The Body Weight Factor

UtahLama · April 1, 2013, 7:47pm

[quote]LankyMofo 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…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. [/quote]

And he is actually a far more subtle troll than X…irritating people by agreeing with the most ludicrous things on the thread.

Quite good at it IMO.

DoubleDuce · April 1, 2013, 7:47pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

No, science is always open minded to change of any principle.[/quote]

Then why aren’t you?[/quote]

I am, to things of science. You aren’t to things that contradict your diluted insulative bubble of whats right despite anything to the contrary.

yolo84 · April 1, 2013, 7:47pm

[quote]UtahLama 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]

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.

[/quote]

the gist is this:

X explains how he himself is near this mystical 80lbs BS no one will shut up about.

the riposte then is he is not natural.

Stu is upheld as more credible largely for being a successful natural BB.

he has taken the EXACT SAME products as X - ergo he is not natural either.

but cos he is regarded as a nice guy, this is ignored.

is that not a double standard? either they are both natural or they are both not.

why aren’t you and others all over Stu’s threads saying he is a liar and a fraud for describing himself as a natural? isn’t he a cheat and a liar?

(btw I have no problem at all with Stu, but this sort of thing is so ridiculous. It is double standards and hypocrisy. Same as you and others ruining multiple threads constantly while accusing X of the same thing.)

UtahLama · April 1, 2013, 7:50pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.

It seems many more can see that now.[/quote]

O RLY??

I smell a rule coming…

Repeatedly quote the few who agree with him as proof that he is correct and say “good post” & “great points.”

Anybody besides anonamous troller YOLO??

Name two, non made up troll accounts who don’t have a join date in 2013.

Professor_X · April 1, 2013, 7:49pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

No, science is always open minded to change of any principle.[/quote]

Then why aren’t you?[/quote]

I am, to things of science. You aren’t to things that contradict your diluted insulative bubble of whats right despite anything to the contrary.[/quote]

?? But I am presenting you with why I believe what I do.

You stated something that was incorrect before yet you seem to not even acknowledge it. Once again, do you still believe that fat alone is directly related to insulin resistance and not the entire condition of obesity?

Professor_X · April 1, 2013, 8:17pm

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.

It seems many more can see that now.[/quote]

O RLY??

I smell a rule coming…

Repeatedly quote the few who agree with him as proof that he is correct and say “good post” & “great points.”

Anybody besides anonamous troller YOLO??[/quote]

Csulli is a troll?

Professor_X · April 1, 2013, 7:50pm

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama 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]

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.

[/quote]

the gist is this:

X explains how he himself is near this mystical 80lbs BS no one will shut up about.

the riposte then is he is not natural.

Stu is upheld as more credible largely for being a successful natural BB.

he has taken the EXACT SAME products as X - ergo he is not natural either.

but cos he is regarded as a nice guy, this is ignored.

is that not a double standard? either they are both natural or they are both not.

why aren’t you and others all over Stu’s threads saying he is a liar and a fraud for describing himself as a natural? isn’t he a cheat and a liar?

(btw I have no problem at all with Stu, but this sort of thing is so ridiculous. It is double standards and hypocrisy. Same as you and others ruining multiple threads constantly while accusing X of the same thing.)

[/quote]

I am sure they will just throw more insults here rather than address it professionally at all.

UtahLama · April 1, 2013, 7:52pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.

It seems many more can see that now.[/quote]

O RLY??

I smell a rule coming…

Repeatedly quote the few who agree with him as proof that he is correct and say “good post” & “great points.”

Anybody besides anonamous troller YOLO??[/quote]

Csulli is a troll?
[/quote]

Csulli does not agree with you, he was just wondering why so many level headed posters argue with you…(which should be a sign to you)…

Try again.

browndisaster · April 1, 2013, 7:52pm

he is a troll ; )

anyways, stay safe good luck on your marbled muscle goals of 2013 OP

csulli · April 1, 2013, 7:56pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.

It seems many more can see that now.[/quote]

O RLY??

I smell a rule coming…

Repeatedly quote the few who agree with him as proof that he is correct and say “good post” & “great points.”

Anybody besides anonamous troller YOLO??[/quote]

Csulli is a troll?
[/quote]
Yeah I’m actually just Houstonguy.

cueball · April 1, 2013, 7:59pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

No, science is always open minded to change of any principle.[/quote]

Then why aren’t you?[/quote]

I am, to things of science. You aren’t to things that contradict your diluted insulative bubble of whats right despite anything to the contrary.[/quote]

?? But I am presenting you with why I believe what I do.

