The subject matter you morons argue about these days is funnier then the actual arguments.
|
-
11-28-2012, 06:25 PM #301
-
11-28-2012, 07:00 PM #302
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.RIP mainsqueeze530
"Rustle your opponents jimmies from afar." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Mods - I don't have multiple accounts, asked for old accounts be banned, never had two open at one time.
Misc - you don't have to rep me back lol, in return no rep begging pls tx
-
11-28-2012, 07:08 PM #303
-
11-28-2012, 07:11 PM #304
-
-
11-28-2012, 07:13 PM #305
-
11-28-2012, 07:20 PM #306
-
11-28-2012, 07:34 PM #307
-
11-28-2012, 07:36 PM #308
-
-
11-28-2012, 07:37 PM #309
-
11-28-2012, 07:38 PM #310
-
11-28-2012, 07:44 PM #311
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.
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.RIP mainsqueeze530
"Rustle your opponents jimmies from afar." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Mods - I don't have multiple accounts, asked for old accounts be banned, never had two open at one time.
Misc - you don't have to rep me back lol, in return no rep begging pls tx
-
11-28-2012, 08:05 PM #312
- Join Date: Dec 2010
- Location: Australia
- Age: 33
- Posts: 10,860
- Rep Power: 9158
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.Last edited by mingzie; 11-28-2012 at 08:11 PM.
Never been hugged crew
Message girl on ********, she goes offline and Add Friend button appears crew
Extreme Assisted Dips Crew
Don't have a ******** wall because noone would post on it anyway crew
Want to order pizza, too scared to pick up phone crew
Nobody cares about my birthday crew
Friendzone crew
Leave Chestparrot alone crew
No friends except my neopet crew
-
-
11-28-2012, 08:09 PM #313
-
11-28-2012, 08:11 PM #314
-
11-28-2012, 08:13 PM #315
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.
-
11-28-2012, 08:16 PM #316
-
-
11-28-2012, 08:17 PM #317
- Join Date: Dec 2010
- Location: Australia
- Age: 33
- Posts: 10,860
- Rep Power: 9158
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.Never been hugged crew
Message girl on ********, she goes offline and Add Friend button appears crew
Extreme Assisted Dips Crew
Don't have a ******** wall because noone would post on it anyway crew
Want to order pizza, too scared to pick up phone crew
Nobody cares about my birthday crew
Friendzone crew
Leave Chestparrot alone crew
No friends except my neopet crew
-
11-28-2012, 08:17 PM #318
-
11-28-2012, 08:18 PM #319
-
11-28-2012, 08:20 PM #320
-
-
11-28-2012, 08:24 PM #321
-
11-28-2012, 08:34 PM #322
-
11-28-2012, 08:35 PM #323
Last edited by Yero91; 11-28-2012 at 08:55 PM.
*Trading and investing crew*
*Snizzle77 crew*
*sniff hard as fukc when i see Redraider86 post so i can smell her perfume, crew*
*Redraider86 crew*
*Heart skips a beat when I see Redraider86 post crew*
*shrine dedicated to Redraider86 crew*
*saving myself for Redraider86 crew*
-
11-28-2012, 10:42 PM #324
-
-
11-28-2012, 10:49 PM #325
-
11-28-2012, 10:55 PM #326
- Join Date: May 2011
- Location: New Zealand
- Age: 30
- Posts: 15,278
- Rep Power: 54801
-
11-28-2012, 11:04 PM #327
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.***Not done with my drink till I've crunched all the ice crew***
-
11-28-2012, 11:21 PM #328
-
-
11-28-2012, 11:36 PM #329
-
11-28-2012, 11:48 PM #330
Bookmarks