I Deleted the Amazing New Supplement Thread--TC

I checked out that other site and I have to say that Alan Aragon has completely lost any credibility imo. Two articles bashing tnation from that site seem to form somewhat of an agenda. The first was comparing choclate milk to surge recovery and by playing with numbers and ignoring the large disparity between amounts of fast acting proteins, fast acting carbs and leucine between the two Aragon came to the conclusion that chocolate milk is the same if not better.

The second article begins by refuting CT’s claims using a chart that has “Realistic Rates of Lean Body Mass Gain Based on Training Status”. Apparently if you’ve been training for more than four years then you will gain at best .5-.8lbs of muscle per month. He also sites the few AAS studies that show that cycles under 10 weeks only generate 2kg-5kg in BODYWEIGHT. This is complete BS as anyone can tell you that even with ancilliaries, water retention alone can acount for 2kg or more. Certainly advanced users will in general not see as big of gains as a newbie on thier first cycle…but the assertions are still bullshit.

I do agree with some of the other posters though that as with all training programs…what you put in is what you get. If anyone who has been lifting subpar expects to achieve te same results as CT then they are delusional. By the same token, I am lookig forward to the supplemental plan and I think most of us are willing to try it and judge by our own experience.

So basically, it’s cool with me that you deleted the thread TC.

[quote]fireflyz wrote:

He also sites the few AAS studies that show that cycles under 10 weeks only generate 2kg-5kg in BODYWEIGHT.[/quote]

Yeah, I actually Lol’ed at that. Fuck, 12 lbs of Bodyweight for a 10 week cycle of gear? I don’t think so. Unless you’re using…I dunno…low dose Anavar or something. Or you’re a chick.

Don’t even get me started on that God. Damned. Table.

[quote]fireflyz wrote:
I checked out that other site and I have to say that Alan Aragon has completely lost any credibility imo. Two articles bashing tnation from that site seem to form somewhat of an agenda. The first was comparing choclate milk to Surge recovery and by playing with numbers and ignoring the large disparity between amounts of fast acting proteins, fast acting carbs and leucine between the two Aragon came to the conclusion that chocolate milk is the same if not better.

The second article begins by refuting CT’s claims using a chart that has “Realistic Rates of Lean Body Mass Gain Based on Training Status”. Apparently if you’ve been training for more than four years then you will gain at best .5-.8lbs of muscle per month. He also sites the few AAS studies that show that cycles under 10 weeks only generate 2kg-5kg in BODYWEIGHT. This is complete BS as anyone can tell you that even with ancilliaries, water retention alone can acount for 2kg or more. Certainly advanced users will in general not see as big of gains as a newbie on thier first cycle…but the assertions are still bullshit.

I do agree with some of the other posters though that as with all training programs…what you put in is what you get. If anyone who has been lifting subpar expects to achieve te same results as CT then they are delusional. By the same token, I am lookig forward to the supplemental plan and I think most of us are willing to try it and judge by our own experience.

So basically, it’s cool with me that you deleted the thread TC.[/quote]

Just about sums it all up for me.

S

The results aren’t as surprising when you take into consideration that CT intentionally avoided weight gain for a significant amount of time.

My view is if you’ve been in this game for a long time like the people behind I,BBer and you know yourselves that the claims are out there, you have to expect and welcome criticism. And you have to expect even more when you waive it in front of people months before you plan to release it.

We’re not talking about speeding up recovery by some arbitrary number or how to one day bench 405. We’re talking about something that as it is described will revolutionize muscle building. That’s a bold claim, and one that any sane person should seriously question the validity of, even if they haven’t tried it or know the specifics

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
As have I Diamond, as have I. But you know what? I agree with the move to delete the thread.

Also, I am not in any way surprised or angry about the claims made in the marketing. Every. single. company. ever. makes. massive. claims. And not just in the supplement business. I can instantly name about 20-30 different commercials outside the fitness industry I’ve seen do the same thing. It’s marketing and it’s called that for a reason. I have no problem with any of the ad copy I’ve ever read from Biotest to date.

