Part 2: What Naturals are Truly Capable Of

Training
61

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheDon12 wrote:

What was your bodyfat lvl at that weight?[/quote]

I never tested it. That would mean nothing to me…and really shouldn’t mean much to you.
[/quote]

Larry Scott was 5’10, 205#. You’re obviously bigger than him.
John Grimek was 5’8.5, 195#. You’re also bigger than him.

Neither were “contest lean” by modern standards.

Do you think your own physique is more impressive than theirs? Why or why not?[/quote]

Why care what someone else finds “impressive”?

It is like some of you engage in the name dropping just so you can say, “Prof x sad he thinks he looks better than…blaH BLAH BLAH”.

We asked a simple question…who gained more muscle.

Apparently it is very difficult for some to simply say, “yeah, you gained more muscle”.

This isn’t about what you find “impressive”. This is about who has gotten as big and filled out as the guys who bulked up before. Period.[/quote]

Actually, if it were that was the question being answered, it would probably be answered by now.

However, the closer we get to an answer, the more you seem to redefine the question. At one point you’re talking about who’s bigger. Here, you’re talking about who has the most muscle. In other places, it’s about who’s more intimidating.

That 900lb guy is definitely bigger, and would dwarf anyone on this board. Most sumo wrestlers would too, and they’d quite possibly have more muscle than most everyone here too.

The question I’m more interested in is who has more muscle, once leaned out to roughly 10-15%. And by that, I mean, somewhere between “can see some ab definition” and “can see a sixpack”. Let’s just say “in a condition where you can see at least 4 ‘abs’”.

So far I haven’t seen a clear answer to that.

62

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

X was carrying around 50+ more pounds of fat than those guys and is taller.
[/quote]

Uh, yeah, that avatar pic was taken yesterday. 50+ more pounds of fat?[/quote]
That picture is so blurry it looks like it was taken with a potato
You are wearing a shirt.
It doesn’t show your legs.
It doesn’t show your back (where you carry a good amount of your fat)
That picture was not taken yesterday, that same photo (same shirt) has been your avatar for over a week.
I liked your previous avatar better, you looked good in the white robe.
The person comparing your photos was comparing the 285 X to those guys.
50 pounds was a generous underestimation.
[/quote]

That pic was taken yesterday. I wear the same gym clothes many days just a clean shirt.

You don’t know how much I weigh now…but it is likely more than you think…and it you claim you can’t see my anterior delts and lateral delts, that just shows your own lack of an eye for this.

63

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheDon12 wrote:

What was your bodyfat lvl at that weight?[/quote]

I never tested it. That would mean nothing to me…and really shouldn’t mean much to you.
[/quote]

Larry Scott was 5’10, 205#. You’re obviously bigger than him.
John Grimek was 5’8.5, 195#. You’re also bigger than him.

Neither were “contest lean” by modern standards.

Do you think your own physique is more impressive than theirs? Why or why not?[/quote]
It’s not about impressive!
That’s what many here seem to not understand?
Do I need to write it out in crayon for you?
X was carrying around 50+ more pounds of fat than those guys and is taller.
He is bigger.
He wins.
End every single one of these threads already.[/quote]

I laughed so hard at this. Perfection

64

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheDon12 wrote:

What was your bodyfat lvl at that weight?[/quote]

I never tested it. That would mean nothing to me…and really shouldn’t mean much to you.
[/quote]

Larry Scott was 5’10, 205#. You’re obviously bigger than him.
John Grimek was 5’8.5, 195#. You’re also bigger than him.

Neither were “contest lean” by modern standards.

Do you think your own physique is more impressive than theirs? Why or why not?[/quote]

Why care what someone else finds “impressive”?

It is like some of you engage in the name dropping just so you can say, “Prof x sad he thinks he looks better than…blaH BLAH BLAH”.

We asked a simple question…who gained more muscle.

Apparently it is very difficult for some to simply say, “yeah, you gained more muscle”.

This isn’t about what you find “impressive”. This is about who has gotten as big and filled out as the guys who bulked up before. Period.[/quote]

Actually, if it were that was the question being answered, it would probably be answered by now.

However, the closer we get to an answer, the more you seem to redefine the question. At one point you’re talking about who’s bigger. Here, you’re talking about who has the most muscle. In other places, it’s about who’s more intimidating.

