Mental Perception vs Ability

Mentally is everything! In all aspects of life!

[quote]ac33ro wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sonnyp wrote:
In my opinion it matters more than anything else.[/quote]

That is what I believe also…which is one reason I take such an issue with literally defining exactly what someone can or can not do and telling them that this limit is the truth based on what has been done before.

mankind has made new steps into places before seen as only fantasy because we stopped believing that what had been done before is all there is. Am I right or wrong?[/quote]

I agree that self confidence is a significant factor in success, but what of the other end of the spectrum? While defeatist thinking is poison to achievement, what about someone who has a wholly unrealistic, over-inflated sense of self and accomplishment? Does that have a negative impact as well? i.e. If you lack a realistic perspective on what you have and will achieve; cling to self delusion and entitlement what will you wind up doing?

Check out “Waiting for Superman” for an indication of this–Rosenthal’s studies are interesting–but when contrasted to the current state of affairs, what is more interesting would be the fact that American students today rank 25th and 21st in math and science scores respectively. American students however rank 1st in confidence in abilities…

Confidence is one thing, unearned and unwarranted delusional thinking is another altogether. When one has that skewed and distorted perception improvement is difficult because the belief is there that one is already great. I wonder how that relates to getting Bigger, Stronger, and Leaner? [/quote]

Best Post

[quote]coyotegal wrote:
Mentally is everything! In all aspects of life![/quote]

I believe the same…but this idea was literally laughed at here recently.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]coyotegal wrote:
Mentally is everything! In all aspects of life![/quote]

I believe the same…but this idea was literally laughed at here recently.[/quote]

Said by absolutely nobody.

Saying show us a natty who has gained 80lbs of muscle is NOT the same as saying a positive mentality is laughable.

Seriously why the shit do you just make things up out of thin air?

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

Why do you feel the only way to stand out or be impressive is to weigh alot? Some of the most impressive guys I have ever seen are closer to 180 then 280. See that is the thing, “impressive” is a subjective term. Everyone else seems to be able to agree on that aside from you.

[/quote]

My mistake. I figured it was understood the issue was gaining a lot of muscle mass and not simply genetic shape.

Weight alone is not the issue.[/quote]

I guess what I am trying to say is it is all subjective and relative. Nobody is right or wrong because we are dealing with a subject where the result is opinion based with no standard. [/quote]

Well in a perfect world this would end the thread right here.

Me thinks that will not happen however.[/quote]

If everybody wrote “/thread” after every decent post, these threads could not reach their true potential because they will not strive for an even better “/thread” post.

Stop imposing limits on threads. I’m worried that some of these new threads that aren’t even that big yet will get discouraged and quit growing. I still believe there is a new thread out there, somewhere in the world, that can make it past 46 pages.[/quote]

Bullshit…there is no damn way any thread has the genetics to get past 46 pages.

That is just a bunch of hooey and tomfoolery. [/quote]

Let’s look at some examples of 46-page threads. Some people just don’t realize how big that is.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_bigger_stronger_leaner/the_body_weight_factor?id=5589682&pageNo=45[/quote]

Does that mean that there cannot be a thread somewhere in this world bigger? What does that link have to do with anything?
[/quote]

Chill out. I am simply using forum data known to us over the last several years. Yes, I realize that not every thread aspires to be a thread on T-Nation because there is not much monetary incentive, but it’s the best data we have to work with.[/quote]

??

Some of you forget that there are those with the genetic potential to surpass 46 pages.

I am wondering why UtahLama can go by stating this limit with no one to call him out?

Yet when I say something I get the whole BOI horde on me.
[/quote]

Now I have some friends who create very large threads, and I respect the hell out of 'em, but even they agree that if they were to cut the threads down, the amount of useful info would be the same or possibly even less as my 3 page threads. My issue is with the claim that a bigger thread equals more content.

When you’ve been posting for as long as I have, you realize that these threads don’t add new info that fast after the first few pages. With all the multiquoted posts, you’re adding 20 sentences (and that’s on a good page!) per page after the first 5 or so. Different folks have different posting styles - some like to get to their points in more wordy or roundabout fashions.

Again I respect the hell out of 'em, but you can’t make that generalization about a better or worse poster.