Also at the same time, and completely aside from the marketing in general,I have no reason to Thib’s personal experience either…regardless of what happens for the majority of people who will use the program. He’s given a rough breakdown of exactly what he estimates happened, and where each and every pound came from, and that makes sense to me.

The “average person” does not train with any high level of intensity…so holding the opinion that most or all people using some sort of program/supplement will all see optimal progress…as if their own drive in the gym isn’t the BIGGEST factor in any progress made…makes no sense.

Most of the people here who look like they don’t lift look this way because they train like the other people I see in the gym who don’t even break a sweat. The people with the drive to push beyond that are ALREADY GROWING to begin with and won’t be waiting on a program to somehow do all of the work for them.

I don’t expect that even a small minority here can train on a level that CT does. They just don’t have it in them to push that hard without someone telling them what to do…so why would anyone hold that most people should see the same progress when the primary factor that determines progress is their own drive to begin with?

Anyone waiting on this to “save them” and anyone not growing on their own right now is a lost cause to begin with. [/quote]

AMEN TO THAT…its like everyone is just waiting for this program because then there will be a reason to try…


Anybody that doesn’t respond with skepticism to a claim of an advanced trainee gaining 26 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks hasn’t been around the iron game for very long i’m afraid, or take the “trust” concept to a whole new level.

I realize these claims are dialed back a little in other areas of the site, but this is the claim that is being marketed most visibly.

Maybe they have made something so reveloutionary that it outperforms AAS and I will be the first to sigh up if they have, as will countless others including who knows how many professional sports teams and Olympic athletes across the world but right now i think that “you havent tried it so it you cant say its not 100% true” isn’t going to be enough for a lot of people with any degree of experience and supplement knowledge…and thats fair enough

[quote]stevo_ wrote:
Anybody that doesn’t respond with skepticism to a claim of an advanced trainee gaining 26 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks hasn’t been around the iron game for very long i’m afraid, or take the “trust” concept to a whole new level.

I realize these claims are dialed back a little in other areas of the site, but this is the claim that is being marketed most visibly.

Maybe they have made something so reveloutionary that it outperforms AAS and I will be the first to sigh up if they have, as will countless others including who knows how many professional sports teams and Olympic athletes across the world but right now i think that “you havent tried it so it you cant say its not 100% true” isn’t going to be enough for a lot of people with any degree of experience and supplement knowledge…and thats fair enough[/quote]

LOL. So your stance is that he didn’t gain 27lbs?

That blurb doesn’t read, “average among all subjects who used it was 27lbs of lbm gain”…it specifically speaks of CT’s gains. CT has the genetics to carry more size than he has been lately. He just maintained a lighter body weight. How magical does this really seem to you?

I’m torn on how to feel about this one…

Aragon seems to know his stuff and do due diligence with things, but then again his curent “relationship” with this website does make a lot of criticism, no matter how solid his ability to wade through and cite research, seem like very sour grapes and like he (and Lyle McDonald) have massive agenda against T-Nation/Biotest. Even when they are right, there seems to be this smugness dripping off of their words that can’t do anything but leave a bad taste in the reader’s mouth.

On top of that, there were a number of comments in the article and subsequent comment/Q and A section bashing Thib, and while he may be on the Biotest payroll, I have never seen any reason to think of him as anything but a fountain of training and nutrition knowledge and a stand-up guy. To reduce him to nothing more than a shill and intimate that he is using drugs (or putting clients on drugs) and just not saying anything is beyond shady, in my humble estimation.

As a guy who reads this site and also follows the work of Aragon and McDonald, I often have trouble making heads or tails of stuff like this. Part of me longs for the days when nobody gave a shit about research, there was not internet to comment on, and guys just trained with gusto, ate what was available, and were in it for the long haul without second guessing everything and changing every time somebody in some semblance of a training or nutrition “authority” position said “Boo!”

[quote]Professor X wrote:
stevo_ wrote:
Anybody that doesn’t respond with skepticism to a claim of an advanced trainee gaining 26 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks hasn’t been around the iron game for very long i’m afraid, or take the “trust” concept to a whole new level.

I realize these claims are dialed back a little in other areas of the site, but this is the claim that is being marketed most visibly.

