Off Season Maxx Charles

Training
301

Also, I saw X commented on some guys from his old neighborhood being in great shape and very lean without ever hitting the gym - for weightlifting.

Some folks look great doing what they do. I had a friend in college who only played soccer, that was it, and yet his upper body was impressive when his shirt was off. He ate like a starving child, but he burned so many calories that he was able to be what most on here would like, without ever lifting a single weight.

Push-ups, Pull-ups and cardio will probably build you a good physique. It is using bodyweight exercises to excel, look at gymnasts, they are usually jacked, and spend more time doing bodyweight stuff than with plates.

And yes, I would wager that more dangerous locations cause people to get jacked quicker. See it as necessity as opposed to for recreation. Someone once commented that in jail many guys will get jacked even on sub-par diet because all they do is eat, sleep, and train (but stop before they exhaust themselves to where they can’t defend against an attack). They are in a high testosterone environment. Their mentality and focus changes. Their sole purpose is to become more aggressive, intimidating, and capable of defending themselves.

Maybe the best training program is just to get thrown in jail.

302

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
When you’re on steroids, form doesn’t really matter. Your muscles will grow with any kind of stimulation. But that doesn’t mean his form doesn’t suck.[/quote]

This is massively untrue.[/quote]

I think people like saying things like that just to make themselves feel better, trying to convince themselves that all assisted lifters are cheaters who don’t even have to try. If assisted lifters don’t have to work hard, I better go let Bauber know that so he stops performing 20 rep sets of squats.[/quote]

you want to know something cool? they DONT even have to try!

there was a study a while back proving that even people on only 500mg of test a weak can gain more muscle by sitting on the couch than nattys who train seriously. the nattys gained an average of 3lbs of muscle, the group on test gained an average of 4lbs. then the group on 500mg of test that actually trained gained an average of 6lbs of muscle. now imagine adding GH, insulin, tren, anavar, deca, dbol, even more test and other assorted substances to the mix… yeah scary shit huh.

now im not saying that they dont train seriously! but when your on the much stuff its pretty hard NOT to get big, regardless of how good/bad your training is. these men could throw a rock around a park once a week and still gain more muscle in one year than a natty can in ten.

note: im not against people using, that is there own personal choice.[/quote]

I’ve seen the study you speak of but I have seen way to many people doing large amounts and small amounts of AAS that you have trouble determining if they lift As much as studies like that make it look like they are the magic bullet they are not. That is just plain false that all you have to do is do some injects and you will transform even if you half ass your workouts and diet. You will end up growing a little but most likely will look worse than before becue you will bloat as well as gain fat. Or if you don’t eat you just won’t grow at all. I do find it funny when people think they just need steriods and they are gonna add tons of msucle without trying. LOL[/quote]

the study had all groups eating the same diet if i remember correctly.

i am by no means saying just inject and you will look like a proBB lol. the message i was trying to get across was that when your on that much sauce you can train pretty inefficiently assuming you work hard and still grow tremendously.

it is a logical fallacy that just because someone is BIG that they aren’t doing dumb things or training is sub optimal ways.

case in point there are a 2 buddies at my gym (alot bigger than your average gym goers), who have ran a few cycles. there training consists of something like 10 sets for legs, 10 for back, 40 for chest, 40 for arms and 15 for delts. now anyone can see that there is large faults in the way they train and they would be better of on a well set out routine. now according to the logic of some here i should go and find out what they did to get big, would they be able to get me big possibly. is it the best way i could go about getting big FUCK NO.

it is wrong to assume that size directly correlates to knowledge. martin burkhan, lyle mcdonald and alan aragon aren’t the biggest guys around. yet they have TONS more knowledge about nutrition and training science then almost all of your typical big gym bros.

303

I had a friend at work who said he ran dbol in college - now mid-30’s - and didn’t gain jack. My guess, it was either fake (though he got it from a friend who is still using and pretty big, so source was probably legitimate) or he derped, kept drinking beer and half-assed it in the gym.

You still need to eat, lift, and rest to get big, assisted or not. People forget this. That’s why everyone in the know says to dial in every other aspect of your training before you take that plunge (literally). Otherwise you waste time, money, and health.

