This is still going on?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]flch95 wrote:
[quote]Majin wrote:
You clearly support stuffing your face and force feeding. You said that in your “ask PX” thread or elsewhere many times. You vehemently supported it on page 5, then lied that you didn’t a page ago. Which is why I pointed it out by quoting you then.
[/quote]
Don’t think anyone on this site supports force feeding unless it’s necessary for getting big…if getting big is what you want. Why would anyone force feed if you don’t have to??[/quote]
This is correct. You will also notice they won’t use the exact quote.
This is always some argument about what I supposedly said somewhere with small changes in what was actually written…or they take it out of context.
NO, rest assured I do not believe someone should “force feed” for no reason as this depends on your goals and how your body is responding.
Now…watch as they continue arguing something else I supposedly said somewhere…[/quote]
HAHAHAHA. This is funny shit. That emboldened line is a golden example of a PX evasion. Notice the ‘no reason’ and ‘depends’. In other words, PX thinks there ARE perfectly good reasons to force feed yourself and stuff your face all the time to get more muscle. Which is exactly what I said. PX doesn’t deny that he force-fed himself, recommended it(he did both) and even supported it in the quote I posted earlier from page 5 of this thread. Bravo dude. You’re the liar/denier of the whole damn forum.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Although not currently in vogue; the methods advocated by PX represent the approach used by the majority of bodybuilders/strength athletes for a significant period of time.[/quote]
There are no bodybuilders who stay at over 20% bf for decades or even a few years nowadays. They bulk early on and then get lean. That’s what everyone who has a decent physique does - they gain without getting sloppy and then get lean. Nobody argues against that. While PX piled on the fat from high school to middle age without stopping.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bingo…but as you can see, they don’t even want anyone discussing it lately.[/quote]
You don’t discuss. You make statements.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Another of Matt Reynolds.
Gee, my guess is there are a lot of people who wouldn’t mind looking like that if he is exactly “10%” or not.
Some of us want to look more powerful than cute.[/quote]
Gee, maybe some of us should stop posting images of lean bodybuilders and start using ones of powerlifters at 20% bf from now on. Seems like that would be more honest, don’t you think?
[quote]Majin wrote:
HAHAHAHA. This is funny shit. That emboldened line is a golden example of a PX evasion. Notice the ‘no reason’ and ‘depends’. In other words, PX thinks there ARE perfectly good reasons to force feed yourself and stuff your face all the time to get more muscle. Which is exactly what I said. PX doesn’t deny that he force-fed himself, recommended it(he did both) and even supported it in the quote I posted earlier from page 5 of this thread. Bravo dude. You’re the liar/denier of the whole damn forum.
[/quote]
If someone’s appetite taps out at 2200cal but they need 3000 to grow, don’t you think the remaining 800 has to be force fed? Everyone’s classical advice on this entire site is to EAT MORE. No one is going to intentionally eat LESS unless there’s a reason for it, i.e. too full, no more appetite, etc.
[quote]flch95 wrote:
[quote]Majin wrote:
HAHAHAHA. This is funny shit. That emboldened line is a golden example of a PX evasion. Notice the ‘no reason’ and ‘depends’. In other words, PX thinks there ARE perfectly good reasons to force feed yourself and stuff your face all the time to get more muscle. Which is exactly what I said. PX doesn’t deny that he force-fed himself, recommended it(he did both) and even supported it in the quote I posted earlier from page 5 of this thread. Bravo dude. You’re the liar/denier of the whole damn forum.
[/quote]
If someone’s appetite taps out at 2200cal but they need 3000 to grow, don’t you think the remaining 800 has to be force fed? Everyone’s classical advice on this entire site is to EAT MORE. No one is going to intentionally eat LESS unless there’s a reason for it, i.e. too full, no more appetite, etc.[/quote]
I’m not Majin but I believe that the “force feeding” you’re referring to and the “force feeding” the he is talking about are two different things.
I believe Majin wasn’t talking about getting in the required calories to grow (obviously he isn’t because that would be dumb) but he is talking more about a guy who’s growin at 3,000 but think he can force feed extra mise gain by shoving down 4,000 cals.
[quote]gregron wrote:
I believe Majin wasn’t talking about getting in the required calories to grow (obviously he isn’t because that would be dumb) but he is talking more about a guy who’s growin at 3,000 but think he can force feed extra mise gain by shoving down 4,000 cals.[/quote]
That makes sense and i would agree with that for sure.
[quote]flch95 wrote:
[quote]Majin wrote:
HAHAHAHA. This is funny shit. That emboldened line is a golden example of a PX evasion. Notice the ‘no reason’ and ‘depends’. In other words, PX thinks there ARE perfectly good reasons to force feed yourself and stuff your face all the time to get more muscle. Which is exactly what I said. PX doesn’t deny that he force-fed himself, recommended it(he did both) and even supported it in the quote I posted earlier from page 5 of this thread. Bravo dude. You’re the liar/denier of the whole damn forum.
