Thread: MonStar's Journal: Return to Westside!

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

The irony is great. We encourage you to keep a journal, and then we trash it like rock stars in a hotel room.

Hey Mike, how about, "This is my last journal ever" ?
I told you I'd be ragging on you once in a while......

Maybe you should go undercover on your next journal. Nah, that wouldn't work. Hmmm... Do you really need a journal Mike? I mean seriously, I bet you would do much better without one. What's the purpose of a journal anyway? If it's to help keep you on track then I would go out on a limb and say it's not working. Just keep doing what you're doing, you don't need to document it all. On the other hand, I think there are alot of us that would miss reading your journals.

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

Look, I'll go heads up with anyone on what science says. And I know 99% ofnthe time I'll win. But we need to set the record straight.

Nobody said the routine was bad. We all happened to agree, based not on trainers, but on science that what gopro said was wrong. We NEVER said his routine was bad. But based on the arguments he and I have had here, and the same arguments he had at the forum, we have all generally not gotten along and not agreed.

chris and I do not get along. At all. We have been at each others throats more than once. We disagree on many things. I have been banned from WannaBeBig. I say that only to discredit the chatter that we're all out to get someone.

Despite the animosity here. Despite the fact that chris and I are not exactly friends...

chris is more than fan of bodybuilding or powerlifting. He is a member. I challenge anyone ton find a time wqe disagree on something with regards to training. And please, prove us wrong. Show us another way. I am a big enough man to learn something new, as I'm sure he is.

But this rivalry that "seems" to be building? It has to stop. And it needs to stop now.

The only way you could EVER learn something new is if you read a study about it in a journal that you like or in a textbook you read...AND that is ONLY if you believe in the person that wrote said article or book. So, you will ONLY LEARN from those that you already believe in.

You were a child when I started training and I have about 100 X more experience than you training people from every conceivable walk of life with basically any and every goal...strength, speed, sports, bodybuilding, rehab, etc, etc. I have been living this stuff for half of my entire life and my "lab" is the gym.

Trust me, I am just like you and love to read the studies, the texts, and I took anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, genetics, blah, blah, blah in my college years, and split my time between the physical and the mental/emotional, as the other half of my schooling was basically in psychology. This is another HUGE area that I apply to my programming in terms of training each individual, and in the creation of my routines.

So, everything that I do has a scientific base, even if its not the base that YOU agree with. There are millions of scientists and not all of them agree with eachother (and neither do 95% of the studies on various subjects) in many of the same areas. This is where "application" and real world experience takes over. I have come to believe that people should do no more than about 7-10 sets for large bodyparts at any workout. But, if someone told me that they thrive on 50 sets, and have the physique to back it up, how can I argue. I might tell him he would do even better on just 10 sets...but if he tried it and it didn't work for him, what can I say?

Even though I know my ideas are scientifically sound, as I have studied just as much as you my arrogant friend, I some times need to go "outside" of what the books say, b/c what happens in the real world does not always agree...sorry, its true.

And the first statement that you made above is so ridiculous and conceited that I can't believe you typed it! I guess since you are right 99% of the time when it comes to science, you must be amongst the elite trainers in the world.

You have absolutely no clue what my methodologies are capable of. Bringing myself from 125 lbs to 273 at one point...and a bench of 65 lbs x 1, to an eventual max of 495...drug free...is just an example.

Oh well, enough...I have things to do!

Originally Posted by JerseyDevil

Regardless of VPX PH's, Westside vs P/RR/S, IM vs WBB, WBB vs Gopro, etc, etc, my ONLY beef was the fact Gopro uses the 'I'll ban you' card when he gets miffed. This isn't the first time I've seen him do it. It doesn't matter if he actually bans them or not, but the threat. I have never seen Robert, Mudge, Jodi, Atherjen, or yourself, threaten to ban someone just because they didn't agree with you. Now P-funk is a different story (j/k Patrick).

Sorry sport...you unfortunately are speaking with your head in you butt. I only "threaten" to ban someone if the are disrespectful and heading down a bad path. I have never banned anyone b/c I nip it in the bud with a warning and that usually takes care of it. Sometimes these "instances" have more involved with them than you may know about. Disagree with me all you want, but be respectful and don't go over the top with your words and all is fine.

Welp, I'll tell you what. EVER prove me wrong, or show me that I'm wrong scientifically, and I'll gladly say so. You know dg went and dropped name. Big deal.

I'm not knocking what you did in school. But I guarantee you never learned in school how to isolate a "so-called" upper chest.

