice how the original limit, when challenged, went from 40lbs to 80lbs?
If this went on one sided, it might have actually dropped to 20lbs.[/quote]
I don’t know who changed the amount a natural could gain. I have stood by my guns the entire time with a reasonable 40 to 50 pound gain for a natural, and my estimation will stay.
When X constantly spoke of 80 pound muscle gains, I said, “No natural has gained 80 pounds of muscle”. Somehow this was misinterpreted as the new limit. He also formed a new limit of his own when I said, "After ten years, if everything is being done properly, gains will have stalled or dried up. This became a new “ten year limit”, when meanwhile I said repeatedly that gains will drastically diminish after the fifth to seventh year mark considering most fumble in the first few years. Then when I asked him how he is going to improve on his body when he’s been training for 15 years, that simple QUESTION to him lead HIM to come up HIS new perceived “15 year limit”.
Oh, I have shown some guys who might have gained 80 pounds LBM. Take a look here.
[/quote]
I didnt’t mean to make it sound like it was an attack on you. I’m saying when some limit is set, even the actual words will start to change more and more chime in with opinions.
Look at it this way. In a self-perceived hardgainer’s mind, how would he interpret it when its written that people with the BEST genectics can only gain 45lbs over an entire lifetime? If it is a bell curve to him, where would he logically place himself? [/quote]
And if there are people whispering in his ear ‘don’t worry dude you can totally get 80lbs easy’ he might also wonder why the fuck he is struggling to get to just 40. It works both ways.
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Its not the actual setting of limits, its the constant discussion of limits that leads to more and more opinions from others who have achieved much less. Notice how the original limit, when challenged, went from 40lbs to 80lbs?
If this went on one sided, it might have actually dropped to 20lbs.[/quote]
I don’t know who changed the amount a natural could gain. I have stood by my guns the entire time with a reasonable 40 to 50 pound gain for a natural, and my estimation will stay.
When X constantly spoke of 80 pound muscle gains, I said, “No natural has gained 80 pounds of muscle”. Somehow this was misinterpreted as the new limit. He also formed a new limit of his own when I said, "After ten years, if everything is being done properly, gains will have stalled or dried up. This became a new “ten year limit”, when meanwhile I said repeatedly that gains will drastically diminish after the fifth to seventh year mark considering most fumble in the first few years. Then when I asked him how he is going to improve on his body when he’s been training for 15 years, that simple QUESTION to him lead HIM to come up HIS new perceived “15 year limit”.
Oh, I have shown some guys who might have gained 80 pounds LBM. Take a look here.
[/quote]
I didnt’t mean to make it sound like it was an attack on you. I’m saying when some limit is set, even the actual words will start to change more and more chime in with opinions.
Look at it this way. In a self-perceived hardgainer’s mind, how would he interpret it when its written that people with the BEST genectics can only gain 45lbs over an entire lifetime? If it is a bell curve to him, where would he logically place himself? [/quote]
And if there are people whispering in his ear ‘don’t worry dude you can totally get 80lbs easy’ he might also wonder why the fuck he is struggling to get to just 40. It works both ways.[/quote]
Well, if a self-perceived hardgainer can gain near 40lbs, he is obviously not a hardgainer, is he? Thats my point.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]coyotegal wrote:
Mentally is everything! In all aspects of life![/quote]
I believe the same…but this idea was literally laughed at here recently.[/quote]
Ummm… I’ve been reading these threads, no one EVER said that. See Utah Lama’s post.[/quote]
Really?
Indeed, the whole positive attitude spiel is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read. You can’t stop Zyklon B from killing you just by having an Ubermensch style positive attitude.[/quote]
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I think anyone who has an education in psychology is aware of this. There have been quite literally hundreds (maybe thousands?) of studies that have proven that mental perception affects real world outcomes, whether we’re talking about lifting/physique accomplishments, educational accomplishments, work, whatever.
I don’t understand what’s worth arguing about here?[/quote]
I think I wrote out what was being argued…these specific numbers being thrown out and people saying it is impossible for a natural to pass that.
