Off Season Maxx Charles

Training
361

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

It’s the little to no exercises I disagree with. These people you are citing are playing sports and lots of them.[/quote]

So, if that were true, what about drug addicts who ONLY care about getting their next fix, yet quite often sport abs. It would be logical to assume that this level of leanness results from the fact they don’t really eat very much. And I doubt they give a shit about being lean, or play any sports.

[/quote]

Wtf is happening. Your first examples were people who play sports at least that is semi applicable to the forum now that it was shown those examples don’t fit your argument were are using drug addicts as examples

I quit

362

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

It’s the little to no exercises I disagree with. These people you are citing are playing sports and lots of them.[/quote]

So, if that were true, what about drug addicts who ONLY care about getting their next fix, yet quite often sport abs. It would be logical to assume that this level of leanness results from the fact they don’t really eat very much. And I doubt they give a shit about being lean, or play any sports.

[/quote]

Wtf is happening. Your first examples were people who play sports at least that is semi applicable to the forum now that it was shown those examples don’t fit your argument were are using drug addicts as examples

I quit [/quote]

Dear Lord.

His point was simply that you can be lean without working hard to be at all. That much can be just genetic or down to food amounts.

No one was making any point other than that…and it was all in response to a poster saying that people get huge in spite of their training.

What are you arguing about?

363

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

It’s the little to no exercises I disagree with. These people you are citing are playing sports and lots of them.[/quote]

So, if that were true, what about drug addicts who ONLY care about getting their next fix, yet quite often sport abs. It would be logical to assume that this level of leanness results from the fact they don’t really eat very much. And I doubt they give a shit about being lean, or play any sports.

[/quote]

Wtf is happening. Your first examples were people who play sports at least that is semi applicable to the forum now that it was shown those examples don’t fit your argument were are using drug addicts as examples

I quit [/quote]

The fact my example isn’t applicable to a bodybuilding forum actually makes my argument more accurate. That’s the whole point. The people mentioned don’t give a shit about physique and are lean simply because they eat very little.

364

Fucking lol.

This is an exact repeat of the full house thread.

X is either a troll or sad desperate man seeking validation. Every thread he starts ends in him talking about how big and great he is and how easy it is to get lean ( despite never being there him self in over 15 years of training)

Surely no one can take him seriously at this point anymore.

365

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]JBL5 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

It’s the little to no exercises I disagree with. These people you are citing are playing sports and lots of them.[/quote]

So, if that were true, what about drug addicts who ONLY care about getting their next fix, yet quite often sport abs. It would be logical to assume that this level of leanness results from the fact they don’t really eat very much. And I doubt they give a shit about being lean, or play any sports.

[/quote]

Wtf is happening. Your first examples were people who play sports at least that is semi applicable to the forum now that it was shown those examples don’t fit your argument were are using drug addicts as examples

I quit [/quote]

Dear Lord.

His point was simply that you can be lean without working hard to be at all. That much can be just genetic or down to food amounts.

No one was making any point other than that…and it was all in response to a poster saying that people get huge in spite of their training.

What are you arguing about?[/quote]

Nope.

I said that when people are on that much gear and have the generics they have, that they would be massive regardless of how shit their training was.

366

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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?[/quote]

X, it was not meant in a goading manner, merely that you said it was your goal, and as a lifetime natural, I would hope you keep your goals realistic. I won’t give your crap for aspiring to something, we all do it, but I hope in your mind you truly know that there are limitations to what is attainable (and Maxx’s physique certainly isn’t it).

Since we got on the subject of back width… would you happy to be willing to show a picture of how yours is? I will admitedly state I struggle with mine, but was never good at Pull-Ups, I’ve since been focusing on it and am looking toward to the journey and progress. By the way, this isn’t a “prove you’re big” type post, but your avi’s are always from the front, I was just curious about your width you mentioned :).