-BD

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]coyotegal wrote:
Mentally is everything! In all aspects of life![/quote]

I believe the same…but this idea was literally laughed at here recently.[/quote]

Said by absolutely nobody.

Saying show us a natty who has gained 80lbs of muscle is NOT the same as saying a positive mentality is laughable.

Seriously why the shit do you just make things up out of thin air?[/quote]

x2

What was laughed at is that positive thinking can mutate your genetic potential.

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

Why do you feel the only way to stand out or be impressive is to weigh alot? Some of the most impressive guys I have ever seen are closer to 180 then 280. See that is the thing, “impressive” is a subjective term. Everyone else seems to be able to agree on that aside from you.

[/quote]

My mistake. I figured it was understood the issue was gaining a lot of muscle mass and not simply genetic shape.

Weight alone is not the issue.[/quote]

I guess what I am trying to say is it is all subjective and relative. Nobody is right or wrong because we are dealing with a subject where the result is opinion based with no standard. [/quote]

Well in a perfect world this would end the thread right here.

Me thinks that will not happen however.[/quote]

If everybody wrote “/thread” after every decent post, these threads could not reach their true potential because they will not strive for an even better “/thread” post.

Stop imposing limits on threads. I’m worried that some of these new threads that aren’t even that big yet will get discouraged and quit growing. I still believe there is a new thread out there, somewhere in the world, that can make it past 46 pages.[/quote]

Bullshit…there is no damn way any thread has the genetics to get past 46 pages.

That is just a bunch of hooey and tomfoolery. [/quote]

Let’s look at some examples of 46-page threads. Some people just don’t realize how big that is.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_bigger_stronger_leaner/the_body_weight_factor?id=5589682&pageNo=45[/quote]

Does that mean that there cannot be a thread somewhere in this world bigger? What does that link have to do with anything?
[/quote]

Chill out. I am simply using forum data known to us over the last several years. Yes, I realize that not every thread aspires to be a thread on T-Nation because there is not much monetary incentive, but it’s the best data we have to work with.[/quote]

??

Some of you forget that there are those with the genetic potential to surpass 46 pages.

I am wondering why UtahLama can go by stating this limit with no one to call him out?

Yet when I say something I get the whole BOI horde on me.
[/quote]

Now I have some friends who create very large threads, and I respect the hell out of 'em, but even they agree that if they were to cut the threads down, the amount of useful info would be the same or possibly even less as my 3 page threads. My issue is with the claim that a bigger thread equals more content.

When you’ve been posting for as long as I have, you realize that these threads don’t add new info that fast after the first few pages. With all the multiquoted posts, you’re adding 20 sentences (and that’s on a good page!) per page after the first 5 or so. Different folks have different posting styles - some like to get to their points in more wordy or roundabout fashions.

Again I respect the hell out of 'em, but you can’t make that generalization about a better or worse poster.

-BD[/quote]

This is a post that should stand out to many. I have 50,000 posts. I don’t see many here with post counts that big.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]coyotegal wrote:
Mentally is everything! In all aspects of life![/quote]

I believe the same…but this idea was literally laughed at here recently.[/quote]

Said by absolutely nobody.

Saying show us a natty who has gained 80lbs of muscle is NOT the same as saying a positive mentality is laughable.

Seriously why the shit do you just make things up out of thin air?[/quote]

This, in a nutshell, wraps up the posting MO of the good doctor.

I think anyone who has an education in psychology is aware of this. There have been quite literally hundreds (maybe thousands?) of studies that have proven that mental perception affects real world outcomes, whether we’re talking about lifting/physique accomplishments, educational accomplishments, work, whatever.

I don’t understand what’s worth arguing about here? I know this stems from the limit thread, which stemmed from an equally inane thread… I’m just not getting this. Seems like so much of what’s being talked about in these threads is almost just semantic argument. A blanket statement of “positive thinking is helpful to achieving goals” wouldn’t get any argument, right?

But as soon as we start talking about exactly how we want to define ‘limit’ as it applies to bodybuilding, everyone freaks out. This thread’s the same. Does mental perception affect ability? Yes. Does it affect the absolute limits of humanity? No. Do people have a tendency to limit themselves through perceived limits? Yes. Where else do these threads need to go?

