I must be on ignore…
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
My apologies. Banal humour is a gesture unwelcome and unsightly.
May I answer your question with yet another question? Why would a very sexy, tall and muscular man need another man to look up to, why cast desires of already attained aesthetics upon another?
In essence search yourself and find the one to admire.[/quote]
For the sake of my own understanding, you are in favor of no role models or sources of inspiration for a trainee, natural or otherwise, with this question?
[/quote]
Nah I am just saying you are an attractive strong man, why would you need someone to look up to when you are a great specimen? Arnold looked up to Reg parks when he was a young undeveloped boy. When he became a strong and ambitious man he raised himself up as all successful men do and must.
I am sure there is a Lacan reference to the super ego in here but I will leave the psychoanalysis to the pros.[/quote]
This does not answer my original question though.
[/quote]
No I am not against role models though for someone who appears as dedicated and well built as you I am merely questioning a genuine need for them in your particular life at your stage of human development. Not questioning the need for one in all peoples lives in all stages of their development.[/quote]
With this established, who should be a role model for natural trainees?
[/quote]
Eugen Sandow.
Ask me how I know he is natural.[/quote]
Thank you for your answer. It appears our best solution is to only look for to very early historical examples at this point. Sadly, it does limit strength examples due to poor quality control.
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
Pj92x is obvi trolling. It was fun while it lasted.[/quote]
No I am just secure enough to tell another man he is good looking. Casting dispersions upon people for that is straight up homophobia or just misinterpreting my intentions. Either way I genuinely forgive you. Lets stay on topic.[/quote]
Fishing for ‘dispersions’ on your sexuality has been your intention from the start. [/quote]
I am all for people doing whatever they want in the privacy of their own home but do you have to throw your hetrosexuality in everyones faces in public? Stop ramming it down our throats.[/quote]
Disappointing. I thought you’d cap this troll job off by saying you’re a woman.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
My apologies. Banal humour is a gesture unwelcome and unsightly.
May I answer your question with yet another question? Why would a very sexy, tall and muscular man need another man to look up to, why cast desires of already attained aesthetics upon another?
In essence search yourself and find the one to admire.[/quote]
For the sake of my own understanding, you are in favor of no role models or sources of inspiration for a trainee, natural or otherwise, with this question?
[/quote]
Nah I am just saying you are an attractive strong man, why would you need someone to look up to when you are a great specimen? Arnold looked up to Reg parks when he was a young undeveloped boy. When he became a strong and ambitious man he raised himself up as all successful men do and must.
I am sure there is a Lacan reference to the super ego in here but I will leave the psychoanalysis to the pros.[/quote]
This does not answer my original question though.
[/quote]
No I am not against role models though for someone who appears as dedicated and well built as you I am merely questioning a genuine need for them in your particular life at your stage of human development. Not questioning the need for one in all peoples lives in all stages of their development.[/quote]
With this established, who should be a role model for natural trainees?
[/quote]
Eugen Sandow.
Ask me how I know he is natural.[/quote]
Thank you for your answer. It appears our best solution is to only look for to very early historical examples at this point. Sadly, it does limit strength examples due to poor quality control.
[/quote]
Well your agenda in the question was to ask for an example then say how do I know, which is a very opportunistic snipe. It is like asking how do we know the holocaust happened to a historian. We can’t be 100% sure because we did not witness it, but the evidence leads to an educated conclusion that it very well took place.
The same way I can not be sure Omar Isuf, Nick Wright, Vince G are natural. But an educated guess would lead me to that conclusion.
Well fuck me shitless, it turns out it’s not OK to flirt with people on the internet after all…
Come on guys, I’d like to think even if Pj92x is a troll, it’s at least OK to pay somebody a complement?
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
My apologies. Banal humour is a gesture unwelcome and unsightly.
May I answer your question with yet another question? Why would a very sexy, tall and muscular man need another man to look up to, why cast desires of already attained aesthetics upon another?
In essence search yourself and find the one to admire.[/quote]
For the sake of my own understanding, you are in favor of no role models or sources of inspiration for a trainee, natural or otherwise, with this question?
[/quote]
Nah I am just saying you are an attractive strong man, why would you need someone to look up to when you are a great specimen? Arnold looked up to Reg parks when he was a young undeveloped boy. When he became a strong and ambitious man he raised himself up as all successful men do and must.
I am sure there is a Lacan reference to the super ego in here but I will leave the psychoanalysis to the pros.[/quote]
This does not answer my original question though.
[/quote]
No I am not against role models though for someone who appears as dedicated and well built as you I am merely questioning a genuine need for them in your particular life at your stage of human development. Not questioning the need for one in all peoples lives in all stages of their development.[/quote]
With this established, who should be a role model for natural trainees?
[/quote]
Eugen Sandow.
Ask me how I know he is natural.[/quote]
Thank you for your answer. It appears our best solution is to only look for to very early historical examples at this point. Sadly, it does limit strength examples due to poor quality control.