367

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
I said that when people are on that much gear and have the generics they have, that they would be massive regardless of how shit their training was.
[/quote]

Obviously I can only give credibility to the tale I’m about to offer as one would give it to what gets printed as truth in the muscle rags, but I clearly recall other IFBB pros commenting through the years about how Paul Dillet’s legs would grow simply from getting up from the toilet.

Now obviously the man had one in a million genetics, and I think we can all safely assume that he made liberal use of PEDs of some sort. Also, man did have a reputation among his peers for not being the most intense trainer. However, everything is relative. The point is that what constituted a growth stimulus for ol’ Paul there may not serve the same purpose for someone else, especially with lesser genetics and unassisted in terms of protein synthesis rates.

Heck, I had this one student the last couple of years who never touched a weight in his life. He just participated in general high school gym class each day and had a chin up bar at home, and lemme tell ya, for a 17 year old kid, he was a beast. To be honest, for an adult the kid would have been a beast. Crazy training stimulus? Not by my own personal standards. Excellent diet and nutrition? Not the way I had to do it for myself. Extreme muscle size and yes even natural definition as a result of what he was doing? No question.

(Just thought this was kind of relevant to what Ryan wrote. You guys can go back to whatever nonsense derailed the Max Charles thread now)

S

368

Guys, I do feel that sometimes X asks for it in his arguments, but in this case it does seem that you are the ones nit-picking at him, like a pack of coyotes that smell fresh blood or something.

X’s point is the following. People are pre-disposed to be lean just as folks are stating there are those pre-disposed to be big. They may not start off life coming out of the womb with a ripped six pack, but life is easier for them to get lean, or to add muscle, compared to your average male.

Want a good example of a guy who has a hard time “bulking”… look up Roman Fritz, he’s a monster but he eats 7k calories a day and his coach tells him to eat cheat meals daily because he quite literally has a hard time putting on fat.

Look at Michael Lockett, supposedly he lacks myostatin (that fun gene that makes those dogs super muscular or cattle have all that ridiculous beef). Whether true or not, he is pre-disposed to be able to build muscle. He works hard and is “on” but he is pre-disposed to build mass, and in a genetically gifted way.

This isn’t a difficult concept. It is true however, that guys can get big despite their training. They don’t have to know the most efficient method, or follow JM’s training, etc. They go in, throw around heavy weight and get bigger. Their body is better suited to react to the supplements and to the training, that is what we call genetics.

369

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Guys, I do feel that sometimes X asks for it in his arguments, but in this case it does seem that you are the ones nit-picking at him, like a pack of coyotes that smell fresh blood or something.

X’s point is the following. People are pre-disposed to be lean just as folks are stating there are those pre-disposed to be big. They may not start off life coming out of the womb with a ripped six pack, but life is easier for them to get lean, or to add muscle, compared to your average male.

Want a good example of a guy who has a hard time “bulking”… look up Roman Fritz, he’s a monster but he eats 7k calories a day and his coach tells him to eat cheat meals daily because he quite literally has a hard time putting on fat.

Look at Michael Lockett, supposedly he lacks myostatin (that fun gene that makes those dogs super muscular or cattle have all that ridiculous beef). Whether true or not, he is pre-disposed to be able to build muscle. He works hard and is “on” but he is pre-disposed to build mass, and in a genetically gifted way.

This isn’t a difficult concept. It is true however, that guys can get big despite their training. They don’t have to know the most efficient method, or follow JM’s training, etc. They go in, throw around heavy weight and get bigger. Their body is better suited to react to the supplements and to the training, that is what we call genetics.[/quote]

What? That wasn’t X’s point at all. He wanted to continue to unsuccessfully mask his monstrous insecurity. Everything you just wrote is common sense, and anyone here with half a brain understands the relevance of genetic predispositions. Also, if you believe Lockett has the myostatin mutation I’ve got some beach front property in Idaho for sale.