304

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
When you’re on steroids, form doesn’t really matter. Your muscles will grow with any kind of stimulation. But that doesn’t mean his form doesn’t suck.[/quote]

This is massively untrue.[/quote]

I think people like saying things like that just to make themselves feel better, trying to convince themselves that all assisted lifters are cheaters who don’t even have to try. If assisted lifters don’t have to work hard, I better go let Bauber know that so he stops performing 20 rep sets of squats.[/quote]

you want to know something cool? they DONT even have to try!

there was a study a while back proving that even people on only 500mg of test a weak can gain more muscle by sitting on the couch than nattys who train seriously. the nattys gained an average of 3lbs of muscle, the group on test gained an average of 4lbs. then the group on 500mg of test that actually trained gained an average of 6lbs of muscle. now imagine adding GH, insulin, tren, anavar, deca, dbol, even more test and other assorted substances to the mix… yeah scary shit huh.

now im not saying that they dont train seriously! but when your on the much stuff its pretty hard NOT to get big, regardless of how good/bad your training is. these men could throw a rock around a park once a week and still gain more muscle in one year than a natty can in ten.

note: im not against people using, that is there own personal choice.[/quote]

I’ve seen the study you speak of but I have seen way to many people doing large amounts and small amounts of AAS that you have trouble determining if they lift As much as studies like that make it look like they are the magic bullet they are not. That is just plain false that all you have to do is do some injects and you will transform even if you half ass your workouts and diet. You will end up growing a little but most likely will look worse than before becue you will bloat as well as gain fat. Or if you don’t eat you just won’t grow at all. I do find it funny when people think they just need steriods and they are gonna add tons of msucle without trying. LOL[/quote]

the study had all groups eating the same diet if i remember correctly.

i am by no means saying just inject and you will look like a proBB lol. the message i was trying to get across was that when your on that much sauce you can train pretty inefficiently assuming you work hard and still grow tremendously.

it is a logical fallacy that just because someone is BIG that they aren’t doing dumb things or training is sub optimal ways.

case in point there are a 2 buddies at my gym (alot bigger than your average gym goers), who have ran a few cycles. there training consists of something like 10 sets for legs, 10 for back, 40 for chest, 40 for arms and 15 for delts. now anyone can see that there is large faults in the way they train and they would be better of on a well set out routine. now according to the logic of some here i should go and find out what they did to get big, would they be able to get me big possibly. is it the best way i could go about getting big FUCK NO.

it is wrong to assume that size directly correlates to knowledge. martin burkhan, lyle mcdonald and alan aragon aren’t the biggest guys around. yet they have TONS more knowledge about nutrition and training science then almost all of your typical big gym bros.

[/quote]

It’s also a logical fallacy to assume they are doing stupid shit and growing.

Since we are using single observations to support our hypothesis JM huge shredded grainy strong very smart and trains like an animal. Uses some science but isn’t afraid to go against what science says is ok based off of results.

And to your example maybe their legs grow fast. There is over lap in back and leg training. Maybe they don’t want their legs growing as fast because it doesn’t suit their goals. So maybe that training works perfectly for them and is actually smart. I’m not saying its the case just pointing out other possibilities other than face value assesment.

And to that last point. I am very hesitant to try and studies about training to actual training. As I have yet to see a study that uses anything I would ever qualify as training. To the point lab science many times does not translate to real world. But I do agree those guys are smart. No doubt

305

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
When you’re on steroids, form doesn’t really matter. Your muscles will grow with any kind of stimulation. But that doesn’t mean his form doesn’t suck.[/quote]

This is massively untrue.[/quote]

I think people like saying things like that just to make themselves feel better, trying to convince themselves that all assisted lifters are cheaters who don’t even have to try. If assisted lifters don’t have to work hard, I better go let Bauber know that so he stops performing 20 rep sets of squats.[/quote]

you want to know something cool? they DONT even have to try!

there was a study a while back proving that even people on only 500mg of test a weak can gain more muscle by sitting on the couch than nattys who train seriously. the nattys gained an average of 3lbs of muscle, the group on test gained an average of 4lbs. then the group on 500mg of test that actually trained gained an average of 6lbs of muscle. now imagine adding GH, insulin, tren, anavar, deca, dbol, even more test and other assorted substances to the mix… yeah scary shit huh.

now im not saying that they dont train seriously! but when your on the much stuff its pretty hard NOT to get big, regardless of how good/bad your training is. these men could throw a rock around a park once a week and still gain more muscle in one year than a natty can in ten.

note: im not against people using, that is there own personal choice.[/quote]

