What you? Listen to this dude. So you went to university. Big deal. If you studied hypertrophy you would know that the subject of maximum muscular size is not anything the scientists are interested in. So at best they extrapolate beyond normal subjects since the large bodybuilders are not studied.
Don't come up with ad hominem attacks about me but criticize my theory. It has been published in IronMan magazine in 2000 and 2001. There are no journals for hypertrophy in bodybuilding. You represent the typical Getbigger flotsam who knows bugger all but feels he is entitled as anyone to act like an expert here. Nope, no evidence that you know much about bodybuilding at all.
Please outline your theory of hypertrophy for the board to assess.
1) I do not have to outline my theory of hypertrophy. You made a claim, therefore you have to provide the evidence to justify your claim. All I need to do is to disregard your "theory" (which is a hypothesis) based on the fact that you have ZERO evidence. I do not need to provide my own theory. That is the way it works. Hope this helps.
2) There are studies done on hypertrophy, though probably not with bodybuilders. Nonetheless, if you had a justified theory about hypertrophy and maximum muscular size, it would be published in any reputable peer-reviewed journal, since its results could be generalized to other populations. Yet, your hypothesis is as old and stagnant as it has been from day one. It's never been published, therefore, no one of importance will ever take it serious.
3) I cannot criticize your theory because you do not have a theory. You have a hypothesis. Further, I already criticized your hypothesis for lack of evidence. You have produced ZERO evidence. In that sense, there is nothing to criticize. I do not have to be an expert on hypertrophy to know that you have nothing more than a hypothesis.
4) Getting published in Iron Magazine means nothing. They will publish anything. Hope this helps.
