Yates and Layne not agreeing with each other

[KillerStack]

I'd think this board especially would prove that there is no such thing as "obviously natural," most of the people taking 2g+ look like they should be natural to me.

Well of course. It's just that it's safe to say he might be drugging in this thread since we're arguing with CDjack. If Dante was here saying Layne is natural, like he has many times, or Shelby, or Phil or whomever, then you wouldn't get as many of these comments, since you don't want to offend the "big dogs".

Natural bodybuilding is an oxymoron. 99.9% of the natural bodybuilders are anything but. It's a joke ... actually a really shameful part of this community.

In my opinion, the only person to appropriately apply science to bodybuilding was Mike Mentzer.

I was a big fan Mentzer's writings when starting out training circa 1990. He was challenging the orthodoxy and made me skeptical and made me question things. But, and while I'm no scientist, it seems to me he used almost no science to back up his theories. He used "philosophy" to do it and it doesn't work. What science did he use to come up with his later theories of, for example, holding a leg extension in the top position for 20 seconds every 3-4 weeks for maximum quadricep growth?

 

[tri-terror]

Ahh, but science IS philosophy...

 

[richiec]

Did u read what I wrote? I never said some people can't do that...NEVER. Go read my post again. In fact, that's exactly what I said, that some people are super bright and can kick ass at the hardest schools, but they are very rare. My post was in response to someone saying everyone can get As if they work hard, which is simply not true. Go to a hard enough school and study your ass off and you my still end up with a bad grade. It's that competitive.

You completely misunderstood the point my post and what I was saying, so please don't make these claims until you read a little more carefully. You are quick to jump on me like everyone else.

And as I said in the comment you quoted me on, these guys are few and far between, in essence agreeing with you. However, I do not agree with you that people can't get A's by studying relentlessly. There are some people who just don't know how to study, so no matter how much they study, they can't "get it". You keep saying "prestigious" or "hard enough" schools which is just a ridiculous statement. Are some schools known for certain programs, yes. That doesn't mean they are the "best" in this field, it simply means that people who attended there and graduated have been successful in said field. It serves no merit on the schools curriculum. Duke, for instance, is known for their medical department. Does that mean they are "better/harder/more prestigious" than say UF who has Shands Hospital working in conjunction with them? Harvard has been regarded for years as a "prestigious" school. I know guys who have gone there who pulled all A's, these weren't the brightest crayons in the box if you know what I mean. Not dumb by any means, just not people you would think would get those grades at Harvard.

It isn't the school, it's the course. Taking American History at USF or at Columbia, is there really that much of a difference? If you say yes, PLEASE explain

 

[pieguy]

I know... call the guy a dickhead or whatever... everyone has an opinion. But to say what that pieguys said is just plain silly. I would love to see what pieguy looks like... probably one of those perma bulker types

I'm not saying Layne isn't pretty good, for a natty. But this is promuscle.com, dudes who don't even compete here are freaking huge just because bbing is what they love. I just don't really find anything less than a heavyweight impressive anymore after all the pics of above average amateurs, peeled to the bone being thrown around here left and right.

Although what does impress me is how you layne can get so lean and dry without the use of banned diuretics, anabolics and peptides/hgh. If he even is natural.

 

[emeric delczeg]

I'm not saying Layne isn't pretty good, for a natty. But this is promuscle.com, dudes who don't even compete here are freaking huge just because bbing is what they love. I just don't really find anything less than a heavyweight impressive anymore after all the pics of above average amateurs, peeled to the bone being thrown around here left and right.

Although what does impress me is how you layne can get so lean and dry without the use of banned diuretics, anabolics and peptides/hgh. If he even is natural.

Getting lean and dry is not hard to do when you natural, to kip the size is the hard part.

 

[emeric delczeg]

Honestly if I saw him at the gym, I'd believe he's natural but again that doesn't mean anything. There are people with such shitty genetics that they barely look like that with using tons of gear. Then I know guys that could do a couple of partial reps, use a few substances in minute amounts, eat ok and look great. It's just so hard to tell. Also, on a side note, not picking on ya but, there is no such thing as big bone structure

That looks natural, his structure is not to good.

 

[Steve123]

Layne is a good guy. Yeah, somewhat self promoting and pompous but decent. Still, kind of hard to argue with a Man who has won the top title in his sport 6 times. Be kind of like telling Ray Lewis how to read an offense because I coached pop Warner for a while.