[/quote]
If someone’s appetite taps out at 2200cal but they need 3000 to grow, don’t you think the remaining 800 has to be force fed? Everyone’s classical advice on this entire site is to EAT MORE. No one is going to intentionally eat LESS unless there’s a reason for it, i.e. too full, no more appetite, etc.[/quote]
Sounds like someone who is “tapped out” at 2200 calories is most likely part of the group who need to spread their calories over 6 meals. That way they can hit 3000 calories without having to force feed themselves.
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
[quote]flch95 wrote:
[quote]Majin wrote:
HAHAHAHA. This is funny shit. That emboldened line is a golden example of a PX evasion. Notice the ‘no reason’ and ‘depends’. In other words, PX thinks there ARE perfectly good reasons to force feed yourself and stuff your face all the time to get more muscle. Which is exactly what I said. PX doesn’t deny that he force-fed himself, recommended it(he did both) and even supported it in the quote I posted earlier from page 5 of this thread. Bravo dude. You’re the liar/denier of the whole damn forum.
[/quote]
If someone’s appetite taps out at 2200cal but they need 3000 to grow, don’t you think the remaining 800 has to be force fed? Everyone’s classical advice on this entire site is to EAT MORE. No one is going to intentionally eat LESS unless there’s a reason for it, i.e. too full, no more appetite, etc.[/quote]
Sounds like someone who is “tapped out” at 2200 calories is most likely part of the group who need to spread their calories over 6 meals. That way they can hit 3000 calories without having to force feed themselves. [/quote]
You have to understand the “confusion” is because of posters taking words out of context just to argue.
We discussed this topic in this thread…about how I believe you can “force” more growth in the earlier years of lifting in the 18-25 year age range due to faster recovery of tendons and the adaptive ability of the body to recovery and training…and even metabolism.
Posters like Majin have taken this and turned it into “stuffing your face” and adding fat nonstop.
It is all nonsense from the same types of people.
If you or anyone else would like to discuss my actual take on that, just let me know.
[quote]Majin wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Another of Matt Reynolds.
Gee, my guess is there are a lot of people who wouldn’t mind looking like that if he is exactly “10%” or not.
Some of us want to look more powerful than cute.[/quote]
Gee, maybe some of us should stop posting images of lean bodybuilders and start using ones of powerlifters at 20% bf from now on. Seems like that would be more honest, don’t you think?[/quote]
Are you saying you think no one here would like to look like Matt?
You don’t think anyone has that type of goal physically?
I have trouble getting the calories down sometimes, so I just eat while watching TV or when on conference calls at work. It works for fat people…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No offense, but some of you, even Stu here need to grow the fuck up. This thread has too much info in it to act like it is useless and there are too many people in it saying thanks for the info for any of you to attack me for creating it.[/quote]
This is just silly, Prof.
Your writing style in training-related threads has always been deliberately provocative, and condescension is your primary tool for accomplishing that.
Now when others take the bait and respond to those (frequent) provocations, that’s all they’re doing. Their responses may not always be as nuanced as your brand of condescension, but plenty of posters are just as clever and provocative. But still, none of this has anything to do with immaturity; it’s simply playing ur own game by ur own rules.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It always seemed to me (and I have no doubt I’ll get jumped on for stating this) that his constant expression of “extreme goals” was simply a way of elevating himself. Insinuating that the average trainer on this site merely seeking to get huge and ripped couldn’t possibly understand what he’s going for, because he’s aiming for so much more than anyone else is. IMO it’s an excuse, and it always comes across with a negative connotation no matter how you read it (unless someone is asking in a thread about just gaining or losing a “couple of lbs” or something minor of course).[/quote]
The related “BB isn’t for everyone… and it never will be” claim is very similar. It would logically follow that the Prof is only ever addressing the truly genetically gifted with his training advice and recommendations, but that cannot be what he intends and he certainly has helped plenty of us along the way. It’s just that default condescension that kicks in in the training-related context.
(and if I had to guess, it arises from confusing one’s subjective opinions with objective facts-of-the-matter. But this is very common, and amongst educated folks as well as the ignorant ones, so it’s no significant fault at all (imo)
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I have trouble getting the calories down sometimes, so I just eat while watching TV or when on conference calls at work. It works for fat people…[/quote]
Dave Tate wrote a bit about this in some of his weight gaining articles: stealing ideas from the obese.
I always try to eat while I’m distracted to minimize my focus on it. I actually found this more useful when I was losing weight, mainly because the stuff I was eating was so bland that it was easy to want to stop.
I still do it with my veggies. I’ll make up a big bowl of frozen veggies like it’s breakfast cereal and eat it in front of the TV.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I have trouble getting the calories down sometimes, so I just eat while watching TV or when on conference calls at work. It works for fat people…[/quote]
Dave Tate wrote a bit about this in some of his weight gaining articles: stealing ideas from the obese.