370

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Guys, I do feel that sometimes X asks for it in his arguments, but in this case it does seem that you are the ones nit-picking at him, like a pack of coyotes that smell fresh blood or something.

X’s point is the following. People are pre-disposed to be lean just as folks are stating there are those pre-disposed to be big. They may not start off life coming out of the womb with a ripped six pack, but life is easier for them to get lean, or to add muscle, compared to your average male.

Want a good example of a guy who has a hard time “bulking”… look up Roman Fritz, he’s a monster but he eats 7k calories a day and his coach tells him to eat cheat meals daily because he quite literally has a hard time putting on fat.

Look at Michael Lockett, supposedly he lacks myostatin (that fun gene that makes those dogs super muscular or cattle have all that ridiculous beef). Whether true or not, he is pre-disposed to be able to build muscle. He works hard and is “on” but he is pre-disposed to build mass, and in a genetically gifted way.

This isn’t a difficult concept. It is true however, that guys can get big despite their training. They don’t have to know the most efficient method, or follow JM’s training, etc. They go in, throw around heavy weight and get bigger. Their body is better suited to react to the supplements and to the training, that is what we call genetics.[/quote]

Now If this is how it was presented I would 100% agree but it wasn’t. If you to back and read you will see that it was brought up in an argumentitive and condescending manor. Ie you need to get out more because there lean people everywhere. That does not equal what you wrote

What you wrote is much better. It’s not saying lean people are everywhere and that we should be looking at drug addicts, poor neighborhoods, and people that play tons of sports as examples of lean ppl everywhere.

And you are also using some cream of the crop examples ;). 1 in a million genetics so their results will be much better. But I 100% agree there is a spectrum for response to everything in life. And I also believe through cool mechanisms those responses can be tweaked.

371

Meh, maybe I just try to separate the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps X’s manner of communication is somewhat jaded because he’s always on the defensive. Hell, if I got crap every time I posted, I’d probably go in intentionally being a smart ass too. I’m sure it also is frustrating when he is one of the bigger guys on the site having smaller, younger guys tell him he’s wrong all the time when he has the muscle to back his statements. I mean this thread has been so far derailed when all X did was post an impressive competitor (who won his show) and then followed up with “that’s my ideal physique” and the world exploded. I read someone come in and start crap, get called out, leave, and come back again to start it back up. I’m sure X is tired of the shit, it was a simple post and a simple comment.

Don’t get me wrong, I think there are always ways to better communicate your point, and maybe his do come across in a goading manner often, but just disregard it and read the value of the post. I for one appreciate his input… he’s a big dude, and I want to be a big dude, so I’ll listen to anyone who is.

Some folks are pre-disposed to be lean. And as much as basketball is a sport and exercise, its not time under the bar. That was his point, the guys got lean and had comparable, if not better, musculature than guys here who are slaving away in the gym, when the other guys hit the courts, do some push-ups and swing from the jungle gym when they get bored between games.

372

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
[/quote]

Just for the record for people that don’t know, this is Nate Robinson. Arguably at one point the most athletic person in the NBA and one of it’s most genetically gifted athletes ever. Not just your above average dude. Not even close. Also he does more than just push ups and play basketball to be in that shape.

I’m not denying that there are lean and in shape people out there who don’t lift. I see at them on my college campus at work every day. But this dude is not one of them.[/quote]

Arguably nothing. Robinson is the best pure athlete in NBA history. As a little dunker myself, watching Robinson attempt a self lob off the glass FOURTEEN TIMES IN A ROW was fucking insane. That’s basically 14 40"+ jumps in 2 minutes. He was also recruited to play cornerback and decided he liked basketball better and dropped football. Oh yeah, he was also the Washington state football, basketball and track player of the year. X taking one of the most genetically gifted dudes in the history of the planet to make his point is absurd.

