# pics of your girlfriend



## joesmooth20 (Jun 20, 2005)

here's mine


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 20, 2005)

here's mine


----------



## Little Wing (Jun 20, 2005)

lol


----------



## joesmooth20 (Jun 20, 2005)

yeah, I saw a thread like this on another forum and I'm bored as shit sitting at work


----------



## GFR (Jun 20, 2005)

joesmooth20 said:
			
		

> here's mine


When did you take that pic? 1975.


----------



## joesmooth20 (Jun 21, 2005)

nah, just a shitty camera.


----------



## LAM (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> When did you take that pic? 1975.


----------



## Jenny (Jun 21, 2005)

She's pretty  Is that her little girl?


----------



## Fashong (Jun 21, 2005)

Nice one, busyLivin


----------



## joesmooth20 (Jun 21, 2005)

Jenny said:
			
		

> She's pretty  Is that her little girl?



nah her siter's kid. Thanks


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

>


The photo looks like late 1970's...he could be an old guy, who knows?  
So Lam how is your pseudo physiology training going???? I talked to two of the professors at ASU about your sarcoplasmic hypertrophy theories and the laughed their asses off, I also talked to my physiology professor and he said the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy concept you were preaching was bull sh-t.


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> The photo looks like late 1970's...he could be an old guy, who knows?
> So Lam how is your pseudo physiology training going???? I talked to two of the professors at ASU about your sarcoplasmic hypertrophy theories and the laughed their asses off, I also talked to my physiology professor and he said the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy concept you were preaching was bull sh-t.




Hey, thats not very nice...


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Hey, thats not very nice...


Sorry but I have to call bull sh-t when I see it....don't want people following some crap out of Flex mag if it's not true.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 21, 2005)

_They all laughed at christopher columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when edison recorded sound
They all laughed at wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly....._


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> _They all laughed at christopher columbus
> When he said the world was round
> They all laughed when edison recorded sound
> They all laughed at wilbur and his brother
> When they said that man could fly....._


1. Even in ancient times all sailors knew the earth was round,  and scientists not only suspected it was a sphere, but even estimated it's size.
2. When Edison recorded sound no one laughed, they were amazed.
3. Lam is full of sh-t, and that will not change anytime soon...he needs to learn real physiology.

Read up on history bro it's amazing!


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> 1. Even in ancient times all sailors knew the earth was round,  and scientists not only suspected it was a sphere, but even estimated it's size.
> 2. When Edison recorded sound no one laughed, they were amazed.
> 3. Lam is full of sh-t, and that will not change anytime soon...he needs to learn real physiology.
> 
> Read up on history bro it's amazing!



um..... I think you got my point.    

btw...LAM contributes a lot here. Disagree with him if you want, but don't be a dick.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> um..... I think you got my point.
> 
> btw...LAM contributes a lot here. Disagree with him if you want, but don't be a dick.


Your point was wrong....look it up, and Lam is a good source of information sometimes but a bad one as well...to much ego.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Your point was wrong....look it up, and Lam is a good source of information sometimes but a bad one as well...to much ego.


my point was wrong? lyrics from a song about how unimportant people laughing at your ideas is.    You must be a fun one to tell a joke to


----------



## ZECH (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Your point was wrong....look it up, and Lam is a good source of information sometimes but a bad one as well...to much ego.


If you think Lam has given bad advice, don't take it. Personally I think Lam gives solid advice 100% of the time. As far as ego goes, I don't see it, even though I think he has a right to have some if he wants.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> If you think Lam has given bad advice, don't take it. Personally I think Lam gives solid advice 100% of the time. As far as ego goes, I don't see it, even though I think he has a right to have some if he wants.


Lam gives great advise most of the time, but the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy  he preaches is just a joke. Plus the 567 raw natural bench at 229 is not just laughable but disrespectful to all the real power lifters out there.IMO


----------



## kraziplaya (Jun 21, 2005)

uh...i thought people were posting naked pics of their girlfriends here


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 21, 2005)

kraziplaya said:
			
		

> uh...i thought people were posting naked pics of their girlfriends here


i did.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Lam gives great advise most of the time, but the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy  he preaches is just a joke. Plus the 567 raw natural bench at 229 is not just laughable but disrespectful to all the real power lifters out there.IMO


Never read his sarcoplasmic hypertrophy theory so I can't comment. Is the 567 bench his?


----------



## LAM (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Your point was wrong....look it up, and Lam is a good source of information sometimes but a bad one as well...to much ego.



Foreman you are never a good source of information.  you haven't posted ANY valuable information the whole time you have been here.  your posts are nothing but crap with zero science behind them.   and for a person who "claims" to have competed in bodybuilding you haven't even posted a single picture.  why should anyone believe a single word from you ?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 21, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

> Foreman you are never a good source of information.  you haven't posted ANY valuable information the whole time you have been here.  your posts are nothing but crap with zero science behind them.   and for a person who "claims" to have competed in bodybuilding you haven't even posted a single picture.  why should anyone believe a single word from you ?



Foreman is also a literary expert that accuses people of claiming they never have actually read a book - that they never actually ever have claimed to read, in the first place.

And....a cold 26" bicep....?


----------



## Arnold (Jun 21, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> here's mine



LMAO! At least you're honest!


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> here's mine


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> 1. Even in ancient times all sailors knew the earth was round,  and scientists not only suspected it was a sphere, but even estimated it's size.
> 2. When Edison recorded sound no one laughed, they were amazed.
> 3. Lam is full of sh-t, and that will not change anytime soon...he needs to learn real physiology.
> 
> Read up on history bro it's amazing!


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

LAM is in good shape  but I just cant get over than 567 bench?WTF?


----------



## The Monkey Man (Jun 21, 2005)

Ever see a woman Mauled by the Monkey Man!?


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jun 21, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

> Foreman you are never a good source of information. you haven't posted ANY valuable information the whole time you have been here. your posts are nothing but crap with zero science behind them. and for a person who "claims" to have competed in bodybuilding you haven't even posted a single picture. why should anyone believe a single word from you ?


No offense Foreman, but somebody's gotta say it.

PWNED!


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I talked to two of the professors at ASU about your sarcoplasmic hypertrophy theories and the laughed their asses off, I also talked to my physiology professor and he said the sarcoplasmic hypertrophy concept you were preaching was bull sh-t.


 Asuming they also think [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]myofibrillar[/font] hypertrophy is bullshit, how would they explain that in the last month I lost about 5 pounds of muscle (I wasn't eating enough) but I got about 10-20 pounds stronger on my deadlifts squats and cleans?


----------



## b_reed23 (Jun 21, 2005)

what in the world happened to this thread??


----------



## Witmaster (Jun 21, 2005)

.


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jun 21, 2005)

I think foreman is hiding under a rock, no comeback replies


----------



## Rocco32 (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> 1. Even in ancient times all sailors knew the earth was round,  and scientists not only suspected it was a sphere, but even estimated it's size.
> 2. When Edison recorded sound no one laughed, they were amazed.
> 3. Lam is full of sh-t, and that will not change anytime soon...he needs to learn real physiology.
> 
> Read up on history bro it's amazing!


Foreman, you are a real asshole! And as far as #1 goes, people were killed for saying the world was round. Eat shit and die you piece of crap.


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

Rocco32 said:
			
		

> Foreman, you are a real asshole! And as far as #1 goes, people were killed for saying the world was round. Eat shit and die you piece of crap.


Damn Foreman, they hate u more than me. Great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> Asuming they also think myofiber hypertrophy is bullshit, how would they explain that in the last month I lost about 5 pounds of muscle (I wasn't eating enough) but I got about 10-20 pounds stronger on my deadlifts squats and cleans?


Whats your current weight?


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 21, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Whats your current weight?


 155, but what does that have to do with anything?


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> 155, but what does that have to do with anything?