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

Why do you feel the only way to stand out or be impressive is to weigh alot? Some of the most impressive guys I have ever seen are closer to 180 then 280. See that is the thing, “impressive” is a subjective term. Everyone else seems to be able to agree on that aside from you.

[/quote]

My mistake. I figured it was understood the issue was gaining a lot of muscle mass and not simply genetic shape.

Weight alone is not the issue.[/quote]

I guess what I am trying to say is it is all subjective and relative. Nobody is right or wrong because we are dealing with a subject where the result is opinion based with no standard. [/quote]

Well in a perfect world this would end the thread right here.

Me thinks that will not happen however.[/quote]

If everybody wrote “/thread” after every decent post, these threads could not reach their true potential because they will not strive for an even better “/thread” post.

Stop imposing limits on threads. I’m worried that some of these new threads that aren’t even that big yet will get discouraged and quit growing. I still believe there is a new thread out there, somewhere in the world, that can make it past 46 pages.[/quote]

Bullshit…there is no damn way any thread has the genetics to get past 46 pages.

That is just a bunch of hooey and tomfoolery. [/quote]

Let’s look at some examples of 46-page threads. Some people just don’t realize how big that is.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_bigger_stronger_leaner/the_body_weight_factor?id=5589682&pageNo=45[/quote]

Does that mean that there cannot be a thread somewhere in this world bigger? What does that link have to do with anything?
[/quote]

Chill out. I am simply using forum data known to us over the last several years. Yes, I realize that not every thread aspires to be a thread on T-Nation because there is not much monetary incentive, but it’s the best data we have to work with.[/quote]

??

Some of you forget that there are those with the genetic potential to surpass 46 pages.

I am wondering why UtahLama can go by stating this limit with no one to call him out?

Yet when I say something I get the whole BOI horde on me.
[/quote]

Now I have some friends who create very large threads, and I respect the hell out of 'em, but even they agree that if they were to cut the threads down, the amount of useful info would be the same or possibly even less as my 3 page threads. My issue is with the claim that a bigger thread equals more content. When you’ve been posting for as long as I have, you realize that these threads don’t add new info that fast after the first few pages. With all the multiquoted posts, you’re adding 20 sentences (and that’s on a good page!) per page after the first 5 or so. Different folks have different posting styles - some like to get to their points in more wordy or roundabout fashions. Again I respect the hell out of 'em, but you can’t make that generalization about a better or worse poster.

-BD[/quote]

This is a post that should stand out to many. I have 50,000 posts. I don’t see many here with post counts that big.[/quote]

That’s because you had the drive to achieve EXTREME posting ability.

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

Why do you feel the only way to stand out or be impressive is to weigh alot? Some of the most impressive guys I have ever seen are closer to 180 then 280. See that is the thing, “impressive” is a subjective term. Everyone else seems to be able to agree on that aside from you.

[/quote]

My mistake. I figured it was understood the issue was gaining a lot of muscle mass and not simply genetic shape.

Weight alone is not the issue.[/quote]

I guess what I am trying to say is it is all subjective and relative. Nobody is right or wrong because we are dealing with a subject where the result is opinion based with no standard. [/quote]

Well in a perfect world this would end the thread right here.

Me thinks that will not happen however.[/quote]

If everybody wrote “/thread” after every decent post, these threads could not reach their true potential because they will not strive for an even better “/thread” post.

Stop imposing limits on threads. I’m worried that some of these new threads that aren’t even that big yet will get discouraged and quit growing. I still believe there is a new thread out there, somewhere in the world, that can make it past 46 pages.[/quote]

Bullshit…there is no damn way any thread has the genetics to get past 46 pages.

That is just a bunch of hooey and tomfoolery. [/quote]

Let’s look at some examples of 46-page threads. Some people just don’t realize how big that is.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_bigger_stronger_leaner/the_body_weight_factor?id=5589682&pageNo=45[/quote]

Does that mean that there cannot be a thread somewhere in this world bigger? What does that link have to do with anything?
[/quote]

Chill out. I am simply using forum data known to us over the last several years. Yes, I realize that not every thread aspires to be a thread on T-Nation because there is not much monetary incentive, but it’s the best data we have to work with.[/quote]

??

