Hurricane Queef?

[SF1900]

SF1900 getting trolled into oblivion in this thread.

His fury is oozing out of every keystroke.

Are you telling me Basile has been trolling his theory since 2002?  

And I am quite calm when posting. I still think Basile is an idiot, as most people here do think so.

[SF1900]

Gotta love this simple fool. He is in there keeping Getbig honest. I mean, let's talk about theories. SF has a theory about my theory. So what is the test of truth of his theory?

Yes, my theory about your "theory" is that your "theory" is shit. I don't need to test my theory. All I need to do is look at the evidence, or lack of evidence related to your theory, and say its garbage. Until your "theory" has evidence, it is nothing more than a bunch of ideas. I don't need to do anything else. I am not one making the claim.

I have published my theory and presented it several times on various discussion boards including Getbig. If the resident experts can't fathom what it is about then that is

You have not published jackshit. You have presented your "theory." Though, I am skeptical about that. Do not use the word published.

Tu Holmes. I have a masters degree in the philosophy of science so should know how to use words like theory. Theory, conjecture, hypothesis are all related.

Um, no. A theory is not the same thing as a hypothesis, you nimrod. Is the "Theory of Gravity" a conjecture or hypothesis? Is "Germ Theory" a conjecture or hypothesis? No. A THEORY in the scientific sense is not merely a conjecture or hypothesis. It is a proven, demonstrated observable phenomena that can be retested with similar conclusions. That goes BEYOND a conjecture or hypothesis.

From The National Center for Science Education. As you can see, two different definitions, you nimrod.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
 
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

[The Ugly]

Gotta love this simple fool. He is in there keeping Getbig honest. I mean, let's talk about theories. SF has a theory about my theory. So what is the test of truth of his theory?

Yes, my theory about your "theory" your "theory" is shit. I don't need to test my theory. All I need to do is look at the evidence, or lack of evidence related to your theory, and say its garbage. Until your "theory" has evidence, it is nothing more than a bunch of ideas. I don't need to do anything else. I am not one making the claim.

I have published my theory and presented it several times on various discussion boards including Getbig. If the resident experts can't fathom what it is about then that is

You have not published jackshit. You have presented your "theory." Though, I am skeptical about that. Do not use the word published.

Tu Holmes. I have a masters degree in the philosophy of science so should know how to use words like theory. Theory, conjecture, hypothesis are all related.

Um, no. A theory is not the same thing as a hypothesis, you nimrod. Is the "Theory of Gravity" a conjecture or hypothesis? Is "Germ Theory" a conjecture or hypothesis? No. A THEORY in the scientific sense is not merely a conjecture or hypothesis. It is a proven, demonstrated observable phenomena that can be retested with similar conclusions. That goes BEYOND a conjecture or hypothesis.

From The National Center for Science Education. As you can see, two different definitions, you nimrod.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
 
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

WHAT FUCKING THEORY?!

[SF1900]

WHAT FUCKING THEORY?!

The one he claims to have presented on getbig and other sites lol.

From now on, I am going to call it an "idea," because that's what it actually is.

[Vince B]

Well Vince, here's the thing, first of all, I would love to see that degree and where it was from, because I have only heard of a couple of schools that even have that curriculum.

Secondly, if you don't post your "theory", then what you are actually doing is spouting the same "bro-science" that you are railing against.

Yes, conjecture, hypothesis, and theory are related, but they are not exactly the same.

Theories are tested vigorously and have data to back up the theory. Conjecture is based on incomplete information, and of course, hypothesis is simply a possible explanation.

In regards to your theory. Do you have this data? Can you provide it right now?

Did you observe experimentation of this theory regularly under constant conditions?

If not, then it is as you say, "bro science".

Finally, an intelligent contribution that deserves a reply. I have a MEd degree from Sydney University in Sydney (1989). I did it part time over 13 years because I was teaching high school and running a gym.

I was allowed by some of my lecturers to do my own studies in the philosophy of science. I especially admired Karl Popper and have read most of his books like Conjectures and Refutations. Feyerabend was

a maverick who interested me as well. In my final course there were just two of us and the lecturer. We used Patricia Churchland's Neurophilosophy as a text. Quite an interesting subject. I did wonder

if there would ever be a text published on the philosophy of hypertrophy but I can't see anyone bothering. In the meantime, that leaves the subject open and in the vacuum have appeared all manner

of experts and gurus who propose various protocols and ideas. To this day there is no agreement in hypertrophy theory. Everyone is an expert!