You stated something that was incorrect before yet you seem to not even acknowledge it. Once again, do you still believe that fat alone is directly related to insulin resistance and not the entire condition of obesity?[/quote]

Non obese posters here have cited a noticeable change in insulin sensitivity when dropping moderate amounts of fat. You dismissed is FULLY claiming since you couldn’t measure it, it wasn’t true.

You claim that not watching macros or staying leaner will not aid muscle growth and possibly hinder it. Based off your own experience. Yet we should take this as more concrete than the situation above. Why?

It’s not the insults most have a problem with, though it’s easier to discredit THOSE claims. It’s actually your hypocrisy when it comes to situations you don’t agree with and use your bro science argument only when it benefits you.

Especially when a claim such as staying leaner while gaining flies in the face of everything you’ve done and see it as someon telling you you “did it wrong”. Insecure.

yolo84 · April 1, 2013, 8:00pm

[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.

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. [/quote]

-2 people take the same product at the same time.

-they both post on the internet.

-one poster annoys some people. one poster does not.

-the one who annoys some people says he has gained 80lbs LBM but is dismissed cos of this product.

-the poster who does not annoy people and also took this product competes as a natural and makes money off the back of being a successful natural pro and advertises himself as natural.

-all of a sudden this product is no longer a life long game changer cos he is a swell guy.

that is a double standard. don’t give me the bullshit of the 7 year fed rule or whatever the fuck. It is either a life long game changer or not. Stu gets a pass and X does not.

super_saiyan · April 1, 2013, 8:08pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I’m talking about the stuff you wrote, not the stuff people said you wrote. This why CT refused to back you when zraw asked he was agreeing with you.

I’m talking about stuff like this:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I hope what you just wrote doesn’t make sense to even you.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Thank you for that. I have “doctor” in front of my name but there is always basic shit about biology that I missed. I shall credit that for my weight gain.
[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I could say that this is one more reason why you should not limit your thinking. You can make huge assumptions when you do. I am a DMD, the type who uses a scalpel and sutures on an almost daily basis.
[/quote]

There’s a reason “I’M A DOCTOR!” has become an common T-Nation meme.

Or more recently, the famous pre-fatigue thread where you completely got the concept wrong, refused to admit you were wrong, but later changed you’re mind without offering an apology.

first…

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why would I want to “pre-fatigue” my chest on CHEST DAY???[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I guess that explains why mine keeps growing.
I’m doing it wrong.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You usually only pre-fatigue a muscle if it is interfering or becoming the optimal mover in an exercise when the goal is another muscle group. [/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is WHY you pre-exhaust a muscle group…so it fails first and doesn’t interfere with the TARGET muscle group.

That is why pre-exhausting chest on CHEST DAY makes little sense.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why would I want to weaken my chest WHEN TRAINING MY CHEST IN PRIORITY??
[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am laughing at how the definition got switched.
[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Now mind you, your own personal experience shows this to be the case…but somehow I got it wrong.

I know this term may be used now in fitness sites, but in bodybuilding historically years ago, I think it meant getting a muscle that fires first when you don’t want it to to tire first.[/quote]

then later…

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am also NOT disagreeing with the other concept if anyone is still arguing that for some reason.
[/quote]

yolo84 · April 1, 2013, 8:09pm

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.

It seems many more can see that now.[/quote]

O RLY??

I smell a rule coming…

Repeatedly quote the few who agree with him as proof that he is correct and say “good post” & “great points.”

Anybody besides anonamous troller YOLO??

Name two, non made up troll accounts who don’t have a join date in 2013.[/quote]

how am i a troll dickhead? cos i annoy some of your girlfriends in GAL?

wtf have you offered of ANY interest to this forum aside from posting those rules from Greg you think are so funny?

I have been here asking BlueCollarTrain questions about his training so we can all benefit. I post in another forum here and offer quite a bit of advice too.

All you fucking do is bitch and moan the ENTIRE time!

it is you who is the troll you moron. I am only here “defending” X cos you are so full of shit.

it is the likes of YOU who is dragging the place down, not me.

