The Body Weight Factor

Training
701

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nobody has a problem with Stu, because Stu never claimed something that is borderline impossible was easily achievable.

And because Stu is cordial and acomplished probably has something to do with it.[/quote]

But aren’t Stu’s accomplishments fraudulent - he is competing in natural BB and he is not natural?

the double standards seem a bit much.

[/quote]

Ummmm what double standard?

X used himself as an example of the 80lb lean gain…and prohormones were brought up.

Stu simply agreed that he thought a 80lb muscle gain on a natty would be impossible.

Nobody was comparing the two, why are you?

Just because you agree with him, does not mean you can twist things to make you sound right.

702

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Apparently CT didn’t know what he was looking at?
[/quote]

After he was questioned about it CT later admitted that you could have been over 22% BF. He never even saw you with your shirt off.[/quote]

Still waiting for a response to this.

703

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

That’s because you have been here less than a year. You have not witnessed what we have. It may blow your mind to know that many of “haterz crew” used to be friendly with or even defend PX. His condescending posts and inability to have a civil debate with those who have opposing views isn’t being tolerated anymore. In his mind though, he’s never done anything to deserve this treatment. [/quote]

Uhm…if he has been here for a whole year, you are saying that is NOT enough time to see how someone posts?

My posts are still here. I even posted that thread about my training that was started back in 2005. Uhm, if that isn’t enough to see how I post, what is?

Most of the “didn’t you say this” stuff is completely wrong.

If you are doing this because of something written several years ago, please post it so we can get that out in the open.

I really want to see the exact thread that causes such emotional trauma.

704

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nobody has a problem with Stu, because Stu never claimed something that is borderline impossible was easily achievable.

And because Stu is cordial and acomplished probably has something to do with it.[/quote]

But aren’t Stu’s accomplishments fraudulent - he is competing in natural BB and he is not natural?

the double standards seem a bit much.

[/quote]

Stu competes in a federation (s?) which is titled natural with guidelines and rules in place to reach in order for competitors to fall in and be classified as whatever they define “natural” as.

My definition of natural may be completely different to yours but that does not nullify the fact he is competing in a competition labeled natural and competes well within the guidelines.

[/quote]

But, he used pro hormones just like I did and around the same time period I did so why isn’t his "natural status questioned in these discussions?

705

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

vascularity does not mean as much as you think. look at the most recent pic i posted, i have vascularity in my upper and lower arms, shoulders, traps, neck, lats, thighs, calves. is still have “love handles” and man boobs.

better question, based on the pic i posted earlier this thread, what do you think MY bf % is.

i bet i am over 20% at least, but i am still pretty vascular.
[/quote]

I missed the pic and am about to leave. I will play the guessing game later. I already know that vascularity alone is not an indication of body fat…but I know I don’t see veins like the one on my left shoulder when I am fatter or the ones down my arms.
[/quote]

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/hub/heavythrower#myForums/thread/5574271/14

706

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nobody has a problem with Stu, because Stu never claimed something that is borderline impossible was easily achievable.

And because Stu is cordial and acomplished probably has something to do with it.[/quote]

But aren’t Stu’s accomplishments fraudulent - he is competing in natural BB and he is not natural?

the double standards seem a bit much.

[/quote]

Stu adheres to all of the rules in the federation he competes in. I think 7 years is the length of time one must not use.

That being said, X bringing Stu into the conversation is really nothing more than a distraction technique and you’re stupid enough to let it work.

Stu’s status as a natural has nothing to do with whether or not it’s possible to gain 80 pounds of muscle naturally, Stu is not claiming to have achieved that.

Stu never uses himself as an example of what is possible as a lifetime natural trainer…so again, X bringing Stu into the discussion is really nothing more than a distraction technique.

If you’re wondering why Stu and X don’t share the same level of respect, maybe you should look towards the posting styles of each member. But that’s not what this thread is about, so I’m not sure what double standard you referring to.

707

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

vascularity does not mean as much as you think. look at the most recent pic i posted, i have vascularity in my upper and lower arms, shoulders, traps, neck, lats, thighs, calves. is still have “love handles” and man boobs.

better question, based on the pic i posted earlier this thread, what do you think MY bf % is.

i bet i am over 20% at least, but i am still pretty vascular.
[/quote]

I missed the pic and am about to leave. I will play the guessing game later. I already know that vascularity alone is not an indication of body fat…but I know I don’t see veins like the one on my left shoulder when I am fatter or the ones down my arms.
[/quote]

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/hub/heavythrower#myForums/thread/5574271/14[/quote]

Probably around 18% or so, maybe less maybe more.

You could be as low as 17 though.

I hate to even look at numbers because they mean nothing to me until arguments like this come up.

I don’t go by that and would caution any other person serious about this to avoid it also.

It can be sued as “bench marks”…or if someone is literally tracking a contest diet after all of the size is built…but otherwise, I see focusing on that number as a hindrance.

