The Body Weight Factor 2

Training
161

[quote]Professor X wrote:

? We are talking about getting huge.
[/quote]

You know, you say this A LOT. This is not ALL we are or have been talking about. Quite framing the subject to fit your arguments. And it’s certainly not ALL this new sub forum is about. But you certainly will fuck up a thread discussing an aspect of getting and staying lean because your ego can’t handle that you’re not there already.

LOL at:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait, stop. I have NOT been “arguing the full house look”. I even wrote that I am working on getting leaner right now.[/quote]

You yourself have admitted numerous times you PREFER the full house look. Yet now you claim you never argued for it and are “leaning out right now”. Priceless.

Since you hit this thread again there have been several of your replies to serious posts that just scream arguing for it’s own sake.

-"I also wrote recently I ride my bicycle more…so what are you talking about here? ". That was some lame ass shit right there.

If there was ever any evidence that you’re the cause of this shit, it’s junk like what you wrote right there.

162

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:

I’m not saying this at all. My argument is that it isn’t black and white and there isn’t a wrong way to do it. I am saying that there isn’t even necessarily a best way to do it.

[/quote]

? We are talking about getting huge. There is pretty much one way to do it…make sure you are feeding your body enough to grow when it is ready to grow and have the genetics to get huge.

[quote]
I don’t take issue with it. It’s a lifestyle that you said you prefer. How can I take issue with something as subjective at that? You said you weren’t in favor of full house and I pointed out a thread that you were. [/quote]

In favor? Dude, you saw a discussion where some of us admitted that we wouldn’t mind looking like that. That isn’t defending anything but my own preference.

[quote]

Nope. Don’t disagree with it because it is a matter of opinion.[/quote]

But…it isn’t. It is not just matter of opinion that to gain a lot of muscle some fat may come with it. It is how it works.

[quote]
I am nowhere near as developped muscularly as you are. No where. But what does that have to do with it? [/quote]

Quite a bit because if you have never done what it takes to get really big, how would you know what it takes?

Having thought about it, I can honestly say I think its next to frikkin IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to build “significant” muscle mass without gaining some fat. Unless steroids and other drugs are used. Then the whole ball game changes completely. It still doesn’t mean that its the optimal way to do it, but its possible. For every natural lifter out there, they are faced with the harsh reality that genetics are going to limit them far more severely than if they took the plunge. Unfortunately, overeating is no guarantee of muscle gain. You might just get fat. Just because overeating doesn’t work for everyone, doesn’t mean it isn’t the best way for those whose GENETICS allow them to make progress that way. If you are one of those people that get fat and gain NO muscle, then you are likely going be to trying to make “lean gains” for the best part of one to two decades if you really want to push the envelope.

As far as genetics and drugs go, I think there’s absolutely no difference in terms of peoples potential when every weapon in the chemical arsenal is put into play. Yes there are differences in peoples response, but to be honest if you dose high enough ANYONE can get freaking huge. Now whether you look pretty on stage is another issue ENTIRELY, but in sheer size terms, anyone’s game.

The only question then is can you handle the side effects and are you prepared to take all the risks?

163

[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.

Bump

164

LOL at: If you aren’t as big as me, you don’t know shit. Paraphrased of course-in b4 “I never said that”.

165

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

Having thought about it, I can honestly say I think its next to frikkin IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to build “significant” muscle mass without gaining some fat.
[/quote]

As X would say, show me where anybody has said this. Glad you’re buying into the reframing of the argument.

166

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

Having thought about it, I can honestly say I think its next to frikkin IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to build “significant” muscle mass without gaining some fat. [/quote]

Agreed…but as you can see, you will not be tackled for this statement like I would be.

…and even with that, if they don’t have the genes to even get that big, then they won’t see more muscle from pushing that envelope like someone with the genetics.

That is why I posted that thread about “it chooses you”. This is exactly what I was getting at.

Basically this. Good post.

167

[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]
For some reason I got a flashback of CYBERGENICS after reading this.

168

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[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]
For some reason I got a flashback of CYBERGENICS after reading this. [/quote]

Great ad campaign…use a few shots of NPC level competitors in the off season with belly sticking out right next to “after” pic pre-contest prep…and then ad a few shots of some normal people and say it was all due to these “vitamins”…which is about all that shit was.

I will say this…they gave me my first “program” I actually used in the gym and they made me focus on eating more…so I grew.

169

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[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]
For some reason I got a flashback of CYBERGENICS after reading this. [/quote]
Wow yea flashback.

170

[quote]Professor X 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]

I also really need to ask how this guy can write the EXACT SAME THING I have written for years here…and no one has a problem with it?

So…this means people only have a problem with concepts that could help them because they would rather argue with me instead?

I personally hope there are more people who understand what can actually help them reach a goal…instead of basing what they argue on how someone fits into their personal popularity contest.[/quote]

Krahn wrote:

Not “abs be damned” or anything, just focusing on adding weight to the bar and pounds to the scale.

Big difference.