It is NOT believed that humans have no limits at all. The entire discussion stemmed from it being told to people that no one can do this.
I just posted how people were laughing at the idea of positive thinking…and the other jokes about it made it seem as if it were useless.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Seriously, another thread just to talk about the same things?
First it was several natural vs assisted threads in the bodybuilding section. Then it was body weight factor, body weight factor 2, 80-100 pound gain thread, limits thread and now this? All to whine about the same thing? Just let it go guys. Let it go.
Everyone except BrownDisaster that is. You are cracking me up kid.[/quote]
There seems to be a discussion here going on. If you don’t want to be a part of it, why post in the thread?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]coyotegal wrote:
Mentally is everything! In all aspects of life![/quote]
I believe the same…but this idea was literally laughed at here recently.[/quote]
Ummm… I’ve been reading these threads, no one EVER said that. See Utah Lama’s post.[/quote]
Really?
Indeed, the whole positive attitude spiel is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read. You can’t stop Zyklon B from killing you just by having an Ubermensch style positive attitude.[/quote][/quote]
So, X Since you see this as a rebuttal to the post you quoted, then we can assume you think mental ability will help you defeat Zyklon B? Because that is what the post you quoted was in DIRECT reference to. Not any kind of “perceived” physical or mental limitation put forth by society, which you have clearly stated you are talking about.
A point about positive mentality not being able to save you from a lethal toxin =/=laughing at “mentality is everything! In all aspects of life!”
Inb4 rant that has nothing to do with what I just posted.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Its not the actual setting of limits, its the constant discussion of limits that leads to more and more opinions from others who have achieved much less. Notice how the original limit, when challenged, went from 40lbs to 80lbs?
If this went on one sided, it might have actually dropped to 20lbs.[/quote]
I don’t know who changed the amount a natural could gain. I have stood by my guns the entire time with a reasonable 40 to 50 pound gain for a natural, and my estimation will stay.
When X constantly spoke of 80 pound muscle gains, I said, “No natural has gained 80 pounds of muscle”. Somehow this was misinterpreted as the new limit. He also formed a new limit of his own when I said, "After ten years, if everything is being done properly, gains will have stalled or dried up. This became a new “ten year limit”, when meanwhile I said repeatedly that gains will drastically diminish after the fifth to seventh year mark considering most fumble in the first few years. Then when I asked him how he is going to improve on his body when he’s been training for 15 years, that simple QUESTION to him lead HIM to come up HIS new perceived “15 year limit”.
Oh, I have shown some guys who might have gained 80 pounds LBM. Take a look here.
[/quote]
I didnt’t mean to make it sound like it was an attack on you. I’m saying when some limit is set, even the actual words will start to change more and more chime in with opinions.
Look at it this way. In a self-perceived hardgainer’s mind, how would he interpret it when its written that people with the BEST genectics can only gain 45lbs over an entire lifetime? If it is a bell curve to him, where would he logically place himself? [/quote]
And if there are people whispering in his ear ‘don’t worry dude you can totally get 80lbs easy’ he might also wonder why the fuck he is struggling to get to just 40. It works both ways.[/quote]
Well, if a self-perceived hardgainer can gain near 40lbs, he is obviously not a hardgainer, is he? Thats my point.[/quote]
Good post…
…and why I posted that “it chooses you” thread.
All you can do is try your hardest and see what your body responds to. I don’t know anyone who would tell someone they don’t know that it is “easy to gain 80lbs of elan body mass”. It isn’t easy. Even with good genetics it would take so much effort that even if a person had the genes to do it, most will not be able to.
The issue is the people who do have the genetics but will avoid that extra push it takes to see their ultimate potential because they fall in line with “no one can do that”.
This was never about what someone with average or below average genetics can do.
[quote]cueball wrote:
So, X Since you see this as a rebuttal to the post you quoted, then we can assume you think mental ability will help you defeat Zyklon B? Because that is what the post you quoted was in DIRECT reference to. Not any kind of “perceived” physical or mental limitation put forth by society, which you have clearly stated you are talking about.
