BONEZ217 wrote: mass should be the focus because it takes so much longer to achieve.
this is paramount, it’s taken me 4yrs to add 80lbs but in 12-16 wks i can lose the BF, the key being gain but don’t be a fucking slob, you should appear as if you train if you do.
if you gain 80lbs but half or more is fat well you’ve done it wrong.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
YES getting big is one part of bodybuilding.
YES getting shredded is one part of bodybuilding.
But real bodybuilding requires both. [/quote]
Thanks for reiterating that … It seems like when anything other than becoming “huge” is discussed the topic isn’t deemed as bodybuilding.
[quote]angus_beef wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
YES getting big is one part of bodybuilding.
YES getting shredded is one part of bodybuilding.
But real bodybuilding requires both. [/quote]
Thanks for reiterating that … It seems like when anything other than becoming “huge” is discussed the topic isn’t deemed as bodybuilding. [/quote]
Gee, that would be because guys like you ignore the “GETTING BIG” part. You claim you want to be no bigger than 190lbs at your height but you’ve got some bodybuilder with arms over 21" as your avatar.
Once again, no one is dictating goals but have the common sense to realize the difference between “gaining a little muscle” and BODYBUILDING.
How is it guys like you ignore messages like that in what CT wrote and only focus on what you want to? His post didn’t say anything that the rest of us haven’t said in this very thread.
for god’s sake, this is exactly my point!
professor x, you yourself said in another thread that genetics ultimately govern a person’s calf and forearm size. but then when you read a statement posed by someone with obviously average (or even below average) genetics, you immediately resort to your “well, you’re obviously not working hard enough” stock response. why is it, sir, that genetics govern the maximal size of some muscles but not others? are you unhappy with your own calf or forearm size? perhaps you’re not working hard enough.
lanky mofo, do you want some sort of award for pointing out the fact that i don’t have a ton of muscle? i mean, my pictures are up here somewhere, for all the world to see. tell me something i don’t know. and i also suspect that you, for whatever reason, feel that i should be ashamed of the way i look. funny thing is, though, and it’s the damndest thing: your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. even so, i’ll be the first one to tell you that there is much room for improvement in the case of my physique. i can assure you, though, it’s not for a lack of trying.
bonez217, i’m not trying to use genetics and steroid use as some sort of cop out to justify anyone’s results… you misunderstand me. but, on the same token, having a conversation about bodybuilding without recognizing the massive impact that these 2 factors play is a little short-sighted on your part. i mean, a person on steroids can grow muscle in the absence of training… i’ve seen it with my own eyes. this is probably one of the reasons that many on these drugs don’t train (or don’t train seriously) without their aid: because they’ve seen, with their own eyes, just how dramatic and different training results while assisted can be vs. training results that come naturally. i would also argue that not only is there an obvious difference in time course of results, but in scope of reults, as well. after all, the common practice of many of moving to steroids when natural growth has been maximized lends itself to the idea that steroids do things to your body that your body can’t do to itself. are you honestly contesting this? is anyone?
and, finally, mr. roberts, while i completely understand that the physique of a eugen sandow or an otto arco probably isn’t the ideal most here are striving for, my point is that, perhaps, especially if they’re of average genetics and aren’t taking the drugs, maybe they should be. a physique such as this, or something reasonably comparable to it, is, at least, both feasible and possible for such a person… whereas the physique of a dexter jackson, a jay cutler, or a ronnie coleman, etc., simply is not. there is certainly a noticeable divide in the physiques you see at the natural shows and those you see at the olympia… and i’m guessing it’s one that can’t simply be explained by training splits, cardio habits, and nutritional practices, either. clearly there are other factors in play, here.
that’s all for now.
Such an obvious trolling attempt…
Why do we only get the stupid trolls here these days? All the funny/witty ones are gone… Probably got married or something.
All this twisting words bullshit is getting incredibly old.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Such an obvious trolling attempt…
Why do we only get the stupid trolls here these days? All the funny/witty ones are gone… Probably got married or something.
All this twisting words bullshit is getting incredibly old.
[/quote]
I agree…
[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
for god’s sake, this is exactly my point!
bonez217, i’m not trying to use genetics and steroid use as some sort of cop out to justify anyone’s results… you misunderstand me. but, on the same token, having a conversation about bodybuilding without recognizing the massive impact that these 2 factors play is a little short-sighted on your part. i mean, a person on steroids can grow muscle in the absence of training… i’ve seen it with my own eyes. this is probably one of the reasons that many on these drugs don’t train (or don’t train seriously) without their aid: because they’ve seen, with their own eyes, just how dramatic and different training results while assisted can be vs. training results that come naturally. i would also argue that not only is there an obvious difference in time course of results, but in scope of reults, as well. after all, the common practice of many of moving to steroids when natural growth has been maximized lends itself to the idea that steroids do things to your body that your body can’t do to itself. are you honestly contesting this? is anyone?
