Thread: Size = Knowledge?

Just out of interest, why would you start a thread with the expressed intent of continuing a discussion where probably neither of you is 100% correct? Can't you just agree that you have differing opinions and stop trying to prove yourself right?

If you feel like having a debate with someone about a topic, PM them instead. The rest of us probably really don't care. I know I don't.

Originally posted by ponyboy
Just out of interest, why would you start a thread with the expressed intent of continuing a discussion where probably neither of you is 100% correct? Can't you just agree that you have differing opinions and stop trying to prove yourself right?

If you feel like having a debate with someone about a topic, PM them instead. The rest of us probably really don't care. I know I don't.

*** Good gosh, then ignore the thread!
You don't like, don't post.

A board is all about expressing opinions and sharing thought, hopefully in the process some people can base their own beliefs on some of what has been discussed.
That is all.

I have to agree. I'm not large nor am I terribly strong.

However my knowledge about the subject, both in "theoretical" terms and in applied situations is quote thorough.

If you were to ignore what someone has to say simply because someone bigger contradicts that person, you're selling yourself short and closing doors that might have led to better knowledge.

Think about it. A professional BBer sitting at 280 lbs, <10% BF was most likely already a big guy, at the very least had excellent genetics for that body type, and has used *lots* of drugs to reach and maintain that state.

On the other hand. You've got a natural guy, mediocre genetics, small frame, who simply isn't predisposed to have that kind of size (myself case in point)-- however, that guy manages to amass a large volume of "book" knowledge while simultaneously working past those genetic limitations. He's still comparatively "small" and "weak" compared to the bigger guys, but has made remarkable progress considering what he has to work with; he's been in the gym and done things that he'd never have expected, and continues to make progress largely by applying what he's learned.

Who's more worth listening to? The guy that basically had it handed to him, or the guy that's not a superhuman beast but has worked for every lb of muscle and on the bar, both in the gym and by reading?

*** Exactly, but the size of someone should not determine what kind of knowledge they posses.

Although I totally agree with you, when it comes down to it, most people will chose someone they think has been there, gone from what they are now to where they'd like to be.

In many cases, personal experience outweighs scientific studies and degrees. You can post all the data you want, I will consider it but at the end, I would probably try what has worked for others in my position rather than what a book might say.

There is so much grey area in our sport, no one person has all the right answers, we need to learn from others and find out what works best for us, there is no Right or Wrong thing for everyone but there are general guidelines everyone can start from.

Nice post Snake Eyes.

And I totally mean no offense to you Ponyboy (even though I probably shouldn't say anything cause it will cause trouble)
It really bugs me when people post to complain about the relevance of a thread, why not just ignore it and move on????

Originally posted by Scotty the Body
Although I totally agree with you, when it comes down to it, most people will chose someone they think has been there, gone from what they are now to where they'd like to be.

Unfortunately this is true.

In many cases, personal experience outweighs scientific studies and degrees. You can post all the data you want, I will consider it but at the end, I would probably try what has worked for others in my position rather than what a book might say.

Personal experience also counts as being able to understand that scientific knowledge, extract useful info from it, and apply it to the situation as required.

There is so much grey area in our sport, no one person has all the right answers, we need to learn from others and find out what works best for us, there is no Right or Wrong thing for everyone but there are general guidelines everyone can start from.

Exactly.

Scotty, I want you to know that I highly respect you for being one of few people I've seen here that seems to be level-headed and capable of objectively debating things without resorting to cheap shots and insults. That's a nice breath of fresh air.

Thanks Snake.
We all have the same goals

I think you are missing my point that I was touching upon. That was, there are many trainers out there today who are held up as experts and should be. Why, because they have produced not only results in a wide variety of people but dramatic ones at that. Are they muscular, no. But they posses the experience, smarts and the ability to apply this knowledge in the right situations. That is what I'm look for when I talk to someone.

I agree. But these people you talk of are individuals who have "made it work" just not with there own bodies. Isn't that the case?

If you were to ignore what someone has to say simply because someone bigger contradicts that person, you're selling yourself short and closing doors that might have led to better knowledge.

Snake, I agree.

Think about it. A professional BBer sitting at 280 lbs, <10% BF was most likely already a big guy, at the very least had excellent genetics for that body type, and has used *lots* of drugs to reach and maintain that state.

On the other hand. You've got a natural guy, mediocre genetics, small frame, who simply isn't predisposed to have that kind of size (myself case in point)-- however, that guy manages to amass a large volume of "book" knowledge while simultaneously working past those genetic limitations. He's still comparatively "small" and "weak" compared to the bigger guys, but has made remarkable progress considering what he has to work with; he's been in the gym and done things that he'd never have expected, and continues to make progress largely by applying what he's learned.