Maybe they have made something so reveloutionary that it outperforms AAS and I will be the first to sigh up if they have, as will countless others including who knows how many professional sports teams and Olympic athletes across the world but right now i think that “you havent tried it so it you cant say its not 100% true” isn’t going to be enough for a lot of people with any degree of experience and supplement knowledge…and thats fair enough

LOL. So your stance is that he didn’t gain 27lbs?

That blurb doesn’t read, “average among all subjects who used it was 27lbs of lbm gain”…it specifically speaks of CT’s gains. CT has the genetics to carry more size than he has been lately. He just maintained a lighter body weight. How magical does this really seem to you?[/quote]

He states himself he didn’t gain 27 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks, so yes, that is what i’m saying.

I’m not really that interested in getting into minor semantics about what is implied vs what is actually said and debating the way the ASA (or its US equivalent) works over here, so more than likely we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

My point is that people will be skeptical of anyone making such claims, and frankly it works in Biotest’s favor quite frequently when people come here asking about xyz supp getting them ripped in 38 secs, they get directed to HOT-ROX etc on this site by experienced members.

Works both ways. A lot of people (including the authors here) are pretty quick to jump all over anyone who asks about other supps from another sites and laughs their claims off the board (some of which have claimed a lot less than this)

You cant have it both ways i’m afraid

Many drug free bodybuilders fail to gain 26 pounds of muscle in an entire lifetime of training?

[quote]conorh wrote:
Many drug free bodybuilders fail to gain 26 pounds of muscle in an entire lifetime of training?[/quote]

Most people in the gym fail to add 26lbs of muscle, period.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
juverulez wrote:
noone has mentioned the ’ An Objective (!) Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery’ article so far…

That’s because it’s shit. I’ve used both. One is far and above superior to the other…and I can feel the difference. Besides, is someone REALLY going to argue that the high fructose corn syrup is a superior source of carbs to dextrose/malto, or even a good source of carbs to begin with??? That’s lunacy. Besides, milk doesn’t have 6 grams of BCAAs in it.[/quote]

I wonder if the author of that article – assuming the above is in reference to something real – is the same as the idiot who was arguing with me on this site that the best advice for a given young athlete (12 years old or something like that) was that his post-hockey-game nutrition should be sucrose-sweetened chocolate milk?

I got a PM that the idiot was in fact a bb’ing author, so perhaps it is the same person.

Yes, it is nearly incomprehensible that someone could actually argue sucrose-sweetened chocolate milk as being the ne plus ultra of post-training nutrition, but it has been done.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
juverulez wrote:
noone has mentioned the ’ An Objective (!) Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery’ article so far…

That’s because it’s shit. I’ve used both. One is far and above superior to the other…and I can feel the difference. Besides, is someone REALLY going to argue that the high fructose corn syrup is a superior source of carbs to dextrose/malto, or even a good source of carbs to begin with??? That’s lunacy. Besides, milk doesn’t have 6 grams of BCAAs in it.

I wonder if the author of that article – assuming the above is in reference to something real – is the same as the idiot who was arguing with me on this site that the best advice for a given young athlete (12 years old or something like that) was that his post-hockey-game nutrition should be sucrose-sweetened chocolate milk?

I got a PM that the idiot was in fact a bb’ing author, so perhaps it is the same person.

Yes, it is nearly incomprehensible that someone could actually argue sucrose-sweetened chocolate milk as being the ne plus ultra of post-training nutrition, but it has been done.
[/quote]

Yes, that’s the same guy. Hate to rehash that debate, but at 12 yrs old, is chocolate milk really a bad alternative to Surge?

On the main topic: all this hub-bub from apparently perpetual naysayers sort of reminds me of the naysayers denying that Levrone could without drugs accomplish what he recently did. It reeks of ignorance.

Back when I trained people personally it was not unusual to get results of 10-15 lb without apparent significant fat gain in time frames such as 6 weeks. Without drugs and without enhanced nutrition techniques such as exist today. Outside of personal experience, there are countless examples of this having been done. Such things are not new.

And I had nothing novel in terms of training techniques. Without drawing on I, BODYBUILDER at all (also because I know no more about it than everyone else) while in the rare cases I’ve come across old papers that had workout plans drawn up for trainees I haven’t had the view “man that sucked,” still I am sure I could do somewhat better today.

