[quote]csulli wrote:
Wow holy shit I cant believe George got that light a couple years back. He’s somewhere between 300 and 325 now.[/quote]
He’s assisted now, so I think that’s a big part of it. He’s also chasing the DL record and isn’t as concerned about being lean, which is perfectly fine.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Wow holy shit I cant believe George got that light a couple years back. He’s somewhere between 300 and 325 now.[/quote]
He’s assisted now, so I think that’s a big part of it. He’s also chasing the DL record and isn’t as concerned about being lean, which is perfectly fine.[/quote]
Which means that even with steroids he has gained more mass than most his age whether they use or not.
How many people are his size in the steroid forum?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I used the word starve in specific reference to a diseased state. An very specifically noted as such. I then defined the situation in reference to the training individual without that word but in very specific terms. why would you insist on arguing about a diseased state while ignoring my application to training people?[/quote]
Then what significance does this have to the discussion if you are speaking of someone in a diseased state?
If eating more will NOT cause this to happen in a healthy individual, what was your point?[/quote]
Funny the next few sentences in that same post I specifically explained the connection. [/quote]
You wrote this:
Please explain what this even means.[/quote]
Right after you explain why you troll.[/quote]
If trolling is asking you to clarify a questionable statement, then so be it.
You seem unable to answer the question.
You brought up disease to refer to a healthy weight trainer. Trolling is doing that and making no explanation as to why.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
He’s also chasing the DL record and isn’t as concerned about being lean, which is perfectly fine.[/quote]
This is a great sentence.
Abstracted slightly:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Well, he has talked about being ashamed of his body, getting obese, not doing that ever again, and not recommending that anyone else do it due to the large toll it takes mentally and physically.[/quote]
He got to 400 fucking pounds. I would hope he won’t do that again.
I don’t plan on being 300lbs again…but to say it did nothing to help gain muscle mass is way off.[/quote]
Really? where did I say something about muscle gain? It’s like you don’t even read anything.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
He’s also chasing the DL record and isn’t as concerned about being lean, which is perfectly fine.[/quote]
This is a great sentence.
Abstracted slightly:
[quote]
He’s also chasing and isn’t as concerned about being lean, which is perfectly fine.
[/quote][/quote]
BINGO.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Well, he has talked about being ashamed of his body, getting obese, not doing that ever again, and not recommending that anyone else do it due to the large toll it takes mentally and physically.[/quote]
He got to 400 fucking pounds. I would hope he won’t do that again.
I don’t plan on being 300lbs again…but to say it did nothing to help gain muscle mass is way off.[/quote]
Really? where did I say something about muscle gain? It’s like you don’t even read anything.[/quote]
That point was referring to heavytriple’s responses, not your own.
Please explain the “muscle wasting” issue you brought up before.
@Prof X:
Took me a while but i found some cool stuff you may be interested in:
Strength training will increase the blood volume in tendons which would reduce recovery time.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/106/2/412.abstract
Age WILL increase recovery time by reducing blood flow to tendons.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jor.1100120214/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
So while exercise will increase the integrity and blood flow of a muscle tendon ultimately it WILL take longer to recover from any tendon injury as age increases.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Well, he has talked about being ashamed of his body, getting obese, not doing that ever again, and not recommending that anyone else do it due to the large toll it takes mentally and physically.[/quote]
He got to 400 fucking pounds. I would hope he won’t do that again.
I don’t plan on being 300lbs again…but to say it did nothing to help gain muscle mass is way off.[/quote]
Really? where did I say something about muscle gain? It’s like you don’t even read anything.[/quote]
That point was referring to heavytriple’s responses, not your own.
Please explain the “muscle wasting” issue you brought up before.[/quote]
OMG fantastic. You actually put quote marks around a phrase I never said. Bad troll. In consideration of the post yours was in the response to, that’s pretty damn funny.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Wait a second everybody hold on. Since when has George Leeman been fucking 230??? He is way heavier than that.[/quote]
Excuse me, 235.
[/quote]
The only fact that anyone has regarding Leeman is that he worked his weight WAAY up (fat and all), then worked down to 235.
That’s what he did.
No one can say if he would have hit those same strength and ‘size at 235’ numbers if he only worked up.
As entertaining as the discussion is, that fact remains.
He was never stuck at 400. It was a moment in time. A means to an end.
Place Leeman in the column of “Got really big (fat and all), then worked down”. He’s certainly not alone in that column, whether that’s the ‘right way’ or the ‘best way’ or the ‘wrong way’, it’s just what he and many have done.[/quote]
But there have also been people that are big and lean and strong as fuck that didn’t go on extreme bulks and looked like absolute shit for long periods of time. People on this forum such as H4M, King Beef, Stu. So the fact remains, some people have worked *up and some worked down. Difference being the ones that worked up didn’t spend long periods of time looking like shit.
Leeman could be where he is now without geting to 400 pounds. That is asinine for anyone with physique goals. Huge credit to him for cutting down and looking awesome now, but I highly doubt being 400 fat pounds is the main reason for that.
[quote]setto222 wrote:
@Prof X:
Took me a while but i found some cool stuff you may be interested in:
Strength training will increase the blood volume in tendons which would reduce recovery time.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/106/2/412.abstract
Age WILL increase recovery time by reducing blood flow to tendons.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jor.1100120214/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
So while exercise will increase the integrity and blood flow of a muscle tendon ultimately it WILL take longer to recover from any tendon injury as age increases. [/quote]
Thanks setto. You didn’t have to do that but it is appreciated.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
He’s also chasing the DL record and isn’t as concerned about being lean, which is perfectly fine.[/quote]
This is a great sentence.
Abstracted slightly:
[quote]
He’s also chasing and isn’t as concerned about being lean, which is perfectly fine.
[/quote][/quote]
Agreed
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Wait a second everybody hold on. Since when has George Leeman been fucking 230??? He is way heavier than that.[/quote]
Excuse me, 235.
[/quote]
The only fact that anyone has regarding Leeman is that he worked his weight WAAY up (fat and all), then worked down to 235.
That’s what he did.
No one can say if he would have hit those same strength and ‘size at 235’ numbers if he only worked up.
As entertaining as the discussion is, that fact remains.
He was never stuck at 400. It was a moment in time. A means to an end.
Place Leeman in the column of “Got really big (fat and all), then worked down”. He’s certainly not alone in that column, whether that’s the ‘right way’ or the ‘best way’ or the ‘wrong way’, it’s just what he and many have done.[/quote]
But there have also been people that are big and lean and strong as fuck that didn’t go on extreme bulks and looked like absolute shit for long periods of time. People on this forum such as H4M, King Beef, Stu. So the fact remains, some people have worked *up and some worked down. Difference being the ones that worked up didn’t spend long periods of time looking like shit.
Leeman could be where he is now without geting to 400 pounds. That is asinine for anyone with physique goals. Huge credit to him for cutting down and looking awesome now, but I highly doubt being 400 fat pounds is the main reason for that. [/quote]
You are focusing on 400LBS". No one here thinks he NEEDED to be 400lbs to reach his goal.
We are focusing on the “he bulked up” aspect and how in the end, how did that hold him back?
Oh…it doesn’t seem to have at all. If anything, it would seem the opposite is the case.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Well, he has talked about being ashamed of his body, getting obese, not doing that ever again, and not recommending that anyone else do it due to the large toll it takes mentally and physically.[/quote]
He got to 400 fucking pounds. I would hope he won’t do that again.
I don’t plan on being 300lbs again…but to say it did nothing to help gain muscle mass is way off.[/quote]
Really? where did I say something about muscle gain? It’s like you don’t even read anything.[/quote]
That point was referring to heavytriple’s responses, not your own.
Please explain the “muscle wasting” issue you brought up before.[/quote]
OMG fantastic. You actually put quote marks around a phrase I never said. Bad troll. In consideration of the post yours was in the response to, that’s pretty damn funny.[/quote]
You are not good at this.
If you really think this game of semantics is making you appear witty, you live alone with that.
[quote]
. I then defined the situation in reference to the training individual without that word but in very specific terms. why would you insist on arguing about a diseased state while ignoring my application to training people?.[/quote]
How does a training individual cause less nutrients to hit lean body mass in a caloric surplus like you said?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
He’s also chasing the DL record and isn’t as concerned about being lean, which is perfectly fine.[/quote]
This is a great sentence.
Abstracted slightly:
[quote]
He’s also chasing and isn’t as concerned about being lean, which is perfectly fine.
[/quote][/quote]
I have never argued to the contrary. What is being argued over and over again here is the notion that an end-goal of big/lean requires a big bulk. I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think it gets you there any quicker than being conscious of macros and staying a little leaner. I think everyone is in agreement that fat gain will happen, but the argument is always about how much is necessary and to what extent it helps.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
What is being argued over and over again here is the notion that an end-goal of big/lean requires a big bulk. [/quote]
No one said that. It was said that people who focus on JUST GAINING for a few years will make more progress than someone constantly dieting to hold onto abs.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Wait a second everybody hold on. Since when has George Leeman been fucking 230??? He is way heavier than that.[/quote]
Excuse me, 235.
[/quote]
The only fact that anyone has regarding Leeman is that he worked his weight WAAY up (fat and all), then worked down to 235.
That’s what he did.
No one can say if he would have hit those same strength and ‘size at 235’ numbers if he only worked up.
As entertaining as the discussion is, that fact remains.
He was never stuck at 400. It was a moment in time. A means to an end.
Place Leeman in the column of “Got really big (fat and all), then worked down”. He’s certainly not alone in that column, whether that’s the ‘right way’ or the ‘best way’ or the ‘wrong way’, it’s just what he and many have done.[/quote]
But there have also been people that are big and lean and strong as fuck that didn’t go on extreme bulks and looked like absolute shit for long periods of time. People on this forum such as H4M, King Beef, Stu. So the fact remains, some people have worked *up and some worked down. Difference being the ones that worked up didn’t spend long periods of time looking like shit.
Leeman could be where he is now without geting to 400 pounds. That is asinine for anyone with physique goals. Huge credit to him for cutting down and looking awesome now, but I highly doubt being 400 fat pounds is the main reason for that. [/quote]
You are focusing on 400LBS". No one here thinks he NEEDED to be 400lbs to reach his goal.
We are focusing on the “he bulked up” aspect and how in the end, how did that hold him back?
Oh…it doesn’t seem to have at all. If anything, it would seem the opposite is the case.[/quote]
He was unquestionably OBESE in every sense of the word. We all agree for the most part in reasonable bulks. Some think 15%bf at the highest others 18%+. Whatever. But to use someone who got OBESE to reach their end goal of big and lean as an example is asinine. Even if Leeman looks awesome now it does not justify getting OBESE. PROVE that getting OBESE helped him get where he is now.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No one said that. It was said that people who focus on JUST GAINING for a few years will make more progress than someone constantly dieting to hold onto abs.
[/quote]
I have a hard time seeing how anyone could possibly refute that statement.
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No one said that. It was said that people who focus on JUST GAINING for a few years will make more progress than someone constantly dieting to hold onto abs.
[/quote]
I have a hard time seeing how anyone could possibly refute that statement. [/quote]
I don’t think you could, But I don’t think anyone has made it either.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
He was unquestionably OBESE in every sense of the word. We all agree for the most part in reasonable bulks. Some think 15%bf at the highest others 18%+. Whatever. But to use someone who got OBESE to reach their end goal of big and lean as an example is asinine. Even if Leeman looks awesome now it does not justify getting OBESE. PROVE that getting OBESE helped him get where he is now.
[/quote]
Dude, no one is telling people to get obese…but I want you to do something for a second.
Look at his AGE and look at HIS RESULTS.
He got fat and lost it all and is now way bigger/stronger than most which was his goal.
If you see a downside, let me know.
Would someone over 30 see the same? Probably not without some health issues.