I, Bodybuilder

Off Topic
21

[quote]AzCats wrote:
My question is, When are the Mods going to start deleting these kinds of childish, whining, crying, bitching threads? Why don’t you send CT a personal message and ask him yourself? Instead of putting up a thread trying to get others to agree with you about how frustrated and miserable you are because a certain article did not come out when you expected it to. Please STFU, relax, and stop posting these nonsense threads.[/quote]

But… but… but, this thread is from such a tenured and highly respected member!

That’s pretty hard to do in all of one month.

22

[quote]SBT wrote:
Rugger84 wrote:

Offcourse I expect to get blasted for writing my opinion about this site, but who cares I am a guy who thinks before using a program or buying a hyped up product.

Bow down to the original thinker!

Guess what? A lot of us share that attitude. And guess what else? We’ve found a lot of stuff that works here.[/quote]

Hey Man let me tell you although all what I said this still is my favourite muscle site, its the only one with balls.
But since I work in marketing myself I can see thru the bulls**t

23

The link was actually quite funny: kind of a shame it was deleted.

It revealed that this is an effort of the same group that has turned up before.

It all started when a mom asked what she should give her 12 year old son after a couple of hours of hard hockey practice and even longer since having had any food at all.

She was wondering if she should give him Surge.

I advised a good meal of regular food, as at his age I think that is more appropriate.

However there was other advice, including – get ready – giving him chocolate milk. Which means highly sugar-sweetened milk, and generally, sweetened with a large amount of HFCS. About 50 g of HFCS per quart, for total sugar content of about 100 g per quart.

AND recommending that this be the ONLY thing given the kid. Not that AND a meal, but just chocolate milk. That’s it.

Of course, I replied that this was bad advice, that this was more sugar than best, and furthermore if taking that much sugar postworkout it isn’t best for it to have all that added sucrose or HFCS (the latter being more common.)

But oh no, the head idiot insisted that this was best, and posted abstract after abstract that was almost totally unrelated, for example giving findings on glycogen resynthesis rates on totally different exercise conditions, far less fructose content, and differing administration (multiple small doses instead of one big hit.)

Inasmuch as I think pretty much everyone here already knows that while some fructose, up to about 25 g at a time, is okay, taking a huge hit of HFCS is not the best approach, it was fine to leave it at simply exposing the facts of the content of sweetened chocolate milk.

As this was a kid that predictably would be quite hungry (I later learned that on a recent instance when taken to a pizza place immediately after practice he ate 7 slices) I think pretty much everyone here knows that in that situation it is just flat stupid to offer the kid ONLY chocolate milk.

The person in question attempted to argue that he had never specified a quart, so therefore my 100 g of sugar figure had nothing to do with anything, but obviously a hungry 12 year old if offered nothing but chocolate milk in that situation is going to drink about that much or more.

Now, I had pretty much forgotten about all this shortly after it occurred.

But amazingly, the person in question considers his chocolate milk argument to have been a huge victory, and rather clearly is still quite obsessed! He provided Medline abstracts and I did not! Ooooooooo!

It turns out he actually posted an article about this and has made much noise of how he “schooled” me, supposedly.

And guess what?

Yet another rehash of the Chocolate Milk “debate” is the evidence in the link against T-mag and Biotest.

I’m sorry, but anyone so stupid as to believe that adding a huge quantity of HFCS yields a superior nutritional product is a fool, as is anyone who would advise that a 12-year old should be given only sweetened chocolate milk after hours without food and after a couple of hours of hard practice; and anyone who actually thinks that the fact that I didn’t provide a scientific abstract to the contrary proves me wrong, whereas their not-relevant abstracts supposedly prove them right, is a mental masturbator.

As is the entire crew in question.

24

[quote]Gaea wrote:
[/quote]

I don’t really know what your problem is man. It’s your own problem if your offended that Biotest’s supplements don’t work ‘magic’. No one here is so ignorant that we believe supplements work magic. This is why they’re called supplements.

Mega tard.

25

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The link was actually quite funny: kind of a shame it was deleted.

It revealed that this is an effort of the same group that has turned up before.

It all started when a mom asked what she should give her 12 year old son after a couple of hours of hard hockey practice and even longer since having had any food at all.

