# Kicking off between Dorian Yates and Layne Norton on Twitter (pic)



## The L Man (Sep 13, 2010)

Saw this on another forum. Apparently Layne Norton was discussing HIT (High intensity interval training) vs high volume with someone and Dorian jumped in.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

Its a tough one, superhuman genetics V someone who is very knowledgeable with less superior genetics but not nearly as successful in terms of bodybuilding...


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2013)

I do like dorian though


----------



## liamhutch (Mar 25, 2008)

I'd go with Layne. Sure dorian's ideas work amazingly well too as the proof is in the pudding, however Layne's views are based more on science and look at what is optimal for most people.

I don't think some people realise just how big of a deal a PHD is, it's not a BA in media studies! It puts him at the forefront of research in his field


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2013)

liamhutch said:


> I'd go with Layne. Sure dorian's ideas work amazingly well too as the proof is in the pudding, however Layne's views are based more on science and look at what is optimal for most people.
> 
> I don't think some people realise just how big of a deal a PHD is, it's not a BA in media studies!


Yeah don't get me wrong, I'm with you on that point


----------



## OrganicSteel (Feb 4, 2008)

Problem with Layne is that he's an arrogant dick.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

They might both be wrong you know :lol:

My belief is always look at the argument, not the personalities arguing it and check for yourself.

Does anyone have any more info about what was actually causing all the drama? I know it was HIIT vs SS, but who asserted exactly what?


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

neither is wrong really. everyone is diffrent what works dor dorian wont would for you or me and so on


----------



## Lean&amp;Mean&amp;Clean (May 9, 2008)

PHD is big,but 6x Mr Olympia is way bigger


----------



## Barbell mafia (Jan 28, 2011)

Dorian all the way!


----------



## Cronus (Jun 5, 2012)

OrganicSteel said:


> Problem with Layne is that he's an arrogant dick.


How so? Comes across as very humble in any posts/interviews I've seen.


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

I just got confused with layne and lyle. Layne is alright, lyle is a cvnt


----------



## The L Man (Sep 13, 2010)

dtlv said:


> They might both be wrong you know :lol:
> 
> My belief is always look at the argument, not the personalities arguing it and check for yourself.
> 
> Does anyone have any more info about what was actually causing all the drama? I know it was HIIT vs SS, but who asserted exactly what?


I'm not to sure to be honest. I will check twitter when I get home and see where it originated as I couldn't find it last night!


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

thing is you cannot argue with what has worked for Dorian the 6 Mr Olympia titles prove this, Layne is probably correct with the science but how much of that science has been carried out on BB's who's goals are to create muscle mass whilst using steroids, GH etc.....i would bet my house not even one and this does and will change the outcome to any science study


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

IGotTekkers said:


> I just got confused with layne and lyle. Layne is alright, lyle is a cvnt


I don't think that Lyle is a ****, he's just very opinionated and doesn't have time for people who ask him stupid questions without properly reading what he writes. But he definitely does know what he's talking about though and will help people out who genuinely have good questions for him.


----------



## TommyFire (Jul 18, 2010)

Hardly kicking off?


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Some people like Dorian defy science, so it makes it hard to to evaluate. 400 & 200M Michael Johnson has a what would be described an ineffective running style, but the gym held WRs and has gold medals to his name.

Would swapping his training to a 'more effective' style work. Maybe, probably not though,especially when there are so many variables at play.

For the average guy, it's definitely better to start with what science can tell us and slowly and I mean S L O W L E Y looks to find the unique variables that are suited to us as individuals. Its normally a bad idea to use the genetic outliers as role models for our own training


----------



## Bigmantraps (Jan 7, 2013)

For me the proof is in the pudding! If you were to ask one of these two bodybuilders to help you which one would you choose???? For me its Dorian.. Been there and done it! That it just my opinion though and I respect all!


----------



## justin case (Jul 31, 2012)

could someone explain what they were debating....who was in favour of hit and who was against it?