I’ve seen the study you speak of but I have seen way to many people doing large amounts and small amounts of AAS that you have trouble determining if they lift As much as studies like that make it look like they are the magic bullet they are not. That is just plain false that all you have to do is do some injects and you will transform even if you half ass your workouts and diet. You will end up growing a little but most likely will look worse than before becue you will bloat as well as gain fat. Or if you don’t eat you just won’t grow at all. I do find it funny when people think they just need steriods and they are gonna add tons of msucle without trying. LOL[/quote]

the study had all groups eating the same diet if i remember correctly.

i am by no means saying just inject and you will look like a proBB lol. the message i was trying to get across was that when your on that much sauce you can train pretty inefficiently assuming you work hard and still grow tremendously.

it is a logical fallacy that just because someone is BIG that they aren’t doing dumb things or training is sub optimal ways.

case in point there are a 2 buddies at my gym (alot bigger than your average gym goers), who have ran a few cycles. there training consists of something like 10 sets for legs, 10 for back, 40 for chest, 40 for arms and 15 for delts. now anyone can see that there is large faults in the way they train and they would be better of on a well set out routine. now according to the logic of some here i should go and find out what they did to get big, would they be able to get me big possibly. is it the best way i could go about getting big FUCK NO.

it is wrong to assume that size directly correlates to knowledge. martin burkhan, lyle mcdonald and alan aragon aren’t the biggest guys around. yet they have TONS more knowledge about nutrition and training science then almost all of your typical big gym bros.

[/quote]

It’s also a logical fallacy to assume they are doing stupid shit and growing.

Since we are using single observations to support our hypothesis JM huge shredded grainy strong very smart and trains like an animal. Uses some science but isn’t afraid to go against what science says is ok based off of results.

And to your example maybe their legs grow fast. There is over lap in back and leg training. Maybe they don’t want their legs growing as fast because it doesn’t suit their goals. So maybe that training works perfectly for them and is actually smart. I’m not saying its the case just pointing out other possibilities other than face value assesment.

And to that last point. I am very hesitant to try and studies about training to actual training. As I have yet to see a study that uses anything I would ever qualify as training. To the point lab science many times does not translate to real world. But I do agree those guys are smart. No doubt [/quote]

wait so people cant do stupid shit and still grown in the gym?

its not just face value assessment even their in gym discussions furthers the extent of their stupidity. i also wouldnt count JM as someone who trains stupidly and is rather smart from what i gather. i also prefer to listnen to people who use a mix of science and experience to train themselves and other people.

im not debating science vs real life results. what i am against is the false assumption that size directly relates to someones knowledge. many IFBB pros have coaches, some who are alot smaller than they are.

  • its actually nice to have a civil discussion with someone.
306

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
When you’re on steroids, form doesn’t really matter. Your muscles will grow with any kind of stimulation. But that doesn’t mean his form doesn’t suck.[/quote]

This is massively untrue.[/quote]

I think people like saying things like that just to make themselves feel better, trying to convince themselves that all assisted lifters are cheaters who don’t even have to try. If assisted lifters don’t have to work hard, I better go let Bauber know that so he stops performing 20 rep sets of squats.[/quote]

you want to know something cool? they DONT even have to try!

there was a study a while back proving that even people on only 500mg of test a weak can gain more muscle by sitting on the couch than nattys who train seriously. the nattys gained an average of 3lbs of muscle, the group on test gained an average of 4lbs. then the group on 500mg of test that actually trained gained an average of 6lbs of muscle. now imagine adding GH, insulin, tren, anavar, deca, dbol, even more test and other assorted substances to the mix… yeah scary shit huh.

now im not saying that they dont train seriously! but when your on the much stuff its pretty hard NOT to get big, regardless of how good/bad your training is. these men could throw a rock around a park once a week and still gain more muscle in one year than a natty can in ten.

note: im not against people using, that is there own personal choice.[/quote]

I’ve seen the study you speak of but I have seen way to many people doing large amounts and small amounts of AAS that you have trouble determining if they lift As much as studies like that make it look like they are the magic bullet they are not. That is just plain false that all you have to do is do some injects and you will transform even if you half ass your workouts and diet. You will end up growing a little but most likely will look worse than before becue you will bloat as well as gain fat. Or if you don’t eat you just won’t grow at all. I do find it funny when people think they just need steriods and they are gonna add tons of msucle without trying. LOL[/quote]

the study had all groups eating the same diet if i remember correctly.

i am by no means saying just inject and you will look like a proBB lol. the message i was trying to get across was that when your on that much sauce you can train pretty inefficiently assuming you work hard and still grow tremendously.