Hmmm....I must admit, thats some nice pics for 155.  I'm 160, and yes I'm bigger than u!


----------



## maniclion (Jun 21, 2005)

joesmooth, I like your ladies eyelashes, very pretty, are they naturally like that or does she tweak them with that eyeball remover looking thing women have in the make-up drawer?


----------



## Little Wing (Jun 21, 2005)

cute. i like it when guys watch you do your make up while you are getting ready to go out. n it's called an eyelash curler.


----------



## maxpro2 (Jun 21, 2005)

> Foreman, you are a real asshole! And as far as #1 goes, people were killed for saying the world was round. Eat shit and die you piece of crap.


You might be thinking of people being killed for saying the earth was not the center of the universe. Foreman is right on this one - the misconception about Columbus is that he was the only one who believed the earth was round. All educated people at his time knew the earth was round... the debate was over the distance of the journey, not the earth being round. Columbus' perception of the distance of the voyage was based on Ptolemy's estimation of the circumference of the world, which was much less than it actually is.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 21, 2005)

MWpro said:
			
		

> You might be thinking of people being killed for saying the earth was not the center of the universe. Foreman is right on this one - the misconception about Columbus is that he was the only one who believed the earth was round. All educated people at his time knew the earth was round... the debate was over the distance of the journey, not the earth being round. Columbus' perception of the distance of the voyage was based on Ptolemy's estimation of the circumference of the world, which was much less than it actually is.


Pythagoras had proven it to be round way before, the funny thing about Columbus was that he thought he would cross the atalntic and hit Japan, China and India around the same distances that Cuba and Tennesee lay.  But his biggest reasoning behind his sailing was to gather gold to finance the Christian take back of Jerusalem from the Muslims.  I think everyone confuses Columbus' theory of the world being round and people laughing with the burning of Bruno and persecution of Galileo for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun as Copernicus had claimed.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

> Foreman you are never a good source of information.  you haven't posted ANY valuable information the whole time you have been here.  your posts are nothing but crap with zero science behind them.   and for a person who "claims" to have competed in bodybuilding you haven't even posted a single picture.  why should anyone believe a single word from you ?


The few exceptions to this are the several times you agreed with me!


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Foreman is also a literary expert that accuses people of claiming they never have actually read a book - that they never actually ever have claimed to read, in the first place.
> 
> And....a cold 26" bicep....?


Actually their 26.125.....and that's just my small arm.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

Rocco32 said:
			
		

> Foreman, you are a real asshole! And as far as #1 goes, people were killed for saying the world was round. Eat shit and die you piece of crap.


Thank you for your intelligent comments. Go look up the history of Columbus and you will learn that thinking the world was round in his day was common for sailors and most scientists.  I will pray for you this Sunday when I attend church.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 21, 2005)

Foreskin,

 Is your head full of helium?  You're 6'1, weigh 145 with stat's bigger than Ronnie Coleman?  Or maybe your metric conversions are off one or the other.


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Foreskin,
> 
> Is your head full of helium?  You're 6'1, weigh 145 with stat's bigger than Ronnie Coleman?  Or maybe your metric conversions are off one or the other.



Foreskin?  fuck maniclion I was eating and almost choked when I read this.........I think he's joking with the stats dickheads.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Foreskin?  fuck maniclion I was eating and almost choked when I read this.........I think he's joking with the stats dickheads.


My stats are all true....I just checked them and have made some new gains. I will have to edit them and record my new records.


----------



## SuperFlex (Jun 21, 2005)

joesmooth20 said:
			
		

> here's mine


Nice...

But honestly bro it's time to move on! We're trying to be nice!!!


----------



## Witmaster (Jun 21, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Foreskin,
> 
> Is your head full of helium? You're 6'1, weigh 145 with stat's bigger than Ronnie Coleman? Or maybe your metric conversions are off one or the other.


 FINALLY!  I was wondering when someone would inquire about this! (or maybe someone has and I missed it).  I was trying to look him up in the World Record books on his 2-mile run time!  Hell, Daniel_Komen (Kenya) had a world record run time of 7:58.61!!  Foreman, you must be a god!


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> FINALLY!  I was wondering when someone would inquire about this! (or maybe someone has and I missed it).  I was trying to look him up in the World Record books on his 2-mile run time!  Hell, Daniel_Komen (Kenya) had a world record run time of 7:58.61!!  Foreman, you must be a god!


If you took the time to be up on the facts you would see that I just broke my personal 2 mile run record,,,,,under 5 min now.


----------



## Witmaster (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> If you took the time to be up on the facts you would see that I just broke my personal 2 mile run record,,,,,under 5 min now.


and If you paid attention to my last post you would see I'm comparing your unbelievable time to a world class registered athlete.

I'm calling BULLSHIT on your run-time.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> and If you paid attention to my last post you would see I'm comparing your unbelievable time to a world class registered athlete.
> 
> I'm calling BULLSHIT on your run-time.


Today I ran 2 miles in 4 min and 45 seconds....It might be a world record but I don't feel the need to officially break the currant record. I just love to exercise thats all,


----------



## Witmaster (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Today I ran 2 miles in 4 min and 45 seconds....It might be a world record but I don't feel the need to officially break the currant record. I just love to exercise thats all,


Uh, yea.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> Uh, yea.


Sir I assure you it's true, and in the next month I will cut that 2 mile  time down to 3 min and 55 sec.


----------



## Witmaster (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Sir I assure you it's true, and in the next month I will cut that 2 mile time down to 3 min and 55 sec.


You then, should contact a recruiter for the Olympic_Authority and capitolize on your talent.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> You then, should contact a recruiter for the Olympic_Authority and capitolize on your talent.


No I just love to be my best, I feel no need to go out and break the records. If I just focused on running my raw natural bench press of 567 for 52 reps might drop down and I don't want that to happen.


----------



## Witmaster (Jun 21, 2005)

Dude, you are so full of shit.  I love it!


----------



## The Monkey Man (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> No I just love to be my best, I feel no need to go out and break the records. If I just focused on running my raw natural bench press of 567 for 52 reps might drop down and I don't want that to happen.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> Dude, you are so full of shit.  I love it!


I am truly sorry that you find the need to challenge the stats in my sig. I can assure they are all true.


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I am truly sorry that you find the need to challenge the stats in my sig. I can assure they are all true.


  what next? A two foot long cock?


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 21, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> what next? A two foot long cock?


isn't that normal?


----------



## musclepump (Jun 21, 2005)

Foreman, I'd pay to see you run two miles in that time. I'd pay GOOD money to see that. Where you from? I might make this an adventure.


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> isn't that normal?


No busy, a 24in. Dick isnt normal.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 21, 2005)




----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

musclepump said:
			
		

> Foreman, I'd pay to see you run two miles in that time. I'd pay GOOD money to see that. Where you from? I might make this an adventure.


I have just proved my point and want to thank all that participated in this study. You can post the most outrageous lie and many people will believe you  To even comment or argue with the sats on my sig is amazing, who could believe such bullsh-t. I love it Witmaster actually did research to disprove my stats   Here is a clue Witmaster.....these stats are impossible.   Witmaster, Maniclion and Mr_Snafu...shame on you


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I have just proved my point and want to thank all that participated in this study. You can post the most outrageous lie and many people will believe you  To even comment or argue with the sats on my sig is amazing, who could believe such bullsh-t. I love it Wit actually did research to disprove my stats   Here is a clue Wit.....these stats are impossible.


Ha! You just made them look damn stupid!


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> these stats are impossible.


Impossible? I did this shit last night..........I think, I was high than ah muthafucka!


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 21, 2005)

Wow, I can't fathom anyone taking foreman's sig seriously.