----------



## huarache (May 28, 2012)

simonthepieman said:


> Some people like Dorian defy science, so it makes it hard to to evaluate. 400 & 200M Michael Johnson has a what would be described an ineffective running style, but the gym held WRs and has gold medals to his name.
> 
> Would swapping his training to a 'more effective' style work. Maybe, probably not though,especially when there are so many variables at play.
> 
> For the average guy, it's definitely better to start with what science can tell us and slowly and I mean S L O W L E Y looks to find the unique variables that are suited to us as individuals. Its normally a bad idea to use the genetic outliers as role models for our own training


This says it all


----------



## Matt 1 (May 8, 2010)

Pscarb said:


> thing is you cannot argue with what has worked for Dorian the 6 Mr Olympia titles prove this, Layne is probably correct with the science but how much of that science has been carried out on BB's who's goals are to create muscle mass whilst using steroids, GH etc.....i would bet my house not even one and this does and will change the outcome to any science study


Very true

I've tried nortons PHAT training and yeah I saw good results but the volume is so high the CNS just blows out very quickly, the volume is extremely high. Recently I've tried HIT style training, two types but the main one being DC.

I'm seeing excellent results using HIT, three times a week is enough easily..qulatiy not quantity is overlooked far too much epically with beginners.

It's an interesting debate. From personall experience I'd say HIT has longevity on its side, whilst pure size would come better from traditional volume training.

I now encoparate both style.. HIT as my main routine..build as much strength as possible then occasionally channel that strength into pure volume/hypertrophic training for a short blast, then repeat.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

How can HIT have longevity? Its what injured Dorian and burnt him out?


----------



## Matt 1 (May 8, 2010)

Papa Lazarou said:


> How can HIT have longevity? Its what injured Dorian and burnt him out?


You keep reducing the volume more and more as you get stronger. Volume training you can not do this, it would go against the entire principle of 'volume'.

YOure probably a volume advocate and so I won't argue with you because I've tried both styles and both work, I think the best type of training is the one that works best for you, genetics will be a big part of that..

Out of curiosity how long did Dorian train HIT for before becoming injured? I don't have any studies to hand or mind now, but I'm sure it's proven CNS tires quicker on volume then it does during HIT.

Injury can occur for any number of reasons.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

HIT is what I have used for 30 months, I have been training for 36 months.

Defo works for me but have to listen to the body.

For me it is the optimal way to train.......


----------



## Englishman (Oct 4, 2012)

Huntingground said:


> HIT is what I have used for 30 months, I have been training for 36 months.
> 
> Defo works for me but have to listen to the body.
> 
> For me it is the optimal way to train.......


3 years of training and your as big as you are, i have to take my hat of to you mate! :thumb:


----------



## foodaddict (Feb 11, 2013)

Dorian and Layne are both stablemates at Muscular Development magazine arent they? Their 'rivalry' will give them something to write about in their next columns. And Steve Blechman's pockets will be further lined. Or am I being cynical?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Matt 1 said:


> Very true
> 
> I've tried nortons PHAT training and yeah I saw good results but the volume is so high the CNS just blows out very quickly, the volume is extremely high. Recently I've tried HIT style training, two types but the main one being DC.
> 
> ...


i use two training systems both are completed over a 3 day week (M/W/F) one starts at 6 working sets per muscle group then over 4 weeks goes to 12

the other using 2 working sets per exercise (amount of exercises depend on the muscle group) and rises to 4 working sets over a 3 week period i find the mix of high and low volume works very well....



Papa Lazarou said:


> How can HIT have longevity? Its what injured Dorian and burnt him out?


yes he was but he is not the only one to use HIT training, David Henry is not burnt out...there are examples for the success of both systems


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> yes he was but he is not the only one to use HIT training, David Henry is not burnt out...there are examples for the success of both systems


I just see the likes of Dorian and Ronnie, two Mr O's who did very well but then suffered after because of their art... especially Ronnie with their extreme intensity (and weight) workouts.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2013)

Papa Lazarou said:


> How can HIT have longevity? Its what injured Dorian and burnt him out?


It wasn't though, he admits it was from lack of knowledge about warming up muscle groups properly before doing HIT. Especially things like rotator cuff etc. When he was training the way he did, he basically went 110% without proper prep before the workout, so in essence he over did it, thus the injuries. If he had known someone of the stuff he knows now back then (His words) his career could have gone on longer.

He says all that in the B&G videos on youtube.

But as regards this kicking off, I think the Dr bloke was more p!ssed off at Dorians attitude than anything else, if you read back through his twitter.


