When it comes to strength training Poliquin has no peer. (I said strength training)
Everything else he’s even.
But unless you’ve sat with a coach, any coach, and taken notes from them, AND THEN implemented their methods, only then will you ever truely understand what they’re on about. Then you can judge.
How much do you think these guys give away for free on the fucking internet? Just carrots to donkeys…
I honestly think he just likes to stir shit up. He likes to say something like this, and watch the ensuing bickering while laughing maniacally.
i have always found this statement facinating in a kind of “do people really believe this” sort of way. I mean seriously why in the world would the top 20 olympia athletes have ever undergone genetic testing to begin with? and then even if such a ridiculous assumption was to be made, why the fuck did they all tell Charles? YEP its exactly 13 of the 20 i have the genetic testing results right here…damn
He says some crazy shit some times, but all in all he’s the best at what he does. He doesn’t push his supplements then say…this site or anybody/place that sells supplements.
Personally over my years training i’ve always made great strides when listening to CP. You just learn to read through some of the bullshit. He’s a funny guy though
[quote]stockzy wrote:
When it comes to strength training Poliquin has no peer. (I said strength training)
Everything else he’s even.
But unless you’ve sat with a coach, any coach, and taken notes from them, AND THEN implemented their methods, only then will you ever truely understand what they’re on about. Then you can judge.
How much do you think these guys give away for free on the fucking internet? Just carrots to donkeys…[/quote]
That is one retarded way to look at anything on the planet, let alone PERSONAL TRAINERS. If you honestly believe that no one can judge these guys until they meet them in person, take notes and try everything they are selling, then I envision a very financially fucked up future for you.
People who think like this are notorious for being suckers. Weight lifting isn’t that damn complex and the guys who make it seem like it is do so because they know they can rope newbies into buying several hundred bucks worth of books and seminars.
It is funny though how few of the guys who search for info this way actually look impressive.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I honestly think he just likes to stir shit up. He likes to say something like this, and watch the ensuing bickering while laughing maniacally.[/quote]
So you think he himself believes these statements false, but says them anyway?
Myself, I am not so uncharitable as that regarding his character.
I fully expect that by the means by which he adjudges things to be facts, he considers these to be facts. And if you can’t see that they are facts, it’s because you don’t have equally good direct perception of truth.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I honestly think he just likes to stir shit up. He likes to say something like this, and watch the ensuing bickering while laughing maniacally.
So you think he himself believes these statements false, but says them anyway?
Myself, I am not so uncharitable as that regarding his character.
I fully expect that by the means by which he adjudges things to be facts, he considers these to be facts. And if you can’t see that they are facts, it’s because you don’t have equally good direct perception of truth. [/quote]
No, I didn’t say he was lying, I just don’t think he really cares about the specifics of the statement. I do think he has a point, but I also think many of his statements are at least partially facetious. I mean, you don’t really think he claims to know that exactly 13 out of the top 20 pros have this condition? I don’t.
It sounds to me like he is tired of people basing their training/diet around top level BBers. And his point is that if you don’t have their genes, drugs, diet, ect. it isn’t always the best idea. Now, I’m inventing that, I haven’t read the quote in context, but I’m willing to bet that while his statement was way out there, in context there was a down to earth point.
I mean, the guy claims squats cure cancer and milk is better than steroids.
I was listening to sports radio the other day and the host was defending using a so-so has been NFL QB as a frequent interview/annalist. He made the point that the best coaches/commentators/analysts are almost never star athletes. That the best guys are the ones that barely make the cut. The ones that work their ass off in the weight room/film room just to stay employed. They end up knowing the game better.
I really think that’s all CP is saying.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
adam_medic wrote:
it sounds very farfetched. Also, suppose those 13 are myostatin deficient, then why are the other 7 even able to compete, why arent the other myostatin deficient guys making up the other 7 places?
There is really debate about how false that statement is?
You know, when I was skinny, no one wasted any time to point out how I would probably not be able to gain much size. Now…all I hear is how great my genetics must be. All most people can see is the end result or how someone is right now. Better genetics do NOT equal “myostatin gene deficient”. Just because some guy can build arms over 21" doesn’t mean he is lacking entire gene sequences.
That statement sounded like yet another attempt to discredit the hard work people actually put in…which some of us get enough of every single day.
[/quote]
People have shitty genetics until they finally learn to lift. when they do, they now have superior genetics are are flat out on steroids. At least thats how they get categorized by their peers when they accomplish something physique-wise. I can’t count how many times i’ve been asked if I was natural, to which I usually reply that if I wasn’t natural at 190 I would just fucking cry like.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I honestly think he just likes to stir shit up. He likes to say something like this, and watch the ensuing bickering while laughing maniacally.
So you think he himself believes these statements false, but says them anyway?
Myself, I am not so uncharitable as that regarding his character.
I fully expect that by the means by which he adjudges things to be facts, he considers these to be facts. And if you can’t see that they are facts, it’s because you don’t have equally good direct perception of truth.
No, I didn’t say he was lying, I just don’t think he really cares about the specifics of the statement. I do think he has a point, but I also think many of his statements are at least partially facetious. I mean, you don’t really think he claims to know that exactly 13 out of the top 20 pros have this condition? I don’t.[/quote]
Yes, I do expect he considers it a fact by the means by which he adjudges things to be fact.
It is either direct perception of truth on that exact specific – he believes he can tell by looking or otherwise perceiving that there is a myostatin gene omission or defect – or he has developed a new science for spotting a missing or defective myostatin gene, with this new science being determined to be correct based on direct perception of truth.
At least that is my take. If your opinion is that he himself doesn’t consider his statements true, I don’t know for a fact that you are wrong. I just don’t think he makes statements he doesn’t believe himself, as my personal take.