it is a logical fallacy that just because someone is BIG that they aren’t doing dumb things or training is sub optimal ways.

case in point there are a 2 buddies at my gym (alot bigger than your average gym goers), who have ran a few cycles. there training consists of something like 10 sets for legs, 10 for back, 40 for chest, 40 for arms and 15 for delts. now anyone can see that there is large faults in the way they train and they would be better of on a well set out routine. now according to the logic of some here i should go and find out what they did to get big, would they be able to get me big possibly. is it the best way i could go about getting big FUCK NO.

it is wrong to assume that size directly correlates to knowledge. martin burkhan, lyle mcdonald and alan aragon aren’t the biggest guys around. yet they have TONS more knowledge about nutrition and training science then almost all of your typical big gym bros.

[/quote]

It’s also a logical fallacy to assume they are doing stupid shit and growing.

Since we are using single observations to support our hypothesis JM huge shredded grainy strong very smart and trains like an animal. Uses some science but isn’t afraid to go against what science says is ok based off of results.

And to your example maybe their legs grow fast. There is over lap in back and leg training. Maybe they don’t want their legs growing as fast because it doesn’t suit their goals. So maybe that training works perfectly for them and is actually smart. I’m not saying its the case just pointing out other possibilities other than face value assesment.

And to that last point. I am very hesitant to try and studies about training to actual training. As I have yet to see a study that uses anything I would ever qualify as training. To the point lab science many times does not translate to real world. But I do agree those guys are smart. No doubt [/quote]

wait so people cant do stupid shit and still grown in the gym?

its not just face value assessment even their in gym discussions furthers the extent of their stupidity. i also wouldnt count JM as someone who trains stupidly and is rather smart from what i gather. i also prefer to listnen to people who use a mix of science and experience to train themselves and other people.

im not debating science vs real life results. what i am against is the false assumption that size directly relates to someones knowledge. many IFBB pros have coaches, some who are alot smaller than they are.

  • its actually nice to have a civil discussion with someone.[/quote]

Lol I do stupid shit in the gym or what people would at least call crazy and grow. So no ppl can certainly grow doing what people call stupid. But is it truly stupid if it works?

We agree on JM if you read what I wrote our statements on him are identical almost :slight_smile: I was using him as an example for hard smart training and being massive. And IMO better quality muscle seems to result from it but that’s a digression. And I prefer to listen to those just like JM. A nice mix of science and experience as well as continuing to adapt and learn. Not this is what has been done so this what I will do.

I also agree size does not equal smart. It’s easy to do what your told. But to understand why that is a different story.

Yes it is nice.

307

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
When you’re on steroids, form doesn’t really matter. Your muscles will grow with any kind of stimulation. But that doesn’t mean his form doesn’t suck.[/quote]

This is massively untrue.[/quote]

I think people like saying things like that just to make themselves feel better, trying to convince themselves that all assisted lifters are cheaters who don’t even have to try. If assisted lifters don’t have to work hard, I better go let Bauber know that so he stops performing 20 rep sets of squats.[/quote]

you want to know something cool? they DONT even have to try!

there was a study a while back proving that even people on only 500mg of test a weak can gain more muscle by sitting on the couch than nattys who train seriously. the nattys gained an average of 3lbs of muscle, the group on test gained an average of 4lbs. then the group on 500mg of test that actually trained gained an average of 6lbs of muscle. now imagine adding GH, insulin, tren, anavar, deca, dbol, even more test and other assorted substances to the mix… yeah scary shit huh.

now im not saying that they dont train seriously! but when your on the much stuff its pretty hard NOT to get big, regardless of how good/bad your training is. these men could throw a rock around a park once a week and still gain more muscle in one year than a natty can in ten.

note: im not against people using, that is there own personal choice.[/quote]

I’ve seen the study you speak of but I have seen way to many people doing large amounts and small amounts of AAS that you have trouble determining if they lift As much as studies like that make it look like they are the magic bullet they are not. That is just plain false that all you have to do is do some injects and you will transform even if you half ass your workouts and diet. You will end up growing a little but most likely will look worse than before becue you will bloat as well as gain fat. Or if you don’t eat you just won’t grow at all. I do find it funny when people think they just need steriods and they are gonna add tons of msucle without trying. LOL[/quote]

the study had all groups eating the same diet if i remember correctly.

i am by no means saying just inject and you will look like a proBB lol. the message i was trying to get across was that when your on that much sauce you can train pretty inefficiently assuming you work hard and still grow tremendously.