 

[JJoe156]

sorry if this was posted already. I just saw it on tweet

Dr Layne may have won plenty of titles, but he didn't win the Mr.O.. Love Dorians comments..

 

[Kaladryn]

He used "philosophy" to do it and it doesn't work.

I'd refer you to some of the books written by Albert Einstein. It was philosophy that led him to the theory of relativity.

Ahh, but science IS philosophy...

Exactly.

 

[shredded08]

Yup, makes me wonder about the quality of his degree and institution.



:yeahthat:

As for your studies, grad or undergrad?



He's not really even as smart as he tries to make himself out to be, trying to extend his rat studies to humans and holding individual studies as a holy grail of truth. That's not how science works

Well Illinois is one of the top schools to study amino acid metabolism...I just think he needs to be more clear about how to interpret the results his lab presented...a quick note on his study, he very rarely mentions that carbohydrates increased mTOR (just not as much) just like his beloved BCAAs, he just thinks that for body composition BCAAs are better...so it may be more energy dependent instead of a direct result of leucine

I'm a 1st year PhD student...basically I'm a total newb when it comes to neurobiology lol

 

[dalvare1]

Well Illinois is one of the top schools to study amino acid metabolism...I just think he needs to be more clear about how to interpret the results his lab presented...a quick note on his study, he very rarely mentions that carbohydrates increased mTOR (just not as much) just like his beloved BCAAs, he just thinks that for body composition BCAAs are better...so it may be more energy dependent instead of a direct result of leucine

I'm a 1st year PhD student...basically I'm a total newb when it comes to neurobiology lol

Layne has been very clear on carbohydrates having a big impact on mTOR

his arguement is based on caloric efficiency, it takes 10-20x the number of calories to get the same effect from carbs

5g bcaas is roughly equal to 50g carbs

20 cals versus 200 cals... big difference when you think about the proportion!

 

[CDJack]

:banghead: CDjack do you mean to say that dorians physique came to him easily>@?!!?!?!!?!??!?!?!!??!?!?!?!? come on man you know that isnt true.

Did I say that? I believe not. If that is what you interpreted what I said, then you are completely missing the point.

Lots of people on this forum not reading what other people write and making huge leaps in logic...

 

[CDJack]

And as I said in the comment you quoted me on, these guys are few and far between, in essence agreeing with you. However, I do not agree with you that people can't get A's by studying relentlessly. There are some people who just don't know how to study, so no matter how much they study, they can't "get it". You keep saying "prestigious" or "hard enough" schools which is just a ridiculous statement. Are some schools known for certain programs, yes. That doesn't mean they are the "best" in this field, it simply means that people who attended there and graduated have been successful in said field. It serves no merit on the schools curriculum. Duke, for instance, is known for their medical department. Does that mean they are "better/harder/more prestigious" than say UF who has Shands Hospital working in conjunction with them? Harvard has been regarded for years as a "prestigious" school. I know guys who have gone there who pulled all A's, these weren't the brightest crayons in the box if you know what I mean. Not dumb by any means, just not people you would think would get those grades at Harvard.

It isn't the school, it's the course. Taking American History at USF or at Columbia, is there really that much of a difference? If you say yes, PLEASE explain

Yes so me getting a B in a class that I studied for so much means I didn't study right or something...lol. You don't get it man. When you go to an ultra competitive school, often times everything is curved. You're competing against the other students.

And btw, Harvard is EASY once you get in. I have plenty of friends who went there and nothing is curved. They are widely known for massive grade inflation. This is undergrad i am referring to BTW.

You dont realize how silly you sound because you've never been in any of these classes where even if you're smart and study hard, you may not do really well, because it's just that hard and you underperformed the people who did better. I dont know how else to explain this to you.

How is it ridiculous to say prestigious schools? The top schools get the best teachers, the most qualified and hardest working, smartest students, etc. It works the same in high school btw. Do you know how many kids i knew who had crazy 4.xxx weighted gpas coming into undergrad vs. my 3.7-3.8? Almost everyone...because of public school grade inflation. If i went to their school, I would have had a crazy GPA too, but the universities know that.

You think a 3.7 GPA from some state school means as much as a 3.7 from an ivy league school? It obviously doesnt. That's because the ivy league school is harder, more competitive, etc. That's a reality.