I always try to eat while I’m distracted to minimize my focus on it. I actually found this more useful when I was losing weight, mainly because the stuff I was eating was so bland that it was easy to want to stop.
I still do it with my veggies. I’ll make up a big bowl of frozen veggies like it’s breakfast cereal and eat it in front of the TV.[/quote]
The speed you eat has something to do with it also. I have read studies in the past that put an average 8 minutes on the time it takes for the brain to recognize satiety after eating. Faster eaters can often get down more food in one sitting.
[quote]chillain wrote:
The related “BB isn’t for everyone… and it never will be” claim is very similar. It would logically follow that the Prof is only ever addressing the truly genetically gifted with his training advice and recommendations, but that cannot be what he intends and he certainly has helped plenty of us along the way. It’s just that default condescension that kicks in in the training-related context.
(and if I had to guess, it arises from confusing one’s subjective opinions with objective facts-of-the-matter. But this is very common, and amongst educated folks as well as the ignorant ones, so it’s no significant fault at all (imo)[/quote]
Dude, no offense, but everyone can’t get that big…and my posts are not generally directed at people who can lift weights for years and no one can tell.
If you call that “truly genetically gifted” so be it.
I don’t consider myself “truly genetically gifted” because I know how hard I had to work to look the way I do now. I also know too many others with way better genetics than I have.
That doesn’t have shit to do with “condescension”. If your genetics suck for putting on muscle mass, don’t blame anyone else but yourself.
No one has to focus on the people with the worst genetics just so they feel included, do they?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The speed you eat has something to do with it also. I have read studies in the past that put an average 8 minutes on the time it takes for the brain to recognize satiety after eating. Faster eaters can often get down more food in one sitting.[/quote]
I can believe this. I tend to eat abnormally fast. Growing up with another brother to compete with over dinner probably helped, haha.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Are you saying you think no one here would like to look like Matt?
You don’t think anyone has that type of goal physically?[/quote]
I’m only one voice here, but I don’t want to look like Matt.
I’m sure someone out there has that goal… but I don’t really even think Matt’s goal was to look like that. My guess is that his goal was to be the strongest he could be, whatever that took. He just happened to end up looking like that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dude, no offense, but everyone can’t get that big…and my posts are not generally directed at people who can lift weights for years and no one can tell.
If you call that “truly genetically gifted” so be it.
I don’t consider myself “truly genetically gifted” because I know how hard I had to work to look the way I do now. I also know too many others with way better genetics than I have.
That doesn’t have shit to do with “condescension”. If your genetics suck for putting on muscle mass, don’t blame anyone else but yourself.
No one has to focus on the people with the worst genetics just so they feel included, do they?
[/quote]
^^ Oh I don’t disagree with any of that. But also realize that one must have the ‘goal of extreme size’ in addition to good genetics in order to reach the EXTREME DEVELOPMENT that you typically espouse. And that just showing up to this site consistently no longer presumes the former.
And to be sure, I’m plenty elitist in my own right. And at no point here am I judging you, its more about simply sharing my observations.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The speed you eat has something to do with it also. I have read studies in the past that put an average 8 minutes on the time it takes for the brain to recognize satiety after eating. Faster eaters can often get down more food in one sitting.[/quote]
I can believe this. I tend to eat abnormally fast. Growing up with another brother to compete with over dinner probably helped, haha.[/quote]
agreed with everything above, also man vs food really taught me to eat fatty food before it congeals. This is probably partially why I prefer carbs to fats now
A good water and soluble fiber intake helps too.
that vegetable idea is good. I’m going to cut up carrots for the week today so I can eat them while playing assassins creed lol
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dude, no offense, but everyone can’t get that big…and my posts are not generally directed at people who can lift weights for years and no one can tell.
If you call that “truly genetically gifted” so be it.
I don’t consider myself “truly genetically gifted” because I know how hard I had to work to look the way I do now. I also know too many others with way better genetics than I have.
That doesn’t have shit to do with “condescension”. If your genetics suck for putting on muscle mass, don’t blame anyone else but yourself.
No one has to focus on the people with the worst genetics just so they feel included, do they?
[/quote]
^^ Oh I don’t disagree with any of that. But also realize that one must have the ‘goal of extreme size’ in addition to good genetics in order to reach the EXTREME DEVELOPMENT that you typically espouse. And that just showing up to this site consistently no longer presumes the former.
And to be sure, I’m plenty elitist in my own right. And at no point here am I judging you, its more about simply sharing my observations.[/quote]
That is why I specified who my posts were directed at in the beginning…the people with extreme goals…only to have people then complain about what extreme means.
Most of these guys will hit their mid 20’s and quit even going for more size. Most will stagnate or lift “off and on” for the rest of their lives…especially since many seem to be after abs over size anyway.
That is why I make sure to define who my audience is at the start.
Truthfully, they had nothing to complain about here at all.