708

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nobody has a problem with Stu, because Stu never claimed something that is borderline impossible was easily achievable.

And because Stu is cordial and acomplished probably has something to do with it.[/quote]

But aren’t Stu’s accomplishments fraudulent - he is competing in natural BB and he is not natural?

the double standards seem a bit much.

[/quote]

That is what this whole thread is.

If you claim you reached or gained more than the 80lbs limit, they will either claim you are so fat they can’t tell how much muscle you have or that you are not natural.

No matter what, they will not accept anyone even coming close without acting like that…but somehow it is a strict ceiling no one can cross?
[/quote]

Just won’t accept it coming from you. Hard to not to take your proclaimed numbers with a grain of salt when you have said in the past that you preacher curl 85 lb db’s when working form and have a better back than Ronny Rockel. Shit you’ve mentioned using strict form on the HS machines in this very thread yet in the indigo videos you found a way to use momentum on that machine. For all we know you are making these numbers up. Why you are inflating your numbers I have no idea, kid.

709

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What I do see is you insulting me and no one having a problem with it.[/quote]
I like a lot of the posters who love shitting all over Prof X. Although I honestly can’t see why people troll him so much. The kind of shit he says to people that gets everyone riled up seems pretty mild compared to a lot of folks on the site. I mean I guess the complaint is that he is opinionated, polarizing, and refuses to admit incorrectness. It’s not like he just personally insults people left and right though. I mean it can’t be any worse than just having a normal conversation with someone from like New Jersey or something.

Plus, in the most recent pic I saw of him he’s not fat. Or if he is fat by the TNation definition, then me and fucking everyone else on the sight save a handful of people are fat as hell. The vast majority of us don’t know anything about our own true bodyfat percentage or the bodyfat percentages of others. Seems a bit arbitrary to argue about as well. What matters is how you look. The bf% is incidental.

I dunno, I just don’t get it.[/quote]

That’s because you have been here less than a year. You have not witnessed what we have. It may blow your mind to know that many of “haterz crew” used to be friendly with or even defend PX. His condescending posts and inability to have a civil debate with those who have opposing views isn’t being tolerated anymore. In his mind though, he’s never done anything to deserve this treatment. [/quote]

Very true. If you don’t “get it” - well, that’s why.

710

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nobody has a problem with Stu, because Stu never claimed something that is borderline impossible was easily achievable.

And because Stu is cordial and acomplished probably has something to do with it.[/quote]

But aren’t Stu’s accomplishments fraudulent - he is competing in natural BB and he is not natural?

the double standards seem a bit much.

[/quote]

Stu competes in a federation (s?) which is titled natural with guidelines and rules in place to reach in order for competitors to fall in and be classified as whatever they define “natural” as.

My definition of natural may be completely different to yours but that does not nullify the fact he is competing in a competition labeled natural and competes well within the guidelines.

[/quote]

But, he used pro hormones just like I did and around the same time period I did so why isn’t his "natural status questioned in these discussions?[/quote]

Because he isn’t claiming a perpetual heavier but leaner status each month while claiming to be on the outer fringe of what ANY natural could gain.

711

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nobody has a problem with Stu, because Stu never claimed something that is borderline impossible was easily achievable.

And because Stu is cordial and acomplished probably has something to do with it.[/quote]

But aren’t Stu’s accomplishments fraudulent - he is competing in natural BB and he is not natural?

the double standards seem a bit much.

[/quote]

Stu adheres to all of the rules in the federation he competes in. I think 7 years is the length of time one must not use.

That being said, X bringing Stu into the conversation is really nothing more than a distraction technique and you’re stupid enough to let it work.
[/quote]

Why insult him like that?

For real…for people who are literally saying I am so horrible with this…most of the insults are coming straight from the people crying about how I post all of the time.

That is very strange and awkward.

712

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nobody has a problem with Stu, because Stu never claimed something that is borderline impossible was easily achievable.

And because Stu is cordial and acomplished probably has something to do with it.[/quote]

But aren’t Stu’s accomplishments fraudulent - he is competing in natural BB and he is not natural?

the double standards seem a bit much.

[/quote]

Stu competes in a federation (s?) which is titled natural with guidelines and rules in place to reach in order for competitors to fall in and be classified as whatever they define “natural” as.

My definition of natural may be completely different to yours but that does not nullify the fact he is competing in a competition labeled natural and competes well within the guidelines.

[/quote]

But, he used pro hormones just like I did and around the same time period I did so why isn’t his "natural status questioned in these discussions?[/quote]

Again, definitions of natural differ between people.

But to the best of my knowledge Stu doesn’t claim that he has gained 80lbs of LBM NATURALLY.

All he does is compete in a natural federation(s), and is therefore labelled as a natural bodybuilder himself.