373

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Meh, maybe I just try to separate the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps X’s manner of communication is somewhat jaded because he’s always on the defensive. Hell, if I got crap every time I posted, I’d probably go in intentionally being a smart ass too. I’m sure it also is frustrating when he is one of the bigger guys on the site having smaller, younger guys tell him he’s wrong all the time when he has the muscle to back his statements. I mean this thread has been so far derailed when all X did was post an impressive competitor (who won his show) and then followed up with “that’s my ideal physique” and the world exploded. I read someone come in and start crap, get called out, leave, and come back again to start it back up. I’m sure X is tired of the shit, it was a simple post and a simple comment.

Don’t get me wrong, I think there are always ways to better communicate your point, and maybe his do come across in a goading manner often, but just disregard it and read the value of the post. I for one appreciate his input… he’s a big dude, and I want to be a big dude, so I’ll listen to anyone who is.

Some folks are pre-disposed to be lean. And as much as basketball is a sport and exercise, its not time under the bar. That was his point, the guys got lean and had comparable, if not better, musculature than guys here who are slaving away in the gym, when the other guys hit the courts, do some push-ups and swing from the jungle gym when they get bored between games.[/quote]

I gotta say there are much more Imoressive physqiues on here or at least that were that never seem to have to problem of attacks that he does just leads me to believe that it stems frm a posting style or communication style. But hey I am too small to have a valid opinion :wink:

I for one was all on board just discussing Max or any other of those guys you mentioned in your last post. X derailed his own thread lol. He asks for it. He thrives on it and loves the confrontation. Some ppl like that. It’s all good

374

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
[/quote]

Just for the record for people that don’t know, this is Nate Robinson. Arguably at one point the most athletic person in the NBA and one of it’s most genetically gifted athletes ever. Not just your above average dude. Not even close. Also he does more than just push ups and play basketball to be in that shape.

I’m not denying that there are lean and in shape people out there who don’t lift. I see at them on my college campus at work every day. But this dude is not one of them.[/quote]

Arguably nothing. Robinson is the best pure athlete in NBA history. As a little dunker myself, watching Robinson attempt a self lob off the glass FOURTEEN TIMES IN A ROW was fucking insane. That’s basically 14 40"+ jumps in 2 minutes. He was also recruited to play cornerback and decided he liked basketball better and dropped football. Oh yeah, he was also the Washington state football, basketball and track player of the year. X taking one of the most genetically gifted dudes in the history of the planet to make his point is absurd. [/quote]

I watch people like him and just think about how shitty my genetics are lol. And truthly they aren’t really that bad. Just relatively speaking.

375

I simply see X as a good resource. Anyone whose big and is where I want to be (bigger) I want to listen to and make friends - in an iron sense. I look at other posters who post less frequently with respectable/respected physiques and people don’t challenge them at all, even if they do make bogus claims/statements.

X has spent a lot of time here and though it may be for the sake of argument, I think he also genuinely likes being able to talk iron and lifting with people, its a cult that not too many people are open about, and at the gym, the serious guys don’t talk, we lift. I’d hate to see him stop posting, and I hate seeing people come in and derail topics… if he says something goading, just withdraw or ignore it, its not worth the confrontation. I’ve done that a few times already when people have made crud comments, at some point its just not worth the effort.

I look at X and I see a big dude who has been here for quite some time and seen lots of faces come and go. Its akin to us being at the gym and having a weekend warrior come up and tell us we aren’t lifting right. We come here and make fun of them and laugh our asses off because we are bigger / better than them. X is bigger and better and the proof is in the pics. Knowing folks like Capt. Kirk, X has the patience of a saint, Kirk would crush your larynx to make you stop talking - and yes I watched him threaten someone who pissed him off at a training seminar. Kirk is worlds apart from X, but both are good resources because they have more experience than us under the bar, lifting, and trying new things. I’d trade 100 shit comments from a spiteful, built poster if it could save me a year or two in effort and reach my goals quicker for the knowledge they share. All I’m saying.

