# no physique to British qualifier - how long?



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

*From scratch how long to build a UK champ class physique?*​
6 moths 00.00%1 year 33.75%2 years 2430.00%3 years or more?5366.25%


----------



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

Quick Q for you, poll included....

Take a genetically average guy in his 30's, weighing 12 stone at 6 foot 1 tall with normal family commitments etc and working 70+ hours per week.

Starting from scratch you long do you think would be required to build a physique to qualify for UKBFF British Champs in 90kg+ class?

Less than a year?

1 year?

2 years?

3 years+?


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Wee G said:


> Quick Q for you, poll included....
> 
> Take a genetically average guy in his 30's, weighing 12 stone at 6 foot 1 tall with normal family commitments etc and working 70+ hours per week.
> 
> ...


A genetically average guy would NEVER build a physique able to qualify for the UKBBF Champs.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

Could easily do it inside 1-2 years,all things being well on the food/rest/training/meds side of things even with his life commitments


----------



## Magic Torch (May 30, 2005)

He'd need to be 18st pre diet to hit 16st on stage.....say 1 stone a year of good mass.....6 years?


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

essexboy said:


> A genetically average guy would NEVER build a physique able to qualify for the UKBBF Champs.


Dont be daft mate of course he would,there are plenty ou there who have,i am not exactly super genetically gifted and i did it first try........


----------



## Magic Torch (May 30, 2005)

weeman said:


> Could easily do it inside 1-2 years,all things being well on the food/rest/training/meds side of things even with his life commitments


6ft 1" and 12 stone?! 5' 8" maybe, but thats a lot of weight to fill out!


----------



## Testoholic (Jun 13, 2009)

hmmmm its hard to say, i was pretty much an average looking guy 4 years ago, now i think with a little bit of effort i could possibly do it in say a year? so 5 years..


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

he didnt ask if the guy could be competitive at the champs in the 90+ class,only if its possiblt to build a physique that would qualify him,and the answer is a definate yes,90kg is only 14st 2lbs,yeah on a 6'1'' frame that would be sparcely muscled but it still puts him in that class,and if he is peeled,nice enough shape then its entirely possible


----------



## Testoholic (Jun 13, 2009)

weeman said:


> he didnt ask if the guy could be competitive at the champs in the 90+ class,only if its possiblt to build a physique that would qualify him,and the answer is a definate yes,90kg is only 14st 2lbs,yeah on a 6'1'' frame that would be sparcely muscled but it still puts him in that class,and if he is peeled,nice enough shape then its entirely possible


good point....but id wanna win it


----------



## Magic Torch (May 30, 2005)

weeman said:


> he didnt ask if the guy could be competitive at the champs in the 90+ class,only if its possiblt to build a physique that would qualify him,and the answer is a definate yes,90kg is only 14st 2lbs,yeah on a 6'1'' frame that would be sparcely muscled but it still puts him in that class,and if he is peeled,nice enough shape then its entirely possible


Are you a Gemini? :lol:

Fair point :beer:


----------



## Cheese (Jul 7, 2009)

weeman said:


> he didnt ask if the guy could be competitive at the champs in the 90+ class,only if its possiblt to build a physique that would qualify him,and the answer is a definate yes,90kg is only 14st 2lbs,yeah on a 6'1'' frame that would be sparcely muscled but it still puts him in that class,and if he is peeled,nice enough shape then its entirely possible


I'm less then sparcley muscled :crying: :lol:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

weeman said:


> Dont be daft mate of course he would,there are plenty ou there who have,i am not exactly super genetically gifted and i did it first try........


 Sorry W/M.Respectfully have to disagree.Without the required genetic traits, the goal is impossible.

There are plenty out there who have.There are Millions who havent, and desire and commitment are not enough.Whilst you may not be "super gentically gifted" you have enough of the required traits(plus the required drive, commitment etc) to compete at the highest level.

You will have to be in a minority to suceed in any endeavour, its the way nature works.If i was to suggest that anyone could become an international chess master in 5 years,then im sure many would realise, that an individual with the intellectual skills of a moron would not be able.

As many that there are with natural ability,many more are bereft of the same.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

Magic Torch said:


> Are you a Gemini? :lol:
> 
> Fair point :beer:


pisces (hence the shagging) lova not a fighta :lol: :lol:


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

essexboy said:


> Sorry W/M.Respectfully have to disagree.Without the required genetic traits, the goal is impossible.
> 
> There are plenty out there who have.There are Millions who havent, and desire and commitment are not enough.Whilst you may not be "super gentically gifted" you have enough of the required traits(plus the required drive, commitment etc) to compete at the highest level.
> 
> ...


i know what your saying mate but at the risk of sounding pedantic the op is mentioning nothing of drive,genetiv traits,unless you have been dealt the unluckiest hand on the planet,will mean nothing when taking the question for what it is.

Can you turn a guy who is genetically average and have him build enough muscle and diet enough to get on a stage to qualify for the british finals.

The answer is a definate yes superficially,until other relevant info is given as regards all the nitty gritty details about the person in hand then no one can really speculate otherwise,but on the surface of it,with the information given then the answer to the question is yes


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

Genetics are a poor excuse for lazyness. Anyone can get big/shredded if they wanted to.


----------



## RedKola (Nov 27, 2008)

weeman said:


> pisces (hence the shagging) lova not a fighta :lol: :lol:


Oi I'm a Pisces too and we apparantly view the world through rose coloured specs too! 

:confused1:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

WRT said:


> Genetics are a poor excuse for lazyness. Anyone can get big/shredded if they wanted to.


The most preposterous statement Ive ever seen on this board.It would make as much sense to say that everyone can punch like Tyson, or Kick a ball like beckham.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

WRT said:


> Genetics are a poor excuse for lazyness. Anyone can get big/shredded if they wanted to.


that is true,only part they dont have a choice in is how 'nice' the physique will look due to frame structure/muscle tie ins etc


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

essexboy said:


> The most preposterous statement Ive ever seen on this board.It would make as much sense to say that everyone can punch like Tyson, or Kick a ball like beckham.


Why? I didn't say the size of Markus Ruhl did I? I said big.


----------



## pastanchicken (Sep 29, 2008)

Fair point from WRT I think


----------



## ba baracuss (Apr 26, 2004)

The question was a physique to qualify, essexboy. Anyone can do that with all things being in place. Genetics are irrelevant - gear makes sure of that.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

essexboy said:


> The most preposterous statement Ive ever seen on this board.It would make as much sense to say that everyone can punch like Tyson, or Kick a ball like beckham.


thats not really fair,Tyson/Beckham have a natural talent for what they do,bodybuilding is not like other sports in that sense,the only advantage in this game is if you are genetically blessed with eae of muscle building and an advantageous metabolism,every other aspect of bodybuilding,as long as its followed to the letter,is something ANYONE is able to do,what we do is not hard to achieve,but as you touched upon earlier,its the mental drive and will power that really seperates those who do from those who dont.

Put it this way,if everyone who were bodybuilding all shared the same willpower and drive then yes,absoloutely anyone can get big and shredded


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

weeman said:


> i know what your saying mate but at the risk of sounding pedantic the op is mentioning nothing of drive,genetiv traits,unless you have been dealt the unluckiest hand on the planet,will mean nothing when taking the question for what it is.
> 
> Can you turn a guy who is genetically average and have him build enough muscle and diet enough to get on a stage to qualify for the british finals.
> 
> The answer is a definate yes superficially,until other relevant info is given as regards all the nitty gritty details about the person in hand then no one can really speculate otherwise,but on the surface of it,with the information given then the answer to the question is yes


W/M. Please be pedantic im fine with itConsider this.This board has what 5000 members? How many who have been training for 5 years could get on a stage and display a resonable physique, let alone one as impressive as yours? Not many.it proves the point.

We cant lable everyone who fails as lazy, or non-commital.There has to be another reason.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

essexboy said:


> W/M. Please be pedantic im fine with itConsider this.This board has what 5000 members? How many who have been training for 5 years could get on a stage and display a resonable physique, let alone one as impressive as yours? Not many.it proves the point.
> 
> We cant lable everyone who fails as lazy, or non-commital.There has to be another reason.


Again fair point but let me turn this around on you,up until 2005 i was one of those many nameless members who thought he was doing everything right and plodding away,bodybuilding pretty much my life,then in 2005,i had a moment of clarity,realised there were defo elements missing and inside tewlve months transformed myself into a class winning physique 

Anyone can do it:wink:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

weeman said:


> thats not really fair,Tyson/Beckham have a natural talent for what they do,bodybuilding is not like other sports in that sense,the only advantage in this game is if you are genetically blessed with eae of muscle building and an advantageous metabolism,every other aspect of bodybuilding,as long as its followed to the letter,is something ANYONE is able to do,what we do is not hard to achieve,but as you touched upon earlier,its the mental drive and will power that really seperates those who do from those who dont.
> 
> Put it this way,if everyone who were bodybuilding all shared the same willpower and drive then yes,absoloutely anyone can get big and shredded


You said it in the first line "NATURAL TALENT" without the required metabolism, skeletal structure, fat disstribution,and most importantly muscle insertions, its not possible.IM LIVING PROOF! LOL!


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

essexboy said:


> W/M. Please be pedantic im fine with itConsider this.This board has what 5000 members? How many who have been training for 5 years could get on a stage and display a resonable physique, let alone one as impressive as yours? Not many.it proves the point.
> 
> We cant lable everyone who fails as lazy, or non-commital.There has to be another reason.


yeah IMO most are lying to themselves they are doing it right - genetics is a cop out

I seen tons of people who say 'i eat well' and in reality there diet is garbage. my training partner whilst not genetically average was able in three years of picking up a weight to win his class at a natural regional show (he was trained by lee williams first two years)

with bodybuilding how big you get or how shredded you get is all about effort and consistancy - how it looks once on your frame is genetics IMO


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

weeman said:


> Again fair point but let me turn this around on you,up until 2005 i was one of those many nameless members who thought he was doing everything right and plodding away,bodybuilding pretty much my life,then in 2005,i had a moment of clarity,realised there were defo elements missing and inside tewlve months transformed myself into a class winning physique
> 
> Anyone can do it:wink:


And a great job youve done.Not matter what i did though i could never build arms like yours.Im not designed for it. They are too long, and the insertions are too short.They proved effective when i was boxing,but the leverage dis advantages work against me. :confused1: :confused1:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

ba baracuss said:


> The question was a physique to qualify, essexboy. Anyone can do that with all things being in place. Genetics are irrelevant - gear makes sure of that.