I have never knocked you as a person or a trainer. I never said "That guy gopro is fulla shit and a real son of a bitch." What I said was, "I can top 99% of you in science." And I won't back down from that.

I'm sure you've trained longer than I've lived. I don't doubt it. I've never said you're stupid or wrong. I've challenged your science. Beat my science. That's my only challenge. I never said, "Beat SF" or "Beat whatever."

It's too bad you keep using the whole "trainers I believe" bit too. If you took time to notice, I don't agree with Dr. Siff a lot of times. I don't agree with those "trainers" as you call them. I agree with science.

Hell, the more I read this thoe more pissed I get.

1) I have never said a thing about your program.

2) Explain, with science, how you can work this mythical upper chest.

We can continue tomorrow-ish. I won't be back until Monday though.

Originally Posted by gopro

Sorry sport...you unfortunately are speaking with your head in you butt. I only "threaten" to ban someone if the are disrespectful and heading down a bad path. I have never banned anyone b/c I nip it in the bud with a warning and that usually takes care of it. Sometimes these "instances" have more involved with them than you may know about. Disagree with me all you want, but be respectful and don't go over the top with your words and all is fine.

Ok 'sport', exactly how was Mike being disrespectful? Seems to me you were the one that kept at him. You started the whole thing with "GP laughing his ass off at the irony", then kept badgering him about why he dropped p/rr/s.... for what, the fourth time? We all know Mike changes programs about as often as most of us do laundry , nothing new there. If anything YOU are the one that should have been warned. He respectfully asked you to stop posting negatives in the journal and you didn't respect that wish. I noticed how you conveniently deleted the reference to 'removing' him. If you were so clearly in the right, then why did you feel the need to delete it?

That said, I do apologize for flying off the handle.

this is by far the most exciting journal I have ever read.

Ok 'sport', exactly how was Mike being disrespectful?

I was not disrespectful at all, not in the least. Once again gopro flipped out because not everyone loves his program. And he uses his authority as a moderator to threaten to ban people. Moderators should never threaten to ban anyone. Unless they're, like Robert said, advertising, etc.

Originally Posted by MonStar

I was not disrespectful at all, not in the least. Once again gopro flipped out because not everyone loves his program. And he uses his authority as a moderator to threaten to ban people. Moderators should never threaten to ban anyone. Unless they're, like Robert said, advertising, etc.

The disrepect comes into play when you PM someone for help, and they take the time to, and then they are ignored. THAT is disrespect and it has happened with you and I more than once.

And there is nobody that ever USED my program that has been unhappy with it. I have yet to receive feedback that was not positive. However, I would not mind if someone told me it did not work for them if they used it correctly for a reasonable period of time. However, for ANYONE to say that it is "not good, or will "not work," without ever having used it, is where I have a problem.

You are young, and haven't fully learned what respect is. You are just lucky that people on the boards have tolerated alot of you behavior.

I have again, never banned anyone yet AND only "threaten" to do so, if they cross a line. There is a reason that there are moderators and that one of their "powers" is to remove or ban a person from the site if they see fit. If I were to only ban a person for disagreeing with me then SNF would have been gone long ago.

Originally Posted by JerseyDevil

I noticed how you conveniently deleted the reference to 'removing' him. If you were so clearly in the right, then why did you feel the need to delete it?

You mean this, on page two my friend, which is still up there...

"There's your first mistake...you couldn't leave well enough alone and now I am one tick away from removing your azz."

Never deleted...on page 2 in plain site.

Originally Posted by JerseyDevil

Ok 'sport', exactly how was Mike being disrespectful? Seems to me you were the one that kept at him. You started the whole thing with "GP laughing his ass off at the irony", then kept badgering him about why he dropped p/rr/s.... for what, the fourth time? We all know Mike changes programs about as often as most of us do laundry , nothing new there. If anything YOU are the one that should have been warned. He respectfully asked you to stop posting negatives in the journal and you didn't respect that wish. I noticed how you conveniently deleted the reference to 'removing' him. If you were so clearly in the right, then why did you feel the need to delete it?

That said, I do apologize for flying off the handle.

As to the rest...I explained his disrespect in a post above and I stand by it. Trust me, if you were an expert in tennis and someone kept telling you that they want to utilize your serving technique, and then even asked for personal help with it on several occassions...bu then, every time you see them playing tennis they are using someone elses technique, you would get quite annoyed and find it disrespectful. Had he never PMed me for personal help I would never had said anything, but he did...here and at WBB. Also, it bothers me that he allowed himself to be convinced by others that my program is not good, or sound scientifically rather than using his own mind and seeing for himself.

