If this article had been about checks and balances, i.e. not pursuing size at all costs, it would have been fine. But that’s not at all how it came off. Instead, it came off as saying skinny lean guys are better bodybuilders than fat huge guys. I don’t see that there’s a difference. Maybe that’s the livespill comments skewing my perspective, but like VT said, most of the guys praising the article were 160-pounders. If that’s the cause TC was meaning to champion, then this isn’t really a bodybuilding site…it’s a dieting site. For the record, I’m about 210 at 5’9" and don’t ever plan on going higher than 225, so I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
If this article had been about checks and balances, i.e. not pursuing size at all costs, it would have been fine. But that’s not at all how it came off. Instead, it came off as saying skinny lean guys are better bodybuilders than fat huge guys. I don’t see that there’s a difference. Maybe that’s the livespill comments skewing my perspective, but like VT said, most of the guys praising the article were 160-pounders. If that’s the cause TC was meaning to champion, then this isn’t really a bodybuilding site…it’s a dieting site. For the record, I’m about 210 at 5’9" and don’t ever plan on going higher than 225, so I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying.[/quote]
Tomorrow’s article of the day is going to be some bullshit article/infomercial by Shugart where he talks about a bunch of new studies that show that ground-up raccoon claws is proven to be a superior fat-burner, and then at the end of the article we’ll find out that Biotest has come out with a new product to rival the old-school, pre-ephedrine ban Ripped Fuel. And it just happens to contain ground-up raccoon claws. It’s all a push to sell more weight-loss shit on this site.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]buddaboy wrote:
Dr Ken Leistner published an article years ago in MILO and said that it is hard to argue that it is healthy being over 250L’s, irrespective of body-fat levels because of the extra stress placed on the heart.
I don’t see that a temporary increase over this weight (250L’s) could be that detrimental-say several years or so up to the early 40’s or so-but there seems to be a trend where lifters (the one’s who don’t want heart attacks) start to lose weight and concentrate on health and cardio-vascular exercise, Steve Justa for example did this and lost 100Lb’s or so going from 350 down to 250 or so (last time I checked)
Anyone who’s life is 100% healthy must be pretty dull IMO, I LOVE to train, I do take ‘da roidz’ but I’ve put a lot of work in as well and I never ‘abuse’ what I take. Training and feeling big and strong is great, but life is a very temporary state, and being jacked is even more temporary, just like everything there is a time and a place. Gaining weight and ‘bulking’ isn’t prudent in your late 40’s and after. I know another guy who dropped from about 280LB’s don to about 200LB’s in his early 50’s for exactly the same reason, he said he want’s to see his grandchildren grow up, and also pointed out that there is no need for him to bench press 540LB’s aged 55, and he’s not sure if there ever was anyway!
I think we all need to pursue what we enjoy doing and what makes us happy, but not at the expense of our health.
[/quote]
i disagree. i don’t care what chronilogical age you are, it has little influence over wanting to be big and muscular. I disagree being jacked is temporary. as long as you train hard, just like you always have, you won’t lose what youve built. especially with todays supplements. you seem to be assuming ones age should matter if a person wants to be super strong and super big. age is a only a number, it exists only in your mind. thats my personal belief. we age, cause its like one big placebo effect. we age, cause in our minds we have been conditioned to think that aging is enevitable. well, i disagree. age can be controlled. a number only matters, if you give power to it in your mind.[/quote]
This coming from the dipshit who habitually lies about his age to women to the point where he even lied about his age to his wife?!?!?!?!? While they were married?!?!?!?!?!?
You’re a fucking idiot. If age means nothing, then why hide it? If people judge you by it, why do you care about the judgments of someone who is transfixed by a “big placebo effect”? YOU are the one giving power to the number simply by hiding it from other people like it’s something significant.[/quote]
WRONG. see, my thoughts are my own. why do i lie. ill be honest. I like a certain age range of women. and some women in that age range might not like me, cause of my age. that doesn’t alter my belief in age at all. but am i supposed to start liking older women, just cause my chronilogical age has increased. why? i dont want some woman in her later 30s and 40s. no freaking way. I don’t want to be the student, i want to be the teacher. get my drift. plus, i am into the same things i was into when i was 19. tattoos, fast cars, heavy metal music and numerous other things.
is it fair for a woman to not want to date you solely on your age?? if thats fair, then so is lying about your age. if you look young, act young, do young things, guess what, in my opinion, that makes you young. a simple chronilogical number doesn’t make one old.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
ilogical[/quote]
To sum up your post with a single edit…
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]buddaboy wrote:
Dr Ken Leistner published an article years ago in MILO and said that it is hard to argue that it is healthy being over 250L’s, irrespective of body-fat levels because of the extra stress placed on the heart.