171

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X 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]

I also really need to ask how this guy can write the EXACT SAME THING I have written for years here…and no one has a problem with it?

So…this means people only have a problem with concepts that could help them because they would rather argue with me instead?

I personally hope there are more people who understand what can actually help them reach a goal…instead of basing what they argue on how someone fits into their personal popularity contest.[/quote]

Krahn wrote:

Not “abs be damned” or anything, just focusing on adding weight to the bar and pounds to the scale.

Big difference.[/quote]

Actually, no…since I have never written “ignore fat gains” or anything like that. He is saying the exact same thing I am.

172

[quote]Professor X 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]

I also really need to ask how this guy can write the EXACT SAME THING I have written for years here…and no one has a problem with it?

So…this means people only have a problem with concepts that could help them because they would rather argue with me instead?

I personally hope there are more people who understand what can actually help them reach a goal…instead of basing what they argue on how someone fits into their personal popularity contest.[/quote]

This is how you would have written it:

Do you need to bulk up to gain LBM naturally? YES!

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 25 good years, from say 20-45.

“Abs be damned”, just focusing on adding weight to the bar and pounds to the scale.

If fat gain became an issue, screw it.

After age 55 though, staying leaner is OK. But get your bulking days in while you can!

P.S. I’m a doctor.

And a biologist.

And a geneticist.

P.P.S. I’m bigger than most.

173

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
This is how you would have written it:

Do you need to bulk up to gain LBM naturally? YES!

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 25 good years, from say 20-45.

“Abs be damned”, just focusing on adding weight to the bar and pounds to the scale.

If fat gain became an issue, screw it.

After age 55 though, staying leaner is OK. But get your bulking days in while you can!

P.S. I’m a doctor.

And a biologist.

And a geneticist.

P.P.S. I’m bigger than most.
[/quote]

*adding weight to the Hammer Strength machine

174

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X 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]

I also really need to ask how this guy can write the EXACT SAME THING I have written for years here…and no one has a problem with it?

So…this means people only have a problem with concepts that could help them because they would rather argue with me instead?

I personally hope there are more people who understand what can actually help them reach a goal…instead of basing what they argue on how someone fits into their personal popularity contest.[/quote]

This is how you would have written it:

Do you need to bulk up to gain LBM naturally? YES!

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 25 good years, from say 20-45.

“Abs be damned”, just focusing on adding weight to the bar and pounds to the scale.

If fat gain became an issue, screw it.

After age 55 though, staying leaner is OK. But get your bulking days in while you can!

P.S. I’m a doctor.

And a biologist.

And a geneticist.

P.P.S. I’m bigger than most.
[/quote]

Best Postscript

175

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X 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]

I also really need to ask how this guy can write the EXACT SAME THING I have written for years here…and no one has a problem with it?

So…this means people only have a problem with concepts that could help them because they would rather argue with me instead?

I personally hope there are more people who understand what can actually help them reach a goal…instead of basing what they argue on how someone fits into their personal popularity contest.[/quote]

Krahn wrote:

Not “abs be damned” or anything, just focusing on adding weight to the bar and pounds to the scale.

Big difference.[/quote]

Actually, no…since I have never written “ignore fat gains” or anything like that. He is saying the exact same thing I am.

[/quote]

You don’t have visible abs. You advocate gaining weight like you did, and you’re, by your own words, leaner now than you were then. While arguably not “abs be damned”, it’s at least “who cares about abs” since you haven’t had yours visible in who knows how long.

176

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:
Because you don’t need first hand experience in order to understand physiology. We get it X. You’re big. Well done. [/quote]

This isn’t about “physiology” alone. This is about how you cause your body to gain the most muscle possible.[/quote]

…that’s physiology. Good thing every exercise scientist and exercise physiologist is “HUGE” because otherwise they wouldn’t have any idea what they are talking about. Using size as an argument is weak and you and I both know that isn’t how science works.

I do respect wisdom, and I do respect experience but they are no excuse for a closed mind. Before you respond with another “??? _____ ______” I don’t want to find some quote where you have been close minded because they probably don’t exist on a stand-alone basis. What you can observe from this thread and a few others is that there is no give-and-take when it comes to arguing with you.

Wanna see something cool? Watch me actually agree with one aspect of your argument and not just be totally polarized with my opinion:

-I 100% agree with you that adding a bit of fat while adding muscle is a very productive and somewhat simpler/fool proof way to add strength and size to a subject.
-I agree that if gaining all-out size is the main goal of a subject who doesn’t have interest in current trends in fitness or body-image then adding a bit of fat in a health controlled manner is not only acceptable but recommended.

177

[quote]setto222 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[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]

Bump.[/quote]

Pumps in a Bump

BTW, what you see Hammer wearing is my exact gym outfit every day.

178

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

Pumps in a Bump

BTW, what you see Hammer wearing is my exact gym outfit every day.[/quote]

Err DAY?!

179

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

…

[/quote]

Best Postscript[/quote]

Best Post Cereal

180

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

…

[/quote]

Best Postscript[/quote]

Best Post Cereal[/quote]