713

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What I do see is you insulting me and no one having a problem with it.[/quote]
I like a lot of the posters who love shitting all over Prof X. Although I honestly can’t see why people troll him so much. The kind of shit he says to people that gets everyone riled up seems pretty mild compared to a lot of folks on the site. I mean I guess the complaint is that he is opinionated, polarizing, and refuses to admit incorrectness. It’s not like he just personally insults people left and right though. I mean it can’t be any worse than just having a normal conversation with someone from like New Jersey or something.

Plus, in the most recent pic I saw of him he’s not fat. Or if he is fat by the TNation definition, then me and fucking everyone else on the sight save a handful of people are fat as hell. The vast majority of us don’t know anything about our own true bodyfat percentage or the bodyfat percentages of others. Seems a bit arbitrary to argue about as well. What matters is how you look. The bf% is incidental.

I dunno, I just don’t get it.[/quote]

Neither do I…and that double standard is just making them look very whiny.

You would think I was just insulting people left and right…when they are the ones filling this thread with insults and stopping the discussion.

Maybe they can’t see the veins on my shoulders…you know…the kind that people have over 20%bf.[/quote]

vascularity does not mean as much as you think. look at the most recent pic i posted, i have vascularity in my upper and lower arms, shoulders, traps, neck, lats, thighs, calves. is still have “love handles” and man boobs.

better question, based on the pic i posted earlier this thread, what do you think MY bf % is.

i bet i am over 20% at least, but i am still pretty vascular.
[/quote]
I wont have a guess incase it offends you

714

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Just won’t accept it coming from you. Hard to not to take your proclaimed numbers with a grain of salt when you have said in the past that you preacher curl 85 lb db’s when working form and have a better back than Ronny Rockel.[/quote]

I never said I have a better back than Rockel and someone even posted that thread again as proof.

You are making that up. Why?

Why not post what I actually write instead if twist words around like that?

Why lie?

715

[quote]csulli wrote:
I mean it can’t be any worse than just having a normal conversation with someone from like New Jersey or something.
[/quote]

<— Fat boy from NJ… :frowning:

716

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nobody has a problem with Stu, because Stu never claimed something that is borderline impossible was easily achievable.

And because Stu is cordial and acomplished probably has something to do with it.[/quote]

But aren’t Stu’s accomplishments fraudulent - he is competing in natural BB and he is not natural?

the double standards seem a bit much.

[/quote]

Stu adheres to all of the rules in the federation he competes in. I think 7 years is the length of time one must not use.

That being said, X bringing Stu into the conversation is really nothing more than a distraction technique and you’re stupid enough to let it work.
[/quote]

Why insult him like that?

For real…

[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nobody was insulting Stu…we all like and respect him.

But you trying to turn the tables without actually responding to anything in the post is CLASSIC.

You are on FIRE today, don’t ever stop.

717

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
I mean it can’t be any worse than just having a normal conversation with someone from like New Jersey or something.
[/quote]

<— Fat boy from NJ… :([/quote]

yes…way too fat for us to see if you gained a lot of muscle.

LOL.
Keep up the good work, Steely.

718

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nobody has a problem with Stu, because Stu never claimed something that is borderline impossible was easily achievable.

And because Stu is cordial and acomplished probably has something to do with it.[/quote]

But aren’t Stu’s accomplishments fraudulent - he is competing in natural BB and he is not natural?

the double standards seem a bit much.

[/quote]

Stu adheres to all of the rules in the federation he competes in. I think 7 years is the length of time one must not use.

That being said, X bringing Stu into the conversation is really nothing more than a distraction technique and you’re stupid enough to let it work.
[/quote]

Why insult him like that?

For real…

[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nobody was insulting Stu…we all like and respect him.

But you trying to turn the tables without actually responding to anything in the post is CLASSIC.

You are on FIRE today, don’t ever stop.[/quote]

I meant yolo. Not stu. Why insult ANYONE in a thread that doesn’t need it and where no one is insulting you?

Why call him stupid?

719

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nobody has a problem with Stu, because Stu never claimed something that is borderline impossible was easily achievable.

And because Stu is cordial and acomplished probably has something to do with it.[/quote]

But aren’t Stu’s accomplishments fraudulent - he is competing in natural BB and he is not natural?

the double standards seem a bit much.

[/quote]

Stu adheres to all of the rules in the federation he competes in. I think 7 years is the length of time one must not use.

That being said, X bringing Stu into the conversation is really nothing more than a distraction technique and you’re stupid enough to let it work.
[/quote]

Why insult him like that?

For real…for people who are literally saying I am so horrible with this…most of the insults are coming straight from the people crying about how I post all of the time.

That is very strange and awkward.[/quote]

Insulting you got old, so now I insult yolo. It’s much more gratifying.

720

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

Insulting you got old, so now I insult yolo. It’s much more gratifying. [/quote]

Ok…just showing the hypocrisy of filling a thread with this crap yet saying you are doing it because I insulted you.

You all are acting much worse than anything I ever post. It seems many more can see that now.