The subject matter you morons argue about these days is funnier then the actual arguments.
Printable View
The subject matter you morons argue about these days is funnier then the actual arguments.
The angle of that pic is deceptive imo, objectively the only developed muscles he has are his triceps which are obviously a huge genetic strong point for him and somewhat developed side delts.
However he definitely looks like he lifts now which is enough to justify the existence of his opinions on lifting. I'm surprised to see him dirty bulking though, I always assumed he was one of those lean bulk guys.
Bodybuilding developed through anecdote and personal experience. Broscience>poorly understood snippets from pubmed
[QUOTE=AdamOakley;986036323]Bodybuilding developed through anecdote and personal experience. Broscience>poorly understood snippets from pubmed[/QUOTE]
Medicine developed through anecdote and personal experience. Bloodletting > poorly understood scientific treatments for dieases
Does he even deltoid?
[QUOTE=Hercul3s;985922103]If you two were to bro punch over and over, who's fist would give way first?
[img]http://imagecdn.bodybuilding.com/img/user_images/growable/2012/06/18/21845271/profilepic/1bdfiBtRP6cl4Wm0s1yo0KWTAzOn1072p.jpeg[/img][img]http://imagecdn.bodybuilding.com/img/user_images/growable/2012/11/27/60096842/profilepic/PekOtCfgukkdMPRroAYXQhvlrQNNEFoARuDg.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Impermanence;985924023]Lmao I thought they were the same guy srs[/QUOTE]
Time to update my avi I guess. Im getting compared to a guy 30-40lbs smaller than me by two guys that are smaller than me. (relative to ratios)
[QUOTE=LegosInMyEgos;986037683]Medicine developed through anecdote and personal experience. Bloodletting > poorly understood scientific treatments for dieases[/QUOTE]
Not good analogy- when Universities/research labs study bodybuilding as they do medicine it is. Garbled bits of info. from disparate papers not expressly re: bodybuilding is still broscience.
ps itis progress to get rid of 16meals a day/post workout windows etc, kudos to Aragon et al for that :)
[QUOTE=Bodybreak;986042253]Time to update my avi I guess. Im getting compared to a guy 30-40lbs smaller than me by two guys that are smaller than me. (relative to ratios)[/QUOTE]
Stop fighting little girls
lol'd hard at potato pic
[QUOTE=AdamOakley;986048333]Not good analogy- when Universities/research labs study bodybuilding as they do medicine it is. Garbled bits of info. from disparate papers not expressly re: bodybuilding is still broscience.
ps itis progress to get rid of 16meals a day/post workout windows etc, kudos to Aragon et al for that :)[/QUOTE]
/facepalm
[QUOTE=LegosInMyEgos;986037683]Medicine developed through anecdote and personal experience. Bloodletting > poorly understood scientific treatments for dieases[/QUOTE]
But when you read studies saying that lifting pink dumbbells 100 times will grow more muscle than lifting heavy can you really take that seriously?
The problem seems to be that scientists know nothing about lifting so they're starting from scratch and trying to reinvent the wheel. None of the studies I've ever seen take account (or even establish the existence of) noob gains for example, which every lifter knows definitely exists.
Scientists should really collect a list of all the most prominent "broscience" theories that the lifting community has discovered through trial and eror and test the **** out of them, discard the stuff that doesn't work and start from there with their new ideas. All their ideas right now seem to be garbage.
People talk about the military-industrial complex, what about the fitness equipment and supplement industry/scientific studies complex? All these protein powders and supplements and that have studies showing they put 30lbs of muscle on you in a week etc suggests there are plenty of unscrupulous scientists willing to fraud hard and print any shiit for money.
[img]http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs7/2542364_o.gif[/img]
Idk, to me it doesn't seem to be worth a lot even though science properly administered would be better than what we have now in theory, the reality seems to be different.
[QUOTE=godsangina2;986053403]But when you read studies saying that lifting pink dumbbells 100 times will grow more muscle than lifting heavy can you really take that seriously?
The problem seems to be that scientists know nothing about lifting so they're starting from scratch and trying to reinvent the wheel. None of the studies I've ever seen take account (or even establish the existence of) noob gains for example, which every lifter knows definitely exists.
Scientists should really collect a list of all the most prominent "broscience" theories that the lifting community has discovered through trial and eror and test the **** out of them, discard the stuff that doesn't work and start from there with their new ideas. All their ideas right now seem to be garbage.
People talk about the military-industrial complex, what about the fitness equipment and supplement industry/scientific studies complex? All these protein powders and supplements and that have studies showing they put 30lbs of muscle on you in a week etc suggests there are plenty of unscrupulous scientists willing to fraud hard and print any shiit for money.
[img]http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs7/2542364_o.gif[/img]
Idk, to me it doesn't seem to be worth a lot even though science properly administered would be better than what we have now in theory, the reality seems to be different.[/QUOTE]
lol this. also, it is worth to note that almost all studies never take into account variables such as caloric intake/macros/training experience either (do scientists even lift?). i rarely, if ever, see a study where basic variables are controlled such as calories/macros/training volume. for example, studies testing shorter vs longer rest times will use 2 completely different routines for both groups with insane volume differences, not to mention the individuals are all varying in body composition, training experience, proportions and range of motion/time under tension. their diet is not controlled whatsoever. so much herp derp and purposely misleading and half assed scientific design.
another example, the 'limits' of natural bodybuilding gain per year studies were performed on elite natural bodybuilding competitors. and we all know how fukking natural 'natural bodybuilders' are. its ridiculous.. they talk about 25lbs LEAN dry gains of muscle per year as a beginner without aggressive bulks and fat gain like its nothing and then use this 'science' to back up their weight gain recommendations.
the whole scientific collection of fitness based studies are largely unreliable and pathetic.
actual lifting is heavily experience based as well. i don't expect ian to know anything about the intricacies of deadlifting for example, even though he claims to be an expert on the lift and is completely assured that injury won't happen if u have good form (even though he uses terrible form himself and can't correctly explain what good form entails).
theres a reason many gurus such as alan aragon review and criticise a shtload of studies. he isn't perfect himself and not completely unbiased either, and hes not always right. at least 80% of the 'studies' are bullfuk.