 Then why dont all the guys on this site who take loads of drugs all look like Mr Olympias?


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

WRT said:


> Why? I didn't say the size of Markus Ruhl did I? I said big.


define big.


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

essexboy said:


> You said it in the first line "NATURAL TALENT" without the required metabolism, skeletal structure, fat disstribution,and most importantly muscle insertions, its not possible.*IM LIVING PROOF!* LOL!


Have you not also stated a few times you refuse to believe in high protein intakes etc

:whistling:

I could take any able bodied healthy person, and if they done exactly as I said, get them to qualify inside 5 years, probably 3.

Might not be the prettiest physique, and might have to pick an "easy" qualifier - but I could do it, no problem. Went from average fat skinny pleb myself in 2006 to qualifying for inters at teh British finals in 2007, then got a qualification through for the over 90s in 2008... I did have some training background, but make no mistake, I was a pile of sh1t with plenty of folks saying I'd never do owt.

I'm not genetically blessed, I just eat a sh1t load of protein, and refuse to refuse to believe anything :lol:


----------



## ManOnAMission (May 1, 2009)

If you can jab steroids into your body and have the urge to lift weights, and have the determination to get on stage, then anyone on this board can have a class winning physique.

Everyone on here has the same muscle. we all have biceps, triceps etc, you lift some weights, take steriods, work damm hard, get sleep, eat like a horse and you will end up with an awesome physique...IN TIME.

The reason most fail, is not because they don't have the "genetics", it is because they don't have the right mentality or determination, as lifting weights isn't a talent or skill, it is a natural movement that everyone in this world can do.


----------



## StephenC (Sep 2, 2007)

weeman said:


> realised there were defo elements missing and inside tewlve months transformed myself into a class winning physique
> 
> Anyone can do it:wink:


What time are you free for a chat, I needs the knowledge:thumb:


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

rs007 said:


> I could take any able bodied healthy person, and if they done exactly as I said, get them to qualify inside 5 years, probably 3.


PS the above criteria for anyone wishing to take me up on this is that you must live-in with me and be a part time BF. This is nothing sexual, although you will be expected to give and take bummage.


----------



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

**** sakes Ramsay, are there any others left who just give advices for their own sake? It's all about the bummings nowadays - disgraceful!

BTW, I reckon I can do it within a year, no probs.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

John XTC-SE said:


> If you can jab steroids into your body and have the urge to lift weights, and have the determination to get on stage, then anyone on this board can have a class winning physique.
> 
> Everyone on here has the same muscle. we all have biceps, triceps etc, you lift some weights, take steriods, work damm hard, get sleep, eat like a horse and you will end up with an awesome physique...IN TIME.
> 
> The reason most fail, is not because they don't have the "genetics", it is because they don't have the right mentality or determination, as lifting weights isn't a talent or skill, it is a natural movement that everyone in this world can do.


we do not all have the same muscle.A huge bell curve exists among humans.we all have the same amount, and distribution, in the same way we all have 2 eyes, yet a huge disparity within those confines exist.Hundreds, if not thousands on this site, use drugs, etc. WHERE are the top level physiques??


----------



## StephenC (Sep 2, 2007)

Wee G said:


> BTW, I reckon I can do it within a year, no probs.


I think the gains that could be made within a year given perfect diet, training, rest and supplementation would be quiet scary.

Whether it's good enough to get on stage or not, who know's, but the transformation would probably make for a decent muscletech advert:thumb:


----------



## Ironclad (Jun 23, 2009)

essexboy said:


> W/M. Please be pedantic im fine with itConsider this.This board has what 5000 members? How many who have been training for 5 years could get on a stage and display a resonable physique, let alone one as impressive as yours? Not many.it proves the point.
> 
> We cant lable everyone who fails as lazy, or non-commital.There has to be another reason.


Not everybody on this board is seeking a full-on Rhul physique. I imagine a fair % are after a reasonable 'look', some want the beach body and others may be throwing on the pounds but without the refinement needed to go stage side.

Perhaps..


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Wee G said:


> BTW, I reckon I can do it within a year, no probs.


I was tempted to say that early, but then I thought I am presuming this person has never lifted a wieght? Can swallow up a lot of weeks just learning how to get the exercises working right etc so that kinda put me off estimating that low. So I'll conservatively stick to my 3yrs, for a good crack at it


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

rs007 said:


> Have you not also stated a few times you refuse to believe in high protein intakes etc
> 
> :whistling:
> 
> ...


RS, i dont use belief to influence my decisions.That however is another story.I congratulate you on your doggedness, and dertermination in the face of negativity.


----------



## ManOnAMission (May 1, 2009)

essexboy said:


> we do not all have the same muscle.A huge bell curve exists among humans.we all have the same amount, and distribution, in the same way we all have 2 eyes, yet a huge disparity within those confines exist.Hundreds, if not thousands on this site, use drugs, etc. WHERE are the top level physiques??


We all have the ability to build muscle and we all have the ability to increase the size, but yes we don't have the ability to determine the exact outcome of the muscle in terms of shape.

However, regardless of this, every able bodied (as i thought that would be obvious) will respond to training, will respond to steriods (as clearly they are important) and the result after a prolonged period of training will be a person that has a physique good enough to get on stage and compete.

Winning? their condition will come into play, and not just genetics, but did they make the right choices and listen to the right advice, as even guys on here that have won their class have improved their physiques by making changes.

I would back weeman and rs007 to train any guy on here and get them into the right condition to be in a chance of winning their class.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Witch-King said:


> Not everybody on this board is seeking a full-on Rhul physique. I imagine a fair % are after a reasonable 'look', some want the beach body and others may be throwing on the pounds but without the refinement needed to go stage side.
> 
> Perhaps..


Im sure MOST would opt for the full on eye popping build if they had the choice.How many here have said , " i dont want to get big?" Many however realise that its not a realistic goal, and settle for more modest results.


----------



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

essexboy said:


> we do not all have the same muscle.A huge bell curve exists among humans.we all have the same amount, and distribution, in the same way we all have 2 eyes, yet a huge disparity within those confines exist.Hundreds, if not thousands on this site, use drugs, etc. WHERE are the top level physiques??


Disagree with this entirely.

Hundreds here train - probably 30-40 of them train right.

Hundreds here eat "OK" - probably 30-40 eat right.

Hundreds here use drugs - most of them in large amounts 

The total number of guys here who actually REALLY do eat right, train right, have the right lifestyle and use the right drugs in the right amounts for a great enough % of the time is very, very small.

Hence the small number of competitive physiques.


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

essexboy said:


> RS, *i dont use belief to influence my decisions*.That however is another story.I congratulate you on your doggedness, and dertermination in the face of negativity.


Of course you do.

The perception of any sort of concrete fact in any facet of life is a myth. You make decisions based on what you believe to be the best option, at the time, for a desired result :thumbup1:

You seem very... negative... kinda like you have a chip on your shoulder because you haven't got the gains you wanted - or something else, I don't know.

Genuinely not having a dig, just saying what I have observed (possibly incorrectly) from your posts....


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Wee G said:


> The total number of guys here who actually REALLY do eat right, train right, have the right lifestyle and use the right drugs in the right amounts for a great enough % of the time is very, very small.


I 100% agree with this, and that is even accepting that I am not one of the people that make up that very small %.


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

rs007 said:


> PS the above criteria for anyone wishing to take me up on this is that you must live-in with me and be a part time BF. This is nothing sexual, although you will be expected to give and take bummage.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: I'll take you up on that!


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

WRT said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: I'll take you up on that!


Roll forward 3 years, you need to sit down to pi$s, have no control of your anal functions, and haven't gained an ounce of muscle :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

rs007 said:


> Of course you do.
> 
> The perception of any sort of concrete fact in any facet of life is a myth. You make decisions based on what you believe to be the best option, at the time, for a desired result :thumbup1:
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, the written word, unless penned eloquently, is a poor vehicle for emotions.In no way would you think me to be negative,it must say something for my inability to convey my thoughts effectively.

No, i dont carry a chip, ive been around the block too many times, to feel agrieved or short changed,its a worthwhile dividend of age!


----------



## blackbeard (May 3, 2009)

the old adage "it's easy to get big but hard to get big and beautiful" comes to mind in this discussion.A fair proportion of the population could put on the size to get on a stage but it's looking great with the size that separates a qualifier from a champion


----------



## ManOnAMission (May 1, 2009)

I don't see essexboy as negative, but when I see his posts It does strike me he places far too much focus on genetics, while others focus on trying the tried and tested principles which work and then working as hard as they can, to achieve their goals.


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

weeman said:


> Again fair point but let me turn this around on you,up until 2005 i was one of those many nameless members who thought he was doing everything right and plodding away,bodybuilding pretty much my life,then in 2005,i had a moment of clarity,realised there were defo elements missing and inside tewlve months transformed myself into a class winning physique
> 
> Anyone can do it:wink:





rs007 said:


> Have you not also stated a few times you refuse to believe in high protein intakes etc
> 
> :whistling:
> 
> ...


Listen to you two PMSL

Weeman, you dont have great genetics but you certainly have better than average genetics, thus your 20" Gunnage, I consider myslef similar to you TBH, Not a natural mesomorph, but have the genetic potential there for some sort of achivement given hard work etc etc :thumb:

I honestly know guys (in my gym TBH:whistling who have trained there bottoms off, abused gear and lived like a monk to achieve less than 18" arms and a bag of ****e physique that looks [email protected] in gym let alone stage..