it is a logical fallacy that just because someone is BIG that they aren’t doing dumb things or training is sub optimal ways.

case in point there are a 2 buddies at my gym (alot bigger than your average gym goers), who have ran a few cycles. there training consists of something like 10 sets for legs, 10 for back, 40 for chest, 40 for arms and 15 for delts. now anyone can see that there is large faults in the way they train and they would be better of on a well set out routine. now according to the logic of some here i should go and find out what they did to get big, would they be able to get me big possibly. is it the best way i could go about getting big FUCK NO.

it is wrong to assume that size directly correlates to knowledge. martin burkhan, lyle mcdonald and alan aragon aren’t the biggest guys around. yet they have TONS more knowledge about nutrition and training science then almost all of your typical big gym bros.

[/quote]

It’s also a logical fallacy to assume they are doing stupid shit and growing.

Since we are using single observations to support our hypothesis JM huge shredded grainy strong very smart and trains like an animal. Uses some science but isn’t afraid to go against what science says is ok based off of results.

And to your example maybe their legs grow fast. There is over lap in back and leg training. Maybe they don’t want their legs growing as fast because it doesn’t suit their goals. So maybe that training works perfectly for them and is actually smart. I’m not saying its the case just pointing out other possibilities other than face value assesment.

And to that last point. I am very hesitant to try and studies about training to actual training. As I have yet to see a study that uses anything I would ever qualify as training. To the point lab science many times does not translate to real world. But I do agree those guys are smart. No doubt [/quote]

wait so people cant do stupid shit and still grown in the gym?

[/quote]

If they are growing, and their goal is growth, what makes the stuff they are doing stupid?

308

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
When you’re on steroids, form doesn’t really matter. Your muscles will grow with any kind of stimulation. But that doesn’t mean his form doesn’t suck.[/quote]

This is massively untrue.[/quote]

I think people like saying things like that just to make themselves feel better, trying to convince themselves that all assisted lifters are cheaters who don’t even have to try. If assisted lifters don’t have to work hard, I better go let Bauber know that so he stops performing 20 rep sets of squats.[/quote]

you want to know something cool? they DONT even have to try!

there was a study a while back proving that even people on only 500mg of test a weak can gain more muscle by sitting on the couch than nattys who train seriously. the nattys gained an average of 3lbs of muscle, the group on test gained an average of 4lbs. then the group on 500mg of test that actually trained gained an average of 6lbs of muscle. now imagine adding GH, insulin, tren, anavar, deca, dbol, even more test and other assorted substances to the mix… yeah scary shit huh.

now im not saying that they dont train seriously! but when your on the much stuff its pretty hard NOT to get big, regardless of how good/bad your training is. these men could throw a rock around a park once a week and still gain more muscle in one year than a natty can in ten.

note: im not against people using, that is there own personal choice.[/quote]

I’ve seen the study you speak of but I have seen way to many people doing large amounts and small amounts of AAS that you have trouble determining if they lift As much as studies like that make it look like they are the magic bullet they are not. That is just plain false that all you have to do is do some injects and you will transform even if you half ass your workouts and diet. You will end up growing a little but most likely will look worse than before becue you will bloat as well as gain fat. Or if you don’t eat you just won’t grow at all. I do find it funny when people think they just need steriods and they are gonna add tons of msucle without trying. LOL[/quote]

the study had all groups eating the same diet if i remember correctly.

i am by no means saying just inject and you will look like a proBB lol. the message i was trying to get across was that when your on that much sauce you can train pretty inefficiently assuming you work hard and still grow tremendously.

it is a logical fallacy that just because someone is BIG that they aren’t doing dumb things or training is sub optimal ways.

case in point there are a 2 buddies at my gym (alot bigger than your average gym goers), who have ran a few cycles. there training consists of something like 10 sets for legs, 10 for back, 40 for chest, 40 for arms and 15 for delts. now anyone can see that there is large faults in the way they train and they would be better of on a well set out routine. now according to the logic of some here i should go and find out what they did to get big, would they be able to get me big possibly. is it the best way i could go about getting big FUCK NO.

it is wrong to assume that size directly correlates to knowledge. martin burkhan, lyle mcdonald and alan aragon aren’t the biggest guys around. yet they have TONS more knowledge about nutrition and training science then almost all of your typical big gym bros.

[/quote]

It’s also a logical fallacy to assume they are doing stupid shit and growing.