Some of you forget that there are those with the genetic potential to surpass 46 pages.

I am wondering why UtahLama can go by stating this limit with no one to call him out?

Yet when I say something I get the whole BOI horde on me.
[/quote]

Now I have some friends who create very large threads, and I respect the hell out of 'em, but even they agree that if they were to cut the threads down, the amount of useful info would be the same or possibly even less as my 3 page threads. My issue is with the claim that a bigger thread equals more content. When you’ve been posting for as long as I have, you realize that these threads don’t add new info that fast after the first few pages. With all the multiquoted posts, you’re adding 20 sentences (and that’s on a good page!) per page after the first 5 or so. Different folks have different posting styles - some like to get to their points in more wordy or roundabout fashions. Again I respect the hell out of 'em, but you can’t make that generalization about a better or worse poster.

-BD[/quote]

This is a post that should stand out to many. I have 50,000 posts. I don’t see many here with post counts that big.[/quote]

But how much of that has to do with other factors(quoting, gifs. etc.)?

I just looked at your post history, and it looks like you have a 25% Bad post content.

If you were to diet down to contest level (5% bad post content), how many posts would you have?

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

Why do you feel the only way to stand out or be impressive is to weigh alot? Some of the most impressive guys I have ever seen are closer to 180 then 280. See that is the thing, “impressive” is a subjective term. Everyone else seems to be able to agree on that aside from you.

[/quote]

My mistake. I figured it was understood the issue was gaining a lot of muscle mass and not simply genetic shape.

Weight alone is not the issue.[/quote]

I guess what I am trying to say is it is all subjective and relative. Nobody is right or wrong because we are dealing with a subject where the result is opinion based with no standard. [/quote]

Well in a perfect world this would end the thread right here.

Me thinks that will not happen however.[/quote]

If everybody wrote “/thread” after every decent post, these threads could not reach their true potential because they will not strive for an even better “/thread” post.

Stop imposing limits on threads. I’m worried that some of these new threads that aren’t even that big yet will get discouraged and quit growing. I still believe there is a new thread out there, somewhere in the world, that can make it past 46 pages.[/quote]

Bullshit…there is no damn way any thread has the genetics to get past 46 pages.

That is just a bunch of hooey and tomfoolery. [/quote]

Let’s look at some examples of 46-page threads. Some people just don’t realize how big that is.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_bigger_stronger_leaner/the_body_weight_factor?id=5589682&pageNo=45[/quote]

Does that mean that there cannot be a thread somewhere in this world bigger? What does that link have to do with anything?
[/quote]

Chill out. I am simply using forum data known to us over the last several years. Yes, I realize that not every thread aspires to be a thread on T-Nation because there is not much monetary incentive, but it’s the best data we have to work with.[/quote]

??

Some of you forget that there are those with the genetic potential to surpass 46 pages.

I am wondering why UtahLama can go by stating this limit with no one to call him out?

Yet when I say something I get the whole BOI horde on me.
[/quote]

Now I have some friends who create very large threads, and I respect the hell out of 'em, but even they agree that if they were to cut the threads down, the amount of useful info would be the same or possibly even less as my 3 page threads. My issue is with the claim that a bigger thread equals more content. When you’ve been posting for as long as I have, you realize that these threads don’t add new info that fast after the first few pages. With all the multiquoted posts, you’re adding 20 sentences (and that’s on a good page!) per page after the first 5 or so. Different folks have different posting styles - some like to get to their points in more wordy or roundabout fashions. Again I respect the hell out of 'em, but you can’t make that generalization about a better or worse poster.

-BD[/quote]

This is a post that should stand out to many. I have 50,000 posts. I don’t see many here with post counts that big.[/quote]

But how much of that has to do with other factors(quoting, gifs. etc.)?

I just looked at your post history, and it looks like you have a 25% Bad post content.

If you were to diet down to contest level (5% bad post content), how many posts would you have?
[/quote]

Why would contest level matter if that poster never wanted to compete? Does that completely discredit the amount of posts they have built?

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I think anyone who has an education in psychology is aware of this. There have been quite literally hundreds (maybe thousands?) of studies that have proven that mental perception affects real world outcomes, whether we’re talking about lifting/physique accomplishments, educational accomplishments, work, whatever.