Believe me they have tried, I have even helped them but alas they just looked rubbish

ANd you RS, you can fck off, sh1t genetics my ar5e:lol: :lol: :lol:

Look at ur bloody calves:cursing: :cursing: :cursing: :cursing:


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

jw007 said:


> Listen to you two PMSL
> 
> Weeman, you dont have great genetics but you certainly have better than average genetics, thus your 20" Gunnage, I consider myslef similar to you TBH, Not a natural mesomorph, but have the genetic potential there for some sort of achivement given hard work etc etc :thumb:
> 
> ...


All I can say is that I hope I have the money to put where my mouth is one day, would love to help other guys and gals do what they never imagined they could.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Wee G said:


> Quick Q for you, poll included....
> 
> Take a genetically average guy in his 30's, weighing 12 stone at 6 foot 1 tall with normal family commitments etc and working 70+ hours per week.
> 
> ...


within 3yrs you could qualify for the Finals.....



essexboy said:


> A genetically average guy would NEVER build a physique able to qualify for the UKBBF Champs.


who mentioned Genetics? the fact is that anyone who has the drive to succeed and the knowledge you can do this...the OP asks if it can be done and the answer is yes.....



essexboy said:


> Sorry W/M.Respectfully have to disagree.Without the required genetic traits, the goal is impossible.
> 
> There are plenty out there who have.There are Millions who havent, and desire and commitment are not enough.Whilst you may not be "super gentically gifted" you have enough of the required traits(plus the required drive, commitment etc) to compete at the highest level.
> 
> ...


we are not talking about winning the British we are talking about qualifying for it.....the OP has said average genetics he does not mention anything about lack of drive or focus and with these you can achieve this.......he could hire a coach who could easily take someone with the will to succeed to the British....



rs007 said:


> I'm not genetically blessed, I just eat a sh1t load of protein, and refuse to refuse to believe anything :lol:


i beg to differ and anyone who has seen you in condition will agree you have some good genetics for BB


----------



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

rs007 said:


> PS the above criteria for anyone wishing to take me up on this is that you must live-in with me and be a part time BF. This is nothing sexual, although you will be expected to give and take bummage.


Fine with me :whistling: note I live in Newcastle, you will have to move. :lol:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> who mentioned Genetics? the fact is that anyone who has the drive to succeed and the knowledge you can do this...the OP asks if it can be done and the answer is yes.....


The OP did.The original post mentions genetics.My contention, is that average genetics (however that would be defined)is not sufficient.There has to be another factor that is overlooked, as only a small percentage, reach a development to be able to compete at a national level.


----------



## robisco11 (Dec 8, 2007)

essexboy said:


> The OP did.The original post mentions genetics.My contention, is that average genetics (however that would be defined)is not sufficient.There has to be another factor that is overlooked, as* only a small percentage, reach a development to be able to compete at a national level*.


because there is only a tiny % with the desire, drive and commitment to compete at national level...thats why.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

no there is a difference between qualifying for a national level show and being competative which i think is what your on about....

so by what your saying everyone who has ever competed at the Britain have above average Genetics sorry mate you are wrong....

have you ever competed? have you ever been to a Britiah Final?? being on stage or watching

i have average genetics yet i have placed top 3 in Britain and not been beat at regional level in 5yrs


----------



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

...and like I said - its doing the right things, for a great enough % of the time, for enough time.

You've been reading too much HIT Jedi bull**** mate  IMHO of course.


----------



## warren (Jun 16, 2008)

very good read this topic and good arguments on both sides. personally i dont feel experienc3d enough to comment as have always had things get in my way and never had a real run for any real length of time with out interuption ie- 1,2,3.... years

but hey probs my genetics lol just messing guys lol


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> no there is a difference between qualifying for a national level show and being competative which i think is what your on about....
> 
> so by what your saying everyone who has ever competed at the Britain have above average Genetics sorry mate you are wrong....
> 
> have you ever competed? have you ever been to a Britiah Final?? being on stage or watching


 Paul.its a numbers game.How many train in this country? how many develop eye popping physiques.The evidence is empirical.

No ive never competed, i dont consider myself a BB in the strictest sense of the word.The first show i attended was at Hornsey town hall.( i think it was Brtiain final, but was 1979, memories a bit faded)My mate Gary, (who was a lump) was a big favourite for the juniors.

That was until, we saw the competition.Terry Fisher,Brian Buchanan,and Sulby Prince.Anyhow, cant see the relavance.Being able to make a logical deduction bears no relation to experience in a specific field.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

robisco11 said:


> because there is only a tiny % with the desire, drive and commitment to compete at national level...thats why.


Thats not what is experienced here though is it? Many exibit the desire to progress, to become huge, buff or whatever,but fail.Are they all lazy?


----------



## stonecoldzero (Aug 30, 2009)

Hi Essex -

A little off topic, but I just have to ask -

Have you ever managed to achieve a look that you were somewhat happy and / or comfortable with to the extent that you were willing to just "maintain"? Particularly at this point in time?

If not, why not?


----------



## ManOnAMission (May 1, 2009)

essexboy said:


> Thats not what is experienced here though is it? Many exibit the desire to progress, to become huge, buff or whatever,but fail.Are they all lazy?


You seem to be ignoring the fact most don't have the will power, determination to achieve their goals.


----------



## Dantreadz85 (Jun 4, 2009)

essex boy has officially made this thread boring looool . too many words i dont understand ha ha . altho i do see both sides off the argument . i think it is possible given diet an gear is right . but if you dont take gear like myself then ur f**cked , simples lol


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

stonecoldzero said:


> Hi Essex -
> 
> A little off topic, but I just have to ask -
> 
> ...


Well, im still trying to (sucessfully)get stronger.Im comfortable in my skin yet Im satisfied to make progress, however small.I will make a concerted effort to become leaner this year.However, even when i was boxing i never managed to get very lean, its not in my genes(oops that word again)I tend to get very strong,on leg movements,yet gain little size.However, im dealing with a diminishing hormone profile, so its really to be expected.I find the positive aspects of lifting weights tremendous value.


----------



## saaam (Aug 4, 2009)

the real question is, why do we need moths? and whats it like to eat them?


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

John XTC-SE said:


> You seem to be ignoring the fact most don't have the will power, determination to achieve their goals.


No im not ignoring your opinion (not fact)Ive considered it, and believe other factors are more important.


----------



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

saaam said:


> the real question is, why do we need moths? and whats it like to eat them?


Yeah, sorry about that smart ****  I will leave it unedited.


----------



## saaam (Aug 4, 2009)

Wee G said:


> Yeah, sorry about that smart ****  I will leave it unedited.


  I didnt think you could edit a poll anyway? To avoid off topic-ness, I reckon you can get good enough off pure hard work and dedication, but the winners are the guys who have the genes to go with this hard work and dedication.

Its the whole Nature/Nurture argument, and I think that says you need both to be the best of the best, as one with out the other will only get you so far.


----------



## SALKev (Feb 28, 2009)

essexboy said:


> Thats not what is experienced here though is it? Many exibit the desire to progress, to become huge, buff or whatever,but fail.Are they all lazy?


Mostly they're not lazy - many have things getting in the way of their progress at the current time - which gets in the way of serious gains.

For example, I have a great want to add quality mass but I have the problems of-

My parents blocking me on most things I decide to do that are BB related. Unless I do not want a breakdown in the relationship between me and my parents, I have to accept certain (big) compromises on the diet/supplementation side of things.

I have the problem of a lack of money to help these compromises a little bit more in my favour (no, not bribes  ) and am unable to get a job that suits my training and limited after school period for which I also have to fit in my homework/revision.

I have the problem of a devastatingly lack of equipment due to the area that I live in.

Now imagine someone who has MORE external factors effecting their bodybuilding lives. They will find it even more difficult even if there drive was so much better than mine. You can only ignore so many things in your life mate, as I'm sure you know.

You can not just throw this major issue out the window when considering what people are doing to further their progress.



saaam said:


> the real question is, why do we need moths? and whats it like to eat them?


 :lol: :lol:

You have definitely grasped what others could not :lol:


----------



## MASSIVEMONSTER (May 28, 2006)

At 6`1 , I would say you`d need to weigh 230 on stage to look decent, which is 105kg. So he now weighs 169lb (12st 1lb)

Lets say at average body fat he would need to get up to 255-260 to diet down to 230.. So he needs to gain about six stones of weight, mostly muscle.

This is not happening overnight. You could qualify within 3 years if you picked an easy qualifier mind you, placing well is a different story.

Genetics do play a big part but not the whole story. If he was 100% committed this is better than a genetically gifted guy who is 50% committed


----------



## MASSIVEMONSTER (May 28, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> no there is a difference between qualifying for a national level show and being competative which i think is what your on about....
> 
> so by what your saying everyone who has ever competed at the Britain have above average Genetics sorry mate you are wrong....
> 
> ...


I dont agree Paul with this.

If you picked 10 guys from a gym and they blasted all the food, gear and training they could over the next 10 years you think they`d all be 200lb onstage at 5`5 and place 3rd? No chance.


----------



## blackbeard (May 3, 2009)

I don't think it's essential do be a genetic freak but is important not to be a genetic "unfreak."

I mean there are some poor souls who are really unblessed in the genetic department.


----------



## spiderpants (Nov 21, 2007)

dont think the weight would be an achievable target but 1 year to get good enough to be on stage n looking ripped. thats no nincluding the spiderpants 20 week diet plan


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

rs007 said:


> PS the above criteria for anyone wishing to take me up on this is that you must live-in with me and be a part time BF. This is nothing sexual, although you will be expected to give and take bummage.


Ahh, we now have a prime suspect for all the related bf, bummage threads, I said it before

and I'll say it again

Pervert:tongue:



ps, no offence to real perverts (weeman etc)


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

weeman said:


> Again fair point but let me turn this around on you,up until 2005 i was one of those many nameless members who thought he was doing everything right and plodding away,bodybuilding pretty much my life,then in 2005*,i had a moment of clarity*,realised there were defo elements missing and inside tewlve months transformed myself into a class winning physique
> 
> Anyone can do it:wink:


Give us a clue then, can't just leave us hanging mate:thumbdown:


----------



## Rebus (May 22, 2006)

essexboy said:


> A genetically average guy would NEVER build a physique able to qualify for the UKBBF Champs.