I don’t see that a temporary increase over this weight (250L’s) could be that detrimental-say several years or so up to the early 40’s or so-but there seems to be a trend where lifters (the one’s who don’t want heart attacks) start to lose weight and concentrate on health and cardio-vascular exercise, Steve Justa for example did this and lost 100Lb’s or so going from 350 down to 250 or so (last time I checked)
Anyone who’s life is 100% healthy must be pretty dull IMO, I LOVE to train, I do take ‘da roidz’ but I’ve put a lot of work in as well and I never ‘abuse’ what I take. Training and feeling big and strong is great, but life is a very temporary state, and being jacked is even more temporary, just like everything there is a time and a place. Gaining weight and ‘bulking’ isn’t prudent in your late 40’s and after. I know another guy who dropped from about 280LB’s don to about 200LB’s in his early 50’s for exactly the same reason, he said he want’s to see his grandchildren grow up, and also pointed out that there is no need for him to bench press 540LB’s aged 55, and he’s not sure if there ever was anyway!
I think we all need to pursue what we enjoy doing and what makes us happy, but not at the expense of our health.
[/quote]
i disagree. i don’t care what chronilogical age you are, it has little influence over wanting to be big and muscular. I disagree being jacked is temporary. as long as you train hard, just like you always have, you won’t lose what youve built. especially with todays supplements. you seem to be assuming ones age should matter if a person wants to be super strong and super big. age is a only a number, it exists only in your mind. thats my personal belief. we age, cause its like one big placebo effect. we age, cause in our minds we have been conditioned to think that aging is enevitable. well, i disagree. age can be controlled. a number only matters, if you give power to it in your mind.[/quote]
This coming from the dipshit who habitually lies about his age to women to the point where he even lied about his age to his wife?!?!?!?!? While they were married?!?!?!?!?!?
You’re a fucking idiot. If age means nothing, then why hide it? If people judge you by it, why do you care about the judgments of someone who is transfixed by a “big placebo effect”? YOU are the one giving power to the number simply by hiding it from other people like it’s something significant.[/quote]
WRONG. see, my thoughts are my own. why do i lie. ill be honest. I like a certain age range of women. and some women in that age range might not like me, cause of my age. that doesn’t alter my belief in age at all. but am i supposed to start liking older women, just cause my chronilogical age has increased. why? i dont want some woman in her later 30s and 40s. no freaking way. I don’t want to be the student, i want to be the teacher. get my drift. plus, i am into the same things i was into when i was 19. tattoos, fast cars, heavy metal music and numerous other things.
is it fair for a woman to not want to date you solely on your age?? if thats fair, then so is lying about your age. if you look young, act young, do young things, guess what, in my opinion, that makes you young. a simple chronilogical number doesn’t make one old.[/quote]
We’ve already had this conversation like a year ago. You’re literally shitting the same bogus argument out of your mouth as you did then. I refuse to continue this discussion with a mongoloid who says in one breath that age doesn’t matter and then says in the next that he bases his criteria for what kind of woman he dates in part (probably a huge part) on her age.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]buddaboy wrote:
Dr Ken Leistner published an article years ago in MILO and said that it is hard to argue that it is healthy being over 250L’s, irrespective of body-fat levels because of the extra stress placed on the heart.
I don’t see that a temporary increase over this weight (250L’s) could be that detrimental-say several years or so up to the early 40’s or so-but there seems to be a trend where lifters (the one’s who don’t want heart attacks) start to lose weight and concentrate on health and cardio-vascular exercise, Steve Justa for example did this and lost 100Lb’s or so going from 350 down to 250 or so (last time I checked)
Anyone who’s life is 100% healthy must be pretty dull IMO, I LOVE to train, I do take ‘da roidz’ but I’ve put a lot of work in as well and I never ‘abuse’ what I take. Training and feeling big and strong is great, but life is a very temporary state, and being jacked is even more temporary, just like everything there is a time and a place. Gaining weight and ‘bulking’ isn’t prudent in your late 40’s and after. I know another guy who dropped from about 280LB’s don to about 200LB’s in his early 50’s for exactly the same reason, he said he want’s to see his grandchildren grow up, and also pointed out that there is no need for him to bench press 540LB’s aged 55, and he’s not sure if there ever was anyway!