Here’s an idea: for an additional and more qualfied opinion, I’ll ask someone who knows him extremely well personally over a period of many years, and see what he thinks is involved.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Here’s an idea: for an additional and more qualfied opinion, I’ll ask someone who knows him extremely well personally over a period of many years, and see what he thinks is involved.[/quote]
Now I can’t tell if you’re being facetious. Do you know him well? If so, I wasn’t aware of that and humbly bow to your take.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
stockzy wrote:
When it comes to strength training Poliquin has no peer. (I said strength training)
Everything else he’s even.
But unless you’ve sat with a coach, any coach, and taken notes from them, AND THEN implemented their methods, only then will you ever truely understand what they’re on about. Then you can judge.
How much do you think these guys give away for free on the fucking internet? Just carrots to donkeys…
That is one retarded way to look at anything on the planet, let alone PERSONAL TRAINERS. If you honestly believe that no one can judge these guys until they meet them in person, take notes and try everything they are selling, then I envision a very financially fucked up future for you.
People who think like this are notorious for being suckers. Weight lifting isn’t that damn complex and the guys who make it seem like it is do so because they know they can rope newbies into buying several hundred bucks worth of books and seminars.
It is funny though how few of the guys who search for info this way actually look impressive.
[/quote]
golden…its not freaking rocket science…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Here’s an idea: for an additional and more qualfied opinion, I’ll ask someone who knows him extremely well personally over a period of many years, and see what he thinks is involved.
Now I can’t tell if you’re being facetious. Do you know him well? If so, I wasn’t aware of that and humbly bow to your take.[/quote]
No, no, I am serious and am speaking exactly. My opinion in the above posts is based only on my take on his writings over many years and what I have learned over time from a couple of people who do know him, which is not enough basis to be authoritative, as the specific issue of whether he believes what he says to be literally factual just as stated, or not, has never come up. It is just my guess on things.
I am speaking literally when saying I am asking a person who knows him extremely well personally (not just as having been trained by him or just being associated by also being with T-mag or something like that) to get what is probably the best opinion that can be had on the matter. I’ve sent the e-mail.
I don’t know the answer ahead of time.
[quote]Gymjunkie wrote:
Personally, following Poliquin methods, I have made some of the best progress of my training life.
GJ[/quote]
personally used Poliquin methods for the most of my training life, but I had the best results as I started using Waterbury stuff plus some touch of mines that I developed during this life digging into everything I met during my studies
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Here’s an idea: for an additional and more qualfied opinion, I’ll ask someone who knows him extremely well personally over a period of many years, and see what he thinks is involved.
Now I can’t tell if you’re being facetious. Do you know him well? If so, I wasn’t aware of that and humbly bow to your take.
No, no, I am serious and am speaking exactly. My opinion in the above posts is based only on my take on his writings over many years and what I have learned over time from a couple of people who do know him, which is not enough basis to be authoritative, as the specific issue of whether he believes what he says to be literally factual just as stated, or not, has never come up. It is just my guess on things.
I am speaking literally when saying I am asking a person who knows him extremely well personally (not just as having been trained by him or just being associated by also being with T-mag or something like that) to get what is probably the best opinion that can be had on the matter. I’ve sent the e-mail.
I don’t know the answer ahead of time.
[/quote]
Ah, I only have friends in low places.
I was figuring that you may have sarcastically been telling me off because you know him personally. There really should be separate font colors for sarcasm.
Another statement Poliquin said that doesn’t make any sense is that human beings were built to sit there and throw rocks at the rabbit , not chase it. However, there is proof that the first human beings ran after an animal until it died of exhaustion.
[quote]zooropa1150 wrote:
Another statement Poliquin said that doesn’t make any sense is that human beings were built to sit there and throw rocks at the rabbit , not chase it. However, there is proof that the first human beings ran after an animal until it died of exhaustion. [/quote]
This is hard for me to believe being that bipedal locomotion is much less efficient than quadrupedal. Unless it was turtle or something. Can you defer me to where you saw that proof?
I remember Charles mentioning a Russian Olympic heavyweight wrestler who benched 540 for 8 reps. He supposedly did his reps with a four second negative and a two second pause. I’m sorry but that’s impossible.
Ronnie Coleman claimed his best was 500 for 8 and I’m sure that was a normal rep style.
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
I remember Charles mentioning a Russian Olympic heavyweight wrestler who benched 540 for 8 reps. He supposedly did his reps with a four second negative and a two second pause. I’m sorry but that’s impossible.
Ronnie Coleman claimed his best was 500 for 8 and I’m sure that was a normal rep style. [/quote]
Ronnie isn’t the be all end all when it comes to human strength. Sure he was strong as hell, but he didn’t train for strength/power specifically. I have no idea if that claim is accurate but using Ronnie as an example is poor.
I don’t think it’s that hard to beleive that someone who trains specifically for strength can do what was claimed.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
MytchBucanan wrote:
I remember Charles mentioning a Russian Olympic heavyweight wrestler who benched 540 for 8 reps. He supposedly did his reps with a four second negative and a two second pause. I’m sorry but that’s impossible.
Ronnie Coleman claimed his best was 500 for 8 and I’m sure that was a normal rep style.
Ronnie isn’t the be all end all when it comes to human strength. Sure he was strong as hell, but he didn’t train for strength/power specifically. I have no idea if that claim is accurate but using Ronnie as an example is poor.
I don’t think it’s that hard to beleive that someone who trains specifically for strength can do what was claimed. [/quote]
A heavyweight wrestler doesn’t train specifically for strength either. But otherwise I agree that it is not necessarily an ideal comparison.