By the way...your apology is accepted and I feel there is no reason for bad blood between us.

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

Welp, I'll tell you what. EVER prove me wrong, or show me that I'm wrong scientifically, and I'll gladly say so. You know dg went and dropped name. Big deal.

I'm not knocking what you did in school. But I guarantee you never learned in school how to isolate a "so-called" upper chest.

I have never knocked you as a person or a trainer. I never said "That guy gopro is fulla shit and a real son of a bitch." What I said was, "I can top 99% of you in science." And I won't back down from that.

I'm sure you've trained longer than I've lived. I don't doubt it. I've never said you're stupid or wrong. I've challenged your science. Beat my science. That's my only challenge. I never said, "Beat SF" or "Beat whatever."

It's too bad you keep using the whole "trainers I believe" bit too. If you took time to notice, I don't agree with Dr. Siff a lot of times. I don't agree with those "trainers" as you call them. I agree with science.

Do you have reading comprehension issues, because you obviously are not "getting" what I say...

-Science is not the end all be all because...
(1) It is often not replicable
(2) Things happen in the real world that go agaist what science teaches us
(3) Studies can be skewed by the people in control (consciously and unconsciously)
(4) Scientists themselves constantly disagree with eachother on the same subject, so who YOU listen to is a personal choice.

*Here's a beautiful example of one of the above...I just read a study regarding myostatin, which most know is responsible for limiting how much muscle we can grow. In the study, the trainees involved were put on a program and gained alot of muscle. The researchers checked levels of various hormones and one thing they found was that myostatin levels went UP! (Which by the way is the opposite of what has happened in some other similar studies). The researchers were completely perplexed and could not figure out how so much muscle was gained with myostatin going up. They could not give a scientific reason why this happened and could not explain it.

Thus, I will repeat...this is why I sometimes need to go outside the realm of science in order to get real answers.

As far as you topping everyone when it comes to science...even if that were true, which it is not, your undying devotion to it, is what would be your limiting factor in being a truly successful trainer if you chose to be one.

Oh, and I don't think you are a son of a bitch either. Narrow minded, arrogant, and conceited, yes, but probably a nice fellow.

You don't need to go beyond the realm of science to figure out how muscle was gained with an increase in myostatin. To be clear, what I am saying is that part of the scientific method involves rational and intelligent thought. Obviously, the myostatin protein is not the only controlling factor to muscle growth. I don't think you need to go beyond science to ascertain that fact.

I do agree that experience and empirical observation are excellent sources of information and the excessive reliance on studies which many seem fond of on the internet is not a foolproof manner of validating one's thoughts.

To be frank, most people on the net don't have the ability to fully understand the ramifications of a given study and erroneously use the information from an abstract to "prove" their point.

Originally Posted by chris mason

You don't need to go beyond the realm of science to figure out how muscle was gained with an increase in myostatin. To be clear, what I am saying is that part of the scientific method involves rational and intelligent thought. Obviously, the myostatin protein is not the only controlling factor to muscle growth. I don't think you need to go beyond science to ascertain that fact.

I do agree that experience and empirical observation are excellent sources of information and the excessive reliance on studies which many seem fond of on the internet is not a foolproof manner of validating one's thoughts.

To be frank, most people on the net don't have the ability to fully understand the ramifications of a given study and erroneously use the information from an abstract to "prove" their point.

nice post.

Originally Posted by chris mason

You don't need to go beyond the realm of science to figure out how muscle was gained with an increase in myostatin. To be clear, what I am saying is that part of the scientific method involves rational and intelligent thought. Obviously, the myostatin protein is not the only controlling factor to muscle growth. I don't think you need to go beyond science to ascertain that fact.

I do agree that experience and empirical observation are excellent sources of information and the excessive reliance on studies which many seem fond of on the internet is not a foolproof manner of validating one's thoughts.

To be frank, most people on the net don't have the ability to fully understand the ramifications of a given study and erroneously use the information from an abstract to "prove" their point.

The "going beyond the realm of science" thing was not meant in relation to this study. The study reference was made to show that not only do similar studies often conflict, but things happen that the scientists THEMSELVES cannot explain.

Originally Posted by gopro

You mean this, on page two my friend, which is still up there...

"There's your first mistake...you couldn't leave well enough alone and now I am one tick away from removing your azz."

Never deleted...on page 2 in plain site.

My bad...

Originally Posted by gopro

I feel there is no reason for bad blood between us.

I agree completely.