----------



## musclepump (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I have just proved my point and want to thank all that participated in this study. You can post the most outrageous lie and many people will believe you  To even comment or argue with the sats on my sig is amazing, who could believe such bullsh-t. I love it Witmaster actually did research to disprove my stats   Here is a clue Witmaster.....these stats are impossible.   Witmaster, Maniclion and Mr_Snafu...shame on you


 The point is to make you step up or shut the fuck up. Obviously it's a lie, but you still think it's funny to press it. Finally once it can be contested, you'll get over it, and with luck, yourself.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

musclepump said:
			
		

> The point is to make you step up or shut the fuck up. Obviously it's a lie, but you still think it's funny to press it. Finally once it can be contested, you'll get over it, and with luck, yourself.


It was a fantastic study of how gullible some people can be, as for contesting it only a fool would question or contest such an outrageous lie.  Or pay to see it.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 21, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> Asuming they also think [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]myofibrillar[/font] hypertrophy is bullshit, how would they explain that in the last month I lost about 5 pounds of muscle (I wasn't eating enough) but I got about 10-20 pounds stronger on my deadlifts squats and cleans?


 Foremen, you never answered my question.


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> only a fool would question


If theres a God!


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

I kid I kid


----------



## musclepump (Jun 21, 2005)

The pay to see it part is the catalyst for the 'step up or shut up.'


----------



## Witmaster (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> It was a fantastic study of how gullible some people can be, as for contesting it only a fool would question or contest such an outrageous lie.  Or pay to see it.


OK............. Just when the hell did I ever say I believed your Sig?  as I recall, I'm the one who called


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> OK............. Just when the hell did I ever say I believed your Sig?  as I recall, I'm the one who called


Thats how u said it! Even saying something about it is stupid honestly.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> Foremen, you never answered my question.


I was not talking about Myofiber Hypertrophy. The term Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy is all I was talking about....there is no such thing as Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy...it's a pseudo Physiology term made up by someone trying to make a quick buck.


----------



## topolo (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> It was a fantastic study of how gullible some people can be, as for contesting it only a fool would question or contest such an outrageous lie.  Or pay to see it.




Was the poor spelling throughout your posts part of the act??


----------



## Witmaster (Jun 21, 2005)

topolo said:
			
		

> was the poor spelling part of the act?


No, his poor spelling isn't an act.  He's all natural there.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> OK............. Just when the hell did I ever say I believed your Sig?  as I recall, I'm the one who called


Yes you keep trying to prove it wrong post after post, even going so far to use Olympic runners stats.......punked!


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

topolo said:
			
		

> was the poor spelling throughout your posts part of the act??


.................thats not funny.


----------



## Witmaster (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Yes you keep trying to prove it wrong post after post, even going so far to use Olympic runners stats.......punked!


God you really are fucked up aren't you?


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Yes you keep trying to prove it wrong post after post, even going so far to use Olympic runners stats.......punked!


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

topolo said:
			
		

> was the poor spelling throughout your posts part of the act??


When you begin a sentence you should us a capital letter.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I was not talking about Myofiber Hypertrophy. The term Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy is all I was talking about....there is no such thing as Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy...it's a pseudo Physiology term made up by someone trying to make a quick buck.


 Sarcoplamic hypertrophy is the oposite of myofibrilliar hypertrophy. If you consider one false, it doesn't make sence to say the other is true. Myofibrilliar is getting stronger and not bigger, and sarcoplasmic is getting bigger but not stronger. How can you tell me strength and size go hand in hand if you can get stronger and not bigger?


----------



## The Monkey Man (Jun 21, 2005)




----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> God you really are fucked up aren't you?


Well, I dont know about Forefuck, but I am!


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> When you begin a sentence you should us a capital letter.


      I think they hate u more than me!


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

>


Why do u do shit like this?


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> Sarcoplamic hypertrophy is the oposite of myofibrilliar hypertrophy. If you consider one false, it doesn't make sence to say the other is true. Myofibrilliar is getting stronger and not bigger, and sarcoplasmic is getting bigger but not stronger. How can you tell me strength and size go hand in hand if you can get stronger and not bigger?


Ok I have never talked about Myofibrilliar Hypertrophy, but we can if you like.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> I think they hate u more than me!


I hope so, that is my goal.


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Ok I have never talked about Myofibrilliar Hypertrophy, but we can if you like.


Damn you bitches need to just lift the fucking weights! None of this scientific shit even matters.


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I hope so, that is my goal.


Your going to have a hard time. Maybe I'll make a poll later.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Damn you bitches need to just lift the fucking weights! None of this scientific shit even matters.


No shit, especially when its pseudo science.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Ok I have never talked about Myofibrilliar Hypertrophy, but we can if you like.


 Well, I just figured the answer for why you think sacroplasmic hypertrophy doesn't exists would be the same as why you think myofibrilliar is false too. I just want to know why you would say either is a fallacy.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> Well, I just figured the answer for why you think sacroplasmic hypertrophy doesn't exists would be the same as why you think myofibrilliar is false too. I just want to know why you would say either is a fallacy.


Read post  11 for why I have my opinions on Sacroplasmic Hypertrophy.


----------



## god hand (Jun 21, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> Well, I just figured the answer for why you think sacroplasmic hypertrophy doesn't exists would be the same as why you think myofibrilliar is false too. I just want to know why you would say either is a fallacy.


READ POST #95!


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Read post 11 for why I have my opinions on Sacroplasmic Hypertrophy.


 I know what your opinion is, I was to know the science behind why you think that it's not true. My experience, though minimal, says different.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> I know what your opinion is, I was to know the science behind why you think that it's not true. My experience, though minimal, says different.


Three college Physiology professors  (Two at ASU) said that this was not true science. Now I will admit they were way over my head with the explanation, but it was clear they know much more about Hypertrophy then anyone on this site. I have stick with  the true experts on this, I am certainly not about to argue with three college Physiology professors.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Three college Physiology professors (Two at ASU) said that this was not true science. Now I will admit they were way over my head with the explanation, but it was clear they know much more about Hypertrophy then anyone on this site. I have stick with the true experts on this, I am certainly not about to argue with three college Physiology professors.


 I am not trying to change your mind, I just want to know if there was some evidence they provided you with that could give me a reason to believe them. I'm 15 and am sure those professors know much more than I do, I just want an explanation. They wouldn't happen to have a website that has e-mail contact information would they?


----------



## topolo (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Three college Physiology professors  (Two at ASU) said that this was not true science. Now I will admit they were way over my head with the explanation, but it was clear they know much more about Hypertrophy then anyone on this site. I have stick with  the true experts on this, I am certainly not about to argue with three college Physiology professors.




Foreman you go to ASU?? Are you in Az.??  I graduated from ASU in '95.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

topolo said:
			
		

> Foreman you go to ASU?? Are you in Az.??  I graduated from ASU in '95.


No I'm not at ASU, I'm at A small college just in the beginning of my clinicals for my RN. My Physiology 2 professor is retired from ASU.


----------



## GFR (Jun 21, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> I am not trying to change your mind, I just want to know if there was some evidence they provided you with that could give me a reason to believe them. I'm 15 and am sure those professors know much more than I do, I just want an explanation. They wouldn't happen to have a website that has e-mail contact information would they?


You can go to any college and talk to a Physiology professor. Just find out the office hours and walk in....you should probably pretend you are thinking of attending the college.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 21, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> You can go to any college and talk to a Physiology professor. Just find out the office hours and walk in....you should probably pretend you are thinking of attending the college.


 I'll accually be attending Pace University from july 1st through the 10th. I'm going to be studying business, but during some of the free time I'll have to look into it.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> God you really are fucked up aren't you?


God has nothing to do with it. What's fu-ked up is you doing research to prove my fake stats wrong.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 22, 2005)

I enjoy ForemanRules and his style, but I did feel a bit negative when he turned against me because I don't want more Americans to perish in the hostile land of Iraq.

I said I wanted the insurgents to defeat the neo-conservatives and he and I think Eggs, turned against me.