Who's more worth listening to? The guy that basically had it handed to him, or the guy that's not a superhuman beast but has worked for every lb of muscle and on the bar, both in the gym and by reading?

Snake, this is a whole different topic. In this case you are saying that while in absolute terms person A is bigger, but in relative terms, person B has had MORE success. I'd go with more success anytime. You have just proved that it is worthwhile to know someones background, which I further agree with.

To SE and TG, you have raised an interesting point which is very subtle.

Who would you rather listen to: (A) a person who can prove that a training style/techinque/diet SHOULD work on the human body in a superior way to other techinues/diets, and can back that up through various controlled studies, and by explaining the way the nutrition effects the hormones, etc, the techinques effect muscle growth etc, or (B) the person who has no studies, does not undertstand the intricasies of human physiology, etc but has, through trial and error learned what techniques and diets work, and has transformed his own body naturally, as well as others whom he has trained, as well as others whom he has given guidance?

I choose B.

P.S. I am offended that Scotty got kudos and I didn't!

I like the point made about one selling themselves short by not listening to anyone with 'book' knowledge.

Personally, if I was given a picture and had to choose froma book smart trainer compared to the other who had a better physique, I'd choose the physique. But ... would I discredit anything a bood smart individual has to say - absolutely not. As Scotty has said so well, we're all working towards basically the same goal. So, get as much knowledge as you can from as many sources as you can and whittle down to what works best for you ... because in the end, you know your body better than anyone else.

Man...I just love being REALLY BIG and REALLY KNOWLEDGABLE...

Now this is a thread worth reading.

Natural Tan Wrote:

"Who would you rather listen to: (A) a person who can prove that a training style/techinque/diet SHOULD work on the human body in a superior way to other techinues/diets, and can back that up through various controlled studies, and by explaining the way the nutrition effects the hormones, etc, the techinques effect muscle growth etc, or (B) the person who has no studies, does not undertstand the intricasies of human physiology, etc but has, through trial and error learned what techniques and diets work, and has transformed his own body naturally, as well as others whom he has trained, as well as others whom he has given guidance?"

I would agree that in this case I would probably follow B's advice. I wonder though how similar/different the advice from indidviduals A and B would be. I personally think that "the basics" are the basics, and people then develope from "the basics" based on "feel, experimentation, trial and error ect."

Once again, great thread, interesting topic, very thought provoking.

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
I have to agree. I'm not large nor am I terribly strong.

However my knowledge about the subject, both in "theoretical" terms and in applied situations is quote thorough.

If you were to ignore what someone has to say simply because someone bigger contradicts that person, you're selling yourself short and closing doors that might have led to better knowledge.

Think about it. A professional BBer sitting at 280 lbs, <10% BF was most likely already a big guy, at the very least had excellent genetics for that body type, and has used *lots* of drugs to reach and maintain that state.

On the other hand. You've got a natural guy, mediocre genetics, small frame, who simply isn't predisposed to have that kind of size (myself case in point)-- however, that guy manages to amass a large volume of "book" knowledge while simultaneously working past those genetic limitations. He's still comparatively "small" and "weak" compared to the bigger guys, but has made remarkable progress considering what he has to work with; he's been in the gym and done things that he'd never have expected, and continues to make progress largely by applying what he's learned.

Who's more worth listening to? The guy that basically had it handed to him, or the guy that's not a superhuman beast but has worked for every lb of muscle and on the bar, both in the gym and by reading?

I agree with this...

...but what about a guy that has mediocre genetics, a small frame, thin bones, and zero muscle or strength to start and then transforms himself with NO DRUGS into someone that is VERY strong and VERY large using knowledge based on years and years ofexperience with self and a large population of individuals AND "book" knowledge AND consultation with other "experts" in the field...now thats who I'd listen to...

...by the way, most pro bodybuilders I've met have little knowledge of anything except for drug cycles.

Originally posted by gopro


I agree with this...

...but what about a guy that has mediocre genetics, a small frame, thin bones, and zero muscle or strength to start and then transforms himself with NO DRUGS into someone that is VERY strong and VERY large using knowledge based on years and years ofexperience with self and a large population of individuals AND "book" knowledge AND consultation with other "experts" in the field...now thats who I'd listen to...

I think you'd be silly not to listen to this guy, I've heard he's pretty cool to but You'd be short changing yourself if you didn't listen to others and formulate your own opinion on whats the best for you.

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes


I'd first off say that person hardly had mediocre genetics, for one. There's only so much that application of knowledge can do.

For example, I will probably never see a lean 220 lbs unless I use drugs. That has nothing to do with my knowledge or ability to apply it. It has to do with the fact that my body simply doesn't have the ability, in terms of hormones, adaptation to stress, bone structure, etc etc etc, to reach that state without chemical assistance.