I was interested in a field theory of maximum human muscular hypertrophy that explained all the results and non-results from heavy resistance training. I mean, why is this still a subject of interest

in the 21st century? Surely such a mundane subject should have been thoroughly dispensed with by now but that isn't the case. The reason is that there are few if any scientists doing any studies re

this maximum hypertrophy. Then we have the issue of drugs and the associated dangers which would limit universities getting involved because of possible litigation from the long term health risks

of using various chemical training aids.

Ironman published two articles re my training ideas or as I call them, theories. You can call them what you like. They were published in 2000 and 2001. It is a pity that there isn't a journal directed

at bodybuilding but that is the reality. We are such a small cult and as long as I can remember bodybuilding has never been accepted by mainstream academia.

I discovered in my own training what was associated with rapid hypertrophy. I then tried to sustain this growth for a month in my arms and calves. I gained over an inch on both bodyparts which

was amazing to me. Unfortunately, I sustained two injuries and had to abandon the project. I followed Larry Scott's ideas re the lying triceps extensions and damaged the sheath that goes over

the elbow joint by having my elbows on the pads during the exercise. We now know that one should never let the elbows come into contact with pads while training triceps or biceps. I was doing

ballistic heel raises for the calves and got really strong very quickly. I was doing multiple sets with up to 700 pounds for 60 or so reps. Maybe 10 or more sets. I sustained an Achilles tendon injury

after a month of this torture. So now I avoid all ballistic movement for calf training. There you are, just a few footnotes.

[The Ugly]

Finally, an intelligent contribution that deserves a reply. I have a MEd degree from Sydney University in Sydney (1989). I did it part time over 13 years because I was teaching high school and running a gym.

I was allowed by some of my lecturers to do my own studies in the philosophy of science. I especially admired Karl Popper and have read most of his books like Conjectures and Refutations. Feyerabend was

a maverick who interested me as well. In my final course there were just two of us and the lecturer. We used Patricia Churchland's Neurophilosophy as a text. Quite an interesting subject. I did wonder

if there would ever be a text published on the philosophy of hypertrophy but I can't see anyone bothering. In the meantime, that leaves the subject open and in the vacuum have appeared all manner

of experts and gurus who propose various protocols and ideas. To this day there is no agreement in hypertrophy theory. Everyone is an expert!

I was interested in a field theory of maximum human muscular hypertrophy that explained all the results and non-results from heavy resistance training. I mean, why is this still a subject of interest

in the 21st century? Surely such a mundane subject should have been thoroughly dispensed with by now but that isn't the case. The reason is that there are few if any scientists doing any studies re

this maximum hypertrophy. Then we have the issue of drugs and the associated dangers which would limit universities getting involved because of possible litigation from the long term health risks

of using various chemical training aids.

Ironman published two articles re my training ideas or as I call them, theories. You can call them what you like. They were published in 2000 and 2001. It is a pity that there isn't a journal directed

at bodybuilding but that is the reality. We are such a small cult and as long as I can remember bodybuilding has never been accepted by mainstream academia.

I discovered in my own training what was associated with rapid hypertrophy. I then tried to sustain this growth for a month in my arms and calves. I gained over an inch on both bodyparts which

was amazing to me. Unfortunately, I sustained two injuries and had to abandon the project. I followed Larry Scott's ideas re the lying triceps extensions and damaged the sheath that goes over

the elbow joint by having my elbows on the pads during the exercise. We now know that one should never let the elbows come into contact with pads while training triceps or biceps. I was doing

ballistic heel raises for the calves and got really strong very quickly. I was doing multiple sets with up to 700 pounds for 60 or so reps. Maybe 10 or more sets. I sustained an Achilles tendon injury

after a month of this torture. So now I avoid all ballistic movement for calf training. There you are, just a few footnotes.

Yes, incredibly shocking. Scientists just wasting time with clean energy and cancer and whatnot, but where's the bigger muscles guy, right?

[Coach is Back!]

Finally, an intelligent contribution that deserves a reply. I have a MEd degree from Sydney University in Sydney (1989). I did it part time over 13 years because I was teaching high school and running a gym.