Oh and btw, my best friend growing up went to NYU Stern business school. I was at a different school also studying business (finance and accounting). When I saw his exam material, it was basically all the easy and medium level questions from my exams. None of his problems were at the level of the more difficult ones on my exams, nor was his competition from other students nearly as hard. Needless to say, he had a higher GPA, but we got similar jobs.

 

[CDJack]

And as I said in the comment you quoted me on, these guys are few and far between, in essence agreeing with you. However, I do not agree with you that people can't get A's by studying relentlessly. There are some people who just don't know how to study, so no matter how much they study, they can't "get it". You keep saying "prestigious" or "hard enough" schools which is just a ridiculous statement. Are some schools known for certain programs, yes. That doesn't mean they are the "best" in this field, it simply means that people who attended there and graduated have been successful in said field. It serves no merit on the schools curriculum. Duke, for instance, is known for their medical department. Does that mean they are "better/harder/more prestigious" than say UF who has Shands Hospital working in conjunction with them? Harvard has been regarded for years as a "prestigious" school. I know guys who have gone there who pulled all A's, these weren't the brightest crayons in the box if you know what I mean. Not dumb by any means, just not people you would think would get those grades at Harvard.

It isn't the school, it's the course. Taking American History at USF or at Columbia, is there really that much of a difference? If you say yes, PLEASE explain

The biggest factor is if it's curved or not. If not, then there's less of a difference. However, there is one...mainly determined by the caliber of students. When you have students who are smarter and work harder and you give them the same level of work and difficulty of work as someone from USF for example, everyone in the better school would ace the class. On average, if your student body is smarter and works harder, you have to give them more challenging material to keep grade inflation down. How does that not make sense to you ? please explain

oh and if you think people in the ivy league (or similar school, i.e. stanford, U of chicago, washU, etc.) aren't harder working and smarter (on average obviously), then you're also wrong. Smarter or harder working, the end result is the same, and that's kids who do better on exams.

 

[CDJack]

Getting lean and dry is not hard to do when you natural, to kip the size is the hard part.

YES

 

[CDJack]

I'd refer you to some of the books written by Albert Einstein. It was philosophy that led him to the theory of relativity.



Exactly.

Actually, it was the train car example hehe

 

[shredded08]

Layne has been very clear on carbohydrates having a big impact on mTOR

his arguement is based on caloric efficiency, it takes 10-20x the number of calories to get the same effect from carbs

5g bcaas is roughly equal to 50g carbs

20 cals versus 200 cals... big difference when you think about the proportion!

very good point....the point I want to get across is that chronic supplementation of BCAA between meals has not been addressed and we don't know how this applies to someone consuming adequate protein with adequate BCAA intake...Layne could be correct, but he could also be wrong..that's why science is so great lol

This is why I stated that I believe the arguments between scientists and bodybuilders is really pretty frustrating...it's also why I enjoy listening to John Meadows and Shelby...they don't get in these ridiculous arguments and understand the limitations from each side (or atleast that's the sense I get from reading their articles/posts)

 

[CDJack]

It seems some people misunderstood what i said earlier. I never said Dorian didn't work hard. He obviously did. That isn't the point. The point is this:

If client A (we will call him) isn't genetically elite and he is being coached by someone who is genetically elite, then the coach is going to most likely help that person by doing what worked for him, what he has seen first hand that works. Problem is, chances are that the genetically gifted guy could have done any number of approaches on himself, and because he is gifted, they all would have worked. He may not be the best person to be advising others on strategies for building mass and getting lean, because for him, on a relative basis, it's much easier.

Contrast this to getting coached by one of the most successful coaches on the business--Shelby. He is obviously not going to be up on stage competing with Phil Heath, but has he had to work with a deck of cards (his genetics) that simply don't lend themselves to every strategy? Damn right. We can forget shelby and use any lesser genetic specimen...someone who doesn't add muscle and/or get lean as easily. Well, this guy must have put tons and tons of time, effort, thought, etc. into figuring out how to bypass his genetic weaknesses. Don't you think he is going to have a better chance at helping other non-genetic freaks make progress?

I've met yates and plenty of other top pros, including phil, several times. Many of them are really hard workers and some are pretty knowledgeable (although not all- i promise). But does that mean they are really most qualified to coach you? I think not. And btw, this holds true in all professional sports. Do the best players become managers in baseball or coaches in football? usually not. Because being a good player yourself doesn't make a good coach. Being a world class player in any sport = world class genetics + countless hours of hard work + having your own good coach

Just my two cents.