[QUOTE=mingzie;986063703]
theres a reason many gurus such as alan aragon review and criticise a shtload of studies. he isn't perfect himself and not completely unbiased either, and hes not always right.[/QUOTE]
I would love for you to point out a specific flawed argument of his, but you won't be able to
All the "time under tension" reps in the world can't fix his undeserving arrogant personality, hair and face. I will concede that he is very informed. Just comes off as a fuucking cocky *******.
I agree, almost every study about resistance training and exercises show muscle growth using any old program/exercise in beginners.
Where as we have know about noob gains for ages and could tell you any **** program will provide gains in the first 3 months of lifting.
My arms gained about and inch in the first few months from doing pushups and ****ty bicep curls.
He should come over to the misc and make an account. That way he can't delete anyone's comments that go against what he says and he also can't hide the thumbs up and down buttons aka rep/neg button.
[QUOTE=midcoastking33;986065613]I would love for you to point out a specific flawed argument of his, but you won't be able to[/QUOTE]
in his article on IF, he is clearly biased towards the uselessness of fasted training. he claims to hold an objective view, but states clearly that Fasted Resistance Training = not optimal whilst quoting studies he agrees are inconsistent and then easily dismisses those that are inconsistent with the view he wants to represent as "likely to be wrong", whilst not pointing out the same flaws in the studies which do not support fasted training. it makes no sense to agree that studies are inconsistent and flawed and then support one side completely - he should just state the facts and let the reader decide. i can point out the same flaws he used to disregard fasted training in the studies he claims supports fed training without an issue.
u are also foolish to believe that EVERYTHING someone says is correct. noone is 100% correct and unbiased about everything 100% of the time. if you claim otherwise you are just a delusional nuthugger.
[QUOTE=Centrelinkbrah;985688223][img]http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/542891_421898247865034_6934889_n.jpg[/img]
This was taken November 24[/QUOTE]
I just want to punch his fuking face in. Kid is worse than jason genova.
[QUOTE=LegosInMyEgos;986037683]Medicine developed through anecdote and personal experience. Bloodletting > poorly understood scientific treatments for dieases[/QUOTE]
lol wot? medicine was in the dark ages but rapidly progressed in the last 100 or so years due to the use the of scientific method.
[QUOTE=Yero91;986069263]I just want to punch his fuking face in. Kid is worse than jason genova.[/QUOTE]
lol i think ian is more swole than you now
[QUOTE=Yero91;986069263]I just want to punch his fuking face in. Kid is worse than jason genova.[/QUOTE]
lol he does have one of those very punchable looking faces
[QUOTE=Yero91;986069263]I just want to punch his fuking face in. Kid is worse than jason genova.[/QUOTE]
you seem to be somewhat psychotic if you want to punch someone over how they look in a picture.
[QUOTE=vancityrider;986072393]lol he does have one of those very punchable looking faces[/QUOTE]
agreed
[QUOTE=oneshotGG;986070453]lol i think ian is more swole than you now[/QUOTE]
[img]http://images.wikia.com/glee/images/6/6a/How_about_no.gif[/img]
Arms, maybe. I'd like to see a pic without a post workout pump and not taken with a potato though.
[QUOTE=LiftHeavy85;986077283]you seem to be somewhat psychotic if you want to punch someone over how they look in a picture.[/QUOTE]
it's just high test levels, bro.
[QUOTE=bybon;986003293][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/KG7qX.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
[img]http://greatwesternforum.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/frankie-muniz-20070422-244049.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=xvicknumber7x;986066413]All the "time under tension" reps in the world can't fix his undeserving arrogant personality, hair and face. [b]I will concede that he is very informed.[/b] Just comes off as a fuucking cocky *******.[/QUOTE]
This is how I see it.
I don't care what he looks like/ how he acts as long as he knows what he's talking about.
[quote=rik;985985863]virgin *******[/quote]
stfu.
[quote=mingzie;985986853]lol at ad nominems[/quote]
stfu.
itt: miscers think ian mccarthy's smart because he wears a blazer and glasses and quotes other people's work
dude doesn't have an original thought in his head.
and the videos he posts about philosophy and religion are a cringe-worthy compilation of stuttering and garbage logic.
He's wearing the same GASP tank top that I wear.. and has the same GASP shorts I wear for leg day :( now I have to burn mine
Pseudo intellectual who has started/been on a mini cycle recently - unless it is just all angle. Look at his videos from just 3 or 4 months ago... He's a fukking dweeb by comparison
This guy is a unit in all facets.
Also... Nowhere near 5'9.
[QUOTE=thefederalist;986134253]itt: miscers think ian mccarthy's smart because he wears a blazer and glasses and quotes other people's work
dude doesn't have an original thought in his head.
and the videos he posts about philosophy and religion are a cringe-worthy compilation of stuttering and garbage logic.[/QUOTE]
He bites Richard Dawkins.