It doesn't mean I'm missing something, or doing something wrong. Or that anyone else could tell me how to do it better. It just means that I have genetics which aren't conducive to tremendous gains in mass. All the knowledge in the world can't change that.

Maybe you ARE missing something...maybe you ARE doing something wrong, or should I say, not optimally. Maybe you CAN be 220 lbs and just don't know it. This is not meant to be argumentative...I'm being serious.

If you could have seen the body I started with, you would have told me to be a professional stick, not a bodybuilder. Since you can't attribute my size/strength to drugs are you going to say I must have superior genetics?

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes

For example, I will probably never see a lean 220 lbs unless I use drugs. That has nothing to do with my knowledge or ability to apply it. It has to do with the fact that my body simply doesn't have the ability, in terms of hormones, adaptation to stress, bone structure, etc etc etc, to reach that state without chemical assistance.

It doesn't mean I'm missing something, or doing something wrong. Or that anyone else could tell me how to do it better. It just means that I have genetics which aren't conducive to tremendous gains in mass. All the knowledge in the world can't change that.

When I leaned out at 170lb 4 years ago, I would have agreed with you but since finding help sites like this one, I've gotten up to 215 and will cut down to a lean 200 by the end of the year.

I don't have the best genetics either but I think it is possible for me to still see a lean 220 before good gains are a thing of the past for me.

Don't cut yourself short Snake.

Originally posted by Scotty the Body


I think you'd be silly not to listen to this guy, I've heard he's pretty cool to but You'd be short changing yourself if you didn't listen to others and formulate your own opinion on whats the best for you.

Oh, I'm sure he is wise enough to listen to others that have intelligent things to say

Gopro: I understand what you're saying. I know that its certainly *possible* to get to that size; however, for that to happen will take years, and further it will require that I *want* it to happen. At this point its not a goal on my list.

Regarding your genetics: Yes, I'd say you do. Genetics for developing size can be largely independent of the person's original state, especially if the lifter starts comparatively young.

I agree that genetics are very difficult to over come, especially for a natural lifter.

Originally posted by shooter
Now this is a thread worth reading.

Natural Tan Wrote:

"Who would you rather listen to: (A) a person who can prove that a training style/techinque/diet SHOULD work on the human body in a superior way to other techinues/diets, and can back that up through various controlled studies, and by explaining the way the nutrition effects the hormones, etc, the techinques effect muscle growth etc, or (B) the person who has no studies, does not undertstand the intricasies of human physiology, etc but has, through trial and error learned what techniques and diets work, and has transformed his own body naturally, as well as others whom he has trained, as well as others whom he has given guidance?"

I would agree that in this case I would probably follow B's advice. I wonder though how similar/different the advice from indidviduals A and B would be. I personally think that "the basics" are the basics, and people then develope from "the basics" based on "feel, experimentation, trial and error ect."

Once again, great thread, interesting topic, very thought provoking.

Damn, don't I get any respect? Um, I wrote that!

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
Regarding your genetics: Yes, I'd say you do. Genetics for developing size can be largely independent of the person's original state.

I totally agree with this. Many pro bodybuilders start as sticks due to an abnormally fast metabolism. Once they over come this they are able to put on significant size because of the enormous amounts of food they can consume w/o getting fat.

Personally, I have very good genes for gaining muscle strength. I also have genes that want to keep me quite plump. So its a delicate balance.

BTW, I too, really like this thread!

IMHO size is irrelevent in reguards to a persons knowledge, the old book by it`s cover and all that, but a persons condition is another thing.

TG, you mention Lyle amoungst others in the other thread, and while I`ve only ever seen one pic of him, and he is not a BB`er, but he sure isn`t some fat slob either, he is in good condition.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Twin Peak
I think you are missing my point that I was touching upon. That was, there are many trainers out there today who are held up as experts and should be. Why, because they have produced not only results in a wide variety of people but dramatic ones at that. Are they muscular, no. But they posses the experience, smarts and the ability to apply this knowledge in the right situations. That is what I'm look for when I talk to someone.

Twin Peaks said,
I agree. But these people you talk of are individuals who have "made it work" just not with there own bodies. Isn't that the case?

*** No, they haven't. None of them display levels of muscularity that are beyond avegrae. But they do know how to apply their knowledge.
If you do a search on them on the net you'll find a host of valuable info they have written and maybe even some pictures of them. You'll see they look like the average Joe.

Twin Peaks said,
[To SE and TG, you have raised an interesting point which is very subtle.