That 900lb guy is definitely bigger, and would dwarf anyone on this board. Most sumo wrestlers would too, and they’d quite possibly have more muscle than most everyone here too.

The question I’m more interested in is who has more muscle, once leaned out to roughly 10-15%. And by that, I mean, somewhere between “can see some ab definition” and “can see a sixpack”. Let’s just say “in a condition where you can see at least 4 ‘abs’”.

So far I haven’t seen a clear answer to that.[/quote]

Your reading comprehension is too good please leave

65

[quote]LoRez wrote:

Actually, if it were that was the question being answered, it would probably be answered by now.

However, the closer we get to an answer, the more you seem to redefine the question. At one point you’re talking about who’s bigger. Here, you’re talking about who has the most muscle. In other places, it’s about who’s more intimidating.[/quote]

Bigger means more muscle.

You have changed the definition of that now too?

[quote]

That 900lb guy is definitely bigger, and would dwarf anyone on this board. Most sumo wrestlers would too, and they’d quite possibly have more muscle than most everyone here too.

The question I’m more interested in is who has more muscle, once leaned out to roughly 10-15%. And by that, I mean, somewhere between “can see some ab definition” and “can see a sixpack”. Let’s just say “in a condition where you can see at least 4 ‘abs’”.

So far I haven’t seen a clear answer to that.[/quote]

So you compare a Sumo wrestler to a bodybuilder as if there is no level in between the two?

Quit being ridiculous.

I am not that fat and never have been…and yes, I am betting I am “bigger/more muscular” than many here worried about sumos.

66

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

Actually, if it were that was the question being answered, it would probably be answered by now.

However, the closer we get to an answer, the more you seem to redefine the question. At one point you’re talking about who’s bigger. Here, you’re talking about who has the most muscle. In other places, it’s about who’s more intimidating.[/quote]

Bigger means more muscle.

You have changed the definition of that now too?[/quote]

Sorry, I was using a dictionary. I thought bigger meant, you know, bigger.

If I have a big truck, does it mean it has more muscle? Bad example.

If I have a big steak, does it mean it has more muscle? Damn, another bad example.

[quote][quote]
That 900lb guy is definitely bigger, and would dwarf anyone on this board. Most sumo wrestlers would too, and they’d quite possibly have more muscle than most everyone here too.

The question I’m more interested in is who has more muscle, once leaned out to roughly 10-15%. And by that, I mean, somewhere between “can see some ab definition” and “can see a sixpack”. Let’s just say “in a condition where you can see at least 4 ‘abs’”.

So far I haven’t seen a clear answer to that.[/quote]

So you compare a Sumo wrestler to a bodybuilder as if there is no level in between the two?
[/quote]

I actually didn’t compare a sumo wrestler to a bodybuilder. Tell me where I said “bodybuilder”. I’ll wait.

67

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

X was carrying around 50+ more pounds of fat than those guys and is taller.
[/quote]

Uh, yeah, that avatar pic was taken yesterday. 50+ more pounds of fat?[/quote]
That picture is so blurry it looks like it was taken with a potato
You are wearing a shirt.
It doesn’t show your legs.
It doesn’t show your back (where you carry a good amount of your fat)
That picture was not taken yesterday, that same photo (same shirt) has been your avatar for over a week.
I liked your previous avatar better, you looked good in the white robe.
The person comparing your photos was comparing the 285 X to those guys.
50 pounds was a generous underestimation.
[/quote]

That pic was taken yesterday. I wear the same gym clothes many days just a clean shirt.

You don’t know how much I weigh now…but it is likely more than you think…and it you claim you can’t see my anterior delts and lateral delts, that just shows your own lack of an eye for this.[/quote]

Wearing the same clothes to the gym multiple days in a row is gross.
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
I guess if you avoid cardio like the plague you won’t sweat and can get away with that.
I said I couldn’t see your back, where did you read anything about shoulders?
You weigh between 260-270 here.
You’ve had avatars wearing that same shirt forever now.
I’m surprised it still fits after all the size you’ve gained.

68

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheDon12 wrote:

What was your bodyfat lvl at that weight?[/quote]

I never tested it. That would mean nothing to me…and really shouldn’t mean much to you.
[/quote]

Larry Scott was 5’10, 205#. You’re obviously bigger than him.
John Grimek was 5’8.5, 195#. You’re also bigger than him.