Not quite agreeing with this as the question is to qualify not win and it would depend on what qualifier was entered and also who and how many in the qualifier.....

But realistically maybe 3 years with correct nutrition and training.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

essexboy said:


> Paul.its a numbers game.How many train in this country? how many develop eye popping physiques.The evidence is empirical.
> 
> No ive never competed, i dont consider myself a BB in the strictest sense of the word.The first show i attended was at Hornsey town hall.( i think it was Brtiain final, but was 1979, memories a bit faded)My mate Gary, (who was a lump) was a big favourite for the juniors.
> 
> That was until, we saw the competition.Terry Fisher,Brian Buchanan,and Sulby Prince.Anyhow, cant see the relavance.Being able to make a logical deduction bears no relation to experience in a specific field.


the relevance is your perception of the standard needed, you mention guys like Terry Fisher and Brian Buchanan both became Pro's in their relevant federations....you mention developing an eye popping physique but that was not the original question.

the question was to qualify for the finals not place at or win the finals just to get an invite to the finals.

this is possible in 3yrs yes it will be hard but with the correct training/diet and steroid use it is achievable



MASSIVEMONSTER said:


> I dont agree Paul with this.
> 
> If you picked 10 guys from a gym and they blasted all the food, gear and training they could over the next 10 years you think they`d all be 200lb onstage at 5`5 and place 3rd? No chance.


cheers mate but if i had good genetics it would not of taken me so long to get to this level, take guys like James L and Tom B for example both guys have been competing for less than 5yrs and both are considered at the top of their classes in this country not that is good genetics.......


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> the relevance is your perception of the standard needed, you mention guys like Terry Fisher and Brian Buchanan both became Pro's in their relevant federations....you mention developing an eye popping physique but that was not the original question.
> 
> the question was to qualify for the finals not place at or win the finals just to get an invite to the finals.
> 
> ...


Perhaps my perception of what is required to qualify is too high?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

essexboy said:


> Perhaps my perception of what is required to qualify is too high?


this is my point mate. do not get me wrong he would still need a decent physique which is possible but eye popping no......


----------



## dongrammar (Apr 12, 2009)

How many people really become great in any field? Not many.

You could learn 95% of a language in 3 months but that last 5% could take you 10 years. For nearly everyone being good is enough. There's no need to become one of the best.

It's that last 5% in that separates the best from the very good.


----------



## Rebus (May 22, 2006)

Look what Dorian Yates done with 3 years training. Looking at his before training pictures you would never believe it possible.....


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

essexboy said:


> Well, im still trying to (sucessfully)get stronger.Im comfortable in my skin yet Im satisfied to make progress, however small.I will make a concerted effort to become leaner this year.*However, even when i was boxing i never managed to get very lean, its not in my genes(oops that word again)*I tend to get very strong,on leg movements,yet gain little size.However, im dealing with a diminishing hormone profile, so its really to be expected.I find the positive aspects of lifting weights tremendous value.


slightly OT but again that point on having never gotten lean enough,short of any actual medical problem EVERYONE is able to get into a shredded state,its simply diet related and how hard your willing to work to go down to those levels,again not everyone has the required knowledge,drive or willpower to see it out tho 



MASSIVEMONSTER said:


> At 6`1 , I would say you`d need to weigh 230 on stage to look decent, which is 105kg. So he now weighs 169lb (12st 1lb)
> 
> Lets say at average body fat he would need to get up to 255-260 to diet down to 230.. So he needs to gain about six stones of weight, mostly muscle.
> 
> ...


So many numbers there that really mean nothing,first rule of getting onstage (barring trying to get into a weight class) is weight means sweet FA,look at Rams,he was around the 200lbs mark at 5'11 on stage,thats only two inches shorter than the OP's guy but you get the picture,pretty much think we can all agree (tho Rams wont:rolleyes: ) Rams looked excellent at that weight on his height and frame.

Another thing i dont think the doubters are taking into consideration is the fact that with everything in place and doing everything as he should be,the guy would grow like a weed.

Also an example i have used many times,in 2008 i took a boy under my wing as he wanted to step on stage,all in INCLUDING a 12 week prep he had only been training for a year,he won two out of the three shows he did,came second in the other,each show had a class of 9+ guys in it,he also qualified via first place win for the UKBFF brits.

He also has pretty average genetics,once i got him he bloomed under my guidance (take gear,shag eat kilo's of protein a day:lol: ),had i took even more time with him and been there training with him everytime he was in the gym and making him be more attentive in his personal life outside the gym he would have been leagues better again i do not doubt



tel3563 said:


> Give us a clue then, can't just leave us hanging mate:thumbdown:


Nothing major lol things going on in my life helped me open my eyes (premmy ill daughter) and made me take a look at myself and be realistic in the way i was actually doing things versus the way i THOUGHT i was doing things


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

weeman said:


> Nothing major lol things going on in my life helped me open my eyes (premmy ill daughter) and made me take a look at myself and be realistic in the way i was actually doing things versus the way i THOUGHT i was doing things


See it sounds quite impressive when he puts it like that, but the simple fact is he just stopped eating pies/kebabs/chinkies (is it racist to say chinkies :confused1: ) and finally accepted like most should, that he needs to eat around 1.8g per lean lb protien daily before he can even start to expect gainage :lol:


----------



## SALKev (Feb 28, 2009)

From what I've heard, saying Chinkies is pretty racist but no idea as to the reason...if at all there is one :confused1:


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

SALKev said:


> From what I've heard, saying Chinkies is pretty racist but no idea as to the reason...if at all there is one :confused1:


Hahahaha cue random thread direction  :lol:

I was only joking - I don't refer to chinese folks as Chinkies, never have done - but do refer to Chinese takaway food as "a ******". Just the way its always been up here, no one seems troubled by it - not least the local chinese who reel in the cash off my fatness :lol:


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

rs007 said:


> See it sounds quite impressive when he puts it like that, but the simple fact is he just stopped eating pies/kebabs/chinkies (is it racist to say chinkies :confused1: ) and finally accepted like most should, that he needs to eat around 1.8g per lean lb protien daily before he can even start to expect gainage :lol:


DAMN YOU!! some things are supposed to stay mythically secret,now you gone done that theres gnr be all sorts of gunnage sprouting up all over the board.

In next months Muscular Development they'll have a classy chromed pic of me on the cover,crushing a pie in one hand and a scrunched up bag of chips in the other and the headline reading 'Weeman,the man who changed bodybuilding'

I'll be more famous than Arnie now :lol: :lol:


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

weeman said:


> DAMN YOU!! some things are supposed to stay mythically secret,now you gone done that theres gnr be all sorts of gunnage sprouting up all over the board.
> 
> In next months Muscular Development they'll have a classy chromed pic of me on the cover,crushing a pie in one hand and a scrunched up bag of chips in the other and the headline reading 'Weeman,the man who changed bodybuilding'
> 
> I'll be more famous than Arnie now :lol: :lol:


*cough cough* Brians preworkout meal tonight was a burger from the kebab shop, he even phoned ahead for it so it would be ready as he got off the bus to walk the quarter mile to the gym *cough cough*

Something in my throat there :whistling:


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

rs007 said:


> *cough cough* Brians preworkout meal tonight was a burger from the kebab shop, he even phoned ahead for it so it would be ready as he got off the bus to walk the quarter mile to the gym *cough cough*
> 
> Something in my throat there :whistling:


 :lol: :lol: tis true:lol: :lol:

I was actually gnr walk into the gym eating it,but the funny factor isnt quite there at the moment being as i look like a pile of turd:lol: :lol: that only really works when your looking awesome so as to confuse people ie the time we went to Tower Gym to meet Del and Pscarb eating the KFC in the gym before the workout at 4 weeks out:lol: :lol:


----------



## gb666 (Mar 14, 2006)

Could be done but what is defined as average genetics?


----------



## SALKev (Feb 28, 2009)

rs007 said:


> Hahahaha cue random thread direction :lol:
> 
> I was only joking - I don't refer to chinese folks as Chinkies, never have done - but do refer to Chinese takaway food as "a ******". Just the way its always been up here, no one seems troubled by it - not least the local chinese who reel in the cash off my fatness :lol:


Come on though man...think of the food...THE FOOD! Think of how it must be feeling everytime it hear's you calling it that :lol:

That last bit you wrote brought to mind this video....






Go on...I dare you to ask for a discount :lol:

(I swear I posted this last night but it wasn't there when I looked again :confused1: )


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

my question to people like essexboy and those who always cite genetics and leanness would be

* do you follow a meticulous diet

*do you weigh everything you put in your mouth

* have you followed this for ten to twelve weeks without ANY deviation from the plan?

for ages I wondered why i could not hit that final level of conditioning - until I sat down with myself and looked at exactly what i was doing - I followed everything to the letter like I SHOULD have been doing but was kidding myself I was, went to the dark place and for three weeks dropped the extra weight neccessary, this for me was a huge learning curve and I would suggest that alot fo trainees on here havent experienced that yet as IMO its not soemthing that can easily be taught but has to be learnt

if you look at this pic at the right (I am on the left) here is a guy with sh!t genetics who still managed to get lean and still qualified for the finals (didnt place but qualified none the less)


----------



## gb666 (Mar 14, 2006)

glen danbury said:


> my question to people like essexboy and those who always cite genetics and leanness would be
> 
> * do you follow a meticulous diet
> 
> ...


Valid points, I asked in my last post what is defined by poor/average/good genetics?

The variables to attain any level of achievement are many with meticulous planning a must.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

glen danbury said:


> my question to people like essexboy and those who always cite genetics and leanness would be
> 
> * do you follow a meticulous diet
> 
> ...


Glen.Not EVERYONE can attain the leaness that you display.Not demeaning your efforts youve done a magnificent job.Its plain simple physiology.You cannot alter that which is predetermined by birth.We exist on a huge bellcurve.You cannot rationalise your achievments with anyone else but yourself.There are too many variables.