A point about positive mentality not being able to save you from a lethal toxin =/=laughing at “mentality is everything! In all aspects of life!”
Inb4 rant that has nothing to do with what I just posted.[/quote]
PBAndy made the mistake of saying no one laughed at positive attitude.
This statement:
Is laughing at that concept.
Therefore, PBandy was wrong.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]coyotegal wrote:
Mentally is everything! In all aspects of life![/quote]
I believe the same…but this idea was literally laughed at here recently.[/quote]
Ummm… I’ve been reading these threads, no one EVER said that. See Utah Lama’s post.[/quote]
Really?
Indeed, the whole positive attitude spiel is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read. You can’t stop Zyklon B from killing you just by having an Ubermensch style positive attitude.[/quote][/quote]
IIRC, there was substantial overlap between us on this issue. My criticism was narrower than an attack on the concept of positive thinking. In particular, my criticism was mostly about the attributing of a mindset to the dead. My problem was mostly with the analogy, if that was not sufficiently clear, then that is my mistake.
[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
IIRC, there was substantial overlap between us on this issue. My criticism was narrower than an attack on the concept of positive thinking. In particular, my criticism was mostly about the attributing of a mindset to the dead. My problem was mostly with the analogy, if that was not sufficiently clear, then that is my mistake.
[/quote]
Either way, it was implied by this and many that the concept itself was a joke…so I responded to it.
We attribute mindset to the dead all of the time…almost every time a biography comes out. You can argue that we can’t literally read their minds, but to make it seem like the act is inane would be a mistake considering how it is a common part of our daily lives.
Back to the topic though, the idea was that for someone even with ultimate genetics potential, their ability to reach it is NOT guaranteed.
Michael Jordan wouldn’t have been able to fly if he didn’t practice his ass off to do it.
At any point along the way, his mindset could have ruined his ultimate potential…just like someone who COULD reach gaining more than 80lbs of lean body mass now thinking they can’t and avoiding pushing through the blood sweat and tears to do it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
So, X Since you see this as a rebuttal to the post you quoted, then we can assume you think mental ability will help you defeat Zyklon B? Because that is what the post you quoted was in DIRECT reference to. Not any kind of “perceived” physical or mental limitation put forth by society, which you have clearly stated you are talking about.
A point about positive mentality not being able to save you from a lethal toxin =/=laughing at “mentality is everything! In all aspects of life!”
Inb4 rant that has nothing to do with what I just posted.[/quote]
PBAndy made the mistake of saying no one laughed at positive attitude.
This statement:
Is laughing at that concept.
Therefore, PBandy was wrong.[/quote]
Therefore you are wrong because the statement you posted wasn’t in reference to what you and coyotegal were talking about, it was about mental ability defeating Zyklon B.
You are WRONG. I’ll say it again. The post you quoted has nothing to do with what you say people are laughing at. Zero, zip, nada.
That was probably the WORST attempt at cherry-picking a quote to try and prove you were right I’ve ever seen.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Michael Jordan wouldn’t have been able to fly if he didn’t practice his ass off to do it.
[/quote]
Space Jam was just a movie. Michael Jordan can’t actually fly.
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Michael Jordan wouldn’t have been able to fly if he didn’t practice his ass off to do it.
[/quote]
Space Jam was just a movie. Michael Jordan can’t actually fly. [/quote]
then how do you explain Bugs Bunny’s placebo superjuice???
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Michael Jordan wouldn’t have been able to fly if he didn’t practice his ass off to do it.
[/quote]
Space Jam was just a movie. Michael Jordan can’t actually fly. [/quote]
Youtube has made “witty” passe.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Either way, it was implied by this and many that the concept itself was a joke…so I responded to it.
[/quote]
“BY MANY”. Another lumping of posters to a single person’s post.
Again, THE POST YOU QUOTED TO TRY AND PROVE YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT PEOPLE LAUGHING AT THE CONCEPT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONCEPT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Again, it was in reference to mental ability defeating Zyklon B.
PX taking a quote out of context to bolster his argument? I’m shocked.