I don’t understand what’s worth arguing about here? I know this stems from the limit thread, which stemmed from an equally inane thread… I’m just not getting this. Seems like so much of what’s being talked about in these threads is almost just semantic argument. A blanket statement of “positive thinking is helpful to achieving goals” wouldn’t get any argument, right?

But as soon as we start talking about exactly how we want to define ‘limit’ as it applies to bodybuilding, everyone freaks out. This thread’s the same. Does mental perception affect ability? Yes. Does it affect the absolute limits of humanity? No. Do people have a tendency to limit themselves through perceived limits? Yes. Where else do these threads need to go?[/quote]

Well my understanding is that most are showing how ridicule the Original Post and the Original Poster are. We are just having a ball.

[quote]BHappy wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I think anyone who has an education in psychology is aware of this. There have been quite literally hundreds (maybe thousands?) of studies that have proven that mental perception affects real world outcomes, whether we’re talking about lifting/physique accomplishments, educational accomplishments, work, whatever.

I don’t understand what’s worth arguing about here? I know this stems from the limit thread, which stemmed from an equally inane thread… I’m just not getting this. Seems like so much of what’s being talked about in these threads is almost just semantic argument. A blanket statement of “positive thinking is helpful to achieving goals” wouldn’t get any argument, right?

But as soon as we start talking about exactly how we want to define ‘limit’ as it applies to bodybuilding, everyone freaks out. This thread’s the same. Does mental perception affect ability? Yes. Does it affect the absolute limits of humanity? No. Do people have a tendency to limit themselves through perceived limits? Yes. Where else do these threads need to go?[/quote]

Well my understanding is that most are showing how ridicule the Original Post and the Original Poster are. We are just having a ball.[/quote]

X isn’t ridiculous on his own. These threads are, and there are people on both sides. And how is engaging in stupid arguments “having a ball”? I feel like I have a very different concept of fun.

So I suppose the trick is holding a PMA (Bad Brains shout out) grounded in reality and honest self-assessment as you strive to be Bigger Stronger Leaner. The honest self-assessment would also mean that while you believe in your abilities and are chasing the top end of your potential–genetic or otherwise–you readily acknowledge your weaknesses and deficiencies; never attempting to con yourself into an overestimation of your accomplishments or status as you work to improve. Perhaps even solicit and accept criticism in your quest? Mayhaps entertain and respectfully consider perspectives that run counter to your own beliefs without hostility? I dunno, just my $.02

If everyone,and I mean EVERYONE, on this forum could embrace this mentality the quality of discussion improves tenfold.

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

Why do you feel the only way to stand out or be impressive is to weigh alot? Some of the most impressive guys I have ever seen are closer to 180 then 280. See that is the thing, “impressive” is a subjective term. Everyone else seems to be able to agree on that aside from you.

[/quote]

My mistake. I figured it was understood the issue was gaining a lot of muscle mass and not simply genetic shape.

Weight alone is not the issue.[/quote]

I guess what I am trying to say is it is all subjective and relative. Nobody is right or wrong because we are dealing with a subject where the result is opinion based with no standard. [/quote]

Well in a perfect world this would end the thread right here.

Me thinks that will not happen however.[/quote]

If everybody wrote “/thread” after every decent post, these threads could not reach their true potential because they will not strive for an even better “/thread” post.

Stop imposing limits on threads. I’m worried that some of these new threads that aren’t even that big yet will get discouraged and quit growing. I still believe there is a new thread out there, somewhere in the world, that can make it past 46 pages.[/quote]

Bullshit…there is no damn way any thread has the genetics to get past 46 pages.

That is just a bunch of hooey and tomfoolery. [/quote]

Let’s look at some examples of 46-page threads. Some people just don’t realize how big that is.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_bigger_stronger_leaner/the_body_weight_factor?id=5589682&pageNo=45[/quote]

Does that mean that there cannot be a thread somewhere in this world bigger? What does that link have to do with anything?
[/quote]

Chill out. I am simply using forum data known to us over the last several years. Yes, I realize that not every thread aspires to be a thread on T-Nation because there is not much monetary incentive, but it’s the best data we have to work with.[/quote]

??