The same factors prevent many of us ,aquiring an IQ of 150, or becoming chess masters.If i told you an individual on a muscians site that they would never become a concert pianist, because they didnt have a sufficient span, to cover a whole octave, it would be treated with dissapointment maybe, but realisation that is "just the way it is" However, on a BB forum, similar facts are treated with anger and distain, which enivitably,conclude with Ad Homien atttacks.Please. lets call it a day, on this subject, we have differing opinons of science that will never be agreed upon.


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)

I don't agree that not anyone can get lean, can you tell me what is stopping someone from getting lean, if they follow the correct diet/exercise plan?

Anyone can get anorexic, anyone can get so thin that they die, so why can't anyone get lean and be in shape, it's all about loosing weight, which anyone can do - given the correct dedication.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

T.F. said:


> I don't agree that not anyone can get lean, can you tell me what is stopping someone from getting lean, if they follow the correct diet/exercise plan?
> 
> Anyone can get anorexic, anyone can get so thin that they die, so why can't anyone get lean and be in shape, it's all about loosing weight, which anyone can do - given the correct dedication.


Ok you dont agree.Thats not a valid argument, its just saying the opposite of what ive said.Find some facts and get back to me.Fat storage is genetic. some store fat around internal organs.Some dont.If you body fats levels get too low, your body will prevent further loss and sacrifice lean muscle. Thats one reason.


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

essexboy said:


> Ok you dont agree.Thats not a valid argument, its just saying the opposite of what ive said.Find some facts and get back to me.Fat storage is genetic. some store fat around internal organs.Some dont.If you body fats levels get too low, your body will prevent further loss and sacrifice lean muscle. Thats one reason.


Ok essexboy - YOU are the one making the claim that fat storage is genetic - prove it?

if you say some get fat storage in different areas as others well i would suggest that the reason for this is due to phenotype reasons (alterable due to past/current actions) rather then genotype

from research currently its appearing that hormones could dictate where we store the fat and we now that dietary and physical actions can dictate hormones

as i have said before genetics are a cop out by those who wish to just except what they have in life - have you ever thought that the bell curve exists due to actual physical elements that have occured to us over or lifes rather than a genetic influence? look at things like the barker hypothesis which shows how inter utero nutrition dictates the relative limb lengths and whether we develop certain non communicable diseases such as CHD and diabetes in later life - but because most people can't account for this things they lump them into genetics when they are not

the thing is we can possibly alter our phenotype through training, diet and enviromental changes

as i said prove that fat storage is genetic - you only have to look at how post menopausal women change their fat storage pattern to see this is a myth


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

and the pic wasnt about me but rather the guy on the right to show how a guy with bad genetics can get to a national stage


----------



## GrannySmiff (Sep 28, 2009)

surely working 70 hours a week would be to much to have time to eat train and sleep properly and if has a family see the family.

40 hours can be hard enough unless you have very good home gym.


----------



## blackbeard (May 3, 2009)

I think that 70 hours must have been an error,if you worked that many hours you wouldn't do much more than work and sleep.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

glen danbury said:


> Ok essexboy - YOU are the one making the claim that fat storage is genetic - prove it?
> 
> if you say some get fat storage in different areas as others well i would suggest that the reason for this is due to phenotype reasons (alterable due to past/current actions) rather then genotype
> 
> ...


I really havent the time to spend hours trawling through books, to validate my statement.However, ill make a few responses.if you examined the winners of every major BB contest in the last 50 years, you would find a pattern.A very high percentage of the winners, would have dark skin and /or dark eyes.There wolud be few lgiht skinned/blue eyed winners. with the exception of yates and walller., im sure there are more but they are the only two that spring to mind.There exists a strong correlation between climate(origin of winners) and body fat.

Women are in most cases fatter than men, of course its genes! that is what seperates the sexes.

you seem to ignore the other examples , I cite, and focus soley on bodybuilding, as though the laws that apply to the rest of existance are null and void in bodybuilding!


----------



## Dantreadz85 (Jun 4, 2009)

this is getting proper boring now


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Dantreadz85 said:


> this is getting proper boring now


your not obliged to read it.


----------



## blackbeard (May 3, 2009)

essexboy said:


> I really havent the time to spend hours trawling through books, to validate my statement.However, ill make a few responses.if you examined the winners of every major BB contest in the last 50 years, you would find a pattern.A very high percentage of the winners, would have dark skin and /or dark eyes.There wolud be few lgiht skinned/blue eyed winners. with the exception of yates and walller., im sure there are more but they are the only two that spring to mind.There exists a strong correlation between climate(origin of winners) and body fat.
> 
> Women are in most cases fatter than men, of course its genes! that is what seperates the sexes.
> 
> you seem to ignore the other examples , I cite, and focus soley on bodybuilding, as though the laws that apply to the rest of existance are null and void in bodybuilding!


Having low bodyfat naturally just makes the job of getting cut a helluva lot easier,it doesn't mean it's impossible if you have a slow metabolism.

I recall Selwyn Cottrell being asked by Julian Feinstein at a guest posing how he managed to only take four weeks to diet for a show and his one word answer was 'genetics'.

I on the other hand have a v.slow metabolism and have to diet on near zero carbs and tons of cardio for months!!(most people would be stick men at this stage)but i get there in the end.

If your metabolism is slow one benefit is there seems to be less danger of flattening out and burning up muscle whilst dieting


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)

blackbeard said:


> Having low bodyfat naturally just makes the job of getting cut a helluva lot easier,it doesn't mean it's impossible if you have a slow metabolism.
> 
> I recall Selwyn Cottrell being asked by Julian Feinstein at a guest posing how he managed to only take four weeks to diet for a show and his one word answer was 'genetics'.
> 
> ...


You mean you actually dedicate months to achieving something, as opposed to just crying genetics and giving up? Hats off to you my man, well done! If only everyone would take the same approach.

:thumbup1:


----------



## Wee G1436114539 (Oct 6, 2007)

blackbeard said:


> I think that 70 hours must have been an error,if you worked that many hours you wouldn't do much more than work and sleep.


Err...thats no typo. 70 hours a week.

Lots of guys work those kind of hours - 2 jobs, or self employed etc.


----------



## T.F. (Aug 28, 2008)

That's a lot of hours and would seriously impact on other aspects of life, such as family, time for relaxation etc.


----------



## blackbeard (May 3, 2009)

The mrs would have to have the patience of a saint if you were out at work 70 hours, then at the gym training then doing cardio to diet for a show,then being exhausted through restricted calories.


----------



## Lou (Jul 27, 2008)

essexboy said:


> Sorry W/M.Respectfully have to disagree.Without the required genetic traits, the goal is impossible.
> 
> There are plenty out there who have.There are Millions who havent, and desire and commitment are not enough.Whilst you may not be "super gentically gifted" you have enough of the required traits(plus the required drive, commitment etc) to compete at the highest level.
> 
> ...


sorry not to be disrespectful......but you are talking sh!t. :cursing:

OK....I am a genetically average woman with three kids, unsupportive husband and two jobs, who in LESS than two years went from wannabe to 4th at British Finals in 2009 at the first attempt....with the right help.  :thumbup1:

Lou X


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Lou said:


> sorry not to be disrespectful......but you are talking sh!t. :cursing:
> 
> OK....I am a genetically average woman with three kids, unsupportive husband and two jobs, who in LESS than two years went from wannabe to 4th at British Finals in 2009 at the first attempt....with the right help.  :thumbup1:
> 
> Lou X


Congratulations.However, your personal experiences are just that, personal.The results that you have achieved, are influenced to a degree (lesser or greater)by your genes.They do not, and cannot apply to every human being.The protocol that you applied to achieve your well deserved sucess, if precisely applied to a cross section of 1000 (ad infinitum)females would produce a huge variation in results, across a huge spectrum.

To assume that achievments in ANY human endeavour, are in direct realation ONLY to effort is concited and incorrect.I find myself perplexed at those who refuse to accept that certain traits are not subject to change, so again Ill resort to examples, to explain.

The average palm span from bottom of palm, to end of index finger is 7 inches.To play extremely complex and difficult chord changes,a span of 9 inches is deemed required(as stated by a famous guitarist) One of the worlds most dexterous guitarists, Jimi Hendrix, was reported to have a palm span of 11 inches.Whilst his obvious talents were the result of his practice, The gentic anomoly that ALLOWED him to play such complex pieces, was the palm span he was born with.No amount of practice would compensate for this requirement.Dont shoot me, im only mother natures messenger.May you have continued sucess.


----------



## SALKev (Feb 28, 2009)

> OK....I am a *genetically **average** woman* with three kids, unsupportive husband and two jobs, who in LESS than two years went from wannabe to 4th at British Finals in 2009 at the first attempt....with the right help.
> 
> Lou X





> Congratulations.However, your personal experiences are just that, personal.The results that you have achieved, are influenced to a degree (lesser or greater)by your genes.They do not, and cannot apply to every human being.The protocol that you applied to achieve your well deserved sucess, if precisely applied to a cross section of 1000 (ad infinitum)females would produce a huge variation in results, across a huge spectrum.


She just said she was average mate, which means obviously it won't apply to some people and there will be some variation but in the nature of being average, it will suit the majority.


----------



## Dig (Aug 28, 2007)

essexboy said:


> Congratulations.However, your personal experiences are just that, personal.The results that you have achieved, are influenced to a degree (lesser or greater)by your genes.They do not, and cannot apply to every human being.The protocol that you applied to achieve your well deserved sucess, if precisely applied to a cross section of 1000 (ad infinitum)females would produce a huge variation in results, across a huge spectrum.
> 
> To assume that achievments in ANY human endeavour, are in direct realation ONLY to effort is concited and incorrect.I find myself perplexed at those who refuse to accept that certain traits are not subject to change, so again Ill resort to examples, to explain.
> 
> The average palm span from bottom of palm, to end of index finger is 7 inches.To play extremely complex and difficult chord changes,a span of 9 inches is deemed required(as stated by a famous guitarist) One of the worlds most dexterous guitarists, Jimi Hendrix, was reported to have a palm span of 11 inches.Whilst his obvious talents were the result of his practice, The gentic anomoly that ALLOWED him to play such complex pieces, was the palm span he was born with.No amount of practice would compensate for this requirement.Dont shoot me, im only mother natures messenger.May you have continued sucess.