Oh well....That's the way it goes.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> I enjoy ForemanRules and his style, but I did feel a bit negative when he turned against me because I don't want more Americans to perish in the hostile land of Iraq.
> 
> I said I wanted the insurgents to defeat the neo-conservatives and he and I think Eggs, turned against me.
> 
> Oh well....That's the way it goes.


Sorry bro but I am anti war 100%....unless they come to our land with tanks and planes ect. I never said that we should be in Iraq or that we should stay there now. I do not support Iraq insurgents, you had said you did....thats all we disagreed on.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 22, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> I'll accually be attending Pace University from july 1st through the 10th. I'm going to be studying business, but during some of the free time I'll have to look into it.




Pace University in NYC??  Wanna work out??


----------



## Rocco32 (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Thank you for your intelligent comments. Go look up the history of Columbus and you will learn that thinking the world was round in his day was common for sailors and most scientists.  I will pray for you this Sunday when I attend church.


Columbus?!? I'm talking way before then. Is that as far as your history lessons have gone? And if your seriously someone who goes to church, that just reinforces my decision not too any longer.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

Rocco32 said:
			
		

> Columbus?!? I'm talking way before then. Is that as far as your history lessons have gone? And if your seriously someone who goes to church, that just reinforces my decision not too any longer.


We were talking about the time of Columbus, if you want to discuss another time period then start a thread on it. Please try and stick to the subject at hand. 
And no I do not go to church, only the slaves do.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 22, 2005)

slave....  you know everything, don't you...


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> slave....  you know everything, don't you...


Why don't you go and pray.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Why don't you go and pray.



why don't you go do something.  you've been here a month & have over 1200 posts


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> why don't you go do something.  you've been here a month & have over 1200 posts


Pray for me slave.


----------



## Rocco32 (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> We were talking about the time of Columbus, if you want to discuss another time period then start a thread on it. Please try and stick to the subject at hand.
> And no I do not go to church, only the slaves do.





			
				Foreman said:
			
		

> 1. Even in ancient times all sailors knew the earth was round, and scientists not only suspected it was a sphere, but even estimated it's size.


I kinda consider "ancient times" a bit longer then Columbus.  I've been reading your replies for quite awhile now and can't tell you how much your lack of understanding and intelligence just surprises me. You have the tact of an 8th grader trying to prove your points. 

And why don't you leave Lam alone now, He's been a big contributor to this site for a long time now while you contribute mostly crap. Either step up to the plate or back off.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> _They all laughed at christopher columbus
> When he said the world was round
> They all laughed when edison recorded sound
> They all laughed at wilbur and his brother
> When they said that man could fly....._


This is the post I responded to.......nice try Rocco.....spin on buddy.   Go take some reading classes and get back to me.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> This is the post I responded to.......nice try Rocco.....spin on buddy.   Go take some reading classes and get back to me.


that cracks me up.. that all started because of the song...


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> that cracks me up.. that all started because of the song...


What song is that from?


----------



## Rocco32 (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> This is the post I responded to.......nice try Rocco.....spin on buddy.   Go take some reading classes and get back to me.


Well then be careful with your posts because that's still not ANCIENT history buddy. I was responding to THAT post. Maybe you should take some Comprehension classes and get back to me.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

Rocco32 said:
			
		

> Well then be careful with your posts because that's still not ANCIENT history buddy. I was responding to THAT post. Maybe you should take some Comprehension classes and get back to me.


Looks like you were called on your lame attempt at spinning.....Reading 101 might help you if it was just a mistake in your comprehension.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 22, 2005)

"They all laughed".. Sinatra's version was the best, IMO.


ends with "Who's got the last laugh now...."


----------



## Rocco32 (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Looks like you were called on your lame attempt at spinning.....Reading 101 might help you if it was just a mistake in your comprehension.


WTF?!? Did your just repeat yourself to my response? I guess that's what I'm talking about.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

Rocco32 said:
			
		

> WTF?!? Did your just repeat yourself to my response? I guess that's what I'm talking about.


Come on Rocco I suggested you take some reading classes before your post, look back at post 119...oops.  
Next time I promise I wont call you out when you f-up and post before you read what I'm actually  responding to.  You can't enjoy a story by just reading the cliff notes.


----------



## Rocco32 (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Come on Rocco I suggested you take some reading classes before your post, look back at post 119...oops.
> Next time I promise I wont call you out when you f-up and post before you read what I'm actually  responding to.  You can't enjoy a story by just reading the cliff notes.


Awww, crap. Your so much smarter than me. Alright, you got me..... Oh no, wait. Why don't YOU look back to post #122. I'm calling you on your use of words. If your responding to the song then say Columbus or that time frame, not Ancient History which is what I responded to. Go ahead and sign up for some classes Foreman, maybe the Community college will accept you. You can always try ESL if the regular english classes are too much for you.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 22, 2005)

careful Rocco, Foreman knows everything!!


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

Rocco32 said:
			
		

> Awww, crap. Your so much smarter than me. Alright, you got me..... Oh no, wait. Why don't YOU look back to post #122. I'm calling you on your use of words. If your responding to the song then say Columbus or that time frame, not Ancient History which is what I responded to. Go ahead and sign up for some classes Foreman, maybe the Community college will accept you. You can always try ESL if the regular english classes are too much for you.


My God man you are really stupid  Your busted again and still you can't face it.Post 119....go read it, I suggested you need some reading classes. Then in post 122 you copy my recommendations. Post 125 you totally F-up.
If you had read the entire thread you might not have your foot in your mouth right now.
So tell me professor how many years back is ancient history??? 
When you use the word English you have to capitalize the e....just a tip for you.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> careful Rocco, Foreman knows everything!!


I know very little, but sometimes thats enough.


----------



## Rocco32 (Jun 22, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> careful Rocco, Foreman knows everything!!


Your right Busy, this guy is worse than Johnnny


----------



## Rocco32 (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I know very little, but sometimes thats enough.


I think you know just enough to be an internet forum asshole


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

Rocco32 said:
			
		

> I think you know just enough to be an internet forum asshole


I know enough to point out your rash and ill informed comments.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I know very little, but sometimes thats enough.



for someone who knows little, you're quick to attack other people's intelligence.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> for someone who knows little, you're quick to attack other people's intelligence.


I only do it when attacked first....most of the time.


----------



## Jenny (Jun 22, 2005)

Wow, you guys talk a lot of smack.. I though this thread was supposed to be about pictures of your girlfriends


----------



## largepkg (Jun 22, 2005)

For god sakes people you are = you're, not your. 

Also, I agree Foreman is an Asshole!


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

largepkg said:
			
		

> For god sakes people you are = you're, not your.
> 
> Also, I agree Foreman is an Asshole!


How dare you sir, that was uncalled for! Now I will have to pray for you as well.


----------



## largepkg (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> How dare you sir, that was uncalled for! Now I will have to pray for you as well.




Wow, somebody praying for me is a new experience. TY!


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jun 22, 2005)

Dude, Forman, whats your deal??? Why you gotta be raggin on cool people like Rocco and LAM??? What the heck?


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jun 22, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Damn you bitches need to just lift the fucking weights! None of this scientific shit even matters.


It doesnt? So we should just go in the gym and screw around the whole time?


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 22, 2005)

FishOrCutBait said:
			
		

> Dude, Forman, whats your deal??? Why you gotta be raggin on cool people like Rocco and LAM???



..and dorks, like busyLivin?


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 22, 2005)

largepkg said:
			
		

> For god sakes people you are = you're, not your.
> 
> Also, I agree Foreman is an Asshole!




Dammit! you beat me to it.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

FishOrCutBait said:
			
		

> Dude, Forman, whats your deal??? Why you gotta be raggin on cool people like Rocco and LAM??? What the heck?


Ok I rage on Lam because it's fun. Rocco is another story, he started out on this thread attacking me with profane insults and personal attacks....even more fun.