Some of you forget that there are those with the genetic potential to surpass 46 pages.

I am wondering why UtahLama can go by stating this limit with no one to call him out?

Yet when I say something I get the whole BOI horde on me.
[/quote]

Now I have some friends who create very large threads, and I respect the hell out of 'em, but even they agree that if they were to cut the threads down, the amount of useful info would be the same or possibly even less as my 3 page threads. My issue is with the claim that a bigger thread equals more content. When you’ve been posting for as long as I have, you realize that these threads don’t add new info that fast after the first few pages. With all the multiquoted posts, you’re adding 20 sentences (and that’s on a good page!) per page after the first 5 or so. Different folks have different posting styles - some like to get to their points in more wordy or roundabout fashions. Again I respect the hell out of 'em, but you can’t make that generalization about a better or worse poster.

-BD[/quote]

This is a post that should stand out to many. I have 50,000 posts. I don’t see many here with post counts that big.[/quote]

But how much of that has to do with other factors(quoting, gifs. etc.)?

I just looked at your post history, and it looks like you have a 25% Bad post content.

If you were to diet down to contest level (5% bad post content), how many posts would you have?
[/quote]

My GOAL is an EXTREME post count. I’ve got it. Yet many here act like somehow I got it by accident. Having a higher bad post count is a means to an end.

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

Why do you feel the only way to stand out or be impressive is to weigh alot? Some of the most impressive guys I have ever seen are closer to 180 then 280. See that is the thing, “impressive” is a subjective term. Everyone else seems to be able to agree on that aside from you.

[/quote]

My mistake. I figured it was understood the issue was gaining a lot of muscle mass and not simply genetic shape.

Weight alone is not the issue.[/quote]

I guess what I am trying to say is it is all subjective and relative. Nobody is right or wrong because we are dealing with a subject where the result is opinion based with no standard. [/quote]

Well in a perfect world this would end the thread right here.

Me thinks that will not happen however.[/quote]

If everybody wrote “/thread” after every decent post, these threads could not reach their true potential because they will not strive for an even better “/thread” post.

Stop imposing limits on threads. I’m worried that some of these new threads that aren’t even that big yet will get discouraged and quit growing. I still believe there is a new thread out there, somewhere in the world, that can make it past 46 pages.[/quote]

Bullshit…there is no damn way any thread has the genetics to get past 46 pages.

That is just a bunch of hooey and tomfoolery. [/quote]

Let’s look at some examples of 46-page threads. Some people just don’t realize how big that is.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_bigger_stronger_leaner/the_body_weight_factor?id=5589682&pageNo=45[/quote]

Does that mean that there cannot be a thread somewhere in this world bigger? What does that link have to do with anything?
[/quote]

Chill out. I am simply using forum data known to us over the last several years. Yes, I realize that not every thread aspires to be a thread on T-Nation because there is not much monetary incentive, but it’s the best data we have to work with.[/quote]

??

Some of you forget that there are those with the genetic potential to surpass 46 pages.

I am wondering why UtahLama can go by stating this limit with no one to call him out?

Yet when I say something I get the whole BOI horde on me.
[/quote]

Now I have some friends who create very large threads, and I respect the hell out of 'em, but even they agree that if they were to cut the threads down, the amount of useful info would be the same or possibly even less as my 3 page threads. My issue is with the claim that a bigger thread equals more content. When you’ve been posting for as long as I have, you realize that these threads don’t add new info that fast after the first few pages. With all the multiquoted posts, you’re adding 20 sentences (and that’s on a good page!) per page after the first 5 or so. Different folks have different posting styles - some like to get to their points in more wordy or roundabout fashions. Again I respect the hell out of 'em, but you can’t make that generalization about a better or worse poster.

-BD[/quote]

This is a post that should stand out to many. I have 50,000 posts. I don’t see many here with post counts that big.[/quote]

But how much of that has to do with other factors(quoting, gifs. etc.)?

I just looked at your post history, and it looks like you have a 25% Bad post content.