Now, if the person is or was someone who knows quite expertly what he is doing, is dedicated and driven, and has been consistent for quite some time, then no result like that was ever achieved by me. However for the majority of lifters at least one of the above is not the case. They have a lot of untapped potential that a better approach can bring out, fast.

Yes, the numeric figure given above is a weight gain and not, according to CT, the exact muscle mass gain.

I don’t need any other aspect about it beyond the fact that CT has trained very seriously for strength for quite some time, obviously very expertly, and has tried his best for bb’ing as well (while not going for offseason large weight increases, but staying pretty lean), and never before have his shoulders or arms looked anything like this nor has he put up such weights. There cannot be nothing to whatever method accomplished this.

I would expect such a method to outperform for typical people the very ordinary methods I used to employ for them. That does mean quite substantial muscle increases in 6 weeks.

I am pretty sure that had CT followed my old or current advice over the same time frame, and with typical nutrition instead of the protocols involved, he’d have accomplished jack squat versus simply sticking with what he’d been doing before. Rather than moving to a new level, he’d have stayed the same. Not so with what he actually did. Thus I think it’s reasonable to conclude his method is better than routines I used to write, or would currently do.

I don’t read other forums or websites and do not directly know what they say, but if it is as reported above, it shows the ignorance of the naysayers, IMO. Not their expertise; that is for sure.

It’s about as expert as insisting high-sucrose chocolate milk is the optimum post-workout nutrition.

[quote]stevo_ wrote:

He states himself he didn’t gain 27 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks, so yes, that is what i’m saying.

I’m not really that interested in getting into minor semantics about what is implied vs what is actually said and debating the way the ASA (or its US equivalent) works over here, so more than likely we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

My point is that people will be skeptical of anyone making such claims, and frankly it works in Biotest’s favor quite frequently when people come here asking about xyz supp getting them ripped in 38 secs, they get directed to HOT-ROX etc on this site by experienced members.

Works both ways. A lot of people (including the authors here) are pretty quick to jump all over anyone who asks about other supps from another sites and laughs their claims off the board (some of which have claimed a lot less than this)

You cant have it both ways i’m afraid[/quote]

I’m not jumping all over you and I definitely won’t support anything I think doesn’t work. I personally haven’t even looked at “I, BODYBUILDER” at all and am simply going off of what gets posted in this forum.

I personally have a hard time believing there is this much controversy to begin with. I can’t remember the last time I actually waited in bated breath of a supplement or anything like that. I believe I was 16…and smilax didn’t exactly turn me into The Hulk as quickly as expected.

If you have a solid claim against something they stated in an ad which contradicts what was stated by the author, then make that point clear. I am now interested in what exactly was stated by CT.

In the end, I can only assume the types of people who are at a stand-still in their training such that they wait for things like this to keep them from drowning aren’t the type to utilize whatever the next best thing will be to the fullest anyway.

I mean, how many people on this board even train hard enough to warrant the concern of an advanced program? 10? 13?

LOL. Most of these people have 15" arms, remember.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
fireflyz wrote:

He also sites the few AAS studies that show that cycles under 10 weeks only generate 2kg-5kg in BODYWEIGHT.

Yeah, I actually Lol’ed at that. Fuck, 12 lbs of Bodyweight for a 10 week cycle of gear? I don’t think so. Unless you’re using…I dunno…low dose Anavar or something. Or you’re a chick.

Don’t even get me started on that God. Damned. Table.[/quote]

His comparisons were pretty laughable. Look Biotest makes good products, I’ve been using them since they came out at the beginning. Yes the “claims” are pretty lofty for “I, BODYBUILDER”, and as Prof x pointed out if you’re not training at that level (And doing all the other things right, hint, hint) this won’t save you even if it does deliver as promised. But what if you say gained 10-15 pounds in a couple months and increased your strength? Would’nt you be pretty happy? Or will you cry fraud?