I think we all need to pursue what we enjoy doing and what makes us happy, but not at the expense of our health.
[/quote]
i disagree. i don’t care what chronilogical age you are, it has little influence over wanting to be big and muscular. I disagree being jacked is temporary. as long as you train hard, just like you always have, you won’t lose what youve built. especially with todays supplements. you seem to be assuming ones age should matter if a person wants to be super strong and super big. age is a only a number, it exists only in your mind. thats my personal belief. we age, cause its like one big placebo effect. we age, cause in our minds we have been conditioned to think that aging is enevitable. well, i disagree. age can be controlled. a number only matters, if you give power to it in your mind.[/quote]
Hey Rouge Vampire,
I believe that one can train (physical ability allowing) and remain in good shape their entire lives, or at least the vast majority if they are fortunate- look at the Karate master Hirikozu Kanazawa, he’s a fit as a fiddle in his 80’s and trains and teaches throughout the day around the world. I don’t think age should be used as an excuse, certainly not, but under certain conditions it is most certainly a JUSTIFICATION for not putting unnecessary stress on the body. that stress could be in the form of carrying excess body fat, allowing blood work numbers to go west or lifting heavy ass weights and straining the joints/muscles tendons etc.
Age will catch up with you at some point, Louie Simmons is resisting it quite well and I believe he is still strong in his 60’s, but he seems to be the exception not the norm. I think size and strength can be retained to a degree, but people tend to be in better shape when they are young, not old. Gains can be retained to a degree, but to say they ca be permanently retained with supplements and hard work suggests that bodybuilders will retain their size and strength into old age? that doesn’t seem to be the case. You said ‘as long as they train hard, as hard as they have’ well, thats true, but when you become old you won’t be able to train as hard as you always have.
Yes age can be controlled by looking after your health, and strength and gains can be and should be preserved, as long as, and do the extent that it is prudent- but aging is inevitable and it will catch up with you at some point.
I’m 31 so I can only paraphrase what others have told me and what I have read.
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
In regards to the lack of very well-built dudes over 65, wouldn’t their generation have a lot to do with it as well? The youngest of these guys would have been born in 1946- while this puts them right in the prosperity of the post-war era during their development, doesn’t it also mean they were subjected to all the brand-new synthetics and associated increase in environmental toxins that came around in that era? Wouldn’t that have a dramatic effect on their long-term digestive capacity etc. and the degradation of their faculties later in life as the body was more stressed by its environment during its lifetime? Add to this the enormous increase in proper information on nutrition and exercise that has become available with the advent of the internet, and it seems logical that accordingly there are a lot more big guys walking around today period than there ever were before.
I’m not arguing that being 250#s+ is or isn’t healthy/practical in the long-term, but rather proposing why our current crop of old people are far less likely to carry a large, muscular physique into later life than those who will grow old in upcoming decades. [/quote]
How dare you use logic and reasoning in your post to counter the OP!
Dave Draper is 69. Looked awesome a few years ago at least.
Bullying =/= telling someone that he doesn’t have enough muscle to cut without ending up like a skeleton. How many guys on here have gotten fat? Not nearly as many as the guys who make no progress cause they are afraid of losing their abz.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
WRONG. see, my thoughts are my own. why do i lie. ill be honest. I like a certain age range of women. and some women in that age range might not like me, cause of my age. that doesn’t alter my belief in age at all. but am i supposed to start liking older women, just cause my chronilogical age has increased. why? i dont want some woman in her later 30s and 40s. no freaking way. I don’t want to be the student, i want to be the teacher. get my drift. plus, i am into the same things i was into when i was 19. tattoos, fast cars, heavy metal music and numerous other things.
is it fair for a woman to not want to date you solely on your age?? if thats fair, then so is lying about your age. if you look young, act young, do young things, guess what, in my opinion, that makes you young. a simple chronilogical number doesn’t make one old.[/quote]
You’ve got some strange justifications working here. The attitudes of some younger women regarding older men doesn’t give you the right to lie about your age, don’t you have integrity? Also, its very hypocritical of you to be prejudging women in their 30’s and 40’s, considering your position on age being just a number.