[/quote]
Well your agenda in the question was to ask for an example then say how do I know, which is a very opportunistic snipe. It is like asking how do we know the holocaust happened to a historian. We can’t be 100% sure because we did not witness it, but the evidence leads to an educated conclusion that it very well took place.
The same way I can not be sure Omar Isuf, Nick Wright, Vince G are natural. But an educated guess would lead me to that conclusion.
[/quote]
No agenda, an honest question. I appreciate your answer, as most people that I ask cannot provide one.
I see zero value is simply saying something is bad without providing a solution. That is just called complaining. By providing a role model other than the ones mentioned, we are problem solving.
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Pj92x wrote:
My apologies. Banal humour is a gesture unwelcome and unsightly.
May I answer your question with yet another question? Why would a very sexy, tall and muscular man need another man to look up to, why cast desires of already attained aesthetics upon another?
In essence search yourself and find the one to admire.[/quote]
For the sake of my own understanding, you are in favor of no role models or sources of inspiration for a trainee, natural or otherwise, with this question?
[/quote]
Nah I am just saying you are an attractive strong man, why would you need someone to look up to when you are a great specimen? Arnold looked up to Reg parks when he was a young undeveloped boy. When he became a strong and ambitious man he raised himself up as all successful men do and must.
I am sure there is a Lacan reference to the super ego in here but I will leave the psychoanalysis to the pros.[/quote]
This does not answer my original question though.
[/quote]
No I am not against role models though for someone who appears as dedicated and well built as you I am merely questioning a genuine need for them in your particular life at your stage of human development. Not questioning the need for one in all peoples lives in all stages of their development.[/quote]
With this established, who should be a role model for natural trainees?
[/quote]
Eugen Sandow.
Ask me how I know he is natural.[/quote]
Thank you for your answer. It appears our best solution is to only look for to very early historical examples at this point. Sadly, it does limit strength examples due to poor quality control.
[/quote]
Well your agenda in the question was to ask for an example then say how do I know, which is a very opportunistic snipe. It is like asking how do we know the holocaust happened to a historian. We can’t be 100% sure because we did not witness it, but the evidence leads to an educated conclusion that it very well took place.
The same way I can not be sure Omar Isuf, Nick Wright, Vince G are natural. But an educated guess would lead me to that conclusion.
[/quote]
No agenda. A honest question that I usually cannot get an answer to. When one says something is bad but offers no solution, it is merely complaining. Now that we have provided a role model, we are problem solving.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I will re-ask my question, as I think it got buried a long while ago.
Who SHOULD we look up to as a natural trainee?[/quote]
I don’t know who we “should” look up too as a natural trainee, I guess whoever we feel like as an individual. For me it’s Arnold, or Nubret. I know they weren’t natural but their look to me is what I am after. In my eyes I see them as just past what is achievable naturally. I haven’t reached my natural potential and don’t know for sure I ever will( missed a lot of prime time for different excuses) but I am committed now and have been for awhile and I am going to keep pushing for that look.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
I don’t know who we “should” look up too as a natural trainee, I guess whoever we feel like as an individual. For me it’s Arnold, or Nubret. I know they weren’t natural but their look to me is what I am after. In my eyes I see them as just past what is achievable naturally. I haven’t reached my natural potential and don’t know for sure I ever will( missed a lot of prime time for different excuses) but I am committed now and have been for awhile and I am going to keep pushing for that look.
[/quote]
I am of the same opinion. Though my goal is strength, I look to those that have achieved the impossible and aspire to do the same. Even if I hear it’s “impossible” from others, it keeps me vectored toward my goal.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Species wrote:
- People don’t like liars cheats or frauds. We may not always be fair as a species, but a sense of fairness makes us believe competition is possible. Humans like fairness. We’re hard wired for it. We’re never going to celebrate the cheat. And it’s not human nature to support a fraud;[/quote]
Above I wrote:
Care to respond?[/quote]
I DID respond further above. Please keep up.
I said:
"I don’t have to “know” that CT is taking anything, or has taken anything. As I said, we can calculate his BMI and estimate his BF % and compare it to the pretty large data set we have of natural and unnatural BBs. Given that the data set constitutes our “best”, CT is either a mutant from another planet, or he’s very unlikely to be natural. It’s really pretty simple. "
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I will re-ask my question, as I think it got buried a long while ago.
Who SHOULD we look up to as a natural trainee?[/quote]
“Look up” to whomever you please. It’s a personal thing. But personally, I don’t “look up” to a drug infused guy squatting 1000 b/c I’m not going to follow his path (by taking drugs). I’m more impressed with the guy squatting 3x or more bwt drug free and equipment free. But that’s me.
The point is though, when you lie, or perpetrate a fraud (misrepresenting natural), you’re going to get criticism.
Surely that’s not unreasonable is it?
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
I don’t know who we “should” look up too as a natural trainee, I guess whoever we feel like as an individual. For me it’s Arnold, or Nubret. I know they weren’t natural but their look to me is what I am after. In my eyes I see them as just past what is achievable naturally. I haven’t reached my natural potential and don’t know for sure I ever will( missed a lot of prime time for different excuses) but I am committed now and have been for awhile and I am going to keep pushing for that look.