She was wondering if she should give him Surge.

I advised a good meal of regular food, as at his age I think that is more appropriate.

However there was other advice, including – get ready – giving him chocolate milk. Which means highly sugar-sweetened milk, and generally, sweetened with a large amount of HFCS. About 50 g of HFCS per quart, for total sugar content of about 100 g per quart.

AND recommending that this be the ONLY thing given the kid. Not that AND a meal, but chocolate milk, period.

Of course, I replied that this was bad advice, that this was more sugar than best, and furthermore if taking that much sugar postworkout it isn’t best for it to have all that added sucrose or HFCS (the latter being more common.)

But oh no, the head idiot insisted that this was best, and posted abstract after abstract that was almost totally unrelated, for example giving findings on glycogen resynthesis rates on totally different exercise conditions, far less fructose content, and differing administration (multiple small doses instead of one big hit.)

Inasmuch as I think pretty much everyone here already knows that while some fructose, up to about 25 g at a time, is okay, taking a huge hit of HFCS is not the best approach, it was fine to leave it at simply exposing the facts of the content of sweetened chocolate milk.

As this was a kid that was hungry (I later learned that when taken to a pizza place immediately afterwards he ate 7 slices) I think pretty much everyone here knows that it is stupid in that situation to offer the kid ONLY chocolate milk is flat stupid.

The person in question attempted to argue that he had never specified a quart, so therefore my 100 g of sugar figure had nothing to do with anything, but obviously a hungry 12 year old if offered nothing but chocolate milk in that situation is going to drink about that much or more.

Now, I had pretty much forgotten about all this shortly after it occurred.

But amazingly, the person in question considers his chocolate milk argument to have been a huge victory! He provided Medline abstracts and I did not! Ooooooooo!

It turns out he actually posted an article about this and has made much noise of how he “schooled” me, supposedly.

And guess what?

Yet another rehash of the Chocolate Milk “debate” is their evidence against T-mag and Biotest.

I’m sorry, but anyone so stupid as to believe that adding a huge quantity of HFCS yields a superior nutritional product is a fool, as is anyone who would advise that a 12-year old should be given only sweetened chocolate milk after hours without food and after a couple of hours of hard practice; and anyone who actually thinks that the fact that I didn’t provide a scientific abstract to the contrary proves the point, whereas their not-relevant abstracts supposedly do, is a mental masturbator.

As is the entire crew in question.

[/quote]

That guy has issues Bill. Milkshake? lol <3

26

Oh…thank god for the FDA…you remember them right? The same ones who allowed Vioxx and Fen Phen and Raxar and Thalidomide and Rezulin and Lotronex and Posicor and Propulsid and Duract and Baycol (etc. etc. etc.) to be mass produced and prescribed by the legal drug peddlers of the world? Are you sure you want to rely on some bullshit state (in the larger sense of the term) run bureaucracy to tell you when something is on the up and up?

Isn’t it strange that they’re so fucking gung ho about non-state approved drugs and supplements and ‘raid’ (read:steal, loot, vandalize) these companies at the drop of a dime, yet it takes years to even release a fucking black box warning for state-approved drugs that are known killers? Or is that their real purpose…to protect BigPharma and special interest groups who whore for these pieces of shit?

You’re a fucking moron. Go read your articles, suck the dick of your idolatrized exercise god and keep licking the boots of your almighty government who is your mommy, daddy and molesting uncle all wrapped into one.

27

How can someone parade around as some crusader for truth and misinterpret and leave out so much of it? As a student of philosophy and logic, that makes me rather sick. The idea that no one can make gains like that simply because no one else has done it? By that logic, we never would’ve had a 500 bench press. Presenting PubMed studies over real world experiences of posters is just stupid? “Your results didnt happen Professor X. This study says so!” Huh? Relying on Casey Butt’s bullshit when so many people, including myself, are walking around having surpassed those goals? “My methods are right if you exclude an entire race of people and anyone who works hard.” Not to mention the strawman of what they said Bill Roberts was representing.