Back to physiques. Someone post a recent pic of pro prepping for the Olympia or something and lets get back to talking mass monsters with aesthetics!

376

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
I said that when people are on that much gear and have the generics they have, that they would be massive regardless of how shit their training was.
[/quote]

Obviously I can only give credibility to the tale I’m about to offer as one would give it to what gets printed as truth in the muscle rags, but I clearly recall other IFBB pros commenting through the years about how Paul Dillet’s legs would grow simply from getting up from the toilet.

Now obviously the man had one in a million genetics, and I think we can all safely assume that he made liberal use of PEDs of some sort. Also, man did have a reputation among his peers for not being the most intense trainer. However, everything is relative. The point is that what constituted a growth stimulus for ol’ Paul there may not serve the same purpose for someone else, especially with lesser genetics and unassisted in terms of protein synthesis rates.

Heck, I had this one student the last couple of years who never touched a weight in his life. He just participated in general high school gym class each day and had a chin up bar at home, and lemme tell ya, for a 17 year old kid, he was a beast. To be honest, for an adult the kid would have been a beast. Crazy training stimulus? Not by my own personal standards. Excellent diet and nutrition? Not the way I had to do it for myself. Extreme muscle size and yes even natural definition as a result of what he was doing? No question.

(Just thought this was kind of relevant to what Ryan wrote. You guys can go back to whatever nonsense derailed the Max Charles thread now)

S[/quote]

thank you,

this is exactly what i was getting at. i am not saying they don’t train hard, just that genetics and drugs take precedence over training at that point.

not big enough… run a stronger or longer cycle.
lagging body part… pump it full of oil before competition.

you would be surprised at how much dumb shit some IFBB pros and “big guys” say regarding nutrition, its actually laughable.

before i get my head ripped off i dont hate bodybuilding, just the idea that the biggest guys are automatically the best people to ask regarding training and nutrition.

377

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I simply see X as a good resource. Anyone whose big and is where I want to be (bigger) I want to listen to and make friends - in an iron sense. I look at other posters who post less frequently with respectable/respected physiques and people don’t challenge them at all, even if they do make bogus claims/statements.

X has spent a lot of time here and though it may be for the sake of argument, I think he also genuinely likes being able to talk iron and lifting with people, its a cult that not too many people are open about, and at the gym, the serious guys don’t talk, we lift. I’d hate to see him stop posting, and I hate seeing people come in and derail topics… if he says something goading, just withdraw or ignore it, its not worth the confrontation. I’ve done that a few times already when people have made crud comments, at some point its just not worth the effort.

I look at X and I see a big dude who has been here for quite some time and seen lots of faces come and go. Its akin to us being at the gym and having a weekend warrior come up and tell us we aren’t lifting right. We come here and make fun of them and laugh our asses off because we are bigger / better than them. X is bigger and better and the proof is in the pics. Knowing folks like Capt. Kirk, X has the patience of a saint, Kirk would crush your larynx to make you stop talking - and yes I watched him threaten someone who pissed him off at a training seminar. Kirk is worlds apart from X, but both are good resources because they have more experience than us under the bar, lifting, and trying new things. I’d trade 100 shit comments from a spiteful, built poster if it could save me a year or two in effort and reach my goals quicker for the knowledge they share. All I’m saying.

Back to physiques. Someone post a recent pic of pro prepping for the Olympia or something and lets get back to talking mass monsters with aesthetics![/quote]

hmmm
capt Kirk… brilliant power lifter with a great total.
ProfX… just a big guy who lifts weights.

but i see your point. the problem is X used to give advice (although it was rather vague), now all he does is try to argue with anyone who disagrees with him.

know who the real knowledgable people where/are
Bonez
waylander
Zraw
Brick
stu
grind over matter (or however you say it)
fuck me even arron curtis.

and you know what X has argued and pissed all of these very knowledgeable people off, resulting in some even leaving… What does X have over any of these people? oh right nothing!
he doesnt have competition experience like zraw, stu or way.
he doesnt have the nutrition knowledge of some one like brick.
hes got no experience in bodybuilding, powerlifting or even olympic lifting.

so tell me why anyone should value his input/opinion and much as you and he think we should?