[/quote]
Youre a little piece of shit, do you know that?
I already said that there are differences in the results of steroid users. Youre too fucking blinded by your own ignorance that you completely missed what I was saying. I said that the results may be greater but THE METHOD TO GET RESULTS is exactly the same. The method is ‘getting big’ then ‘getting lean’. Put a phonebook on your chair so you can see the computer screen clearly next time to avoid this confusion.
cepahalic_carnage, i don’t know if your comment was directed at me or not, but i don’t even know what “trolling” is… could it be defined as follows: telling it like it actually is on the internet? if so, i guess i’m guilty.
bonez217, why all the hostility? i didn’t miss your point… your point is flawed and i therefore disagree with it. if a person on steroids or fat burning drugs (or someone with exceptional genetics who, by default, has above average levels of the right hormones) can grow lean muscle and/or lose bodyfat WITHOUT TRAINING, how can you possibly say that “the methods are the same”?
“the method”, in this case, is training. in the regular guy, it is absolutely essential to see ANY RESULTS WHATSOEVER. in the gifted steroid user, though, the results are usually evident BEFORE TRAINING STARTS. all training does, in this latter case, is dramatically amplify characteristics that are already there. have you ever seen pictures of arnold when he was young? he was bigger then 95% of the people here before he was 16… but, oh, i forgot, genetics only apply to his calves and forearms.
i totally understand your belief that the “bulking” then “cutting” scenario is the route that the pros usually follow. my point, seeing as you obviously missed it, is that PEOPLE WITH THE GLARING LACK OF POTENTIAL TO BE PROS SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THIS PLAN, lest they be drastically unhappy with their results. all regular guys get from this scenario is an endless cycle of yo-yo dieting in which, ultimately, little to no progress is actually made.
honestly, i don’t even know why i’m going through the trouble of explaining my point to someone who is so disrespectful…
you’re giving belgium a bad name, guy.
Seriously, what does it take to convince this troll???
[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
cepahalic_carnage, i don’t know if your comment was directed at me or not, but i don’t even know what “trolling” is… could it be defined as follows: telling it like it actually is on the internet? if so, i guess i’m guilty.
bonez217, why all the hostility? i didn’t miss your point… your point is flawed and i therefore disagree with it. if a person on steroids or fat burning drugs (or someone with exceptional genetics who, by default, has above average levels of the right hormones) can grow lean muscle and/or lose bodyfat WITHOUT TRAINING, how can you possibly say that “the methods are the same”?
“the method”, in this case, is training. in the regular guy, it is absolutely essential to see ANY RESULTS WHATSOEVER. in the gifted steroid user, though, the results are usually evident BEFORE TRAINING STARTS. all training does, in this latter case, is dramatically amplify characteristics that are already there. have you ever seen pictures of arnold when he was young? he was bigger then 95% of the people here before he was 16… but, oh, i forgot, genetics only apply to his calves and forearms.
i totally understand your belief that the “bulking” then “cutting” scenario is the route that the pros usually follow. my point, seeing as you obviously missed it, is that PEOPLE WITH THE GLARING LACK OF POTENTIAL TO BE PROS SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THIS PLAN, lest they be drastically unhappy with their results. all regular guys get from this scenario is an endless cycle of yo-yo dieting in which, ultimately, little to no progress is actually made.
honestly, i don’t even know why i’m going through the trouble of explaining my point to someone who is so disrespectful…
you’re giving belgium a bad name, guy.
[/quote]
Does this forum look like a bridge to you?
Then what are you doing here?
Any time now, x? 
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Put a phonebook on your chair so you can see the computer screen clearly next time to avoid this confusion.
[/quote]
The phonebooks in his city must be ridiculously thin.
[quote]OatsNMilk wrote:
Seriously, what does it take to convince this troll???[/quote]
Sometimes I wish every computer had electrodes in the keyboard, and the Mods had power to shock ignorant users via activating these electrodes.
[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
i totally understand your belief that the “bulking” then “cutting” scenario is the route that the pros usually follow. my point, seeing as you obviously missed it, is that PEOPLE WITH THE GLARING LACK OF POTENTIAL TO BE PROS SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THIS PLAN, lest they be drastically unhappy with their results. all regular guys get from this scenario is an endless cycle of yo-yo dieting in which, ultimately, little to no progress is actually made.