----------



## largepkg (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> Dammit! you beat me to it.




Which part my friend? Please tell me you agree with both!


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jun 22, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> ..and dorks, like busyLivin?


Im sorry, I just read page 4... I respect you too...

But seriously, it just screws stuff up. Id honestly like to see some solid evidence that disproves sarcoplasmic hypertrophy


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

FishOrCutBait said:
			
		

> Im sorry, I just read page 4... I respect you too...
> 
> But seriously, it just screws stuff up. Id honestly like to see some solid evidence that disproves sarcoplasmic hypertrophy


I would like to see some that proves it.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 22, 2005)

FishOrCutBait said:
			
		

> Im sorry, I just read page 4... I respect you too...
> 
> But seriously, it just screws stuff up. Id honestly like to see some solid evidence that disproves sarcoplasmic hypertrophy


 I'm only screwing around


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 22, 2005)

largepkg said:
			
		

> Which part my friend? Please tell me you agree with both!



Oh I do 

However, it does provide some entertainment during the work day.

Foreman and godhand are a great couple


----------



## largepkg (Jun 22, 2005)

I don't even know what sarcoplasmic means.   Sounds like something out of Ghostbusters.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> Oh I do
> 
> However, it does provide some entertainment during the work day.
> 
> Foreman and godhand are a great couple


Your negativity is destroying this thread, please stop.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jun 22, 2005)

Heres an article.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/hale6.htm


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

FishOrCutBait said:
			
		

> Heres an article.
> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/hale6.htm


Look at the source at the bottom of the article....that says it all.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jun 22, 2005)

Well, youve made absolutely no effort to provide any information which disproves sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, other than say "these three guys said to me". Who knows, you may have been high!


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 22, 2005)

http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/hypertrophy.txt

Not sourced, but Mel Siff is more than reputable in the world of training


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jun 22, 2005)

largepkg said:
			
		

> I don't even know what sarcoplasmic means.  Sounds like something out of Ghostbusters.


more or less, its the juice/fibers/organnelles in the muscle that have little or nothing to do with contraction


----------



## drew.haynes (Jun 22, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Ha! You just made them look damn stupid!



Anyone can make a mistake and look stupid... a real challenge would be making God Hand look smart.


----------



## Rocco32 (Jun 22, 2005)

drew.haynes said:
			
		

> Anyone can make a mistake and look stupid... a real challenge would be making God Hand look smart.


 Nice!


----------



## drew.haynes (Jun 22, 2005)

FishOrCutBait said:
			
		

> more or less, its the juice/fibers/organnelles in the muscle that have little or nothing to do with contraction



Not really true. It does have something to do with contraction. Efferent neurons signal the sarcoplasmic reticulum to release calcium cations that more or less "trigger" contractions by causing tropomyosin shifts and letting actin and myosin heads grasp and pull.

If somethin about that seems inaccurate, let me know and I'll go back and figure out what I was wrong on... lol. It's been awhile, but I did learn this at some point (we do have to learn _some_ stuff in pre-med, even tho pre-med as a whole is almost completely unrelated to anything medical).


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> http://staff.washington.edu/griffin/hypertrophy.txt
> 
> Not sourced, but Mel Siff is more than reputable in the world of training


Mel Siff was, he is dead now. The truth is I can't find one credible source to support that article.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 22, 2005)

What does his death have to do with the information he provided to the sport?

You started spouting off about sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, yet have not been able to provide one credible source to back up your claims, other than Heresay.

Is that a credible source?


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> What does his death have to do with the information he provided to the sport?
> 
> You started spouting off about sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, yet have not been able to provide one credible source to back up your claims, other than Heresay.
> 
> Is that a credible source?


I can't explain in detail that cancer can kill you so I guess it wont. Nice logic buddy, go and make up some new terms and then make me prove there untrue. Give me a list of all the things published in Flex and M&F so I can attempt to prove those credible sources wrong.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 22, 2005)

nice try beating around the bush.

What you don't know the answer other, than my uncles, brothers, sisters, father is at ASU and is a professeur so he must be right.

Who/what made your opinion and the people you know right?

If you are going to spout off about a credible member here at least back it up with something other than Heresay.

I have no problem when someone is legitimately discredited, but what you are doing is bullshit, and should receive the amount of respect any Troll would get


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> nice try beating around the bush.
> 
> What you don't know the answer other, than my uncles, brothers, sisters, father is at ASU and is a professeur so he must be right.
> 
> ...


I will take the word of a Physiology professor over some meat head any day.
If I started typing now, trying to prove all the bull sh-t in the body building magazines wrong it would take me 100 years to get the job done. Do you want me to prove that there is no real Santa also?  Get a grip buddy.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 22, 2005)

There is no Santa?    

I am just playing with you Foreman.  I couldn't really give a shit about Sarcopl.. whatever.

You expect sources from everyone to justify there reason, yet are unable to provide any yourself.   Just figured it was time for a taste of your own medicine


----------



## Witmaster (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> nice try beating around the bush.
> 
> What you don't know the answer other, than my uncles, brothers, sisters, father is at ASU and is a professeur so he must be right.
> 
> ...


Don't waste any more of your time on this fool IainDaniel.  Trying to engage in any discussion with this fool only fuels his bullshit rhetoric all the more.  Ever hear the phrase, "the squeeky wheel gets the grease"?

It's pretty clear to most everyone here that he's full of shit.  It's almost pathetic.  38 years old and the best he can do is troll about like a 10-year old trying to instigate dissention and strife here in a BodyBuilding Forum.

His childish antics bore me.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> There is no Santa?
> 
> I am just playing with you Foreman.  I couldn't really give a shit about Sarcopl.. whatever.
> 
> You expect sources from everyone to justify there reason, yet are unable to provide any yourself.   Just figured it was time for a taste of your own medicine


I have given many reasons why it is a false claim on several threads. You must prove new science thats the bottom line.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> Don't waste any more of your time on this fool IainDaniel.  Trying to engage in any discussion with this fool only fuels his bullshit rhetoric all the more.  Ever hear the phrase, "the squeeky wheel gets the grease"?
> 
> It's pretty clear to most everyone here that he's full of shit.  It's almost pathetic.  38 years old and the best he can do is troll about like a 10-year old trying to instigate dissention and strife here in a BodyBuilding Forum.
> 
> His childish antics bore me.


So why do you keep commenting on everything I say????  
I see you're still mad about getting punked.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I have given many reasons why it is a false claim on several threads. You must prove new science thats the bottom line.




Funny but I haven't seen nor been able to find any.  Got any links?


----------



## largepkg (Jun 22, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> Don't waste any more of your time on this fool IainDaniel.  Trying to engage in any discussion with this fool only fuels his bullshit rhetoric all the more.  Ever hear the phrase, "the squeeky wheel gets the grease"?
> 
> It's pretty clear to most everyone here that he's full of shit.  It's almost pathetic.  38 years old and the best he can do is troll about like a 10-year old trying to instigate dissention and strife here in a BodyBuilding Forum.
> 
> His childish antics bore me.




I don't think more true'r words have been spoken!


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 22, 2005)

largepkg said:
			
		

> I don't think more true'r words have been spoken!




So wait a second.....  If I keep debating I will keep getting more BS spouted my way.  Fuck, Fuck, Fuck.

Why don't I ever learn


----------



## largepkg (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> So wait a second.....  If I keep debating I will keep getting more BS spouted my way.  Fuck, Fuck, Fuck.
> 
> Why don't I ever learn




 


Arguing with Foreman is like arguing with a 4 year old! You know you're right but you can never win...


----------



## god hand (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> Oh I do
> 
> However, it does provide some entertainment during the work day.
> 
> Foreman and godhand are a great couple


Do u want to be on my list?


----------



## god hand (Jun 22, 2005)

FishOrCutBait said:
			
		

> Well, youve made absolutely no effort to provide any information which disproves sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, other than say "these three guys said to me". Who knows, you may have been high!


