My Bigger, Stronger, Leaner Meet Report

[quote]Widowmakr wrote:
weak[/quote]
is that you, sivabrownnips?

Good to see your slow gaining has hindered your progress.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Good to see your slow gaining has hindered your progress.[/quote]

I thought he was slow cutting from an over-bulk??

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Good to see your slow gaining has hindered your progress.[/quote]

I thought he was slow cutting from an over-bulk?? [/quote]

yeah i thought he bulked up quickly and is now slowly leaning down.

which has resulted in him achieving far more than others his age.

basically what X has been saying for a decade.

(sort of trolling but also sort of not)

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Good to see your slow gaining has hindered your progress.[/quote]

I thought he was slow cutting from an over-bulk?? [/quote]

yeah i thought he bulked up quickly and is now slowly leaning down.

which has resulted in him achieving far more than others his age.

basically what X has been saying for a decade.

(sort of trolling but also sort of not)[/quote]

uh…

Considering my total didn’t really take off until I change how I trained AND how I ate.

I’ve been slowly leaning down the past two years, which coincidentally (wink wink) is also when my total started to improve.

Overbulking got me stagnant at a 1400# total, I cut down about 20# to 190, and have since put 300# on my total. Your argument is invalid because I’ve made arguably my fastest progress since I started being reasonable with my diet.

I rather not have that shitstorm argument in my meet thread. First its getting fat means most progress now, then its getting fat makes you make progress later when you unfat? Please leave that shit out of here.

Thanks!

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Good to see your slow gaining has hindered your progress.[/quote]

I thought he was slow cutting from an over-bulk?? [/quote]

yeah i thought he bulked up quickly and is now slowly leaning down.

which has resulted in him achieving far more than others his age.

basically what X has been saying for a decade.

(sort of trolling but also sort of not)[/quote]

uh…

Considering my total didn’t really take off until I change how I trained AND how I ate.

I’ve been slowly leaning down the past two years, which coincidentally (wink wink) is also when my total started to improve.

Overbulking got me stagnant at a 1400# total, I had cut down about 20# to 190, and have since put 300# on your total. Your argument is invalid because I made arguably your fastest progress since I started being reasonable with your diet.[/quote]

cool

are you able to answer questions in this thread - I am not on Facebook so can’t post as requested.

I asked some further up, mostly nutrition related.

No problem if not.

can you discuss your approach to your diet and supplements? thanks

[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Overbulking got me stagnant at a 1400# total, I cut down about 20# to 190, and have since put 300# on my total.
[/quote]

I’m interested in why you think that “overbulking” was the reason for stagnation.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Overbulking got me stagnant at a 1400# total, I cut down about 20# to 190, and have since put 300# on my total.
[/quote]

I’m interested in why you think that “overbulking” was the reason for stagnation. [/quote]

And here we go again. A thread about Det’s awesomely high total turns into another Prof X shitstorm.

It’s funny, he always talks about how the “group” is after him, when his nut huggers came in here and started it, (Yolo84).

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
And here we go again. A thread about Det’s awesomely high total turns into another Prof X shitstorm.

It’s funny, he always talks about how the “group” is after him, when his nut huggers came in here and started it, (Yolo84).[/quote]

Just a note at how dumb this has gotten…I didn’t write anything in that post…so if that starts a “shit storm” as you put it, then you should blame the people who would avoid a discussion to fuss about something that literally does not exist.

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
And here we go again. A thread about Det’s awesomely high total turns into another Prof X shitstorm.

It’s funny, he always talks about how the “group” is after him, when his nut huggers came in here and started it, (Yolo84).[/quote]

Go fuck yourself.

I already said I was joking.

Fucking hell X you couldnt come in and congratulate the lad could you? Fucking got to be about you all the fucking time. YOU are the reason this site is becoming shit

See I for one would really like to know the diet methods Det has used to add about 300 pounds to his total while actually dropping weight, I suppose I’ll have to wait to the 70s big interview for that though.

