[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just the most recent video.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Perhaps I am getting caught up in semantics, but when someone uses ‘huge’ as a description, not one person around the 190-210 mark ever comes to mind, and I would have thought this mindset would be the case on a site such as this. [/quote]
ok…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just the most recent video.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Perhaps I am getting caught up in semantics, but when someone uses ‘huge’ as a description, not one person around the 190-210 mark ever comes to mind, and I would have thought this mindset would be the case on a site such as this. [/quote]
ok…[/quote]
Should have made myself clearer. I have a tendency to always think of people around average height (5’10"ish). Flex Lewis is a bit of a midget at 5’5", so yes he does look huge. But that is pointing to an exception. When I say huge, I tend to think of guys like Dorian.
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just the most recent video.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Perhaps I am getting caught up in semantics, but when someone uses ‘huge’ as a description, not one person around the 190-210 mark ever comes to mind, and I would have thought this mindset would be the case on a site such as this. [/quote]
ok…[/quote]
Should have made myself clearer. I have a tendency to always think of people around average height (5’10"ish). Flex Lewis is a bit of a midget at 5’5", so yes he does look huge. But that is pointing to an exception. When I say huge, I tend to think of guys like Dorian.
[/quote]
So there are like 20 guys in the world that qualify?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
DD. didn’t see much in the vid. Updated pics would be great I know your progress has been good. But don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back 
I stopped paying attention to what normal people thought when they thought I used AAS when I was 190 lol[/quote]
I know this sounds like bullshit, but I actually had a pro ask me what I did for my back. A lot of these comments come from competitors. My uncle (a pretty decent former competitor) was trying to get me to do a show even.[/quote]
Really
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
This is the same clown who claimed world record poundages on the bench and dead and said he only ate once a day, then changed the contents of that meal three or four different times through the same article. Was offered a ton of money to prove his lifts but coincidentally never came through. Looks good though. [/quote]
This is the guy that did the 8" DL with 1035 and was running his mouth about it? LOL. He looks good, though.[/quote]
Just my perspective…but considering what his efforts actually built…I just can’t laugh at that like I would some guy with NO muscle doing the same.
That 8" built a shit load of muscle…which seems to be his major goal.
Just the way I see it.
He could be lifting 20lbs in that picture above and I would still watch HOW he did it because of what it built.[/quote]
Doing extremely abbreviated ROM lifts doesn’t build huge muscles. If it did, every quarter-squatter in the gym would be walking around with ridiculous wheels. I have a buddy who has done 1000+ rack pulls with this range of motion, but he’s weaker than I am on real lifts and obviously isn’t close to Charles’ size. Those sorts of claims are asinine and no one should get a pass for acting that silly.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just the most recent video.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Perhaps I am getting caught up in semantics, but when someone uses ‘huge’ as a description, not one person around the 190-210 mark ever comes to mind, and I would have thought this mindset would be the case on a site such as this. [/quote]
ok…[/quote]
Should have made myself clearer. I have a tendency to always think of people around average height (5’10"ish). Flex Lewis is a bit of a midget at 5’5", so yes he does look huge. But that is pointing to an exception. When I say huge, I tend to think of guys like Dorian.
[/quote]
So there are like 20 guys in the world that qualify?[/quote]
Okay, you look like an absolute behemoth in clothes and so does everyone else of average height weighing around 190lbs (lean). Hope that’s what you want to hear.
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just the most recent video.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
Perhaps I am getting caught up in semantics, but when someone uses ‘huge’ as a description, not one person around the 190-210 mark ever comes to mind, and I would have thought this mindset would be the case on a site such as this. [/quote]
ok…[/quote]
Should have made myself clearer. I have a tendency to always think of people around average height (5’10"ish). Flex Lewis is a bit of a midget at 5’5", so yes he does look huge. But that is pointing to an exception. When I say huge, I tend to think of guys like Dorian.
[/quote]
So there are like 20 guys in the world that qualify?[/quote]
Okay, you look like an absolute behemoth in clothes and so does everyone else of average height weighing around 190lbs (lean). Hope that’s what you want to hear.
[/quote]
No, just a discussion. You just have a really freaking high standard for huge is all.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, just a discussion. You just have a really freaking high standard for huge is all.[/quote]
Fair point, perhaps I do.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
This is the same clown who claimed world record poundages on the bench and dead and said he only ate once a day, then changed the contents of that meal three or four different times through the same article. Was offered a ton of money to prove his lifts but coincidentally never came through. Looks good though. [/quote]
This is the guy that did the 8" DL with 1035 and was running his mouth about it? LOL. He looks good, though.[/quote]
Just my perspective…but considering what his efforts actually built…I just can’t laugh at that like I would some guy with NO muscle doing the same.
That 8" built a shit load of muscle…which seems to be his major goal.
Just the way I see it.
He could be lifting 20lbs in that picture above and I would still watch HOW he did it because of what it built.[/quote]
Doing extremely abbreviated ROM lifts doesn’t build huge muscles. If it did, every quarter-squatter in the gym would be walking around with ridiculous wheels. I have a buddy who has done 1000+ rack pulls with this range of motion, but he’s weaker than I am on real lifts and obviously isn’t close to Charles’ size. Those sorts of claims are asinine and no one should get a pass for acting that silly.[/quote]
Actually pretty scary to think what he could achieve if he trained like less of a douchebag.
Why is it that we are concluding he has succeeding in spite of his training rather than because of it?