If you were to diet down to contest level (5% bad post content), how many posts would you have?
[/quote]

My GOAL is an EXTREME post count. I’ve got it. Yet many here act like somehow I got it by accident. Having a higher bad post count is a means to an end.[/quote]
SS gets it. The rest of you should seek help

The point is that you can have MORE quality posts in a thread if you are willing to accept a larger thread. THE POINT WAS NEVER TO HAVE A LARGER THREAD. A LARGE THREAD WAS SIMPLY A MEANS TO GET TO A QUALITY POST WHERE SOMEONE AGREED WITH ME.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]coyotegal wrote:
Mentally is everything! In all aspects of life![/quote]

I believe the same…but this idea was literally laughed at here recently.[/quote]
Thats bullshit! No one was laughing at having a positive attitude, they were laughing at your constant whingeing about people online who you will never meet having a negative effect on your training. Just fucking get on with it and stop worrying!!

I see the applicability of having a big mindset, but to be honest most of us have enough visions of us as the champion. Everyone who broke these “limits” was more focused upon achieving immediate goals and improvements.

anyways, I wonder what’s going on in Pete Rubish’s head while he deadlifts lol. Definitely not PG…

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Waittz wrote:

Why do you feel the only way to stand out or be impressive is to weigh alot? Some of the most impressive guys I have ever seen are closer to 180 then 280. See that is the thing, “impressive” is a subjective term. Everyone else seems to be able to agree on that aside from you.

[/quote]

My mistake. I figured it was understood the issue was gaining a lot of muscle mass and not simply genetic shape.

Weight alone is not the issue.[/quote]

I guess what I am trying to say is it is all subjective and relative. Nobody is right or wrong because we are dealing with a subject where the result is opinion based with no standard. [/quote]

Well in a perfect world this would end the thread right here.

Me thinks that will not happen however.[/quote]

If everybody wrote “/thread” after every decent post, these threads could not reach their true potential because they will not strive for an even better “/thread” post.

Stop imposing limits on threads. I’m worried that some of these new threads that aren’t even that big yet will get discouraged and quit growing. I still believe there is a new thread out there, somewhere in the world, that can make it past 46 pages.[/quote]

Bullshit…there is no damn way any thread has the genetics to get past 46 pages.

That is just a bunch of hooey and tomfoolery. [/quote]

Let’s look at some examples of 46-page threads. Some people just don’t realize how big that is.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_bigger_stronger_leaner/the_body_weight_factor?id=5589682&pageNo=45[/quote]

Does that mean that there cannot be a thread somewhere in this world bigger? What does that link have to do with anything?
[/quote]

Chill out. I am simply using forum data known to us over the last several years. Yes, I realize that not every thread aspires to be a thread on T-Nation because there is not much monetary incentive, but it’s the best data we have to work with.[/quote]

??

Some of you forget that there are those with the genetic potential to surpass 46 pages.

I am wondering why UtahLama can go by stating this limit with no one to call him out?

Yet when I say something I get the whole BOI horde on me.
[/quote]

Now I have some friends who create very large threads, and I respect the hell out of 'em, but even they agree that if they were to cut the threads down, the amount of useful info would be the same or possibly even less as my 3 page threads. My issue is with the claim that a bigger thread equals more content. When you’ve been posting for as long as I have, you realize that these threads don’t add new info that fast after the first few pages. With all the multiquoted posts, you’re adding 20 sentences (and that’s on a good page!) per page after the first 5 or so. Different folks have different posting styles - some like to get to their points in more wordy or roundabout fashions. Again I respect the hell out of 'em, but you can’t make that generalization about a better or worse poster.

-BD[/quote]

This is a post that should stand out to many. I have 50,000 posts. I don’t see many here with post counts that big.[/quote]

But how much of that has to do with other factors(quoting, gifs. etc.)?

I just looked at your post history, and it looks like you have a 25% Bad post content.

If you were to diet down to contest level (5% bad post content), how many posts would you have?
[/quote]

My GOAL is an EXTREME post count. I’ve got it. Yet many here act like somehow I got it by accident. Having a higher bad post count is a means to an end.[/quote]
SS gets it. The rest of you should seek help

The point is that you can have MORE quality posts in a thread if you are willing to accept a larger thread. THE POINT WAS NEVER TO HAVE A LARGER THREAD. A LARGE THREAD WAS SIMPLY A MEANS TO GET TO A QUALITY POST WHERE SOMEONE AGREED WITH ME.[/quote]