…thinking this over, I’m hoping you are just a very dedicated troll…
Roguevampire: “Why do I lie? I’ll be honest.” Enough said.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
why do i lie. ill be honest.
[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]buddaboy wrote:
Dr Ken Leistner published an article years ago in MILO and said that it is hard to argue that it is healthy being over 250L’s, irrespective of body-fat levels because of the extra stress placed on the heart.
I don’t see that a temporary increase over this weight (250L’s) could be that detrimental-say several years or so up to the early 40’s or so-but there seems to be a trend where lifters (the one’s who don’t want heart attacks) start to lose weight and concentrate on health and cardio-vascular exercise, Steve Justa for example did this and lost 100Lb’s or so going from 350 down to 250 or so (last time I checked)
Anyone who’s life is 100% healthy must be pretty dull IMO, I LOVE to train, I do take ‘da roidz’ but I’ve put a lot of work in as well and I never ‘abuse’ what I take. Training and feeling big and strong is great, but life is a very temporary state, and being jacked is even more temporary, just like everything there is a time and a place. Gaining weight and ‘bulking’ isn’t prudent in your late 40’s and after. I know another guy who dropped from about 280LB’s don to about 200LB’s in his early 50’s for exactly the same reason, he said he want’s to see his grandchildren grow up, and also pointed out that there is no need for him to bench press 540LB’s aged 55, and he’s not sure if there ever was anyway!
I think we all need to pursue what we enjoy doing and what makes us happy, but not at the expense of our health.
[/quote]
i disagree. i don’t care what chronilogical age you are, it has little influence over wanting to be big and muscular. I disagree being jacked is temporary. as long as you train hard, just like you always have, you won’t lose what youve built. especially with todays supplements. you seem to be assuming ones age should matter if a person wants to be super strong and super big. age is a only a number, it exists only in your mind. thats my personal belief. we age, cause its like one big placebo effect. we age, cause in our minds we have been conditioned to think that aging is enevitable. well, i disagree. age can be controlled. a number only matters, if you give power to it in your mind.[/quote]
This coming from the dipshit who habitually lies about his age to women to the point where he even lied about his age to his wife?!?!?!?!? While they were married?!?!?!?!?!?
You’re a fucking idiot. If age means nothing, then why hide it? If people judge you by it, why do you care about the judgments of someone who is transfixed by a “big placebo effect”? YOU are the one giving power to the number simply by hiding it from other people like it’s something significant.[/quote]
WRONG. see, my thoughts are my own. why do i lie. ill be honest. I like a certain age range of women. and some women in that age range might not like me, cause of my age. that doesn’t alter my belief in age at all. but am i supposed to start liking older women, just cause my chronilogical age has increased. why? i dont want some woman in her later 30s and 40s. no freaking way. I don’t want to be the student, i want to be the teacher. get my drift. plus, i am into the same things i was into when i was 19. tattoos, fast cars, heavy metal music and numerous other things.
is it fair for a woman to not want to date you solely on your age?? if thats fair, then so is lying about your age. if you look young, act young, do young things, guess what, in my opinion, that makes you young. a simple chronilogical number doesn’t make one old.[/quote]
Why don’t you want to be the student? Why do you want to be the teacher? Does a sexually experienced women intimidate you or is a control/power issue? If you want to get better in bed YOU need to learn from women who know how to fuck.
I don’t actually think you are a fundamentally bad guy and I take the time to read most of your posts.