Since we are using single observations to support our hypothesis JM huge shredded grainy strong very smart and trains like an animal. Uses some science but isn’t afraid to go against what science says is ok based off of results.

And to your example maybe their legs grow fast. There is over lap in back and leg training. Maybe they don’t want their legs growing as fast because it doesn’t suit their goals. So maybe that training works perfectly for them and is actually smart. I’m not saying its the case just pointing out other possibilities other than face value assesment.

And to that last point. I am very hesitant to try and studies about training to actual training. As I have yet to see a study that uses anything I would ever qualify as training. To the point lab science many times does not translate to real world. But I do agree those guys are smart. No doubt [/quote]

wait so people cant do stupid shit and still grown in the gym?

[/quote]

If they are growing, and their goal is growth, what makes the stuff they are doing stupid?
[/quote]

because they could be growing more training sensibly. someone could grow from doing nothing but 20-30 rep sets on all exercises, doesnt mean it the best way to do things. it would also be generally accepted as training stupidly if your goal is strictly growth.

309

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
When you’re on steroids, form doesn’t really matter. Your muscles will grow with any kind of stimulation. But that doesn’t mean his form doesn’t suck.[/quote]

This is massively untrue.[/quote]

I think people like saying things like that just to make themselves feel better, trying to convince themselves that all assisted lifters are cheaters who don’t even have to try. If assisted lifters don’t have to work hard, I better go let Bauber know that so he stops performing 20 rep sets of squats.[/quote]

you want to know something cool? they DONT even have to try!

there was a study a while back proving that even people on only 500mg of test a weak can gain more muscle by sitting on the couch than nattys who train seriously. the nattys gained an average of 3lbs of muscle, the group on test gained an average of 4lbs. then the group on 500mg of test that actually trained gained an average of 6lbs of muscle. now imagine adding GH, insulin, tren, anavar, deca, dbol, even more test and other assorted substances to the mix… yeah scary shit huh.

now im not saying that they dont train seriously! but when your on the much stuff its pretty hard NOT to get big, regardless of how good/bad your training is. these men could throw a rock around a park once a week and still gain more muscle in one year than a natty can in ten.

note: im not against people using, that is there own personal choice.[/quote]

I’ve seen the study you speak of but I have seen way to many people doing large amounts and small amounts of AAS that you have trouble determining if they lift As much as studies like that make it look like they are the magic bullet they are not. That is just plain false that all you have to do is do some injects and you will transform even if you half ass your workouts and diet. You will end up growing a little but most likely will look worse than before becue you will bloat as well as gain fat. Or if you don’t eat you just won’t grow at all. I do find it funny when people think they just need steriods and they are gonna add tons of msucle without trying. LOL[/quote]

the study had all groups eating the same diet if i remember correctly.

i am by no means saying just inject and you will look like a proBB lol. the message i was trying to get across was that when your on that much sauce you can train pretty inefficiently assuming you work hard and still grow tremendously.

it is a logical fallacy that just because someone is BIG that they aren’t doing dumb things or training is sub optimal ways.

case in point there are a 2 buddies at my gym (alot bigger than your average gym goers), who have ran a few cycles. there training consists of something like 10 sets for legs, 10 for back, 40 for chest, 40 for arms and 15 for delts. now anyone can see that there is large faults in the way they train and they would be better of on a well set out routine. now according to the logic of some here i should go and find out what they did to get big, would they be able to get me big possibly. is it the best way i could go about getting big FUCK NO.

it is wrong to assume that size directly correlates to knowledge. martin burkhan, lyle mcdonald and alan aragon aren’t the biggest guys around. yet they have TONS more knowledge about nutrition and training science then almost all of your typical big gym bros.

[/quote]

It’s also a logical fallacy to assume they are doing stupid shit and growing.

Since we are using single observations to support our hypothesis JM huge shredded grainy strong very smart and trains like an animal. Uses some science but isn’t afraid to go against what science says is ok based off of results.

And to your example maybe their legs grow fast. There is over lap in back and leg training. Maybe they don’t want their legs growing as fast because it doesn’t suit their goals. So maybe that training works perfectly for them and is actually smart. I’m not saying its the case just pointing out other possibilities other than face value assesment.

And to that last point. I am very hesitant to try and studies about training to actual training. As I have yet to see a study that uses anything I would ever qualify as training. To the point lab science many times does not translate to real world. But I do agree those guys are smart. No doubt [/quote]

wait so people cant do stupid shit and still grown in the gym?