I can see your point it just seems you have taken the thread away from the original question. The question wasnt about if anyone could be a pro bber but reach a national competition, and this is with the aid of AAS as has already been mentioned earlier in the thread.

I dont think anyone would argue that to be a world class bber you need good genetics, but unlike just about every other example you have mentioned bbing does not require skill thus genetics arent perhaps as limiting (especially adding aas and other such compounds into the mix) until you get to the higher levels, for example winning the national competition rather than just qualifying for it.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

SALKev said:


> She just said she was average mate, which means obviously it won't apply to some people and there will be some variation but in the nature of being average, it will suit the majority.


How is average defined in relation to the human body? Its far too complex an organism to be able to be quantified as average.A huge variety of physiological differences, are deemed as normal (read average).


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Dig said:


> I can see your point it just seems you have taken the thread away from the original question. The question wasnt about if anyone could be a pro bber but reach a national competition, and this is with the aid of AAS as has already been mentioned earlier in the thread.
> 
> I dont think anyone would argue that to be a world class bber you need good genetics, but unlike just about every other example you have mentioned bbing does not require skill thus genetics arent perhaps as limiting (especially adding aas and other such compounds into the mix) until you get to the higher levels, for example winning the national competition rather than just qualifying for it.


I was responding to the posts,that cited genetics.Although BB does not require a demonstratable skill as such, the analogy is still valid.The "skill " is responding positively to an exercise/ nutrition programme.

I agree with your last point.As you progress up the ladder of competition, to the pinnacle, (mr universe etc) genetic factors become even more critical.


----------



## tjwilkie (Feb 21, 2009)

essexboy said:


> The average palm span from bottom of palm, to end of index finger is 7 inches.To play extremely complex and difficult chord changes,a span of 9 inches is deemed required(as stated by a famous guitarist) One of the worlds most dexterous guitarists, Jimi Hendrix, was reported to have a palm span of 11 inches.Whilst his obvious talents were the result of his practice, The gentic anomoly that ALLOWED him to play such complex pieces, was the palm span he was born with.No amount of practice would compensate for this requirement.Dont shoot me, im only mother natures messenger.May you have continued sucess.


what a load of sh!t! iv got 8.5 inch hand span i does that mean i would be good at playing the guitar no it does not, iv tryed and i was [email protected] If anything that hand span sh!it would be the equivalent to the hight of a bodybuilder witch makes no difference at all. Sounds like your just trying to make your self sound better for the achievement's you never accomplished IMO


----------



## DNA (Jan 6, 2009)

Given all the tools and guidance needed plus the desire, effort and will power then I don't see why Mr Average couldn't hit the stage within 3 years.

Why? Think back to when you started out. Most of us probably didn't have much of a clue about what we were doing in terms of training and nutrition. We no doubt read some magazines for reference and, if we were lucky, could draw upon some of the experienced heads at your chosen gym after the honeymoon period was over and the regulars accepted that you were in it for the long haul and not a 2 or 3 month wonder.

I'm sure the internet wasn't anything like the resource it is now so really anyone starting out is pretty lucky in this respect for finding out info on training, diet, supplements, etc.

The most important aspect however is we're talking average genetics and to me these have the potential to build 3st-4st of muscle onto a frame. sure, there are the genetically gifted at building muscle just as there are those that find it alomst impossible but average is just that. Average. In the middle. So you've as much chance to gain good mass as you have not to but the difference is up to you.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

God said:


> Comparing a chess master and a bodybuilder is probably not the best example. Not just anyone can become a chess master however that is using the mind, not the body so really doesn't help your case. After 5 years of training I'm sure even a moron could be pretty good at Chess and beat the majority of players.
> 
> Equally not everyone can be a Mr Olympia as of course at this level you require a superior class of genetics however I am of the belief that if enough effort is put in then a body that the OP described could be obtained. For this you need size and conditioning which almost anyone can achieve but with a lot of hard work of course. To win the show you will need to be a bit more genetically gifted but that's not the question. With the average genetics surely it's possible to qualify.
> 
> ...


Your opening paragraph? you might want to look up the definition of moronthe example is valid.Trainning the mind,is well documented.if however, yuo dont posess the required traits, your results will be minimal.

Your ,mine or anybody elses results in any arena, do not alter physiological facts.Merely being in posession of a skill, does not automatically mean you have an in depth knowledge of how best to cultivate that skill in others.

Whilst i agree that these opinions are mine, Unfortunately,I cant take credit for the huge amount of work, that forms them.

In any endeavour you will find participants who have shortcomings.Whether its BB or social interaction.We all have strengths and weaknesses.Dont expect to compete at a high level, in any of them merely by practising what those at the highest levels do.


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

essexboy said:


> *Your opening paragraph? you might want to look up the definition of moron*


Insulting other members isn't gonna help is it? You obnoxious WA*KER.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

WRT said:


> Insulting other members isn't gonna help is it? You obnoxious WA*KER.


If you read the context of the statement, you will realise,i was responding to the posters statement that a moron could learn to play chess. i wont lower myself to insults mate.You can be tonights internet tough guy.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

tjwilkie said:


> what a load of sh!t! iv got 8.5 inch hand span i does that mean i would be good at playing the guitar no it does not, iv tryed and i was [email protected] If anything that hand span sh!it would be the equivalent to the hight of a bodybuilder witch makes no difference at all. Sounds like your just trying to make your self sound better for the achievement's you never accomplished IMO


i was gonna respond , then i thought whats the point?


----------



## WRT (May 21, 2009)

essexboy said:


> If you read the context of the statement, you will realise,i was responding to the posters statement that a moron colud learn to play chess. i wont lower myself to insults mate.You can be tonights internet tough guy.


But I am actually hard as fvck. I've done a lesson of MMA:lol:


----------



## tjwilkie (Feb 21, 2009)

essexboy said:


> i was gonna respond , then i thought whats the point?


go on then why did you change your mind about responding im intrigued to know what you were going to say


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

essexboy said:


> Congratulations.However, your personal experiences are just that, personal.The results that you have achieved, are influenced to a degree (lesser or greater)by your genes.They do not, and cannot apply to every human being.The protocol that you applied to achieve your well deserved sucess, if precisely applied to a cross section of 1000 (ad infinitum)females would produce a huge variation in results, across a huge spectrum.
> 
> To assume that achievments in ANY human endeavour, are in direct realation ONLY to effort is concited and incorrect.I find myself perplexed at those who refuse to accept that certain traits are not subject to change, so again Ill resort to examples, to explain.
> 
> The average palm span from bottom of palm, to end of index finger is 7 inches.To play extremely complex and difficult chord changes,a span of 9 inches is deemed required(as stated by a famous guitarist) One of the worlds most dexterous guitarists, Jimi Hendrix, was reported to have a palm span of 11 inches.Whilst his obvious talents were the result of his practice, The gentic anomoly that ALLOWED him to play such complex pieces, was the palm span he was born with.No amount of practice would compensate for this requirement.Dont shoot me, im only mother natures messenger.May you have continued sucess.


lol Essexboy,you cant see the woods for the tree's mate,every analogy you have used,including bodybuilding,you have used the upper echelon of that given example,tyson,becham,hendrix,but there is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge grey are before you could ever hope to be like them,that doesnt make everyone else sh1t,or unable to be a good boxer,footballer,guitarist,it just means they lack the extreme edge that each of these individuals have.

Like i said above as well,getting lean,so long as there is no actual medical reason for you not to be able to,everyone is capable of doing it,how many times have you seen pics of monsterously obese people,i am talking 300lb++ and then seem them turn their lives around,and in some cases even turn into shredded athletes when they have chosen to take it that step further.

A woman local to me last year,her hubby has trained for 20+ years,she has always been at his side plodding away for the last 2 years,then suddenly she got this burning desire to look like the girls that compete from our gym,now this girl was 230lbs at 5'4'',immensely fat.

6 hard months dieting later and she turned up on stage at a shredded to the fkn bone 112lbs,and also qualified for the UKBFF womens light heavies,first try.

Now i know you will write that off to 'well she must have had the genes in the first place' or something,but its nothing to do with that mate,we have all got the genetics to do what we do here,just some have better genetics to do it with than others,but theres no getting away from the fact that this is one of the many reasons why bodybuilding is such a unique sport from virtually all others,because anyone can do it.



SALKev said:


> She just said she was average mate, which means obviously it won't apply to some people and there will be some variation but in the nature of being average, it will suit the majority.


exactly:thumbup1:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

W/m the purpose was to substantiate the premise that genes are an influence, thats all.I agree that nearly all can "play the game" whether it be BB, chess golf etc.My point was that eventually everyone is limited by genetics.How far along the road that allows you to go is pre determined.In no way did i mean to imply that if an individual does not compete at top level is somehow, less or inferior..In fact, due to inherent factors, im sure that many here, who train and diet for competition are harder workers and more focused than many pros.

It was in no way meant to alienate or undermine the effort thats required to compete in any arena.

re your last point regarding fat loss.To greater or lesser degrees, fat storage is either subtutaneously stored or viserally(spelling?) this would have a bearing on ultimate visible perceptions of leaness.Im out of here now mate, all the best.


----------



## SALKev (Feb 28, 2009)

essexboy said:


> How is average defined in relation to the human body? Its far too complex an organism to be able to be quantified as average.A huge variety of physiological differences, are deemed as normal (read average).





> *noun* *1* the result obtained by adding several amounts together and then dividing the total by the number of amounts.
> 
> *2* a usual amount or level.


Emphasis on the second definition.