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
juverulez wrote:
noone has mentioned the ’ An Objective (!) Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery’ article so far…

That’s because it’s shit. I’ve used both. One is far and above superior to the other…and I can feel the difference. Besides, is someone REALLY going to argue that the high fructose corn syrup is a superior source of carbs to dextrose/malto, or even a good source of carbs to begin with??? That’s lunacy. Besides, milk doesn’t have 6 grams of BCAAs in it.

I wonder if the author of that article – assuming the above is in reference to something real – is the same as the idiot who was arguing with me on this site that the best advice for a given young athlete (12 years old or something like that) was that his post-hockey-game nutrition should be sucrose-sweetened chocolate milk?

I got a PM that the idiot was in fact a bb’ing author, so perhaps it is the same person.

Yes, it is nearly incomprehensible that someone could actually argue sucrose-sweetened chocolate milk as being the ne plus ultra of post-training nutrition, but it has been done.
[/quote]

The article i think he refers to was written by Alan Aragon, i think he wrote some articles here (not sure though)? I know there a few authors such as Alywn Cosgrove and others who have cited his work/ linked to his products from time to time on this site.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
stevo_ wrote:

He states himself he didn’t gain 27 pounds of muscle in 6 weeks, so yes, that is what i’m saying.

I’m not really that interested in getting into minor semantics about what is implied vs what is actually said and debating the way the ASA (or its US equivalent) works over here, so more than likely we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

My point is that people will be skeptical of anyone making such claims, and frankly it works in Biotest’s favor quite frequently when people come here asking about xyz supp getting them ripped in 38 secs, they get directed to HOT-ROX etc on this site by experienced members.

Works both ways. A lot of people (including the authors here) are pretty quick to jump all over anyone who asks about other supps from another sites and laughs their claims off the board (some of which have claimed a lot less than this)

You cant have it both ways i’m afraid

I’m not jumping all over you and I definitely won’t support anything I think doesn’t work. I personally haven’t even looked at “I, Bodybuilder” at all and am simply going off of what gets posted in this forum.

I personally have a hard time believing there is this much controversy to begin with. I can’t remember the last time I actually waited in bated breath of a supplement or anything like that. I believe I was 16…and smilax didn’t exactly turn me into The Hulk as quickly as expected.

If you have a solid claim against something they stated in an ad which contradicts what was stated by the author, then make that point clear. I am now interested in what exactly was stated by CT.

In the end, I can only assume the types of people who are at a stand-still in their training such that they wait for things like this to keep them from drowning aren’t the type to utilize whatever the next best thing will be to the fullest anyway.

I mean, how many people on this board even train hard enough to warrant the concern of an advanced program? 10? 13?

LOL. Most of these people have 15" arms, remember.[/quote]

PX - ill PM you a response to this if you are interested. I understand you get a fair few of them so I will title it “STEVE RESPONSE” so you can find it.

I can see the whole thread getting ugly soon with the “Extreme Naysayers” vs the “Extreme Fanboys” of which you and I are neither.

Cheers

[quote]stevo_ wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
juverulez wrote:
noone has mentioned the ’ An Objective (!) Comparison of Chocolate Milk and Surge Recovery’ article so far…

That’s because it’s shit. I’ve used both. One is far and above superior to the other…and I can feel the difference. Besides, is someone REALLY going to argue that the high fructose corn syrup is a superior source of carbs to dextrose/malto, or even a good source of carbs to begin with??? That’s lunacy. Besides, milk doesn’t have 6 grams of BCAAs in it.

I wonder if the author of that article – assuming the above is in reference to something real – is the same as the idiot who was arguing with me on this site that the best advice for a given young athlete (12 years old or something like that) was that his post-hockey-game nutrition should be sucrose-sweetened chocolate milk?

I got a PM that the idiot was in fact a bb’ing author, so perhaps it is the same person.

Yes, it is nearly incomprehensible that someone could actually argue sucrose-sweetened chocolate milk as being the ne plus ultra of post-training nutrition, but it has been done.

The article i think he refers to was written by Alan Aragon, i think he wrote some articles here (not sure though)? I know there a few authors such as Alywn Cosgrove and others who have cited his work/ linked to his products from time to time on this site.

[/quote]

Yeah, that was the guy. In the thread in question, he was an idiot. (Don’t know about overall, as I know nothing about him other than having seen his performance on that topic.)