I was allowed by some of my lecturers to do my own studies in the philosophy of science. I especially admired Karl Popper and have read most of his books like Conjectures and Refutations. Feyerabend was

a maverick who interested me as well. In my final course there were just two of us and the lecturer. We used Patricia Churchland's Neurophilosophy as a text. Quite an interesting subject. I did wonder

if there would ever be a text published on the philosophy of hypertrophy but I can't see anyone bothering. In the meantime, that leaves the subject open and in the vacuum have appeared all manner

http://www.ucam.edu/sites/default/files/Oct_13/mechanisms_of_muscle_hypertrophy.pdf

of experts and gurus who propose various protocols and ideas. To this day there is no agreement in hypertrophy theory. Everyone is an expert!

I was interested in a field theory of maximum human muscular hypertrophy that explained all the results and non-results from heavy resistance training. I mean, why is this still a subject of interest

in the 21st century? Surely such a mundane subject should have been thoroughly dispensed with by now but that isn't the case. The reason is that there are few if any scientists doing any studies re

this maximum hypertrophy. Then we have the issue of drugs and the associated dangers which would limit universities getting involved because of possible litigation from the long term health risks

of using various chemical training aids.

Ironman published two articles re my training ideas or as I call them, theories. You can call them what you like. They were published in 2000 and 2001. It is a pity that there isn't a journal directed

at bodybuilding but that is the reality. We are such a small cult and as long as I can remember bodybuilding has never been accepted by mainstream academia.

I discovered in my own training what was associated with rapid hypertrophy. I then tried to sustain this growth for a month in my arms and calves. I gained over an inch on both bodyparts which

was amazing to me. Unfortunately, I sustained two injuries and had to abandon the project. I followed Larry Scott's ideas re the lying triceps extensions and damaged the sheath that goes over

the elbow joint by having my elbows on the pads during the exercise. We now know that one should never let the elbows come into contact with pads while training triceps or biceps. I was doing

ballistic heel raises for the calves and got really strong very quickly. I was doing multiple sets with up to 700 pounds for 60 or so reps. Maybe 10 or more sets. I sustained an Achilles tendon injury

after a month of this torture. So now I avoid all ballistic movement for calf training. There you are, just a few footnotes.

Many scholarly articles just like this Vince. It's studied among athletes everyday.

[SF1900]

Many scholarly articles just like this Vince. It's studied among athletes everyday.

Just pretend he's right. Basile needs to convince himself that no studies are being done in this area. Thus, he is able to justify in his mind that this is the reason why his idea his not really being studied. 

[Walter Sobchak]

Just pretend he's right. Basile needs to convince himself that no studies are being done in this area. Thus, he is able to justify in his mind that this is the reason why his idea his not really being studied. 

Well....he does have a month of data to back up his work.

 

[chaos]

LOL @ pounding the report to mod button on chaos!!!

[Coach is Back!]

Just pretend he's right. Basile needs to convince himself that no studies are being done in this area. Thus, he is able to justify in his mind that this is the reason why his idea his not really being studied.  

It's just sad that someone as supposedly well educated as he is doesn't bother to research other people's works. They have a fantastic research University (name slips my mind) right there in Australia that I'm sure would support his "theory" if he presented it. Maybe I'm wrong.

[SF1900]

Well....he does have a month of data to back up his work.

 

Yes, all data gathered while working out his biceps

[The Ugly]

Yes, all data gathered while working out his biceps

Nautilus had a similar contraption. This was mid-80s, and we dismissed it pretty quick even back then. Nothing beats a barbell for biceps.

[SF1900]

It's just sad that someone as supposedly well educated as he says doesn't bother to research other people's works. They have a fantastic research University (name slips my mind) right there in Australia that I'm sure would support his "theory" if he presented it. Maybe I'm wrong.

He doesn't know the difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory." And you want him to present his idea to a University?  

Furthermore, his idea (its not a theory) would probably not get any support. Funding and/or is not something that magically appears to university professors. A lot of professors get paid by their funding (others dont).  They would most likely not fund his idea unless he had something VERY valid.

Basile is delusional.

[SF1900]

Nautilus had a similar contraption. This was mid-80s, and we dismissed it pretty quick even back then. Nothing beats a barbell for biceps.

Wow, it was dismissed. What a shocker. 

[Coach is Back!]