Though there are a huge variety of physiological differences, you wouldn't be required to go down to a molecular level to arrive at these averages and only items with higher purpose (in a bodybuilding sense) would be used to find an average, that although may not be perfect, still 'fits the bill'.

In all honesty, you're digging a hole that need not be dug. What many people have said in previous posts are correct on one level or another yet you find the tiniest fault and make people irritated by pursuing it. I've read many of your posts and in most cases admire your knowledge and debating skills but I think in this case (and a few other threads I have read with you contributing) it is better to let the matter drop. There is only so much people will disagree on before lashing out with anger - better people agree to disagree than fall out with one another and still disagree. :thumbup1:

That was utter snobbery on a level that I have never attained previously :lol: :lol:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

SALKev said:


> Emphasis on the second definition.
> 
> Though there are a huge variety of physiological differences, you wouldn't be required to go down to a molecular level to arrive at these averages and only items with higher purpose (in a bodybuilding sense) would be used to find an average, that although may not be perfect, still 'fits the bill'.
> 
> ...


It was. However it was well constructed, sarcastic and amusing.Although I never proported to write perfectly constructed pros!


----------



## Lou (Jul 27, 2008)

I do believe essexboy is striving for the intellectual upperhand with his ill thought out comparisons of intellectual and physical prowess of individual subjects not in any way related to those of the bodybuilding world. There is no analagous language that could aptly compare intellectually, musically or physically gifted individuals with each other, as each is unique in their own right.

Going back to the original post 'Can a genetically average man 30+ 6'1" and 12 stone build a winning physique' The answer is an emphatic YES...but it comes with time and heavy price.


----------



## Captain Hero (Jun 13, 2004)

> C*ongratulations.However, your personal experiences are just that, personal*.


And So your personal experience is Gospel? 



> *Dont shoot me, im only mother natures messenger.May you have continued sucess.*


What a load :lol:


----------



## SALKev (Feb 28, 2009)

essexboy said:


> It was. However it was well constructed, sarcastic and amusing.Although I never proported to write perfectly constructed pros!


 :beer:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Lou said:


> I do believe essexboy is striving for the intellectual upperhand with his ill thought out comparisons of intellectual and physical prowess of individual subjects not in any way related to those of the bodybuilding world. There is no analagous language that could aptly compare intellectually, musically or physically gifted individuals with each other, as each is unique in their own right.
> 
> Going back to the original post 'Can a genetically average man 30+ 6'1" and 12 stone build a winning physique' The answer is an emphatic YES...but it comes with time and heavy price.


Im not struggling for the upperhand intellectually or otherwise.I was merely attempting to stress that certain limitations exist.Other than use BB as a example, there are no comparable endevours that act as meaningful comparisons,so examples from other aspects of life have to suffice.That does not dilute or undermine my initial statement though.

We will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## dongrammar (Apr 12, 2009)

essexboy said:


> The average palm span from bottom of palm, to end of index finger is 7 inches.To play extremely complex and difficult chord changes,a span of 9 inches is deemed required(as stated by a famous guitarist) One of the worlds most dexterous guitarists, Jimi Hendrix, was reported to have a palm span of 11 inches.Whilst his obvious talents were the result of his practice, The gentic anomoly that ALLOWED him to play such complex pieces, was the palm span he was born with.No amount of practice would compensate for this requirement.Dont shoot me, im only mother natures messenger.May you have continued sucess.


That's a bogus comparison. Some of the best guitarists in the world have small hands. There's no big stretches in Hendrix songs either so there's no physical reason why someone couldn't learn to play them. Any musician would laugh at that statement.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

dongrammar said:


> That's a bogus comparison. Some of the best guitarists in the world have small hands. There's no big stretches in Hendrix songs either so there's no physical reason why someone couldn't learn to play them. Any musician would laugh at that statement.


Ok Mate Fine, Take it up with Pete Townshend and Eric Clapton , they said it not me.


----------



## dongrammar (Apr 12, 2009)

From a purely technical perspective neither of them are even on the scale compared to what people have been doing since the 80's. There is very little in music or guitar playing that requires big hands


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

essexboy said:


> W/m the purpose was to substantiate the premise that genes are an influence, thats all.I agree that nearly all can "play the game" whether it be BB, chess golf etc.My point was that eventually everyone is limited by genetics.How far along the road that allows you to go is pre determined.In no way did i mean to imply that if an individual does not compete at top level is somehow, less or inferior..In fact, due to inherent factors, im sure that many here, who train and diet for competition are harder workers and more focused than many pros.
> 
> It was in no way meant to alienate or undermine the effort thats required to compete in any arena.
> 
> re your last point regarding fat loss.To greater or lesser degrees, fat storage is either subtutaneously stored or viserally(spelling?) this would have a bearing on ultimate visible perceptions of leaness.Im out of here now mate, all the best.


lol no bother mate,so basically you agree,what your meaning is to how far each person is able to push the boundaries of their chosen pursuit is limited genetically,which i entirely do agree with 

Good debarguement mate,nothing beats a bit of rolling thread debate



KJW said:


> I would ask what the so-called 'heavy price' is that you have mentioned Lou?
> 
> I'm interested to know what that means as it is a very subjective consideration when under-taking the road to a better, leaner body and ultimately for some, competition.
> 
> ...


Physical sacrifices,mental torture,personal life toll and sacrifices,monetary sacrifices and psychological burdens just to name a few,the places you have to take yourself to achieve things in this sport sometimes is far from pleasant.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

dongrammar said:


> From a purely technical perspective neither of them are even on the scale compared to what people have been doing since the 80's. There is very little in music or guitar playing that requires big hands


Ok then ill bite, what revelations in guitar technique have surfaced since the 80s, that make all those that have gone before "not on the scale?"


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

weeman said:


> lol no bother mate,so basically you agree,what your meaning is to how far each person is able to push the boundaries of their chosen pursuit is limited genetically,which i entirely do agree with
> 
> Good debarguement mate,nothing beats a bit of rolling thread debate
> 
> Physical sacrifices,mental torture,personal life toll and sacrifices,monetary sacrifices and psychological burdens just to name a few,the places you have to take yourself to achieve things in this sport sometimes is far from pleasant.


We usually end up on the same page W/M.


----------



## dongrammar (Apr 12, 2009)

essexboy said:


> Ok then ill bite, what revelations in guitar technique have surfaced since the 80s, that make all those that have gone before "not on the scale?"


1978 - Eddie Van Halen totally upped the bar and set a new standard to what could be done on guitar.

I wouldn't call it so much a revelation in technique as normal progression. Piano music progressed in difficulty from the Baroque period through to the Romantic.

Same with guitar playing. People learned and built on what was done before. It just happened that in the 80's guitar flash became popular and the ante was upped on a consistent basis.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

dongrammar said:


> 1978 - Eddie Van Halen totally upped the bar and set a new standard to what could be done on guitar.
> 
> I wouldn't call it so much a revelation in technique as normal progression. Piano music progressed in difficulty from the Baroque period through to the Romantic.
> 
> Same with guitar playing. People learned and built on what was done before. It just happened that in the 80's guitar flash became popular and the ante was upped on a consistent basis.


ok when one of "todays" guitar heroes can do this ill agree till then...........


----------



## dongrammar (Apr 12, 2009)

Clearly we're talking about electric guitar. Not acoustics that have been around for hundreds of years. If you compare John Williams early work to what he is doing now you'll see my point.

Also interesting you point out John Williams whose hands are on the small size.


----------



## dongrammar (Apr 12, 2009)

Oh and my hands measure 7" from bottom of palm to tip of index. I can play "extremely complex and difficult chord changes", am a professional guitarist, have a degree in guitar performance, credits on major label records and technically can play just about anything. This whole conversation is getting a bit ridiculous.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

dongrammar said:


> Clearly we're talking about electric guitar. Not acoustics that have been around for hundreds of years. If you compare John Williams early work to what he is doing now you'll see my point.
> 
> Also interesting you point out John Williams whose hands are on the small size.


We were talking electric, but id thought id up the ante, to "real guitars"any idiot can sound good with an electric.Real skills are evident on acoustic varieties.

Look again, at his hands, his palms are not large.Look however at his fingers, they are very long.Then look at his thumbs.they are 70/80% the length of his forefinger, its an unusual ratio.The long thumb, not only assists in fingering, but allows the neck hand to curl around the neck, and acess the strings more effectively.But hey it makes no difference right?

Clapton, and Townsend cant play, and anything before 1980 doesnt count.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

dongrammar said:


> Oh and my hands measure 7" from bottom of palm to tip of index. I can play "extremely complex and difficult chord changes", am a professional guitarist, have a degree in guitar performance, credits on major label records and technically can play just about anything. This whole conversation is getting a bit ridiculous.


Good for you.Why not post a video playing "Little wing" im sure you are familiar with it, as you were quick enough to decry hendrixs talent, for someone who is as obviously adept as your self, im sure it will be a breeze.


----------



## dongrammar (Apr 12, 2009)

essexboy said:


> Good for you.Why not post a video playing "Little wing" im sure you are familiar with it, as you were quick enough to decry hendrixs talent, for someone who is as obviously adept as your self, im sure it will be a breeze.


That's a strawman. Nobody said Hendrix wasn't talented. Just that his talent wasn't based on his technique which you're trying to insinuate. Music isn't just about technical ability. Infact that is the least important factor in what determines if someone is "good or not"


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

dongrammar said:


> That's a strawman. Nobody said Hendrix wasn't talented. Just that his talent wasn't based on his technique which you're trying to insinuate. Music isn't just about technical ability. Infact that is the least important factor in what determines if someone is "good or not"


ok if technical ability is the least important factor, please tell me which are the important factors.The last time i looked being able to manipulate the fingers, with accuracy & speed is a pretty important factor when playing the guitar.


----------



## dongrammar (Apr 12, 2009)

essexboy said:


> We were talking electric, but id thought id up the ante, to "real guitars"any idiot can sound good with an electric.Real skills are evident on acoustic varieties.
> 
> Look again, at his hands, his palms are not large.Look however at his fingers, they are very long.Then look at his thumbs.they are 70/80% the length of his forefinger, its an unusual ratio.The long thumb, not only assists in fingering, but allows the neck hand to curl around the neck, and acess the strings more effectively.But hey it makes no difference right?
> 
> Clapton, and Townsend cant play, and anything before 1980 doesnt count.