----------



## Ashcrapper (Jul 3, 2008)

TommyFire said:


> Hardly kicking off?


  thought the same. seemed like a civilised exchange of views :lol:


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Why so many debates/arguments over this works but this doesn't.

Shut up and train regardless!


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> There's more than one way to skin a cat. Why so many debates/arguments over this works but this doesn't.
> 
> Shut up and train regardless!


Well if everyone agreed, this forum would be very dull!

So shut up and train yourself, cheeky gob sh1te! :tongue: :001_tt2:


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

F.M.J said:


> There's more than one way to skin a cat. Why so many debates/arguments over this works but this doesn't.
> 
> Shut up and train regardless!


I prefer to discuss, learn and train


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

In all of these recent arguments, like this one, and the david pulcinella vs ian mcarthy one, they are not arguing the same point. The BBer using steroids says trust me i have experience do it this way (there is no scientific studies based on subjects using an array of PEDs), and the natural says science says do it this way (with the science only being based on natural average males, not even natural bbers).

So in other words it an assisted bodybuilder trying to tell naturals what to to, and a natural trying to tell assisted bodybuilders what to do. Each one should only be preaching to their own and not be so foolish as to be drawn into an argument. I cant believe these people with degrees and Phd's are not able to realize this.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Well if everyone agreed, this forum would be very dull!
> 
> So shut up and train yourself, cheeky gob sh1te! :tongue: :001_tt2:


Most people do agree though...

Lift weights over a period of time with a progressive manner in reps/sets and/or weight... and eat food... grow...


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

It's an individual game and all about finding what suits yourself.

Whatever you stick to and progress with will be the right method for you.

/hippymodeover


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

But as a natty I use Yates style HIT and 3 way split.

I think I would die after a few weeks on Nortons PHAT system :lol:


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Englishman said:


> 3 years of training and your as big as you are, i have to take my hat of to you mate! :thumb:


Thanks mate. Consistent heavy training and eating. Also gear usage.

I do believe that the HIT training has played it's part too as has the info picked up from certain members of this board - you know who you are


----------



## The L Man (Sep 13, 2010)

Ashcrapper said:


> thought the same. seemed like a civilised exchange of views :lol:


Kicking off makes it sound better. "Dorian Yates and Layne Norton have a civilised exchange on Twitter" would have sounded boring. :tongue:


----------



## Trevor McDonald (Mar 30, 2010)

Interesting thread. Found Dorians response amusing.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

Papa Lazarou said:


> No insult intended. I've work people with the condition and my fiancee has a degree in psychology, shortly to do a doctorate in it, and deals with the condition daily with some of her patients. It was a simple question, not insult.
> 
> You stating *"Lift weights over a period of time with a progressive manner in reps/sets and/or weight... and eat food... grow..."* is wrong. Otherwise if it was that easy everyone would be jacked.
> 
> And yes there is a method to my madness as me and my other half show, and all the guys I've coached to UKBFF, NABBA and other feds finals.... but I don't claim its as simple as you make out. One must work with the individual.


Do you still coach people? I seem to remember you saying that you've stopped because it wasn't worth the aggravation.


----------



## Jacobs64 (Dec 10, 2011)

OrganicSteel said:


> Problem with Layne is that he's an arrogant dick.


Based on what? He's probably one of the least arrogant people who blogs/gives advice on bodybuilding. Comes across as open minded to me.

Not that I am some sort of layne nut hugger or anything, but don't just type a load of crap.


----------



## Trevor McDonald (Mar 30, 2010)

Bull Terrier said:


> Do you still coach people? I seem to remember you saying that you've stopped because it wasn't worth the aggravation.


Would also like to know.....


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

I coach my misses, myself and friends. I used to train at a distance but yes, the agro wasn't worth it. Happy to do diet plans, what training regime I follow, supps for a one off cost but not full on coaching again.

With ONE comp my fone died (iPhone sim holder broke inside, no service) and I got called all the names under the sun by people I don't really know on Facebook etc. For £1.29 a day (£40 a month) to be able to call me 6am til 11pm all week for 12-16 weeks and to do that, no... not again.  I know Scott has had similar probs with idiots too.