[/quote]

If they are growing, and their goal is growth, what makes the stuff they are doing stupid?
[/quote]

because they could be growing more training sensibly. someone could grow from doing nothing but 20-30 rep sets on all exercises, doesnt mean it the best way to do things. it would also be generally accepted as training stupidly if your goal is strictly growth.

[/quote]

Does sensibility really matter versus results?

Like, if your goal is “gain mass while training sensibly”, I could see how one could say they are being stupid, but if the goal is “gain mass”, the metric would simply be about meeting that result.

These days, I give zero fucks if the world thinks my training is effective. When I hit my 3rd dead, the only thing that matters is my total.

310

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
It’s just how I define it.

And omg you are supporting the other argument. So you are saying that they have to run and sprint and jump for hours to be lean. Wow astonishing. [/quote]

Okay. Continue to be the know-it-all on these forums while lacking the physical development/training experience to back this up.
[/quote]

Ok mr no pic. I know I am small I presence many of posts with this. Also I am attempting to constantly learn. This site is not a place for that for the most part and one of the reasons is stupid mind numbing discussions like the one you want to continue. :)[/quote]

Your physique has clearly improved, a lot.
I just don’t understand why people are arguing it. I think its kind of interesting that many people out there are lean, when (in my opinion) they don’t seem to try that hard to be that
way.

But fair enough, agree to disagree.[/quote]

No one on this board should even be arguing against the fact that there are people who are lean who don’t try specifically to be that at all.

I don’t know one person who got huge by accident.

I know tons of people who are simply lean because of their genetics and lifestyle with no excessive effort. They just aren’t muscular.

Anyone arguing against that is just here to argue.

311

The first side tricep pose pic X posted on page 1 is awesome - he has such a great flow to his physique in that pose it reminds me of some of the bodybuilders of the 80’s and early 90’s. Front on monster delts. Very impressive physique.

312

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
It’s just how I define it.

And omg you are supporting the other argument. So you are saying that they have to run and sprint and jump for hours to be lean. Wow astonishing. [/quote]

Okay. Continue to be the know-it-all on these forums while lacking the physical development/training experience to back this up.
[/quote]

Ok mr no pic. I know I am small I presence many of posts with this. Also I am attempting to constantly learn. This site is not a place for that for the most part and one of the reasons is stupid mind numbing discussions like the one you want to continue. :)[/quote]

Your physique has clearly improved, a lot.
I just don’t understand why people are arguing it. I think its kind of interesting that many people out there are lean, when (in my opinion) they don’t seem to try that hard to be that
way.

But fair enough, agree to disagree.[/quote]

No one on this board should even be arguing against the fact that there are people who are lean who don’t try specifically to be that at all.

I don’t know one person who got huge by accident.

I know tons of people who are simply lean because of their genetics and lifestyle with no excessive effort. They just aren’t muscular.

Anyone arguing against that is just here to argue.[/quote]

Surely these people you’re talking about aren’t relevant. Do you know tons of people that got huge (not ‘accidentally’) but then got lean ‘with no excessive effort’?

Surely this is what should be being discussed as most people here are looking to be huge and lean (to whatever degree they feel comfortable) and not just lean without much muscle.

313

[quote]The Rattler wrote:
Surely these people you’re talking about aren’t relevant. Do you know tons of people that got huge (not ‘accidentally’) but then got lean ‘with no excessive effort’? [/quote]

Uh, yes…Dexter Jackson never did cardio until later in his career.

It was simply to make a point considering it was said that bodybuilders get huge in spite of what they do as if they got big by accident.

NO BODY gets that big by accident. Tons of people are lean without excessive effort. That just requires not eating much and the genetics to not store a lot of body fat easily.

If this is understood, we can move on.

It just strikes me as odd this was actually fussed about for pages.

314

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:

  1. X, and anyone else questioning the possibility of achieveing this level of physique, naturally, is just being plain stupid or living in a dream. Proof is the hundreds of natural competitors who come in at around the same weight range as each other based on height. Genetics will not naturally get you that build… steroids will.
    [/quote]

I never even discussed whether he was natural or not so why direct that comment at me? Why is that even being discussed here?

315

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Rattler wrote:
Surely these people you’re talking about aren’t relevant. Do you know tons of people that got huge (not ‘accidentally’) but then got lean ‘with no excessive effort’? [/quote]

Uh, yes…Dexter Jackson never did cardio until later in his career.