All of this shit is worthless! K.I.S.S. Keep it super simple! U are wasting your time studying this shit. I could see if u where on level 10 trying to go to level 11, but your on level 1 or 2, so it doesnt even matter.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> Funny but I haven't seen nor been able to find any.  Got any links?


I guess the old saying is true, "you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink". If you chose to believe all the training theories published in muscle magazines then thats your choice. I will stick to real Physiology over unproven pseudo Physiology any day.


----------



## god hand (Jun 22, 2005)

drew.haynes said:
			
		

> Anyone can make a mistake and look stupid... a real challenge would be making God Hand look smart.


NO! Wrong! The real challenge is u getting off my dick!


----------



## god hand (Jun 22, 2005)

With your lame azz!


----------



## god hand (Jun 22, 2005)

drew.haynes said:
			
		

> Not really true. It does have something to do with contraction. Efferent neurons signal the sarcoplasmic reticulum to release calcium cations that more or less "trigger" contractions by causing tropomyosin shifts and letting actin and myosin heads grasp and pull.
> 
> If somethin about that seems inaccurate, let me know and I'll go back and figure out what I was wrong on... lol. It's been awhile, but I did learn this at some point (we do have to learn _some_ stuff in pre-med, even tho pre-med as a whole is almost completely unrelated to anything medical).


      Just shut tha fuck up already nerd boy!


----------



## god hand (Jun 22, 2005)

"Hello my name is Drew (nerdfuck) Haynes. I like to post non-funny humor about God Hand." Oh, I read your book about Grammar for dummies. Now its time for u to read my book, Pussy for nerdboys.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> *I have given many reasons why it is a false claim on several threads.*



What is so hard about proving your statements?


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

largepkg said:
			
		

> Arguing with Foreman is like arguing with a 4 year old! You know you're right but you can never win...


When someone is right about something I agree with them or just don't comment.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> What is so hard about proving your statements?


What exactly do you need for proof ? Help me out on this one, what type of data do you need to prove that a body building article with no medical studies to back it up is wrong?


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 22, 2005)

Ah, this is a waste of time you can't even back up your own statements.

Thanks for the afternoon entertainment at work


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> Ah, this is a waste of time you can't even back up your own statements.
> 
> Thanks for the afternoon entertainment at work


I see you can't answer my question. Just as I thought, you have no answers just more questions.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 22, 2005)

Funny but the same could be said to you


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> Funny but the same could be said to you


Like I said what type of proof do you require? If you can't answer that then you are just talking out your ass.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 22, 2005)




----------



## god hand (Jun 22, 2005)

Now thats funny! Do we have that one?


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Now thats funny! Do we have that one?


Spike has one like that but it's 10x bigger...I don't think we have them on our smiles list.


----------



## god hand (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Spike has one like that but it's 10x bigger...I don't think we have them on our smiles list.


Whats your bodyfat?


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Whats your bodyfat?


Shit I didn't post it on my signature.....good idea thanks GH


----------



## Rocco32 (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> When someone is right about something I agree with them or just don't comment.


Or when you "think" they are wrong you engage them in a completely senseless string of posts where you never really say anything. Hey, are you into politics?


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

Rocco32 said:
			
		

> Or when you "think" they are wrong you engage them in a completely senseless string of posts where you never really say anything. Hey, are you into politics?


No Rocco I just argue with stupid people who are oblivious to the prior posts, and runaround in circles thinking they are proving a nonexistent point.
Politics....I wouldn't waste my time with that crap....not even amusing for a second.


----------



## Vieope (Jun 22, 2005)

_I like chocolate cake, marshmallows and ice cream. _


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jun 22, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> Pace University in NYC??  Wanna work out??


 Hell ya.


----------



## drew.haynes (Jun 22, 2005)

Some guys just need to calm down.

Foreman... for one... who says it is best to take the word of a physiology prof over a "meat head"? Just because someone is a body builder does not mean they are ignorant, and there ARE body builders who will know more about certain topics than someone IN a medical field. The human body is too complex to know every aspect of it in fine detail. Doctors, professors, etc... they are all taught to have a good understanding of the body as a whole... but CANNOT be expected to know as much about one group of topics as someone who devotes alot of time to that one area. They are required to focus on a broader range of details.

GodHand, quit fabricating some delusional fascination that you wish I had for your "dick". I'd really like to see you make a post that is actually worth reading, instead of just starting 30 random polls every time you get bored.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

drew.haynes said:
			
		

> Some guys just need to calm down.
> 
> Foreman... for one... who says it is best to take the word of a physiology prof over a "meat head"? Just because someone is a body builder does not mean they are ignorant, and there ARE body builders who will know more about certain topics than someone IN a medical field. The human body is too complex to know every aspect of it in fine detail. Doctors, professors, etc... they are all taught to have a good understanding of the body as a whole... but CANNOT be expected to know as much about one group of topics as someone who devotes alot of time to that one area. They are required to focus on a broader range of details.
> 
> GodHand, quit fabricating some delusional fascination that you wish I had for your "dick". I'd really like to see you make a post that is actually worth reading, instead of just starting 30 random polls every time you get bored.


I agree with you, most Doctors know very little about nutrition, however when a term is being used and it doesn't appear in any physiology books or on any medical or college websites it makes me wonder how someone can just say its all true. When someone has made up a medical term I will call them on it, if they can prove its validity, well its all good.Their has not been one shread of evidence to prove this term in the context it was presented in exists outside of the body building community. It's easy show the legitimate medical proof and make me eat my words....I will take the shame and learn something new at the same time....So I'm waiting.


----------



## drew.haynes (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree with you, most Doctors know very little about nutrition, however when a term is being used and it doesn't appear in any physiology books or on any medical or college websites it makes me wonder how someone can just say its all true. When someone has made up a medical term I will call them on it, if they can prove its validity, well its all good.Their has not been one shread of evidence to prove this term in the context it was presented in exists outside of the body building community. It's easy show the legitimate medical proof and make me eat my words....I will take the shame and learn something new at the same time....So I'm waiting.



Can you quote what LAM said that you are disagreeing with, so I can remember exactly what was said? Not agreeing/disagreeing with either of you at this point. Just want to know.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

drew.haynes said:
			
		

> Can you quote what LAM said that you are disagreeing with, so I can remember exactly what was said? Not agreeing/disagreeing with either of you at this point. Just want to know.


I will look it up later, right now I'm running out the door to my Physiology 2 class.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 22, 2005)

Lam is asset to IM, he knows his shit. I don't see a reason to blast him.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 22, 2005)

Foreman you're fighting sarcomere hypertrophy if you're denying sarcoplasmic hypertrophy exists.  Why then do muscles appear fuller when someone is taking creatine?  

 "Cell Volumizing-Creatine is stored in your muscles in combination with fluid. This  		elevated fluid level causes an increase in the size of the muscle cells  		(*sarcoplasmic hypertrophy*?). With this increase in muscle size there is also a  		significant gain in lean body weight." 		

 Another example, Bruce Lee extremely strong, not very muscular.  If neither form of hypertrophy exists why would someone like Bruce have so much strength and not look like Bolo Yeung from Enter the Dragon.


----------



## Rocco32 (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I will look it up later, right now I'm running out the door to my Physiology 2 class.


 Really his mother wants him to come downstairs to help roll her over.


----------



## drew.haynes (Jun 22, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Foreman you're fighting sarcomere hypertrophy if you're denying sarcoplasmic hypertrophy exists.  Why then do muscles appear fuller when someone is taking creatine?
> 
> "Cell Volumizing-Creatine is stored in your muscles in combination with fluid. This  		elevated fluid level causes an increase in the size of the muscle cells  		(*sarcoplasmic hypertrophy*?). With this increase in muscle size there is also a  		significant gain in lean body weight."
> 
> Another example, Bruce Lee extremely strong, not very muscular.  If neither form of hypertrophy exists why would someone like Bruce have so much strength and not look like Bolo Yeung from Enter the Dragon.