DoubleDuce · April 1, 2013, 8:11pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

No, science is always open minded to change of any principle.[/quote]

Then why aren’t you?[/quote]

I am, to things of science. You aren’t to things that contradict your diluted insulative bubble of whats right despite anything to the contrary.[/quote]

?? But I am presenting you with why I believe what I do.

You stated something that was incorrect before yet you seem to not even acknowledge it. Once again, do you still believe that fat alone is directly related to insulin resistance and not the entire condition of obesity?[/quote]

What, in the research, leads you to believe that there is a threshold?

steven_alex · April 1, 2013, 8:13pm

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama 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]

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.

[/quote]

the gist is this:

X explains how he himself is near this mystical 80lbs BS no one will shut up about.

the riposte then is he is not natural.

Stu is upheld as more credible largely for being a successful natural BB.

he has taken the EXACT SAME products as X - ergo he is not natural either.

but cos he is regarded as a nice guy, this is ignored.

is that not a double standard? either they are both natural or they are both not.

why aren’t you and others all over Stu’s threads saying he is a liar and a fraud for describing himself as a natural? isn’t he a cheat and a liar?

(btw I have no problem at all with Stu, but this sort of thing is so ridiculous. It is double standards and hypocrisy. Same as you and others ruining multiple threads constantly while accusing X of the same thing.)

[/quote]
The thing is though that Stu whether natural or not has never claimed an eighty pound muscle gain. By the same token though I think X has never said he would hold onto eighty pounds of gained muscles if ever he decided to diet down to contest shape.

UtahLama · April 1, 2013, 8:23pm

.

The_Mighty_Stu · April 1, 2013, 8:33pm

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
the gist is this:
X explains how he himself is near this mystical 80lbs BS no one will shut up about.
the riposte then is he is not natural.
Stu is upheld as more credible largely for being a successful natural BB.
he has taken the EXACT SAME products as X - ergo he is not natural either.
but cos he is regarded as a nice guy, this is ignored.
is that not a double standard? either they are both natural or they are both not.
why aren’t you and others all over Stu’s threads saying he is a liar and a fraud for describing himself as a natural? isn’t he a cheat and a liar?

(btw I have no problem at all with Stu, but this sort of thing is so ridiculous. It is double standards and hypocrisy. Same as you and others ruining multiple threads constantly while accusing X of the same thing.)
[/quote]

I didn’t want to turn this thread into the recent one where someone brought the topic up out of the blue, but remember that at the time (about a decade ago), certain prohormones were perfectly legal, and for the most part, many people didn’t realize just what they were that they were taking. Because of this, you have ‘natural’ federations that had to establish a realistic time period whereby the majority of folks in the know, could agree that any effects would become negligible.

As to myself, the WNBF instituted a 7 year policy on banned substances, and as the old MAG-10 fell into that category, I have adhered to their bylaws in every manner (I had absolutely no intention of ever competing back then.) Also, consider, that I compete against others who must adhere to the same rules. Of course for all I know, they may have used several grams of test a week for years on end before suddenly abstaining. I can only be responsible for myself though. If the WNBF decides to use the term ‘natural’, then it’s their call as the governing body. I make no claims to personally blow past any genetic barriers, be the strongest or biggest guy out there, or exaggerate anything that I have accomplished. I follow the rules of the ‘game’ I compete in. How other choose to describe it is entirely up to them.

I’m not quite sure how this thread even veered into this area. Last I checked, it was just another PX-Sh-tstorm -lol.

S

UtahLama · April 1, 2013, 8:42pm

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.

It seems many more can see that now.[/quote]

O RLY??

I smell a rule coming…

Repeatedly quote the few who agree with him as proof that he is correct and say “good post” & “great points.”

Anybody besides anonamous troller YOLO??

Name two, non made up troll accounts who don’t have a join date in 2013.[/quote]

how am i a troll dickhead? cos i annoy some of your girlfriends in GAL?

wtf have you offered of ANY interest to this forum aside from posting those rules from Greg you think are so funny?

I have been here asking BlueCollarTrain questions about his training so we can all benefit. I post in another forum here and offer quite a bit of advice too.

All you fucking do is bitch and moan the ENTIRE time!

it is you who is the troll you moron. I am only here “defending” X cos you are so full of shit.

it is the likes of YOU who is dragging the place down, not me. [/quote]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Truth hurt?

And I rarely post on GAL…and I only complain about X here, If you can find another example of me being negative im my entire posting history…well good luck with that.

cueball · April 1, 2013, 8:46pm