It was simply to make a point considering it was said that bodybuilders get huge in spite of what they do as if they got big by accident.

NO BODY gets that big by accident. Tons of people are lean without excessive effort. That just requires not eating much and the genetics to not store a lot of body fat easily.

If this is understood, we can move on.

It just strikes me as odd this was actually fussed about for pages.[/quote]

Yes but I still don’t think people without much muscle getting lean by accident or without much effort is really relevant. What’s impressive about the people that get huge and then get lean while holding onto most if not all if that muscle or the people that get big while staying lean. I don’t think there are many people that can do this with little to no effort.

I do agree with you however that the really big people we are talking about most likely know what they are doing and are getting big because of their training and not in spite of it. The top people in bodybuilding aren’t getting there by accident whether it be their leanness or their size.

316

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Rattler wrote:
Surely these people you’re talking about aren’t relevant. Do you know tons of people that got huge (not ‘accidentally’) but then got lean ‘with no excessive effort’? [/quote]

Uh, yes…Dexter Jackson never did cardio until later in his career.

It was simply to make a point considering it was said that bodybuilders get huge in spite of what they do as if they got big by accident.

NO BODY gets that big by accident. Tons of people are lean without excessive effort. That just requires not eating much and the genetics to not store a lot of body fat easily.

If this is understood, we can move on.

It just strikes me as odd this was actually fussed about for pages.[/quote]

Most NFL linemen were 200+ lbs by the time they hit about 7th grade, and I think Bauber indicated the same about himself. So yes, there are people who end up getting huge with minimal effort. Do you think those individuals had to exert more effort to get big than Dexter Jackson did to diet down? Even if he wasn’t doing cardio, it’s not like he leaned out by accident at any point. My point is that there are probably outliers on both ends of the spectrum, with someone like Dexter on one end, and a guy like Larry Allen on the other.

317

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Rattler wrote:
Surely these people you’re talking about aren’t relevant. Do you know tons of people that got huge (not ‘accidentally’) but then got lean ‘with no excessive effort’? [/quote]

Uh, yes…Dexter Jackson never did cardio until later in his career.

It was simply to make a point considering it was said that bodybuilders get huge in spite of what they do as if they got big by accident.

NO BODY gets that big by accident. Tons of people are lean without excessive effort. That just requires not eating much and the genetics to not store a lot of body fat easily.

If this is understood, we can move on.

It just strikes me as odd this was actually fussed about for pages.[/quote]

Most NFL linemen were 200+ lbs by the time they hit about 7th grade, and I think Bauber indicated the same about himself. So yes, there are people who end up getting huge with minimal effort. Do you think those individuals had to exert more effort to get big than Dexter Jackson did to diet down? Even if he wasn’t doing cardio, it’s not like he leaned out by accident at any point. My point is that there are probably outliers on both ends of the spectrum, with someone like Dexter on one end, and a guy like Larry Allen on the other.
[/quote]

This is what I was going to point out. Now, I would never say that Bauber doesn’t work hard, as I’ve seen his log. However, he himself has said that he has always been larger than most. Therefore, it can be said that he probably didn’t have to try as hard to get big as others would have to. So, running around saying that it is so much harder to get big than lean is based on nothing but opinion. Lastly, saying that those guys who are lean didn’t have to try hard is also a ridiculous claim.

It’s all of that cardio and the pushups/situps etc. that got them that way. X said that all it took for those guys to get lean was the genetics to not store much fat and to eat less. Well, all it really took for big guys to get big was the genetics to build muscle and to eat more. Same thing. Just because you want to act like what you’ve done is more impressive than what others have done doesn’t make it so.

318

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
Most NFL linemen were 200+ lbs by the time they hit about 7th grade, and I think Bauber indicated the same about himself.[/quote]

Wait…you mean guys literally in a sport that encourages them to lift and eat more food to gain weight as a goal leads to big people?

You don’t say.

What football team have you seen train that uses no strength training and does not encourage more strength and size in that position especially?

How is that minimal effort? They are pretty much doing the same thing new trainers should do for muscle mass with more sports specific training.

They eat with a goal of getting bigger and stronger and train that way…which makes them a very bad analogy to use.

319

[quote]The Rattler wrote:
Yes but I still don’t think people without much muscle getting lean by accident or without much effort is really relevant.
[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if you think it is relevant. It was the response to another poster.

320

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
However, he himself has said that he has always been larger than most.[/quote]

So now “large” is the same as muscular?

Question…who looks like Bauber does now by accident?