Now, I coach people I can stare in the face and talk it through like gents, if there is a problem.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Guys i have deleted the argumentative posts, this is a good debate subject not to be spoiled by "i am bigger than you arguments"

the way that works is the way that works for you.....Simple.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

@Pscarb I apologise. Didn't mean to start/contribute to an argument.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

F.M.J said:


> @Pscarb I apologise. Didn't mean to start/contribute to an argument.


no need mate, this is a great debate to have and for the sole reason that we all train differently and get results.


----------



## stone14 (Mar 24, 2005)

theres more than 1 way to skin a cat. imo hit and high volume both work, for someone to say 1 is better than the other is wrong imo. its all down to muscle stress and damage to fibers and how the brain see's the body is under threat then takes actions to defend itself to survive, doesnt matter how you do it as long as it does it.

which way works best for you is which ever way you feel you recover quicker from and therefore will make the most progress.

some prople are great sprinters and sh*t marathon runners and visa versa.

jmo :thumb:


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2013)

Dorian's whole philosophy is based on HIT now. But I bet he didn't start that way. Probably started exactly the same as everyone else. It was Mike Mentzer who got him into the whole HIT area. Just as well really isn't it ! lol

I like the HIT way of training, but it's almost impossible when you train alone.


----------



## DoubleXL- (Feb 13, 2012)

i love twitter for stuff like this lol! would never happen otherwise


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

Yates started with a 2 way split, then went onto a 3 way split before the 4 way split we now see in blood and guts.

He believed the more experienced you got the more you need to split things up. Makes sense to me


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> thing is you cannot argue with what has worked for Dorian the 6 Mr Olympia titles prove this, Layne is probably correct with the science but how much of that science has been carried out on BB's who's goals are to create muscle mass whilst using steroids, GH etc.....i would bet my house not even one and this does and will change the outcome to any science study


As you know I have a background in biochem and then analysing clinical studies, and I agree with you completely. My background and nerdy scientific side generally makes people assume I'll always side with the science guru or the bro-science buster, but in truth what you just said above is massively true in most situations - there are so many studied examples of a well trained highly muscled body responding differently to a non trained individual... in many things too there are also differences in response between men and women, younger and older people, and also people can be grouped in other ways that group people into groups of different responders like insulin sensitivity, muscle fiber type distribution, ApoE subtype and so many other factors that affect so many physiological processes and rates of response to behaviors/activities etc.

The only universal truths that are real IMO are very general - to lose weight consume fewer calories than you burn, to gain weight consume more calories, to build muscle train it progressively, etc.... as soon as talk gets to optimisation though, there rarely is a one size fits all answer for all people of all kinds in anything IMO, and personalisation of what you do is the only way to get there.


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

Bull Terrier said:


> I don't think that Lyle is a ****, he's just very opinionated and doesn't have time for people who ask him stupid questions without properly reading what he writes. But he definitely does know what he's talking about though and will help people out who genuinely have good questions for him.


Well i never asked him for any advice nor any stupid questions, but he regularly used to trawl my posts on my facebook and try and pick me apart, and as he seems to be somewhat autistic in nature, or atleast comes across as such with his complete lack of wit, humour, or braincell, i would always send him away with his tail between his legs. I think he actually blocked me after his last rant at me which went along the lines of "If you spent more time in the gym than getting tattoo'd" where I then reminded him about CNS and rest and recovery. I think his departing response was something like "oh, go and stick a needle in your ass". So I did.

He might have smarts in regards to nutrition and supplimentation and whatnot but he has the charisma and presence of a one legged homeless monkey.

Edit: And.. he's a cvnt


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

IGotTekkers said:


> Well i never asked him for any advice nor any stupid questions, but he regularly used to trawl my posts on my facebook and try and pick me apart, and as he seems to be somewhat autistic in nature, or atleast comes across as such with his complete lack of wit, humour, or braincell, i would always send him away with his tail between his legs. I think he actually blocked me after his last rant at me which went along the lines of "If you spent more time in the gym than getting tattoo'd" where I then reminded him about CNS and rest and recovery. I think his departing response was something like "oh, go and stick a needle in your ass". So I did.
> 
> He might have smarts in regards to nutrition and supplimentation and whatnot but he has the charisma and presence of a one legged homeless monkey.
> 
> Edit: And.. he's a cvnt


I've only seen his forum posts and agreed, he's a ****.


----------



## Xbigdave79 (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm with Dorian on this


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Xbigdave79 said:


> I'm with Dorian on this


I still don't know exactly what he said and what Norton said... can someone please tell me!!!