Again misquoting me to try and prove your totally ignorant and misinformed opinion. You are totally 100% wrong on this. You obviously know nothing about playing instruments.

Clapton and Townsend are great guitarists, just not very technical. Nothing will be written in the history books about them being technically virtuoso players.

James Burton is a great guitarist despite the fact most beginners could probably play all of his parts


----------



## GHS (Oct 6, 2008)

I read up to page 4 of this thread and got bored so skipped to the last page to see how the debate had unfolded.

Imagine my suprise when I revealed a debate about guitars??

:lol:


----------



## dongrammar (Apr 12, 2009)

essexboy said:


> ok if technical ability is the least important factor, please tell me which are the important factors.The last time i looked being able to manipulate the fingers, with accuracy & speed is a pretty important factor when playing the guitar.


Musicality. Phrasing. Note choice. Part creation.

Assuming nothing is wrong with your hands anyone can get technically excellent at the guitar within a couple of years. It's all the other stuff that takes years to learn and develop. That other stuff is what sets apart the youtube players from the pros.

The technical aspect is by far the easiest part to learn and finger length has nothing to do with it.

There are very few chords that require a big stretch. Infact I can't think of any.


----------



## dongrammar (Apr 12, 2009)

And here you go. One of(if not) the most technically amazing players in the world playing hendrix. 7" measurement.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Look mate . I dont profess to know about the intricasies of guitar playing.I merely QUOTED what Eric Clapton said many years ago.The point was to highlight a totally seperate issue.Ive given an example of a great guitarist, who appears to posess advantageous traits.Youve ignored that and continued to tell me that i know nothing.If thats the case then perhaps we had better draw this exchange to a conclusion.

Your the talented, acomplished guitarist.Im just the queen of Sheba.(We can all be who we want here eh?)


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

GHS said:


> I read up to page 4 of this thread and got bored so skipped to the last page to see how the debate had unfolded.
> 
> Imagine my suprise when I revealed a debate about guitars??
> 
> :lol:


Yup! we got bored with BB! garden Deckchairs next!


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

dongrammar said:


> And here you go. One of(if not) the most technically amazing players in the world playing hendrix. 7" measurement.


Yeah great.2nd rate pub band.And theyve got mullets. How the f.uck can you take them seriously?


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

essexboy said:


> ok when one of "todays" guitar heroes can do this ill agree till then...........


Mate thats not as technical or impressive as it first seems, a lot of it comes from good right hand technique (ooer missus) and an open tuning that gives an "easy" way to make the piece note rich and more complex sounding than it actually is. Musically it is excellent, technically it is impressive - but not on a par with some other post Clapton/Hendrix guitarists with respect purely to speed, technicality or accuracy.

And anyway, you can't move the goal posts to suit yourself :lol: You used Clapton and Hendrix to prove your point, and they have produced some amazing guitar playing (some of my favourite) - but technical masters they were not, nor ever claimed to be.

Lovely piece of playing all the same.


----------



## dongrammar (Apr 12, 2009)

essexboy said:


> Look mate . I dont profess to know about the intricasies of guitar playing.I merely QUOTED what Eric Clapton said many years ago.The point was to highlight a totally seperate issue.Ive given an example of a great guitarist, who appears to posess advantageous traits.Youve ignored that and continued to tell me that i know nothing.If thats the case then perhaps we had better draw this exchange to a conclusion.
> 
> Your the talented, acomplished guitarist.Im just the queen of Sheba.(We can all be who we want here eh?)


Lol. Why would you try and argue about something you know nothing about?

Common trend with you in this tread. People with actual knowledge try to pass some of it your way and you insist on hanging on to your own false ideas.

No point trying to tell you anything. You're a self appointed expert at everything!


----------



## dongrammar (Apr 12, 2009)

essexboy said:


> Yeah great.2nd rate pub band.And theyve got mullets. How the f.uck can you take them seriously?


Well that just says it all really. One of the most celebrated guitarists is in a 2nd rate pub band?


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

lol I put my guitar post after you had already discussed the points :lol:

Bottom line, could you take an average guy as described in the first post, and get him qualified for the UKBFF British championships in 3 years, yes, you could.

SImple fact

Because Paul Scarborough says so, and he has prepped loads of people - and is still sporting a acceptable (I suppose) physique himself, and he is well like 50 or something.

:whistling:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

dongrammar said:


> Well that just says it all really. One of the most celebrated guitarists is in a 2nd rate pub band?


you said it.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

rs007 said:


> lol I put my guitar post after you had already discussed the points :lol:
> 
> Bottom line, could you take an average guy as described in the first post, and get him qualified for the UKBFF British championships in 3 years, yes, you could.
> 
> ...


Were into deckchairs now, cmon, RS keep up!


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

essexboy said:


> Were into deckchairs now, cmon, RS keep up!


Ahhh sh1t well there is something I know about.

Best timber, hands down, western red cedar - doesnt rot, doesnt need treated, light, strong, and takes on that lovely silver sheen once weathered. It really is the dogs cock of timbers, if we are talking deck chairs. Or any fine garden furnishings, mayhap.


----------



## Lou (Jul 27, 2008)

KJW said:


> I would ask what the so-called 'heavy price' is that you have mentioned Lou?
> 
> I'm interested to know what that means as it is a very subjective consideration when under-taking the road to a better, leaner body and ultimately for some, competition.
> 
> ...





weeman said:


> Physical sacrifices,mental torture,personal life toll and sacrifices,monetary sacrifices and psychological burdens just to name a few,the places you have to take yourself to achieve things in this sport sometimes is far from pleasant.


Pretty much what weeman says......add to that mix a daily routine with three kids two jobs and unsupportive hubby...and a diet that lasts 28 weeks.....you got to have a rhino hide and a will of steel to get through it all to get your two or three minutes on stage......  :thumb:


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

essexboy

whilst you still persist in claiming everything within a bell curve is the result of genetics, I would prefer to state that the large variation seen could (if you could be ****d to look at the millions of different variables) be explained by enviromental, dietary and past history

you claim to have unfavourable 'genetics' for fat loss, but you still didn't answer my questions

have you followed a calorie controlled diet, with all food sources weighed and measured and not deviated for ten to twelve weeks? unless the answer to this is yes how can you claim its genetics?

you only have to look at studies looking into self reporting of food intake to know that typically the average person under reports what they eat by about 20-30%. and often when people claim 'slow' metabolism and are put into a metabolic chamber there BMR and TEE is often very close to what is typically predicted which suggests that its more to do with what the person does than their actual physical condition

granted genes will influence certain components, but limiting yourself by self fulfilling prophecies doesnt help - yes you might have a bad hand dealt but that does not automatically mean you cant achieve something but rather you might have to work abit harder (pinnacle excluded)

to answer your question earlier in this thread - why dont those who work hard and visit this site all sport impressive physique? because humans like to lie to themselves or assign blame to factors outside their control


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

rs007 said:


> lol I put my guitar post after you had already discussed the points :lol:
> 
> Bottom line, could you take an average guy as described in the first post, and get him qualified for the UKBFF British championships in 3 years, yes, you could.
> 
> ...


cheeky git....


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

glen danbury said:


> essexboy
> 
> whilst you still persist in claiming everything within a bell curve is the result of genetics, I would prefer to state that the large variation seen could (if you could be ****d to look at the millions of different variables) be explained by enviromental, dietary and past history
> 
> ...


Ok.i used to box.I would struggle to get down to weight.About 10 years Ago,i made a concerted effort to become leaner.Despite using a well constructed diet plan, and burning huge amounts of calories training, I lost a lot of weight.I looked like a smack head, and didnt feel much better.my face was extremely drawn, and I had a roadmap of veins covering my chest.My waist measured 28 inches.However i still had a roll of fat around my abdominal/ lower back area.

Id stopped losing fat, even though my diet was sparce.In hindsight i may have cut back on food too much.Perhaps my body entered a state of shock, who knows.Just my experience.I may have some pics somewhere.


----------



## weeman (Sep 6, 2007)

Lou said:


> Pretty much what weeman says......add to that mix a daily routine with three kids two jobs and unsupportive hubby...and a diet that lasts 28 weeks.....you got to have a rhino hide and a will of steel to get through it all to get your two or three minutes on stage......  :thumb:


For having rhino hide you look pretty damn good to me Lou rooooowr!!!!



essexboy said:


> Ok.i used to box.I would struggle to get down to weight.About 10 years Ago,i made a concerted effort to become leaner.Despite using a well constructed diet plan, and burning huge amounts of calories training, I lost a lot of weight.I looked like a smack head, and didnt feel much better.my face was extremely drawn, and I had a roadmap of veins covering my chest.My waist measured 28 inches.However i still had a roll of fat around my abdominal/ lower back area.
> 
> *Id stopped losing fat, even though my diet was sparce.In hindsight i may have cut back on food too much.Perhaps my body entered a state of shock, who knows.Just my experience.*I may have some pics somewhere.


I think you hit the nail on the head right there in the boldened part mate,i have been there myself,you basically forced your body into a corner blindly thinking it was the right thing you were doing,oooooooh i been there,my very last outing in 2009 was testament to that,i was the incredible burning muscle without losing bodyfat man for several weeks,knew it,wouldnt accept it in my head,and continued on doing it.

Lesson learned on my part!!


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

weeman said:


> For having rhino hide you look pretty damn good to me Lou rooooowr!!!!
> 
> I think you hit the nail on the head right there in the boldened part mate,i have been there myself,you basically forced your body into a corner blindly thinking it was the right thing you were doing,oooooooh i been there,my very last outing in 2009 was testament to that,i was the incredible burning muscle without losing bodyfat man for several weeks,knew it,wouldnt accept it in my head,and continued on doing it.
> 
> Lesson learned on my part!!


thanks w/m. just seen your avi!!


----------