Could the reason for censorship be as follows: T-Nation has built a reputation as an honest, cutting edge company who sells the best. “That other site” hasn’t. They need to find a market. Their market is knocking others. They started a mud-slinging contest with T-Nation and POSTED ARTICLES ABOUT HOW T_NATION SUCKS. Rather than respond with more mud, TC nipped it in the bud, so as to say “we will not stoop that low. We are too busy seeing results out of people.”

No that cant be it. The big bad tmuscle must be stomping on the little guy tricking the oh so naive weightlifters of the world.

28

[quote]Diluted56 wrote:
I dont see what the rush is, I mean CT has already released snippets of training ideals “twitch reps/autoregulating/activation” i mean c’mon all that for FREE? not aiming offences at everyone but I mean just be fucking grateful someone of CT’s standards is actually helping us out with those idealogies and principles to benefit us! Building a solid base using the principles given thus far is more than a generous serving and the longer we wait for I, Bodybuilder = the stronger we’re getting in the GYM in the meantime!!![/quote]

Dude, are you that naive? It’s all a big advertisement to sell Biotest supplements.

29

[quote]younggully wrote:
no bother to me,I’m still pounding heavy weights and eating. don’t care either way.[/quote]

X2

30

[quote]Chalky09Aus wrote:
Anyone else kind of getting frustrated by this highly drawn out realease (or lack thereof)?
[/quote]

Nope.

31

[quote]Chi-Towns-Finest wrote:
Chalky09Aus wrote:
I guess its just the epic 27lb’s of muscle in 6 weeks ONLY IF YOU USE ANACONDA that is keeping people interested.

Did you bother to read anything about I, Bodybuilder?

Apparently not, if you think you will gain twenty-seven pounds of lean body mass in the same time fram as CT you are wrong.[/quote]

I think you missed the sarcasm, thats the problem with the internet eh? no tone of voice.

By the way, i in no way think this is some saviour, im unlikely to jump on the program but continue with what im doing. I was more bringing it up from a marketing/cross-promotion perspective. The marketing used on alot of this stuff on tmuscle is either insulting your intelligence or plain ineffective.

32

[quote]markdp wrote:
Honestly, I would make fun the the OP for another dumb ass when is I, Bodybuilder coming out thread but shouldn’t. Three years ago I could have seen myself make the same thread, wondering when a supplement will be released so that I can finally make sick gains. Unless we are talking anabolics, it’s just not going to happen. Hard work, food, rest, repeat for years and years is the only thing that will make you big.

[/quote]

See earlier reply to other comment, Im not hanging on I, Bodybuilder/Anaconda. im unlikely to use either for a while.

cheers.

33

[quote]AzCats wrote:
My question is, When are the Mods going to start deleting these kinds of childish, whining, crying, bitching threads? Why don’t you send CT a personal message and ask him yourself? Instead of putting up a thread trying to get others to agree with you about how frustrated and miserable you are because a certain article did not come out when you expected it to. Please STFU, relax, and stop posting these nonsense threads.[/quote]

Man, im perfectly relaxed. you sound a little heated up.

It is no way a ‘bitching miserable’ thread from my perspective, it was intended just to promote discussion on the topic (Which is has) And i am more interested on what people think of the marketing than the ‘epic gains’ etc.

Sorry to be blunt, but no one made you post here, does that mean you fell victim to my advertising and this thread?

Peace.

34

[quote]donovanbrambila wrote:

Gaea wrote:

How can someone parade around as some crusader for truth and misinterpret and leave out so much of it? As a student of philosophy and logic, that makes me rather sick. The idea that no one can make gains like that simply because no one else has done it?

By that logic, we never would’ve had a 500 bench press. Presenting PubMed studies over real world experiences of posters is just stupid? “Your results didnt happen Professor X. This study says so!” Huh?

Relying on Casey Butt’s bullshit when so many people, including myself, are walking around having surpassed those goals? “My methods are right if you exclude an entire race of people and anyone who works hard.” Not to mention the strawman of what they said Bill Roberts was representing.

Could the reason for censorship be as follows: T-Nation has built a reputation as an honest, cutting edge company who sells the best. “That other site” hasn’t. They need to find a market. Their market is knocking others.