----------



## Xbigdave79 (Mar 30, 2012)

dtlv said:


> I still don't know exactly what he said and what Norton said... can someone please tell me!!!


I don't lol I just like Dorian


----------



## brandon91 (Jul 4, 2011)

laynes PhD is in nutrition isnt it ? neither him nor dorian have PhD's in training (or whatever the correct term is) so its a level playing field for this debate

personally i'd side with dorian because 6x Mr.O does say a lot, and laynes extremely arrogant and opinionated in my eyes


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> thing is you cannot argue with what has worked for Dorian the 6 Mr Olympia titles prove this, Layne is probably correct with the science but how much of that science has been carried out on BB's who's goals are to create muscle mass whilst using steroids, GH etc.....i would bet my house not even one and this does and will change the outcome to any science study


This is a key point. Layne is undoubtedly correct in the general approach - Dorian is correct in his approach of what worked for him, he may or may not understand all the in's and outs of it but it worked ergo the end justifies the means to him.

People on here must take time to appreciate the vast differences in sport and what one is trying to achieve. PSCARB is correct in so much as there is little research at all on competitive bodybuilders, PEDs and so on - and it is a subjective sport anyway so how can one judge simply by numbers?

It would be simply moronic for someone to just do it because Dorian does without considering the mass of variables, likewise it is important to find science studies that are the closest relevance to their situation and apply them sensibly.


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

dtlv said:


> I still don't know exactly what he said and what Norton said... can someone please tell me!!!


it was like this:

Layne: how much to have a good double handed feel around your...

Dorian: GTFO


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Layne isn't just a science guy, he puts the science into practice and he is a 'kin beast - all natural. If he ever decided to go down the AAS route the results would be unimaginable haha. Using "x6 Mr.Olympia" is not a suitable response in a civilised debate. It's not the trump card, reasoning based on science and/or experience is what is needed for a good debate.


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

I wouldn't be so sure Layne is still natural


----------



## C.Hill (Nov 21, 2010)

MutantX said:


> I wouldn't be so sure Layne is still natural


X2!!


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

MutantX said:


> I wouldn't be so sure Layne is still natural


Don't talk b0llocks. Layne is my hero, he wouldn't lie to me.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

People also have to remember that Norton achieves his results natty (allegedly), whilst Dorian assisted... very obviously (or no one would take any PEDs) chemical assistance changes physiological responses, so that's an important variable.

There are many factors involve beyond that too, and there will equally be some variables that aren't really relevant... unless the debate focuses on those variables though then generally it's not very valuable to most reader, and just a battle of egos/personalities.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

I cannot abide bloody scientists,rarely have studies of BB doing anything,always Granny or sedentry man ,even mouse,seen too much in my years to listen outright to science,the thing i learnt early is our game is not guided by rules,the rule book got slung out years ago.

I have also seen a guy post regular science based 'fact' ,yet seen guys using historicaly successful techniques,wipe the floor with gains ,nah sorry,Dorian all the way for me.

Look--- Peptides science developed them,guess who knows more about how to use them already,guys involved with or who are BB/lifters,funny that......

I do realise this fella is a great ,cough...'Natty',but mmm....(and qualified),that was a bit of a rant,but Dorian would be my choice,by his track record.


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

biglbs said:


> I cannot abide bloody scientists,rarely have studies of BB doing anything,always Granny or sedentry man ,even mouse,seen too much in my years to listen outright to science,the thing i learnt early is our game is not guided by rules,the rule book got slung out years ago.
> 
> I have also seen a guy post regular science based 'fact' ,yet seen guys using historicaly successful techniques,wipe the floor with gains ,nah sorry,Dorian all the way for me.
> 
> ...


I get what you're saying, but if the science can take some of the hard work out of body building then it's definitely a good thing - especially if it's not needed. There are people who want to look good, be healthy and are not pro-bodybuilders but may feel they have to follow the pro regimes to get results. Well maybe they can cut a lot of it out and still look good whilst maintaining a normal life with the help of science. A lot of it back in the day was based on trying new things out and seeing if it worked, now we have more advanced techniques to measure these things and a bigger community of people, which means more interest by scientists.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't expect training to be hard, but why make it harder on yourself when you could get the same results with less effort? I don't think that's a lazy approach, but more of an efficient approach.