Neither were “contest lean” by modern standards.

Do you think your own physique is more impressive than theirs? Why or why not?[/quote]

Why care what someone else finds “impressive”?

It is like some of you engage in the name dropping just so you can say, “Prof x sad he thinks he looks better than…blaH BLAH BLAH”.

We asked a simple question…who gained more muscle.

Apparently it is very difficult for some to simply say, “yeah, you gained more muscle”.

This isn’t about what you find “impressive”. This is about who has gotten as big and filled out as the guys who bulked up before. Period.[/quote]

I provided you with pics of guys that have bulked up staying lean. If they were to have been around the same bodyfat , you would had considered them massive.

69

All I keep thinking about all of this drama is, why? Why does every thread have to turn into this? Haven’t we all been arguing about the same things for months now? How many threads have been devoted to this junk at this point? The Limits threads, Naturals threads, Bulking thread, etc. etc. etc. It is exhausting. Who cares if X thinks he has more muscle than most here? Or, if he is bigger? The guy is 37 and spends most of his free time arguing with guys half his age just to try and find validation. Just let him do his thing. He’s getting old now. I’m just waiting it out until he takes his posts to the O35 thread where they should be. It’s going to be a sad, sad day for X when he starts losing size to age.

The sad thing is, I have a great deal of respect for the veterans on this site. A great deal. X, however, ruins any chance of people respecting him due to his attitude. It seems he is rubbing off on others as of late, too. Such a shame.

70

[quote]TheDon12 wrote:

I provided you with pics of guys that have bulked up staying lean. If they were to have been around the same bodyfat , you would had considered them massive.
[/quote]

You posted pictures of guys all under 180lbs.

71

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Can we PLEASE stop responding to Princess Xeah.
His buns are wrapped too tightly.
This will keep going around and around in pointless circles.
Just stick to the original topic and lets skip over the blatant attempts to turn this into a thread littered with 2 year old pictures of your royal highness. [/quote]
Re post

72

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

Wearing the same clothes to the gym multiple days in a row is gross.
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
I guess if you avoid cardio like the plague you won’t sweat and can get away with that.
I said I couldn’t see your back, where did you read anything about shoulders?
You weigh between 260-270 here.
You’ve had avatars wearing that same shirt forever now.
I’m surprised it still fits after all the size you’ve gained.
[/quote]

I just wrote I wear a clean shirt. I just have 5 pairs of the same shirt. I am always clean. I don’t even wear gym clothes twice…so what are you talking about?

73

[quote]TheDon12 wrote:
dont know what you’re thinking.[/quote]

Looks like bulked up…

74

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
Devon Palumbo is a tiny 165…oh wait…[/quote]

Lol at how much epic ass this guy probably pulls…

Great aesthetics.

75

[quote]LoRez wrote:

Sorry, I was using a dictionary. I thought bigger meant, you know, bigger.

If I have a big truck, does it mean it has more muscle? Bad example.

If I have a big steak, does it mean it has more muscle? Damn, another bad example.
[/quote]

So on a site like this…someone had to tell you that bigger meant the more muscular guy?

This makes me think no one is looking at you in those terms.

76

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wear the same gym clothes many days just a clean shirt.
[/quote]

Wearing the same clothes to the gym multiple days in a row is gross.
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
I guess if you avoid cardio like the plague you won’t sweat and can get away with that.
[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am always clean. I don’t even wear gym clothes twice…so what are you talking about?[/quote]
What I am talking about is the part where you said you wear te same clothes to the gym many days just a clean shirt.

77

Is it me or are there three of the same thread just now?

78

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheDon12 wrote:

I provided you with pics of guys that have bulked up staying lean. If they were to have been around the same bodyfat , you would had considered them massive.
[/quote]

You posted pictures of guys all under 180lbs. [/quote]

So height doesn’t matter all ppl better be above 200

They are also contest ready but we know you don’t care about that either

79

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Can we PLEASE stop responding to Princess Xeah.
His buns are wrapped too tightly.
This will keep going around and around in pointless circles.
Just stick to the original topic and lets skip over the blatant attempts to turn this into a thread littered with 2 year old pictures of your royal highness. [/quote]
Re post[/quote]
Re posting again

80

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
Is it me or are there three of the same thread just now?[/quote]
There are.
The Nattys 1 thread was maxed out so it had to continue somewhere.