[/quote]
I am of the same opinion. Though my goal is strength, I look to those that have achieved the impossible and aspire to do the same. Even if I hear it’s “impossible” from others, it keeps me vectored toward my goal.
[/quote]
Exactly.
I’m more disappointed that a lot of those guys do gay porn than steroids.
I wouldn’t want my kid growing up thinking that appearing in gay porn is something he has to do to get yoked.
Unless of course it is just coincidence that they are bodybuilders that just happen to be gay.
[quote]Species wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I will re-ask my question, as I think it got buried a long while ago.
Who SHOULD we look up to as a natural trainee?[/quote]
“Look up” to whomever you please. It’s a personal thing. But personally, I don’t “look up” to a drug infused guy squatting 1000 b/c I’m not going to follow his path (by taking drugs). I’m more impressed with the guy squatting 3x or more bwt drug free and equipment free. But that’s me.
The point is though, when you lie, or perpetrate a fraud (misrepresenting natural), you’re going to get criticism.
Surely that’s not unreasonable is it?[/quote]
I agree with you 100% about the fraud and lies point of view. But, lets say in the strength sport arena you are a lifter that is already at or close to your example of 3x bw naturally, there is positive motivation to be had by placing your sights on the 1000# squatting roided beast.
I can’t believe that “informed” trainees here are actually having a “debate” about how you can tell someone is clean or not. Of course you can’t know much for certain. However, we are blessed with a tremendous data set of lifters, and bb’s, both assisted and unassisted. This data set is remarkable bc it contains our outliers (competitive, successful, natural and assisted bb’s and even lifters). Even if an alleged “clean” person from this data set “cheated” he’s still far and away different than known “assisted” guys. Bottom line, we have a pretty good idea what can be achieved without drugs within a pretty good margin of confidence.
If your guy has the lean BMI of a competitive assisted BB, then it’s safe to assume, yes assume, that he’s not from mars, not a mutant, but has had some assistance along the way (and no, he wasn’t just really fat and strong prior).
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]Species wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I will re-ask my question, as I think it got buried a long while ago.
Who SHOULD we look up to as a natural trainee?[/quote]
“Look up” to whomever you please. It’s a personal thing. But personally, I don’t “look up” to a drug infused guy squatting 1000 b/c I’m not going to follow his path (by taking drugs). I’m more impressed with the guy squatting 3x or more bwt drug free and equipment free. But that’s me.
The point is though, when you lie, or perpetrate a fraud (misrepresenting natural), you’re going to get criticism.
Surely that’s not unreasonable is it?[/quote]
I agree with you 100% about the fraud and lies point of view. But, lets say in the strength sport arena you are a lifter that is already at or close to your example of 3x bw naturally, there is positive motivation to be had by placing your sights on the 1000# squatting roided beast.[/quote]
That’s not “looking up to” that’s looking to conquer and constitutes a very different paradigm shift from what we’re discussing. It’s a decision to take drugs, not look up to someone.
EDIT:
The raw unassisted drug free lifter can no more expect to squat 1000 than the natty bb can expect to develop a physique like Ronnie Coleman’s. Just to clarify the above…
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Maybe these guys have some good stuff to say, but I could’t make it past the 22 second mark. At that point I just logged off Youtube.
That was fucking awful.
I fully support anyone who wants to bash these guys in any capacity.
Why the flying mother effing f discuss youtube comments, when most of the people leaving those comments are not even serious trainers to begin with?
And the whole “back in the day” bullshit again… the only difference is that there was no YouTube back in the day. Otherwise, it would have been the same. You’re in view - you get put down. Rightfully and wrongfully at the same time. Any modicum of celebrity status immediately produces that kind of reaction. Steroids weren’t in the public domain much. Now they are. There was no media like today. Now there is. Done.
Where’s the damn mystery? There’s no fitness new age, it’s exactly the same as before: some people are fit, most are out of shape. What they say is irrelevant. It’s what they do. Almost every video or personality gets shit sprayed in youtube comments. It’s become a universal cliche that everyone who hasn’t been living under a rock knows about.
I don’t leave any comments on youtube. Ever. Not the least of reasons why is that I don’t waste my time following charismatic characters on steroids in hopes that there’s some good advice somewhere. I don’t find them entertaining. Anyone who’s been at it has watched tons of bodybuilder training videos. There’s nothing new, unique or exciting. A small tip here and there, but after a while it’s mostly for motivation, intensity… if even that. I’d much rather watch a pro or aspiring bodybuilder work out than some fucktard who uses just a little bit, but then preaches all clean and healthy with an entire “is he using” debate going around. Steroids or not, they all train more or less the same. Pretty much the same tips, same exercises. But less bullshit. How do I know Kali’s using? Because he looks bigger at that leanness than any natural ever while not DOING anything differently. Genetics, you say? Ok, let’s say it’s genetics. How does that change the “You will never look like that and can’t tell how much is magic and how much is his actual effort” equation? Well… it doesn’t change jack.
Useless thread about something everyone already understands. Except the OP, apparently.