Who would you rather listen to: (A) a person who can prove that a training style/techinque/diet SHOULD work on the human body in a superior way to other techinues/diets, and can back that up through various controlled studies, and by explaining the way the nutrition effects the hormones, etc, the techinques effect muscle growth etc, or (B) the person who has no studies, does not undertstand the intricasies of human physiology, etc but has, through trial and error learned what techniques and diets work, and has transformed his own body naturally, as well as others whom he has trained, as well as others whom he has given guidance?

I choose B.

*** Well let me throw a twist in on this conversation and drop Go Pro's name since he is a "professional." Ask him if he's ever gone to a seminar or a workshop put on by someone who is smaller then him? Chances are he has? So why would he do that?
Talk to any professinal who is in this field and they will spout off a list of names they hold in high regard. I could garauntee you that most if not all these peopel are not muscular at all. Yet they posses the ability to apply the info they are teaching in such a way that it produces dramatic results in others.

Take myself as another example, I hold Dr Mel Siff in the highest of high regards. He has his PHD in biomechanics and is more then well versed in almost every area pertaining to fitness. He has trained with some of the strongest men in the world and has trained and consulted for various pro athletic teams. Yet when I met him face to face he was no more then 180 pounds at a height of 6'1 or taller. He had no visible muscularity whatsoever.
Yet he was able to teach and convey his thoughts in such a way that I was able to comprehend the hardest concepts and learn new things within minutes.

That is what I look for. I could care less what he can do with is body.

IMO size brings with it practically applied expereince, lots of trial and error, most likely advice from countless others, and again trial and error upon what advice has been given.

I think this thread probably started because of a comment I made in another thread, I will say the personally I will probably take the advice of someone who has been there done that over someone has alot of "Book lifting" under their belt, for the reasons I stated above.

It's also how the information is presented to me, if it's presented in away that I find abusive, argumentative, for the sole purpose of causing a conflict then I won't respond to it or respond negatively......... doesn't matter who the individual is or the size of said individual.

I usually work twelve hours a day, I spend an hour at the gym and I try for a minimum 8 hours of sleep as well as taking univers. courses correspondance for work, spend an hour each night on that as well. twenty two hours of my day gone, leaves me three hours for other things I enjoy each day. I don't feel I have the time to read books and interpret sceintific information or the time to apply "theries" of people who do alot of reading or things that "should work" because so and so read it in a book by john doe. so I like to seek out information by people who have been there done that so to speak.....(usually an individual of greater size than most due to the amount of time spent in the gym) and get advice on what does work and what doesn't work.

No, they haven't. None of them display levels of muscularity that are beyond avegrae.

Sorry, TG you missed my point, they HAVE made it work just through countless other people right? That is all I meant!

Right, that's the whole point we're discussing.

You said,
Who would you rather listen to: (A) a person who can prove that a training style/techinque/diet SHOULD work on the human body in a superior way to other techinues/diets, and can back that up through various controlled studies, and by explaining the way the nutrition effects the hormones, etc, the techinques effect muscle growth etc, or (B) the person who has no studies, does not undertstand the intricasies of human physiology, etc but has, through trial and error learned what techniques and diets work, and has transformed his own body naturally, as well as others whom he has trained, as well as others whom he has given guidance?

The point I was making is that "A" is the category these folks fall under. Not "B." Which you chose.

My own expertise would be in the first category. I would never want people listening to me because of my size, rather my knolwedge and how I apply it. And I'm not that big, actually I'm small.

OK - serious question. With all the debating going on, who is more suited to obtain the best knowledge from?

I, like snake eyes am a hard gainer (I assume this from your post), and have been able to obtain 220 lbs through diet, training and supps. I'm now down to 200, due to a few weeks off and diet before the wedding (not that you all care). I would like to obtain 225, with the least amount of BF possible. So, in theory, I'm guessing that I would have to reach 235 or more in order to lean out to 225.

I have gained my best knowledge through this board and it's members. My training has improved and my diet (Thanks DPW8). My routine on the other hand needs work. I trust MOST of the members postings because MOST of them back it up with posted results (and yes they may just be that, posted).

I guess most of this has nothing to do with this thread, but I wanted to say that knowledge can be obtained through both persons (experience and books). It just depends who you put most of your trust in. It's all YOUR decision. No one elses. and that's all I have to say about that. Peace

To Training God:

To answer your question...yes, I have gone to seminars, read books, etc by people that are smaller than me...but MOST of the time its b/c I'm interested in disscussing another branch of fitness aside from bodybuilding, since 85% of my clientele have non-BBing goals.

Yes, I have gone to seminars put on by IFBB pro BBers, but that is more for entertainment value than anything, with a few exceptions...

-Yates
-Mentzer
-Labrada
-LaCour

...and a few other very successful naturals.