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

rectus said:


> I get what you're saying, but if the science can take some of the hard work out of body building then it's definitely a good thing - especially if it's not needed. There are people who want to look good, be healthy and are not pro-bodybuilders but may feel they have to follow the pro regimes to get results. Well maybe they can cut a lot of it out and still look good whilst maintaining a normal life with the help of science. A lot of it back in the day was based on trying new things out and seeing if it worked, now we have more advanced techniques to measure these things and a bigger community of people, which means more interest by scientists.
> 
> I'm not saying that you shouldn't expect training to be hard, but why make it harder on yourself when you could get the same results with less effort? I don't think that's a lazy approach, but more of an efficient approach.


I am not sure you do see what i am saying buddy.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

biglbs said:


> I cannot abide bloody scientists,rarely have studies of BB doing anything,always Granny or sedentry man ,even mouse,seen too much in my years to listen outright to science,the thing i learnt early is our game is not guided by rules,the rule book got slung out years ago.
> 
> I have also seen a guy post regular science based 'fact' ,yet seen guys using historicaly successful techniques,wipe the floor with gains ,nah sorry,Dorian all the way for me.
> 
> ...


to be fair the science guys who created peptides will know more about there use and full use than BB's, we use peptides for 2 things Fatloss or/and Muscle growth but the minds behind them created them for many more things.....

as myself, @dtlv and @MattGriff have pointed out studies are very useful but need to be applied to the individual, the conclusion of a study can only be applied to the subjects and set criteria many guys through studies around as fact/proof to something working but it is not proof it is evidence that what was studied gave the results seen, you cannot for example use a study that is carried out on women then apply the results/conclusion to men as the variables will be different.

just as you cannot apply one carried out on natty BB's then apply it to BB's using PED's


----------



## biglbs (Jan 26, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> to be fair the science guys who created peptides will know more about there use and full use than BB's, we use peptides for 2 things Fatloss or/and Muscle growth but the minds behind them created them for many more things.....
> 
> as myself, @dtlv and @MattGriff have pointed out studies are very useful but need to be applied to the individual, the conclusion of a study can only be applied to the subjects and set criteria many guys through studies around as fact/proof to something working but it is not proof it is evidence that what was studied gave the results seen, you cannot for example use a study that is carried out on women then apply the results/conclusion to men as the variables will be different.
> 
> just as you cannot apply one carried out on natty BB's then apply it to BB's using PED's


Yes ,i should have qualified that Peptide statement adding ,'in BB/resistance and strength training in it


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Dr's and "science guys" originally claim that steroids didn't induce muscle growth too?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Dr's and "science guys" originally claim that steroids didn't induce muscle growth too?


What's your point? Some of the greatest minds in history used to think the world was flat....

There would be no steroids or peptides if the science guys did not create it in the first place there understanding of what it is and it's function is far more than any BB


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> What's your point? Some of the greatest minds in history used to think the world was flat....
> 
> There would be no steroids or peptides if the science guys did not create it in the first place there understanding of what it is and it's function is far more than any BB


My point simply was, a lot of studies won't show what we know they do. I was actually agreeing.


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

rectus said:


> Layne isn't just a science guy, he puts the science into practice and he is a 'kin beast - all natural. If he ever decided to go down the AAS route the results would be unimaginable haha. Using "x6 Mr.Olympia" is not a suitable response in a civilised debate. It's not the trump card, reasoning based on science and/or experience is what is needed for a good debate.


hahhhaha. you ignorant pleb lol.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Papa Lazarou said:


> My point simply was, a lot of studies won't show what we know they do. I was actually agreeing.


But that's not what I said, the studies for example into GHRP shows not only what we know but much more.......we utilise this group of peptides to gain more muscle and fat loss but there creation and subsequent modifications revolves around scientific studies this cannot be overlooked.....


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

PowerHouseMcGru said:


> hahhhaha. you ignorant pleb lol.


And what is that supposed to mean? ¬_¬


----------



## OrganicSteel (Feb 4, 2008)

Jacobs64 said:


> Based on what? He's probably one of the least arrogant people who blogs/gives advice on bodybuilding. Comes across as open minded to me.
> 
> Not that I am some sort of layne nut hugger or anything, but don't just type a load of crap.