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why is it that we are concluding he has succeeding in spite of his training rather than because of it?[/quote]
It is confusing to me…so rack pulls all of a sudden are not a good movement for upper back. Better tell Ct to never program them. Partials pressing isn’t good for overloading the chest and triceps. Partials pulldowns also suck I guess.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why is it that we are concluding he has succeeding in spite of his training rather than because of it?[/quote]
It is confusing to me…so rack pulls all of a sudden are not a good movement for upper back. Better tell Ct to never program them. Partials pressing isn’t good for overloading the chest and triceps. Partials pulldowns also suck I guess. [/quote]
I think rack pulls and partials are great but, it is stupid to 1/4 squat and claim high squat numbers or pull from below the knee and run your mouth about your “epic” deadlift.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why is it that we are concluding he has succeeding in spite of his training rather than because of it?[/quote]
It is confusing to me…so rack pulls all of a sudden are not a good movement for upper back. Better tell Ct to never program them. Partials pressing isn’t good for overloading the chest and triceps. Partials pulldowns also suck I guess. [/quote]
I think rack pulls and partials are great but, it is stupid to 1/4 squat and claim high squat numbers or pull from below the knee and run your mouth about your “epic” deadlift.
[/quote]
I was not addressing this though.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why is it that we are concluding he has succeeding in spite of his training rather than because of it?[/quote]
It is confusing to me…so rack pulls all of a sudden are not a good movement for upper back. Better tell Ct to never program them. Partials pressing isn’t good for overloading the chest and triceps. Partials pulldowns also suck I guess. [/quote]
I think rack pulls and partials are great but, it is stupid to 1/4 squat and claim high squat numbers or pull from below the knee and run your mouth about your “epic” deadlift.
[/quote]
That has nothing to do with what I or the other poster were talking about.
[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
This is the same clown who claimed world record poundages on the bench and dead and said he only ate once a day, then changed the contents of that meal three or four different times through the same article. Was offered a ton of money to prove his lifts but coincidentally never came through. Looks good though. [/quote]
This is the guy that did the 8" DL with 1035 and was running his mouth about it? LOL. He looks good, though.[/quote]
Just my perspective…but considering what his efforts actually built…I just can’t laugh at that like I would some guy with NO muscle doing the same.
That 8" built a shit load of muscle…which seems to be his major goal.
Just the way I see it.
He could be lifting 20lbs in that picture above and I would still watch HOW he did it because of what it built.[/quote]
Doing extremely abbreviated ROM lifts doesn’t build huge muscles. If it did, every quarter-squatter in the gym would be walking around with ridiculous wheels. I have a buddy who has done 1000+ rack pulls with this range of motion, but he’s weaker than I am on real lifts and obviously isn’t close to Charles’ size. Those sorts of claims are asinine and no one should get a pass for acting that silly.[/quote]
Actually pretty scary to think what he could achieve if he trained like less of a douchebag.[/quote]
Since I can’t multi quote it was to posts like this
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
This is the same clown who claimed world record poundages on the bench and dead and said he only ate once a day, then changed the contents of that meal three or four different times through the same article. Was offered a ton of money to prove his lifts but coincidentally never came through. Looks good though. [/quote]
This is the guy that did the 8" DL with 1035 and was running his mouth about it? LOL. He looks good, though.[/quote]
Just my perspective…but considering what his efforts actually built…I just can’t laugh at that like I would some guy with NO muscle doing the same.
That 8" built a shit load of muscle…which seems to be his major goal.
Just the way I see it.
He could be lifting 20lbs in that picture above and I would still watch HOW he did it because of what it built.[/quote]
Doing extremely abbreviated ROM lifts doesn’t build huge muscles. If it did, every quarter-squatter in the gym would be walking around with ridiculous wheels. I have a buddy who has done 1000+ rack pulls with this range of motion, but he’s weaker than I am on real lifts and obviously isn’t close to Charles’ size. Those sorts of claims are asinine and no one should get a pass for acting that silly.[/quote]
And this
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why is it that we are concluding he has succeeding in spite of his training rather than because of it?[/quote]
It is confusing to me…so rack pulls all of a sudden are not a good movement for upper back. Better tell Ct to never program them. Partials pressing isn’t good for overloading the chest and triceps. Partials pulldowns also suck I guess. [/quote]
I don’t care what he looks like when the range of motion is that small. And I originally quoted Whiteflash, who pointed out that this goon was claiming a world record deadlift based on a partial.
I also offered an opinion that that sort of thing didn’t build his physique. I would make an educated guess that the equivalent to his “world record deadlift” on bench would have very little effect, and I would say the same about 1/8 ROM pulldowns.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why is it that we are concluding he has succeeding in spite of his training rather than because of it?[/quote]
It is confusing to me…so rack pulls all of a sudden are not a good movement for upper back. Better tell Ct to never program them. Partials pressing isn’t good for overloading the chest and triceps. Partials pulldowns also suck I guess. [/quote]
I don’t care what he looks like when the range of motion is that small. And I originally quoted Whiteflash, who pointed out that this goon was claiming a world record deadlift based on a partial.
I also offered an opinion that that sort of thing didn’t build his physique. I would make an educated guess that the equivalent to his “world record deadlift” on bench would have very little effect, and I would say the same about 1/8 ROM pulldowns.[/quote]
Why would he do it if it doesn’t help build his physique?
Once I stopped training full ROM and started doing almost exclusively partial ROM work, my lifts exploded, and I put on some decent mass.
Dude also uses straps on pressing movements. Not wraps, straps. Odd guy, but obviously works for him
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why is it that we are concluding he has succeeding in spite of his training rather than because of it?[/quote]
Not so much in spite of, but that if he trained in the style of Levrone, Yates or even Coleman his physique could be absolutely unbelievable.
For me this guy seems to be a super genetic freak and could make progress doing practically anything in the gym no matter how inefficient.
