[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by JOYRIIDE1113

I wanna see pics of all the experts here. Interesting to see who we're getting advice from.

I'm friends with Grave so I can vouch that he practice what he preaches but what about everyone else?

Nothing worse than a fat personal trainer/nutritionist.

I suggest reading this. Its a quote from another member on another board.

You know what, I'm really really sick of hearing "Why aren't you big and ripped if you know so much?" or "Why haven't you competed if you really know what you're talking about." People who ask these questions are not sincerely looking for an answer, but are using them rhetorically to suggest that you must not know a damn thing. They then turn into masters of philosophical fallacy when they defend their point. Since I have a minor in logic and a degree in philosophy, I read what they have to say in a different light, or logos. Yeah, it's this little thing called logic. So, to get a load off my chest, you want an answer to these questions? Really? Well here you go...

Let's start with the punch line; you're committing the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent." You are assuming that "being big and ripped" means "knowing your stuff." I'm sorry, but it does NOT then logically follow from this premise that "knowing your stuff" always means "being big and ripped." That's a fallacy. For example, consider that if it's raining THEN the ground is wet. From here, it does NOT logically follow that if the ground is wet THEN it is raining. Why? Because any other number of things could have made the ground wet. In the instant case, any other number of things could make it so that someone who "knows his stuff" is not "big and ripped." Like what, you ask?

First, perhaps the person who "knows his stuff" simply does not want to apply the knowledge to himself, for whatever reason. It's really not that hard to think of some: e.g., he thinks it's vain, unhealthy, or he wants to be attractive to the girls who go for the pale scrawny guys, etc. He knows it, but does NOT apply it. Think of a doctor highly skilled in euthanasia. Just because he isn't dead does not mean he doesn't know how to painlessly kill a patient.

Second, very often the person who "knows his stuff" is IN THE PROCESS of applying that knowledge to himself. Certainly, you don't put on 60 lbs of muscle the moment you know the principles of hypertrophy. Similarly, you don't drop to 3% body fat the moment you know how to trigger fat loss. Just because you know how to build a Troy Horse doesn't mean you've finished the one you're working on in your backyard. Surely, once you "know your stuff," and choose to apply it, you still have to do the applying, and that takes time... often A LOT of time if you're training natural.

This leads me to my next point. I seriously question the premise from which you make the logical fallacy in the first place, which is that "being big and ripped" means "knowing your stuff." And this for two main reasons:

1) Many who excel easily and naturally at bodybuilding never have to really analyze what they're doing; something true of many sports stars. These are the "easy gainers," the mesomorphs, the ones who have genes that lend to building muscle in any of a wide range of conditions, almost despite the conditions. These are they who don't have to understand how things work exactly or optimally to still have some success. On the other hand, those who are regular, those who are hard-gainers, those who are endomorphs, HAVE to take a deep look at WHY muscle grows or WHY fat is lost. That's because if they don't know how to get it just right, if they do what's working only for the genetically elite, they WILL NOT have success. They really have to examine, know, and apply "to a T" to be proficient. The result: they know more than the elite, but don't have the success of the elite, at least not until they are finally done applying their knowledge, which takes longer than for the elite. Note here that being "genetically elite" has nothing to do with knowledge.

2) The other reason "being big and ripped" does NOT always mean "knowing your stuff" is because those who are the "largest and most ripped" get to such a state because of large doses of many powerful drugs. Drugs can easily cover up for a lack of knowledge. Take for example the study showing that even low-dose testosterone administration built more muscle, without training, than naturals who were giving it their all in the gym. Any decent training or nutrition while on such drugs is more correctly thought of as just coaxing the inevitable growth along. Not surprisingly, those who know very little, and consequently grew very little as a natural, are the ones who would be most attracted to try AAS for a solution, and a solution it is, even without knowing why or how to train or eat or supplement naturally. Of course, many knowledgeable people use drugs and get "big and ripped" as well, but knowledge here is hardly required when such powerful drugs are involved. Unless you're talking about how to make the injection, that is.

So, all in all, 1) your deduction that "knowing your stuff" always means "being big and ripped" fails because it "affirms the consequent." It is not properly a “deduction” but a “fallacy.” Knowing, per se, neither entails application of that knowledge nor completion of that application. And 2) you’re committing that logical fallacy on a false premise to begin with (which means you really suck at arguing, arguing logically at any rate; fallacies are known to be very persuasive). In other words, you got it wrong because "being big and ripped" does not entail "knowing your stuff" in the first place (though I'm not saying that it precludes it!). And this because of at least two very real things in our world: the genetically elite and powerful drugs. Here, knowledge is not the force behind the work, but genes and drugs, respectively.

So, to finish, let me say that not only are YOU not "big and ripped," but you're a logical moron as well. I shouldn't believe otherwise until you're in the Olympia, right?