They started a mud-slinging contest with T-Nation and POSTED ARTICLES ABOUT HOW T-NATION SUCKS. Rather than respond with more mud, TC nipped it in the bud, so as to say “we will not stoop that low. We are too busy seeing results out of people.”

No that cant be it. The big bad tmuscle must be stomping on the little guy tricking the oh so naive weightlifters of the world. [/quote]

Well said.

1 Like
35

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Gaea wrote:
Oooohh… Guess you guys were a little slow on the draw.

Censorship at its best.

Seriously man?

Why should anyone listen to your opinion when you come from a community of people that insults most of the people here?

None of us really care to hear the “I’m gonna save the world from evil T-Nation” bullshit anymore. It’s getting quite old, and you guys are starting to embarrass yourselves with your obsession with this site.

[/quote]

Because, I suppose it is claims like this that bring the FDA down on supplement companies. If Nike claimed they had a shoe that could make you run a mile in less than a minute, how would you respond to that?

What community am I from?

I was a member of this site BEFORE they started their supplement company. (Which by the way convienently has the same name as a pharmacuetical company - I guess this would make them look like they actually produce what they sell).

BTW, I’m not a man.

36

[quote]Gaea wrote:

I was a member of this site BEFORE they started their supplement company. (Which by the way convienently has the same name as a pharmacuetical company - I guess this would make them look like they actually produce what they sell).
[/quote]

It isn’t the case that the forum existed before there were Biotest products.

And it isn’t the case that Biotest is named after a pharmaceutical company.

You are evasive in your reply to what community you belong to, and not telling the truth with regard to this site and the company.

Frankly, you seem obsessed.

37

[quote]Gaea wrote:

Because, I suppose it is claims like this that bring the FDA down on supplement companies. If Nike claimed they had a shoe that could make you run a mile in less than a minute, how would you respond to that? [/quote]

I wouldn’t give a shit to be honest. If I wanted to run fast I would go to a runners forum and read what the people with the fastest times did to train. Then I would go to the track and see if my body responded to that type of training.

Just like now. I want to be big and strong, so I read what big and strong people do. Then I incorporate things and see if they work.

The shoes on my feet or the supplements in my mouth are honestly the last thing on my mind.

As far as your implying I need to stick up and protect the idiots of the world, fuck that. People can think for themselves. I think your time would be better spent trying to bring down companies that destroy the Earth or put out products that actually kill people, than try and champion the cause you are.

But do as you see fit, I’ll be busy making progress and not giving a fuck what a science study says. If it makes my muscles grow, I’m doing it.

Go ahead and call me whatever names you want now because I don’t see things from your perspective. I really don’t care.

LOL.

Jesus Christ. You guys all call us mouth breathers and slaves to this company, when in fact there isn’t a single one of you with an independent thought in your brain. Stop parroting what your Shepard says and think for yourself.

And while you are doing that, let us bullshit and have our fun over here. We like it better when you stick to posting in your hate forum.

38

[quote]Gaea wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
Gaea wrote:
Oooohh… Guess you guys were a little slow on the draw.

Censorship at its best.

Seriously man?

Why should anyone listen to your opinion when you come from a community of people that insults most of the people here?

None of us really care to hear the “I’m gonna save the world from evil T-Nation” bullshit anymore. It’s getting quite old, and you guys are starting to embarrass yourselves with your obsession with this site.

Because, I suppose it is claims like this that bring the FDA down on supplement companies. If Nike claimed they had a shoe that could make you run a mile in less than a minute, how would you respond to that?

What community am I from?

I was a member of this site BEFORE they started their supplement company. (Which by the way convienently has the same name as a pharmacuetical company - I guess this would make them look like they actually produce what they sell).

BTW, I’m not a man.
[/quote]

This is TC, Tim’s partner at Biotest since we started in 1998.

First of all, the pharmaceutical company known as Biotest was started in 2007, nine years after we started the supplement company known as Biotest.

Secondly, there was no site before we started a supplement company.

Both Testosterone and Biotest were launched at the same time. Our sole product back then was TRIBEX 500.

39

so when is I, BODYBUILDER coming out?

40

[quote]bozbot wrote:
so when is I, BODYBUILDER coming out?[/quote]

is that a joke, or are you retarded?