I suspect you don’t take the time to articulate your feelings accurately (not being patronizing -I am no writer) and I think I can see your point in an abstract kind of way in a few things you have said.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Roguevampire: “Why do I lie? I’ll be honest.” Enough said.[/quote]
I’ll continue this derail:
Look roguevampire, I’m not ragging on you for preferring to date younger women. Whatever floats your strange, misshapen boat is your business. Your position on why you lie about your age is unreasonable, and makes me think that you do have a lot in common with 19 year olds.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
If this article had been about checks and balances, i.e. not pursuing size at all costs, it would have been fine. But that’s not at all how it came off. Instead, it came off as saying skinny lean guys are better bodybuilders than fat huge guys. I don’t see that there’s a difference. Maybe that’s the livespill comments skewing my perspective, but like VT said, most of the guys praising the article were 160-pounders. If that’s the cause TC was meaning to champion, then this isn’t really a bodybuilding site…it’s a dieting site. For the record, I’m about 210 at 5’9" and don’t ever plan on going higher than 225, so I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying.[/quote]
I agree. This article makes it sound like the goal is no longer to even gain muscle mass. That can ONLY bring up a bunch of people already making no progress now using that as a justification.
As far as old large people, first lifting weights isn’t even popular with most people over the age of 50. It is a lifestyle issue that is generational.
Second, hormonal issues are the largest factor for why most men lose muscle mass in large amounts as they age past the age of 50. These could be studied and effectively countered if the current stigma surrounding hormone treatment (which is a stance this very article seems to be upholding) wasn’t keeping that from happening.
Balance in your own life should be the goal, not some declaration by guys in their 50’s that gaining muscle is for nothing because they mistakingly relate big muscles with poor health.
[quote]miloofcroton wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Roguevampire: “Why do I lie? I’ll be honest.” Enough said.[/quote]
I’ll continue this derail:
[/quote]
No…please don’t.
[quote]TheCanadian wrote:
In regards to the lack of very well-built dudes over 65, wouldn’t their generation have a lot to do with it as well? The youngest of these guys would have been born in 1946- while this puts them right in the prosperity of the post-war era during their development, doesn’t it also mean they were subjected to all the brand-new synthetics and associated increase in environmental toxins that came around in that era? Wouldn’t that have a dramatic effect on their long-term digestive capacity etc. and the degradation of their faculties later in life as the body was more stressed by its environment during its lifetime? Add to this the enormous increase in proper information on nutrition and exercise that has become available with the advent of the internet, and it seems logical that accordingly there are a lot more big guys walking around today period than there ever were before.
I’m not arguing that being 250#s+ is or isn’t healthy/practical in the long-term, but rather proposing why our current crop of old people are far less likely to carry a large, muscular physique into later life than those who will grow old in upcoming decades. [/quote]
This was a good post.
Above all else, GENETICS are what can allow one man to get bigger than another with no health consequences. Making blanket statements like some seem to be doing is illogical.
Claiming that the lack of built old people is because size killed the rest off is completely off base. Declining digestion, declining hormones, loss of motor skills and joint damage are the main reasons.
[quote]kakno wrote:
Dave Draper is 69. Looked awesome a few years ago at least.
Bullying =/= telling someone that he doesn’t have enough muscle to cut without ending up like a skeleton. How many guys on here have gotten fat? Not nearly as many as the guys who make no progress cause they are afraid of losing their abz.[/quote]
Bingo. I am interested in who was “bullied”.
I am also wondering why people are really gullible enough to still think I am recommending cheese burgers to everyone.
It would look to me that the same types who get “eat a hamburger” from what I write would be the same who would think the massage was “get fat”.
You blame stupid actions on stupid people who committed them.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
If this article had been about checks and balances, i.e. not pursuing size at all costs, it would have been fine. But that’s not at all how it came off. Instead, it came off as saying skinny lean guys are better bodybuilders than fat huge guys. I don’t see that there’s a difference. Maybe that’s the livespill comments skewing my perspective, but like VT said, most of the guys praising the article were 160-pounders. If that’s the cause TC was meaning to champion, then this isn’t really a bodybuilding site…it’s a dieting site. For the record, I’m about 210 at 5’9" and don’t ever plan on going higher than 225, so I agree with a lot of what you guys are saying.[/quote]
Tomorrow’s article of the day is going to be some bullshit article/infomercial by Shugart where he talks about a bunch of new studies that show that ground-up raccoon claws is proven to be a superior fat-burner, and then at the end of the article we’ll find out that Biotest has come out with a new product to rival the old-school, pre-ephedrine ban Ripped Fuel. And it just happens to contain ground-up raccoon claws. It’s all a push to sell more weight-loss shit on this site. [/quote]
I thought the same thing. I’m fully expecting a new supplement article on Monday.
PX is making PROGRESS!!!
HAMBURGLARS!