Nautilus had a similar contraption. This was mid-80s, and we dismissed it pretty quick even back then. Nothing beats a barbell for biceps.

Gotta to admit I liked the old Nautilus stuff especially the bicep/triceps machine and the pullover machine.

[Vince B]

It's just sad that someone as supposedly well educated as he is doesn't bother to research other people's works. They have a fantastic research University (name slips my mind) right there in Australia that I'm sure would support his "theory" if he presented it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Okay, Coach, please list just one person who obtained a recognized PhD in human muscular hypertrophy? There weren't any the last time I looked. That pretty much says it all. Sure, there is some research in exercise science that is applicable to bodybuilding but where is the research on how to get 20 inch and larger arms? We will never see such research. In the meantime, even guys like the Coach can claim to be an expert.

[chaos]

In the meantime, even guys like the Coach can claim to be an expert.

Or even you...

[The Ugly]

Gotta to admit I liked the old Nautilus stuff especially the bicep/triceps machine and the pullover machine.

What about the adductor machine that made your teenaged balls plop out your OP shorts?

[SF1900]

Okay, Coach, please list just one person who obtained a recognized PhD in human muscular hypertrophy? There weren't any the last time I looked. That pretty much says it all. Sure, there is some research in exercise science that is applicable to bodybuilding but where is the research on how to get 20 inch and larger arms? We will never see such research. In the meantime, even guys like the Coach can claim to be an expert.

You're so stupid. No one receives a PhD in "Human Muscular Hypertrophy." You receive a PhD in a related field (exercise physiology) and pick a topic that is related to your field of study.

Similarly, no one receives a PhD in HIV research. People receive PhD's in biology, chemistry, or similar fields, and decide to pursue HIV research. No one receives a PhD in "Word War II." You receive a PhD in History or a related field and decide to focus your efforts on a specific area of research (World War II, civil war, vietnam, etc.).

Seriously, are you trolling?

[Vince B]

Nautilus had a similar contraption. This was mid-80s, and we dismissed it pretty quick even back then. Nothing beats a barbell for biceps.

How would you know this? Amazing how foolish most people are. You have no credibility with that statement. Nautilus has never built

a biceps-supinator and neither has any other gym equipment company.

[Coach is Back!]

You're so stupid. No one receives a PhD in "Human Muscular Hypertrophy." You receive a PhD in a related field (exercise physiology) and pick a topic that is related to your field of study.

Similarly, no one receives a PhD in HIV research. People receive PhD's in biology, chemistry, or similar fields, and decide to pursue HIV research. No one receives a PhD in "Word War II." You receive a PhD in History or a related field and decide to focus your efforts on a specific area of research (World War II, civil war, vietnam, etc.).

Seriously, are you trolling?

Thanks. That threw me because that was so fucking bad I had to be sure I wasn't seeing things. I've never heard of a PhD in "Human Muscular Hypertrophy". Kinesiology, Exercise Science, Bio-mechanics......"human muscular Hypertrophy"?

[Vince B]

You're so stupid. No one receives a PhD in "Human Muscular Hypertrophy." You receive a PhD in a related field (exercise physiology) and pick a topic that is related to your field of study.

Similarly, no one receives a PhD in HIV research. People receive PhD's in biology, chemistry, or similar fields, and decide to pursue HIV research. No one receives a PhD in "Word War II." You receive a PhD in History or a related field and decide to focus your efforts on a specific area of research (World War II, civil war, vietnam, etc.).

Seriously, are you trolling?

Ok, you asked for it. You do not know how to conduct yourself in a debate so all further discussion with you ceases. I have gym equipment to build and I find that more satisfying that arguing with knuckleheads on the net.

[Coach is Back!]

Ok, you asked for it. You do not know how to conduct yourself in a debate so all further discussion with you ceases. I have gym equipment to build and I find that more satisfying that arguing with knuckleheads on the net.

If you can prove it no one would give you shit. You were an actual teacher? In real life?

[SF1900]

Ok, you asked for it. You do not know how to conduct yourself in a debate so all further discussion with you ceases. I have gym equipment to build and I find that more satisfying that arguing with knuckleheads on the net.

haha, youre an idiot, asking if coach knows anyone with a PhD in Human Muscular Hypertrophy. haha lol

What university is going to offer a specific degree in "Human Muscular Hypertrophy?"