378

Waylander left shortly before I did, and then moved to another forum, though I haven’t seen his posts there for over a year… last I knew he was at 288lbs or so. I haven’t seen Bonez post much either. Stu, thankfully is still here, and thanks to his competition experience, always cool/calm manneurisms, and effort to stay out of any swirling cess pools he I don’t think ever has been attacked.

I also remember Bushido, but he left for other reasons and last I knew had his own site. Knowledgeable folks come and go. And honestly, things aren’t the same as they used to be. Perhaps this community should ask itself why these impressive guys have left/are leaving… I doubt its all X. Look at bb’ing.com, also not many pro’s or impressive physiques there, unless they are being paid to be there. Because the place is a cess pool of trolls and “flexing my abs in the mirror” kids. T-Nation used to not be like that, but its becoming a smaller brother on its own.

And you should value his opinion because he’s more than likely bigger than you, and the only way he’s done it is through time and effort. There’s always nuggets of information everywhere, and I still believe X has some to offer. I would never discredit someone that size trying to offer me advice in the gym. I may not agree with it, but I’ll still thank him, because today’s advice might not be great, but tomorrow’s might be game-changing.

379

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Waylander left shortly before I did, and then moved to another forum, though I haven’t seen his posts there for over a year… last I knew he was at 288lbs or so. I haven’t seen Bonez post much either. Stu, thankfully is still here, and thanks to his competition experience, always cool/calm manneurisms, and effort to stay out of any swirling cess pools he I don’t think ever has been attacked.

I also remember Bushido, but he left for other reasons and last I knew had his own site. Knowledgeable folks come and go. And honestly, things aren’t the same as they used to be. Perhaps this community should ask itself why these impressive guys have left/are leaving… I doubt its all X. Look at bb’ing.com, also not many pro’s or impressive physiques there, unless they are being paid to be there. Because the place is a cess pool of trolls and “flexing my abs in the mirror” kids. T-Nation used to not be like that, but its becoming a smaller brother on its own.

And you should value his opinion because he’s more than likely bigger than you, and the only way he’s done it is through time and effort. There’s always nuggets of information everywhere, and I still believe X has some to offer. I would never discredit someone that size trying to offer me advice in the gym. I may not agree with it, but I’ll still thank him, because today’s advice might not be great, but tomorrow’s might be game-changing.[/quote]

How long have you been training seriously? Jw because truly game changing info becomes irrelevant past a year or two of training. By then you realize you have tailor everything to yourself, your life, your body, goals ect.

Getting bigger honestly not mind boggling hard. Train hard eat enough to grow and watch mirror and don’t get sloppy. How many carbs pro and fat is dependent in you your training and many variables.

Getting leaner. Slowly decrease food as needed. Add cardio as needed Keep killing it in the gym. Pretty basic. Again tailored to your own body ect.

Training. Train hard. Make sure you are working the msucle you want to so use weights and exercises accordingly. High volume works. High frequency works. And the whole spectrum in between work.

380

<--------- Not interested in the argument, but as an example of someone naturally lean, this is me in my profile pic at 34 years old. This was taken after 2 months playing around in the gym 2 days a week, after a 10 year layoff from weights with minimal physical activity. I basically look the same when untrained.

Daily diet in this time frame consisted of 4 coffees with 6 sugars each cup, 1 macdonalds bigmac meal at lunch, 1 can of pringles smoky babarcue flavor, 1/4 btl of chivas and high fat restaurant food at dinner. Being a creature of habit, I ate the same crap everyday except at dinner.

Now, @Quasi tech, please, what im really really interested in is knowing more about Capt Kirk threatening someone at the seminar! Thanks! :slight_smile: