whatever. what this thread needs is larrydavid to post so we can stare at his avatar.
[quote]setto222 wrote:
Sure a lot of people got huge by bulking up and carry around weight but barber’s also used to be surgeons, we all thought eggs were bad for you and Cher used to have a daughter. Things change and mindsets change.
People used to think that having visible abs and putting on slabs of muscle we like two peddles on a bicycle: they both can’t be up at the same time, they are conflicting and opposing. This just ins’t the case anymore so why not walk around year-round in the new age conforming to the new definition of fitness.
[/quote]
I’m not going into my position on the subject, people know where I stand. I do want to point out that the concept of making perpetual gains while in lean condition is nothing new. I started training in 1986 and the idea was used to sell supplements and workout routines just as enthusiastically then as it is today…about as effective too.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Discrediting? Yes. Rude? No. Maybe passive aggressive, but considering the other poster noticed the same thing, you don’t think that maybe it can be seen that way? [/quote]
Discredit? Nope, I acknowledge when people have built impressive amounts of size. You get the tip of the hat from me as well as many others on here (that’s how it’s done right? I pay you a compliment and you give me the ‘good post’ reply?)
Actually, the other poster (Marshaldteach) understood what I said, when I explained why I referenced the particular accomplishments that I did for specific people. He apologized, we chuckled, and I have no issue with him.
my god that was well written
anyone with an ounce of humility would not be getting into these numerous petty arguments which ive read over the years.
Why you wouldnt want to walk around like a shredded mate sub 10% is beyond me
[quote]csulli wrote:
Then in this thread I asked specifically what the disagreement was about, and Maiden said “read insulin sensitivity”. So I did. And then I made a big, science-y post about it trying to argue IN FAVOR of what Professor X had been saying that everyone apparently vehemently disagreed with, and literally no shits were given. Everyone just continued to shitstorm with the Prof.
So I guess the conclusion is that people simply desire to argue with X and the actual subject matter of the discussion is of little or no importance.[/quote]
To be fair about this, the only two people I recall discussing the biochemistry you presented were myself and stronghold. So, I apologize if my response to your efforts came off as dismissive. While I certainly didn’t intend it to be at the time, I can now see from looking at X’s 10:00am jab at my failure to elaborate in response to your 12:30am reply which quoted my initial comment made at 8:00pm the night before might have made it seem like I was just in it for the shitstorm rather than simply being the byproduct of my life as a mid-20’s graduate student shafted with [insert violin solo here].
I’m not saying other people don’t have it worse (I have time to post here, don’t I?); I’m just saying my Friday nights decompressions are important to me. And that I sometimes forget things because I have a lot going on this semester and, tbh, the original discussion really wasn’t all that stimulating.
So… I apologize for that, and I apologize with a cherry on top if the amount of detail and effort I made into making those original posts wasn’t sufficient to convince you that I actually DO find the subject matter to be of some importance.
That aside, if you’d be willing to link to the studies that formed your interpretation of the material as outlined in your post, I’d love to have a look. However, I just spent the past two days writing a long-ass paper on gastrointestinal dysbiosis and disease, am starting/completing one tonight on the pathogenesis of HIV-associated lipodystrophy and will be tested tomorrow evening in some gay class with a fancy pants name, so I might not be able to reply within the ~12 window allotted to people seeking serious discussion. But, rest assured, I’d be happy to spitball the issue with you.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
You’re doing it wrong.
Start treating everyone who disagrees with you like they are an idiot and pretend you are an all-knowing authority who has never been wrong. Then see what the response is.[/quote]
Don’t you tell me what I’m doing right or wrong you dumb sonofabitch. Listen I finished all my chemistry labs in record time when I was in high school so I think I know wtf I’m talking about here.[/quote]
Best Post[/quote]
Dressed Roast
[/quote]
Blessed Toast
[quote]setto222 wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
My bad, then. You’re seeming agreement with the statement that building lots of muscle takes second place to “abs alone” set the tone of the rest of your post for me.
In no way has any body said sacrifice muscle growth for abs. It’s precisely this kind of twisting that sets things off. No one has ever said it. I assumed wrongly you were in agreement with that sentiment.
Again, sorry for mis-reading.[/quote]
The sentiment I wanted to express was that it seems like X has the mindset that what he does defines fitness. It’s like talking to an extremist. Sure a lot of people got huge by bulking up and carry around weight but barber’s also used to be surgeons, we all thought eggs were bad for you and Cher used to have a daughter. Things change and mindsets change.
People used to think that having visible abs and putting on slabs of muscle we like two peddles on a bicycle: they both can’t be up at the same time, they are conflicting and opposing. This just ins’t the case anymore so why not walk around year-round in the new age conforming to the new definition of fitness.
NB: I had wine for lunch at work. One of those days. [/quote]
Great post. I laughed at the Cher part 
Seriously though, well said.
This contentious controversy surpasses that of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Who is who in this dismally disastrous dispute.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Then in this thread I asked specifically what the disagreement was about, and Maiden said “read insulin sensitivity”. So I did. And then I made a big, science-y post about it trying to argue IN FAVOR of what Professor X had been saying that everyone apparently vehemently disagreed with, and literally no shits were given. Everyone just continued to shitstorm with the Prof.
So I guess the conclusion is that people simply desire to argue with X and the actual subject matter of the discussion is of little or no importance.[/quote]
To be fair about this, the only two people I recall discussing the biochemistry you presented were myself and stronghold. So, I apologize if my response to your efforts came off as dismissive. While I certainly didn’t intend it to be at the time, I can now see from looking at X’s 10:00am jab at my failure to elaborate in response to your 12:30am reply which quoted my initial comment made at 8:00pm the night before might have made it seem like I was just in it for the shitstorm rather than simply being the byproduct of my life as a mid-20’s graduate student shafted with [insert violin solo here].
I’m not saying other people don’t have it worse (I have time to post here, don’t I?); I’m just saying my Friday nights decompressions are important to me. And that I sometimes forget things because I have a lot going on this semester and, tbh, the original discussion really wasn’t all that stimulating.
So… I apologize for that, and I apologize with a cherry on top if the amount of detail and effort I made into making those original posts wasn’t sufficient to convince you that I actually DO find the subject matter to be of some importance.
That aside, if you’d be willing to link to the studies that formed your interpretation of the material as outlined in your post, I’d love to have a look. However, I just spent the past two days writing a long-ass paper on gastrointestinal dysbiosis and disease, am starting/completing one tonight on the pathogenesis of HIV-associated lipodystrophy and will be tested tomorrow evening in some gay class with a fancy pants name, so I might not be able to reply within the ~12 window allotted to people seeking serious discussion. But, rest assured, I’d be happy to spitball the issue with you.[/quote]
What a guy! How polite. No apology necessary friend. I actually don’t give a shit about insulin sensitivity either… I was just sort of testing the waters to see if that was actually something people were arguing with X about, or if there was anything at all they were actually arguing about in particular related to training. I guess you are in the minority lol!
Good luck on your diarrhea and AIDS test pal or whatever it is!
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
even though i tend to agree with not worrying about your hawt abdz so much when you are trying to get bigger and stronger, especially if you are a “skinnier” bodytype,
i feel that some people will end up looking like me when i was a young guy than the “full house” look X is talking about if they eat to excess like I did.
i seriously doubt most people here would want that. [/quote]
Hmm…
Would I get your strength levels as well? Because if so I would make that deal in a heartbeat. Magically 260 and way stronger. All I’d have to do is diet down hardcore; pretty sure I’d still be a lot stronger afterwards.
Do you need to bulk up to gain LBM naturally? No.
Is it the most effective courses of action? Absolutely.
We’re I to take a young lifter under my wing, I would have him bulk up for 5 good years, from say 20-25.
Not “abs be damned” or anything, just focusing on adding weight to the bar and pounds to the scale.
If fat gain became an issue, calories would be carefully adjusted – no 12 or 16 week “cuts.”
After age 30 though, staying leaner is simply a better course of action. So get your bulking days in while you can!
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
Do you need to bulk up to gain LBM naturally? No.
Is it the most effective courses of action? Absolutely.
We’re I to take a young lifter under my wing, I would have him bulk up for 5 good years, from say 20-25.
Not “abs be damned” or anything, just focusing on adding weight to the bar and pounds to the scale.
If fat gain became an issue, calories would be carefully adjusted – no 12 or 16 week “cuts.”
After age 30 though, staying leaner is simply a better course of action. So get your bulking days in while you can![/quote]
Bryan -
This is very close to the approach I’ve taken in my mid/late 30’s just crossing over into 40’s over the past 5 years.
I agree that in the 30’s the rules change a bit, but it has worked for me within the comfort zone of my physique. Not quite ‘abs be damned’ but not quite not ‘abs be damned’ – OK, maybe abs be damned…
I think that the older crowd, before they go on a size gaining endeavor, really needs to be honest with themselves about how they hold fat and how strong they are mentally to see it through.
Any 30s / Over 35 guys with the more size oriented goals (and maybe strength to some extent) should get annual bloodwork done to get an understanding of cholesterol and hormonal profiles.
I’ve made some progress (I think) in spite of not having an optimal hormonal profile for growth and strength. It actually drives me to work harder and not take anything for granted.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
Do you need to bulk up to gain LBM naturally? No.
Is it the most effective courses of action? Absolutely.
We’re I to take a young lifter under my wing, I would have him bulk up for 5 good years, from say 20-25.
Not “abs be damned” or anything, just focusing on adding weight to the bar and pounds to the scale.
If fat gain became an issue, calories would be carefully adjusted – no 12 or 16 week “cuts.”
After age 30 though, staying leaner is simply a better course of action. So get your bulking days in while you can![/quote]
Bryan -
This is very close to the approach I’ve taken in my mid/late 30’s just crossing over into 40’s over the past 5 years.
I agree that in the 30’s the rules change a bit, but it has worked for me within the comfort zone of my physique. Not quite ‘abs be damned’ but not quite not ‘abs be damned’
I that that the older crowd, before they go on a size gaining endeavor really needs to be honest with themselves about how they hold fat and how strong they are mentally to see it through.
Any 30s / Over 35 guys with the more size goal (and maybe strength to some extent) should get annual bloodwork done to get an understanding of cholesterol and hormonal profiles.
I’ve made some progress (I think) in spite of not having an optimal hormonal profile for growth and strength. It actually drives me to work harder and not take anything for granted.
[/quote]
I agree. Bulking at 40-plus with sub-par T, thyroid, and lipids is a recipe for disaster.
If those things are dialed in though, it can certainly be done. I know I won’t stop putting on a little “winter weight” any time soon!
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Guess no one actually gave a shit about insulin sensitivity…[/quote]
I enjoyed the actual conversation about it. Seems others wanted to discuss it but we were told we couldn’t because we couldn’t “prove” anything. Not sure why we can’t discuss something we can’t “prove”.
Apparently discussing something that people experience while getting “Leaner” in a forum with that word in it, offends people who may, or may not, be carrying even a little extra. Otherwise, it might be taken as a personal slight.[/quote]
Well yea that’s an interesting point. I’ve been kind of trying to conduct little experiments on this board to better understand the dynamic between Professor X and shitstorms.
There was the last thread where I think I kinda said the exact things X wanted to say, but in my own words, and no one disagreed with me.
Then in this thread I asked specifically what the disagreement was about, and Maiden said “read insulin sensitivity”. So I did. And then I made a big, science-y post about it trying to argue IN FAVOR of what Professor X had been saying that everyone apparently vehemently disagreed with, and literally no shits were given. Everyone just continued to shitstorm with the Prof.
So I guess the conclusion is that people simply desire to argue with X and the actual subject matter of the discussion is of little or no importance.[/quote]
YEP.
[quote]setto222 wrote:
The sentiment I wanted to express was that it seems like X has the mindset that what he does defines fitness.[/quote]
What gives you this idea? Fitness is a broad concept that usually involves trying to meet some level of “health”. That is NOT what bodybuilding is about at its core. No one cares how “healthy” the current Mr. Olympia is.
[quote]
It’s like talking to an extremist. Sure a lot of people got huge by bulking up and carry around weight but barber’s also used to be surgeons, we all thought eggs were bad for you and Cher used to have a daughter. Things change and mindsets change. [/quote]
Extremist? I don’t understand where you are even getting this from. Care to quote the exact post from me as written that shows this?
[quote]
People used to think that having visible abs and putting on slabs of muscle we like two peddles on a bicycle: they both can’t be up at the same time, they are conflicting and opposing. This just ins’t the case anymore so why not walk around year-round in the new age conforming to the new definition of fitness.
NB: I had wine for lunch at work. One of those days. [/quote]
Actually, I do not think that you can’t gain and keep abs. I have never written that or anything like it. Maybe you should quote exactly what I write instead of making it up as you go…
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]setto222 wrote:
Sure a lot of people got huge by bulking up and carry around weight but barber’s also used to be surgeons, we all thought eggs were bad for you and Cher used to have a daughter. Things change and mindsets change.
People used to think that having visible abs and putting on slabs of muscle we like two peddles on a bicycle: they both can’t be up at the same time, they are conflicting and opposing. This just ins’t the case anymore so why not walk around year-round in the new age conforming to the new definition of fitness.
[/quote]
I’m not going into my position on the subject, people know where I stand. I do want to point out that the concept of making perpetual gains while in lean condition is nothing new. I started training in 1986 and the idea was used to sell supplements and workout routines just as enthusiastically then as it is today…about as effective too. [/quote]
Yep.
[quote]Widowmakr1 wrote:
Why you wouldnt want to walk around like a shredded mate sub 10% is beyond me[/quote]
Not the point. What if someone’s goal is to be one of the most muscular. What if that means not looking ideal for a while due to his own genetics?
Can you respond to this?
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
Do you need to bulk up to gain LBM naturally? No.
Is it the most effective courses of action? Absolutely.
We’re I to take a young lifter under my wing, I would have him bulk up for 5 good years, from say 20-25.
Not “abs be damned” or anything, just focusing on adding weight to the bar and pounds to the scale.
If fat gain became an issue, calories would be carefully adjusted – no 12 or 16 week “cuts.”
After age 30 though, staying leaner is simply a better course of action. So get your bulking days in while you can![/quote]
THANK YOU. I have said the same thing for ten years here. Somehow they act like this is fantasy.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Discrediting? Yes. Rude? No. Maybe passive aggressive, but considering the other poster noticed the same thing, you don’t think that maybe it can be seen that way? [/quote]
Discredit? Nope, I acknowledge when people have built impressive amounts of size. You get the tip of the hat from me as well as many others on here (that’s how it’s done right? I pay you a compliment and you give me the ‘good post’ reply?)
Actually, the other poster (Marshaldteach) understood what I said, when I explained why I referenced the particular accomplishments that I did for specific people. He apologized, we chuckled, and I have no issue with him.
This was a good post. I didn’t see a response to it.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
This is very close to the approach I’ve taken in my mid/late 30’s just crossing over into 40’s over the past 5 years.
[/quote]
…and it worked.