[/quote]
Try to get this bulk vs cutting mentality out of your head.
Bulking does not = get fat
Bulking = gaining muscle
And
Cutting does not just = getting ripped
Cutting for average Joe often = trimming a little excess fat (not severely dieting unless for a show etc)
Getting “ripped” will inevitably lead to some muscle loss, but just recomping (trimming some fat while maybe gaining a little strength/muscle), or damage control, doesn’t.
There is no way of gaining muscle without being in a calorie surplus (call it bulking or whatever). Being in a calorie surplus inevitably leads to some fat deposits. To what degree you want to gain muscle depends on how much fat deposits you’re willing to put up with. There is a cut off point (e.g. you can’t just keep increasing calories and making bigger muscle gains each week…this is where people often go wrong), but you have to work out this “sweet point” through trial and error.
But whichever route you take, at the end of each journey, at some point you will have to cut the fat. Simply bulking for a very short time (and trying to diet away the fat straight away) will not create “solid muscle”, it would simply “melt away” as soon as you go back to eating less/burning more calories. This is why bulking needs to be done for some time and fat deposits “mount up” over that period of time.
Gaining fat is not the goal and never was, it doesn’t help, it’s just the side effect of long term bulking (which is necessary to make your muscle gains more permanent).
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
But Prof X, what about Sandow? Didn’t he stay lean all the time, and put everyone here to shame? Who can surpass his physique today except of course by using drugs. No one, that’s who.[/quote]
For real. There are more than a handful of guys I see every day bigger and more defined than him. Maybe it is geography since I live in south FL and we have beast down here.
Going back to the genetics/steroids point, the journey is the same. Maybe you may not be able to handle as much volume, and maybe you’ll have to take more frequent rest days, and maybe you’ll have to eat more than the average person (if you have a fast metabolism), but in the end we all do the same thing:
Eat enough, rest enough, and stimulate enough to create muscle growth…
joeshumsky is always a good laugh.
What do these people get out of trolling this area?
This thread: Forums - T Nation - The World's Trusted Community for Elite Fitness
is stickied on the first thread in this forum. CT and I have never been in disagreement aside from the fact that I KNEW every newb and skinny weakling who doesn’t want to work that hard would read that “10%” statement wrong and assume this as a limit.
What is still strange is people seeing what they want to see in what CT wrote. They still ignore the “get big” part as if being small and ripped is a goal in bodybuilding.
For some reason, I don’t think Otto Arco is going to be on too many gym walls.
Ill tell you why. Because if your into your training and body etc. Nothing is ever enough. If you started at 20% bf and went down to 11 after a few years why the hell would you stop. Thats like asking Trump why he stopped making money after his first couple million.
Its a gift and a curse, its an addiction and no matter how fast or hard you chase the dragon you never truly catch it.
Wow, I must’ve been pretty busy the last couple of days to have missed this thread!-lol. Seriously, Christian summed it all up when he mentioned that bodybuilding is a matter of combining the three elements in respectable levels, and PX summed it up when he said that most newbs skip the part about building appreciable muscle in the first place. That should be it, done and done.
S
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]angus_beef wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
YES getting big is one part of bodybuilding.
YES getting shredded is one part of bodybuilding.
But real bodybuilding requires both. [/quote]
Thanks for reiterating that … It seems like when anything other than becoming “huge” is discussed the topic isn’t deemed as bodybuilding. [/quote]
Gee, that would be because guys like you ignore the “GETTING BIG” part. You claim you want to be no bigger than 190lbs at your height but you’ve got some bodybuilder with arms over 21" as your avatar.
Once again, no one is dictating goals but have the common sense to realize the difference between “gaining a little muscle” and BODYBUILDING.
How is it guys like you ignore messages like that in what CT wrote and only focus on what you want to? His post didn’t say anything that the rest of us haven’t said in this very thread.[/quote]
O professor, i’m starting to feel like the teachers pet with all this attention… My words verbatim were " i would much rather be a lean 190 than a marsh mellow 250" … Nowhere in this statement did i limit myself to 190lbs
If you would revert to my initial statement, it was in response to someone saying the generally consensus on this forum is to get big… where i was being sarcastic and i stated that being lean was obsolete … this was simply to show that BODYBUILDING is not about either or, rather it’s a combination.
Why there is talk about being huge in this thread baffles me… It’s like going into a thread about bulking and advising someone to reduce their caloric intake.
We all get it, you need to get big, no one is ignoring the getting big part but thats a discussion for another thread… Lets stay on topic professor.