And just to clarify when steely asked why he though overbulking caused a stagnant total I’m sort of curious too. But then of course you requote it, and before you even attempt to say you wrote nothing, we all know the direction this will go as soon as he responds, so I feel like I just summed up the opinion of 90% of the forum by saying that.

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
And just to clarify when steely asked why he though overbulking caused a stagnant total I’m sort of curious too. [/quote]

I’m not trying to be provocative by asking that, btw. I think it’s a legit ask for a follow up to the claim.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
And just to clarify when steely asked why he though overbulking caused a stagnant total I’m sort of curious too. [/quote]

I’m not trying to be provocative by asking that, btw. I think it’s a legit ask for a follow up to the claim.[/quote]

The difference between you asking and X quoting lies largely in the fact that you and det can engage in a reasonable discussion without either of you getting frustrated and turning the debate to shit.

X purposefully inserting himself into the discussion with literally NOTHING to add but a desire to see his name on the screen is childish. Quoting you and then acting surprised that people refuse to ignore the history between him and det by chiding him on attempting to derail the thread is silly. Acting completely oblivious to the effect his presence will LIKELY have on the quality of this thread is ridiculous.

I would imagine that the majority of people who would like to hear a genuine, informative discussion would rather have you and det talk shop than det and X. You and he can play nice; X hasn’t figured out a way to do that with virtually ANYONE after 47k attempts.

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
And just to clarify when steely asked why he though overbulking caused a stagnant total I’m sort of curious too. [/quote]

I’m not trying to be provocative by asking that, btw. I think it’s a legit ask for a follow up to the claim.[/quote]

The difference between you asking and X quoting lies largely in the fact that you and det can engage in a reasonable discussion without either of you getting frustrated and turning the debate to shit.

X purposefully inserting himself into the discussion with literally NOTHING to add but a desire to see his name on the screen is childish. Quoting you and then acting surprised that people refuse to ignore the history between him and det by chiding him on attempting to derail the thread is silly. Acting completely oblivious to the effect his presence will LIKELY have on the quality of this thread is ridiculous.

I would imagine that the majority of people who would like to hear a genuine, informative discussion would rather have you and det talk shop than det and X. You and he can play nice; X hasn’t figured out a way to do that with virtually ANYONE after 47k attempts.[/quote]

Tisk, Tisk, Tisk Anonym…cleary everybody is trying to argue with HIM.

I would not mind listening to Det and D discuss this either…could be informative.

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
And just to clarify when steely asked why he though overbulking caused a stagnant total I’m sort of curious too. [/quote]

I’m not trying to be provocative by asking that, btw. I think it’s a legit ask for a follow up to the claim.[/quote]

The difference between you asking and X quoting lies largely in the fact that you and det can engage in a reasonable discussion without either of you getting frustrated and turning the debate to shit.

X purposefully inserting himself into the discussion with literally NOTHING to add but a desire to see his name on the screen is childish. Quoting you and then acting surprised that people refuse to ignore the history between him and det by chiding him on attempting to derail the thread is silly. Acting completely oblivious to the effect his presence will LIKELY have on the quality of this thread is ridiculous.

I would imagine that the majority of people who would like to hear a genuine, informative discussion would rather have you and det talk shop than det and X. You and he can play nice; X hasn’t figured out a way to do that with virtually ANYONE after 47k attempts.[/quote]

I responded because the thread was at the middle of the page and no one had responded in a day.

That is all. You reading this much negative intent into one post with no words in it shows more about you than me.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
And just to clarify when steely asked why he though overbulking caused a stagnant total I’m sort of curious too. [/quote]

I’m not trying to be provocative by asking that, btw. I think it’s a legit ask for a follow up to the claim.
[/quote]

Well you did put overbulking in quotes, which makes it a little more provocative than you may have intended. I dont want to speak for det, but to me its pretty clear that the extra bulk he put on did not lead to the added strength that he thought it would. Fact is he is lighter and stronger. How?