 

[JJoe156]

Yes so me getting a B in a class that I studied for so much means I didn't study right or something...lol. You don't get it man. When you go to an ultra competitive school, often times everything is curved. You're competing against the other students.

And btw, Harvard is EASY once you get in. I have plenty of friends who went there and nothing is curved. They are widely known for massive grade inflation. This is undergrad i am referring to BTW.

You dont realize how silly you sound because you've never been in any of these classes where even if you're smart and study hard, you may not do really well, because it's just that hard and you underperformed the people who did better. I dont know how else to explain this to you.

How is it ridiculous to say prestigious schools? The top schools get the best teachers, the most qualified and hardest working, smartest students, etc. It works the same in high school btw. Do you know how many kids i knew who had crazy 4.xxx weighted gpas coming into undergrad vs. my 3.7-3.8? Almost everyone...because of public school grade inflation. If i went to their school, I would have had a crazy GPA too, but the universities know that.

You think a 3.7 GPA from some state school means as much as a 3.7 from an ivy league school? It obviously doesnt. That's because the ivy league school is harder, more competitive, etc. That's a reality.

Oh and btw, my best friend growing up went to NYU Stern business school. I was at a different school also studying business (finance and accounting). When I saw his exam material, it was basically all the easy and medium level questions from my exams. None of his problems were at the level of the more difficult ones on my exams, nor was his competition from other students nearly as hard. Needless to say, he had a higher GPA, but we got similar jobs.

Going through this entire thread, you sure seem to know every tom, dick, and harry. Wether they be Harvard grads, Bikini Pros, best bros going to NYU, etc. etc. etc. Way too much bragging going on. All Im going to say is this, My buddy is a dentist. Went to school, and average Cs throughout school. Went to one of the best dental schools in the country. Are you saying just because someone doesnt get As, they are not bright or smart?? My friend been practicing dentistry now for over 15 years. Owns his own practice, $1.5M home.. has 4 cars Audi A8, Limited Edition Corvette, Escalade, and Range Rover. Not to mention he just remodeled his practice $500k, paid cash, and still has over $500k in the bank thats free and clear.. What you learn in school, isnt what you do in the real world, anyone that is successful will tell you that..

Anyone would love to be in Dorians shoes. I would take the advice of a former 6x Mr.Olympia, then from a guy with a degree you can do online at the Universtiy Of Phoenix..

 

[tri-terror]

It seems some people misunderstood what i said earlier. I never said Dorian didn't work hard. He obviously did. That isn't the point. The point is this:

If client A (we will call him) isn't genetically elite and he is being coached by someone who is genetically elite, then the coach is going to most likely help that person by doing what worked for him, what he has seen first hand that works. Problem is, chances are that the genetically gifted guy could have done any number of approaches on himself, and because he is gifted, they all would have worked. He may not be the best person to be advising others on strategies for building mass and getting lean, because for him, on a relative basis, it's much easier.

Contrast this to getting coached by one of the most successful coaches on the business--Shelby. He is obviously not going to be up on stage competing with Phil Heath, but has he had to work with a deck of cards (his genetics) that simply don't lend themselves to every strategy? Damn right. We can forget shelby and use any lesser genetic specimen...someone who doesn't add muscle and/or get lean as easily. Well, this guy must have put tons and tons of time, effort, thought, etc. into figuring out how to bypass his genetic weaknesses. Don't you think he is going to have a better chance at helping other non-genetic freaks make progress?

I've met yates and plenty of other top pros, including phil, several times. Many of them are really hard workers and some are pretty knowledgeable (although not all- i promise). But does that mean they are really most qualified to coach you? I think not. And btw, this holds true in all professional sports. Do the best players become managers in baseball or coaches in football? usually not. Because being a good player yourself doesn't make a good coach. Being a world class player in any sport = world class genetics + countless hours of hard work + having your own good coach

Just my two cents.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but god damn why do you have to come off as such and asshole douche bag? If you would chill out and stop with the holier than thou attitude people might be a little more receptive.

I don't think you can discount Dorian simply because he is a "genetic elite". He has experience training, dieting, drugging, competing at every level of bodybuilding up to and including the Mr. Olympia. I'd WAY rather hear what he has to say vs. someone like Layne Norton. Given the chance to be trained by dorian vs shelby(and I love shelby), I would pick Dorian every time. I think Shelby would too!

Bro you place way too much emphasis on education. I don't know if you were just brought up like that, if you're still young or what, but you have a lot to learn.