Ok, well idk if that is officially a physiological term. But there is nothing wrong with what LAM said if that was it. Sarcoplasmic Reticulum is just organelle structuring inside muscle fibers. Idk what's so hard to understand


----------



## shiznit2169 (Jun 22, 2005)

i think LAM knows more than all of you combined. Please..


----------



## LAM (Jun 22, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree with you, most Doctors know very little about nutrition, however when a term is being used and it doesn't appear in any physiology books or on any medical or college websites it makes me wonder how someone can just say its all true. When someone has made up a medical term I will call them on it, if they can prove its validity, well its all good.Their has not been one shread of evidence to prove this term in the context it was presented in exists outside of the body building community. It's easy show the legitimate medical proof and make me eat my words....I will take the shame and learn something new at the same time....So I'm waiting.



medical studies are not the end all.  take for example the effects of GH and how is is suspected to cause hyperplasia in muscle fibers.  studies have shown that hyperplasia does occur in animal models but it has not been proven in human models.  this cannont be proven simply because it is impossible to count the number of muscle fibers in a given area of the human body. but we have seen time and time again the effects of supplemental GH used along with supraphysiological doses of anabolics that has taken the physique of many a bodybuilder well beyond it's natural genetic potential.


----------



## drew.haynes (Jun 22, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

> medical studies are not the end all.  take for example the effects of GH and how is is suspected to cause hyperplasia in muscle fibers.  studies have shown that hyperplasia does occur in animal models but it has not been proven in human models.  this cannont be proven simply because it is impossible to count the number of muscle fibers in a given area of the human body. but we have seen time and time again the effects of supplemental GH used along with supraphysiological doses of anabolics that has taken the physique of many a bodybuilder well beyond it's natural genetic potential.


----------



## GFR (Jun 22, 2005)

drew.haynes said:
			
		

> Ok, well idk if that is officially a physiological term. But there is nothing wrong with what LAM said if that was it. Sarcoplasmic Reticulum is just organelle structuring inside muscle fibers. Idk what's so hard to understand


Ok drew Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy in Lam's explanation is the result of a "special" type of weight training that increases muscle size without Hypertrophy...i.e. increase of the cross-sectional area as a result of strength increase . All I am saying this is incorrect ( you of course can cause a temporary increase in ICF,ECF or IF, but Homeostasis will normalize any "artificial" attempt to alter the ICF, ECF or IF changes). Carb loading is a temporary way to do this but it lasts a extremely short time. 

The term Sarcoplasmic Hpertrophy is simply  not used in the world of Physiology, this is a cross of two legitimate terms ( i.e. Hypertrophy and Sarcoplasm ). This is a common way to trick the consumer with a misrepresentation of science. We have all seen this 100x...my favorite is " When is a diet pill worth $135...ect". I do not rely on the supplement companies and their advertising technique for my information about the human body. Nor do I believe a person selling a workout program when that person incorrectly mixes Physiology terms to prove whatever they are selling. I respect people who intelligently pursue new knowledge about the human body and ways to improve it through exercise and diet..ect. True skeletal muscle Hypertrophy as a result from weight training on the other hand is a well documented event.


----------



## GFR (Jun 25, 2005)




----------



## joesmooth20 (Jun 25, 2005)

what the hell happened here? I just wanted to see pics of your girlfriends


----------



## aretm (Jun 25, 2005)

damn same... ive gone through a 7 page thesis and my heads spinning its like a roller coaster...


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 25, 2005)

Vieope said:
			
		

> _I like chocolate cake, marshmallows and ice cream. _


marshmallows


----------



## drew.haynes (Jun 25, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Ok drew Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy in Lam's explanation is the result of a "special" type of weight training that increases muscle size without Hypertrophy...i.e. increase of the cross-sectional area as a result of strength increase . All I am saying this is incorrect ( you of course can cause a temporary increase in ICF,ECF or IF, but Homeostasis will normalize any "artificial" attempt to alter the ICF, ECF or IF changes). Carb loading is a temporary way to do this but it lasts a extremely short time.
> 
> The term Sarcoplasmic Hpertrophy is simply  not used in the world of Physiology, this is a cross of two legitimate terms ( i.e. Hypertrophy and Sarcoplasm ). This is a common way to trick the consumer with a misrepresentation of science. We have all seen this 100x...my favorite is " When is a diet pill worth $135...ect". I do not rely on the supplement companies and their advertising technique for my information about the human body. Nor do I believe a person selling a workout program when that person incorrectly mixes Physiology terms to prove whatever they are selling. I respect people who intelligently pursue new knowledge about the human body and ways to improve it through exercise and diet..ect. True skeletal muscle Hypertrophy as a result from weight training on the other hand is a well documented event.




Hypertrophy is just an increase in size. Who decides how you can use that word? Sarcoplasmic Reticulum is a membranous structure running along the inside of the long axis of a muscle fiber. It stores calcium cations, that are released to initialize contractions. There probably are some things that could cause an increase in the size of the Sarcoplasmic Reticulum, and there is absolutely no reason that could not be called Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy... that would simply be saying an increase in the size of the S. Reticulum occured. There is nothing wrong with that.

Second... you said he was suggesting, according to you, an _increase in muscle size_ without _hypertrophy_. Those two italicized fragments are fundamentally synonymous. LAM wouldn't have said that, as it does not even make sense from a grammatical standpoint, being that those two are synonyms. That's like saying dogs bark but canine species do not. WTH? You must have misunderstood what he said.


----------



## GFR (Jun 25, 2005)

drew.haynes said:
			
		

> Hypertrophy is just an increase in size. Who decides how you can use that word? Sarcoplasmic Reticulum is a membranous structure running along the inside of the long axis of a muscle fiber. It stores calcium cations, that are released to initialize contractions. There probably are some things that could cause an increase in the size of the Sarcoplasmic Reticulum, and there is absolutely no reason that could not be called Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy... that would simply be saying an increase in the size of the S. Reticulum occured. There is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Second... you said he was suggesting, according to you, an _increase in muscle size_ without _hypertrophy_. Those two italicized fragments are fundamentally synonymous. LAM wouldn't have said that, as it does not even make sense from a grammatical standpoint, being that those two are synonyms. That's like saying dogs bark but canine species do not. WTH? You must have misunderstood what he said.


Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy as a result of weight training is simply not a valid or used expression. This is very simple if you think I am full of shit just ask one of your teachers....you are in medical school...right???
This is a no brainier......basic physiology.


----------



## drew.haynes (Jun 25, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy as a result of weight training is simply not a valid or used expression. This is very simple if you think I am full of shit just ask one of your teachers....you are in medical school...right???
> This is a no brainier......basic physiology.



I am pre-med... not in med school yet... though I do know an incredibly qualified phys teacher. Thing is... we've talked about this before... that there are many things that are theorized that are not yet discussed in physiology classes or in med school. I still wanna see quotes of what LAM said.


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 27, 2005)

joesmooth20 said:
			
		

> what the hell happened here? I just wanted to see pics of your girlfriends


Your right, let's get back to the original post. I'll start out with my dream.










Ain't she hot.


----------



## GFR (Jun 27, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Your right, let's get back to the original post. I'll start out with my dream.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where can I find that yummy honey.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 27, 2005)

wtg, mino.. hold on to that one tight


----------



## maniclion (Jun 27, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy as a result of weight training is simply not a valid or used expression. This is very simple if you think I am full of shit just ask one of your teachers....you are in medical school...right???
> This is a no brainier......basic physiology.


So when one lifts weights where does the pump come from?


----------



## GFR (Jun 27, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> So when one lifts weights where does the pump come from?