Follow his twitter account. You'll see. He'll often go at someone who disagrees with him and be a massive **** about it.

Yes, he knows his stuff but he doesn't have to be a dick.

So no, I'm not talking a load of crap.


----------



## Jacobs64 (Dec 10, 2011)

OrganicSteel said:


> Follow his twitter account. You'll see. He'll often go at someone who disagrees with him and be a massive **** about it.
> 
> Yes, he knows his stuff but he doesn't have to be a dick.
> 
> So no, I'm not talking a load of crap.


Fair play it's something I've yet to see but perhaps you are right!


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

IGotTekkers said:


> Well i never asked him for any advice nor any stupid questions, but he regularly used to trawl my posts on my facebook and try and pick me apart, and as he seems to be somewhat autistic in nature, or atleast comes across as such with his complete lack of wit, humour, or braincell, i would always send him away with his tail between his legs. I think he actually blocked me after his last rant at me which went along the lines of "If you spent more time in the gym than getting tattoo'd" where I then reminded him about CNS and rest and recovery. I think his departing response was something like "oh, go and stick a needle in your ass". So I did.
> 
> He might have smarts in regards to nutrition and supplimentation and whatnot but he has the charisma and presence of a one legged homeless monkey.
> 
> Edit: And.. he's a cvnt


OK mate, I hear you and it's hard to disagree actually considering what you just wrote.

I believe though, in his defence, that he has some sort of mental/emotional issues. He actually wrote about how he fell into severe depression for a long period and had a very hard time coming out of it.

Apart from that he does alot of work for stray animals which is actually a subject quite close to heart for me. Thus I say that he can't be all bad.


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

Bull Terrier said:


> OK mate, I hear you and it's hard to disagree actually considering what you just wrote.
> 
> I believe though, in his defence, that he has some sort of mental/emotional issues. He actually wrote about how he fell into severe depression for a long period and had a very hard time coming out of it.
> 
> Apart from that he does alot of work for stray animals which is actually a subject quite close to heart for me. Thus I say that he can't be all bad.


The animals people, think about the animals!!!


----------



## delhibuilder (Mar 24, 2008)

We are forgetting dorian has answered and trained and helped some awesome bodybuilders out there,


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

delhibuilder said:


> We are forgetting dorian has answered and trained and helped some awesome bodybuilders out there,


Where your willy gone mate??


----------



## AnotherLevel (Mar 27, 2012)

LN should have replied to Dorian that applying the knowledge he had, Dorian would look even better.

You do learn in the gym but you also learn in 'books' as he puts it.


----------



## delhibuilder (Mar 24, 2008)

Y u wanna suck it?


----------



## Delhi (Dec 8, 2005)

I have always believed bodybuilding is a science and can therefore be explained.

Afterall did Dorian himself not use the HIT methodology? where did that come from? Mike Mentzer and Artur Nautilus (Both applying science to the muscle building process). The reality is that almost all of what we as bodybuilders know today is via the intervention of science and trial and error in the gym (a science in its own right).

Who is right between the two in the debate?...BOTH of them. Dorian achieved the best he could have at that time given the science and understanding avaliable to him at that point. But it is possible (or probable) that he would have been even better had he applied the latest science and understanding.

I started this journey at just over 140lbs...I am now 236lbs and still have a long way to go. The foundation of my progress has always been and will always be founded on research, education and science. Add to that real world experiecne and bloody hard work and viola...success.


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Layne just posted this:










Layne writes in response to the photo on his wall:



> Congrats Greg Glassman and Crossfit, this is literally the dumbest thing I may have EVER read. And I've been on the bodybuilding.com forum for a decade so that's saying a lot!


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

rectus said:


> Layne just posted this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I agree with Layne on the rediculousness of that post... it shows non understanding of scientific methdology, in that (good) science looks first at what works simply and in practical terms and then seeks to logically analyze and identify the precise mechanisms within the overall process.

New science designed routines or protocols are then proposed, often with slight variations on those processes designed to promote greater efficiency for the elements identified as most effective.... but those routines should not be considered as automatically better, they are simply a hypothesis tested to see if the tweak works.

The error that some people make is assuming that the new hypothesis is in fact automatically better (they see it as a fact rather than still part of an incomplete analysis)... they don't see it for what it really is, a tool for further testing and greater refinement via practical application and study.


----------