Look up the term Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy  ....when you find it let me know ( the source can't be a body building web site or the like).
I never knew a pump was muscle growth.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 27, 2005)

*[font=arial,sans-serif]sar·co·plasm[/font]* 

 Listen: [ sär
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




k
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




-pl
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




z
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







m ]
*[font=arial,sans-serif][size=-1]n.[/size][/font]* 

  The cytoplasm of a striated muscle fiber.  *[font=arial,sans-serif]hy·per·tro·phy[/font]* 

 Listen: [ h
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




-pûr
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




tr
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




-f
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


 ]
*[font=arial,sans-serif][size=-1]n.[/size][/font]* _pl._ *[font=arial,sans-serif][size=-1]hy·per·tro·phies[/size][/font]* 

  A nontumorous enlargement of an organ or a tissue as a result of an increase in the size rather than the number of constituent cells: _muscle hypertrophy._  How about ranchers raising their beef, if they can increase the sarcoplasmic volume of their cattle they can get more money correct, they may call it sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.  Thats the only place I would find the term useful besides bodybuilding, since medicine usually concentrates on disease you probably won't run into such a term since most diseases would cause the opposite.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Jun 27, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Your right, let's get back to the original post. I'll start out with my dream.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ahhh...

Ahhhh...

Oooooohhhh... (looks away again)

Ummpphhhgg  (throws up in mouth a bit)

eeewwwww...   

Unnnghghgh....

UM...  UM...  Um...  (runs for bathroom)

Raalllghghhaugh!


----------



## GFR (Jun 27, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> *[font=arial,sans-serif]sar·co·plasm[/font]*
> 
> Listen: [ sär
> 
> ...


List the source so I can see  I need a legitimate source not an opinion.
And I would also like you to translate that information as how it relates to weight lifting....


----------



## Witmaster (Jun 27, 2005)

And an essay.  Don't forget the 20 page essay with at least 5 different verifiable sources that can substantiate your point in at least 3 different languages.

Graphs and charts are not required but will be considered for extra credit.


----------



## GFR (Jun 27, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> And an essay.  Don't forget the 20 page essay with at least 5 different verifiable sources that can substantiate your point in at least 3 different languages.
> 
> Graphs and charts are not required but will be considered for extra credit.


Like 100x before, all I need is a non body building source so I can read it and this entire argument will stop    I will admit I'm wrong if that is the case, but......still no legit source, I'm not surprised.


----------



## Witmaster (Jun 27, 2005)

Bah, I was making fun.  Here, have a pop tart!


----------



## god hand (Jun 27, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Your right, let's get back to the original post. I'll start out with my dream.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  YOU MONSTER!!!!!!!!


----------



## GFR (Jun 27, 2005)

Witmaster said:
			
		

> Bah, I was making fun.  Here, have a pop tart!


Could you toast those please.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 28, 2005)

http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch7_3.htm

 From the University of Guelph Animal and Poultry Science Website which is [font=Arial, Helvetica]part of the Ontario Agricultural College.[/font]
* Increase in sarcoplasm*

  As a muscle fiber accumulates contractile proteins during growth, it also increases its sarcoplasmic volume sarcoplasm and number of mitochondria. Mitochondria are very abundant in the sarcoplasm of fibers from young animals but the proliferation of mitochondria may lag behind the increase in sarcoplasmic volume which occurs with fiber growth. This is most evident in white fibers. Mitochondria appear to proliferate by fission after each mitochondrion has been internally subdivided by the formation of a septum.


----------



## GFR (Jun 28, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch7_3.htm
> 
> From the University of Guelph Animal and Poultry Science Website which is [font=Arial, Helvetica]part of the Ontario Agricultural College.[/font]
> * Increase in sarcoplasm*
> ...


That has nothing to do with the question at hand. I am aware of sarcoplasm ( the nonfibrillar cytoplasm of a muscle cell) and that the body grows naturally from a baby to adulthood. 
But there is no reference to Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy here, nor is there any reference to it in terms of a full grown adult increasing their sarcoplasm without also increasing their skeletal muscle cross-sectional area, through weight lifting.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 28, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> That has nothing to do with the question at hand. I am aware of sarcoplasm ( the nonfibrillar cytoplasm of a muscle cell) and that the body grows naturally from a baby to adulthood.
> But there is no reference to Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy here, nor is there any reference to it in terms of a full grown adult increasing their sarcoplasm without also increasing their skeletal muscle cross-sectional area, through weight lifting.


I guess in your world muscle growth and hypertrophy are 2 different concepts, I will step back through the portal to my world and apply a flux transmission to polarize and snap the portal closed.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 28, 2005)

Here is a good discussion on another forum referencing studies WRT this topic

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/static/brian-viscious-dkm_topic2-1908.html

I am too stupid to understand what the fuck they are talking about, but should help with discussion either way


----------



## GFR (Jun 28, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> Here is a good discussion on another forum referencing studies WRT this topic
> 
> http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/static/brian-viscious-dkm_topic2-1908.html
> 
> I am too stupid to understand what the fuck they are talking about, but should help with discussion either way


Great post Iain, it seems there many people who are debating this topic.


----------



## GFR (Jun 28, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> I guess in your world muscle growth and hypertrophy are 2 different concepts, I will step back through the portal to my world and apply a flux transmission to polarize and snap the portal closed.


Your post had nothing to do with adults increasing muscle size through weight training.....
This debate   is not about how a human develops from birth.  You must understand the question before you try and answer it.


----------



## drew.haynes (Jun 28, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch7_3.htm
> 
> From the University of Guelph Animal and Poultry Science Website which is [font=Arial, Helvetica]part of the Ontario Agricultural College.[/font]
> * Increase in sarcoplasm*
> ...



I say "Increase in Sarcoplasmic volume" = Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy. Hypertrophy is an increase in volume. This is a ridiculous discussion.


----------



## GFR (Jun 28, 2005)

drew.haynes said:
			
		

> I say "Increase in Sarcoplasmic volume" = Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy. Hypertrophy is an increase in volume. This is a ridiculous discussion.


Yes it is.  
The discussion isnt even about the origional point anymore....now we have people posting on sarcoplasm growth in baby cows..   
I have no idea what that has to do with weight training to increase sarcoplasm size without increasing muscular strength????

I would love to hear somebody try and prove that" EXNIHILONIHILFIT HYPERTROPHY" is bull sh1t.....because it is backed up by all the top scientists and Doctors.


----------



## god hand (Apr 2, 2006)

This was a great thread!


----------



## carlito cool (Apr 2, 2006)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> here's mine




WTF dude  that's my woman  i swear i'm gonna beat her ass tonight when she get's home  ..........but   yea  is she good in bed tho


----------



## LexusGS (Apr 2, 2006)

I am very dissapointed in this thread. There wasn't one good picture in this pool of shit.


----------



## carlito cool (Apr 2, 2006)

LexusGS said:
			
		

> I am very dissapointed in this thread. There wasn't one good picture in this pool of shit.




you love that pic  don't ya lol


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 2, 2006)

carlito cool said:
			
		

> you love that pic  don't ya lol




Kind of like how I love this one:


----------



## GFR (Apr 2, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Kind of like how I love this one:


Banned!!!!!! Reason re-posting porn


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Banned!!!!!! Reason re-posting porn


 
I can't believe I posted that.


----------



## BigDyl (Apr 2, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I can't believe I posted that.




True Story, try to eat that out, and later on you'll cough up a hairball.


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 2, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story, try to eat that out, and later on you'll cough up a hairball.


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 2, 2006)

This girl belongs to 2 members here....


----------



## clemson357 (Apr 2, 2006)

min0, we all know you have an animal fetish, but SERIOUSLY, a cat does not count as your girlfriend.


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 2, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> min0, we all know you have an animal fetish, but SERIOUSLY, a cat does not count as your girlfriend.


 
Must you follow me everywhere? I know I'm your obsession but now your beginning to scare me.


----------

