bullshit 
Oh wow, I guess this a major victory for you, huh? Correcting me by checking out the location of a muscle on an anatomy graph, something that anyone can do. Regardless, he posted a link explaining why the muscle is hidden. Frankly, this is not even relevant, and I just parroted what I read on several articles posted on FLEX and MuscleMag saying that the rhomboids are visible, and even an M.D said that.
all the times that I talked out of my ass? Like when? I already said that you are probably right about 99 Ronnie carrying more lean mass than 01 ASC Ronnie. So I'm not sure why you neglect to mention this.
I most definitely did not neglect to say that you agreed that I owned you, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
You want an apology for the rhomboids? I will give it to you if you apologize for the following:
1. Calling me a liar for saying that Dorian's arms were 21" onstage, since I also rounded Ronnie's arms up to 23", even though Ronnie was further from 23" than Dorian to 21". 2. Calling me a liar for saying that you argued that the 2001 ASC Ronnie carried more mass than the 1995 Dorian. Asking me to quote the post is non-sensical, since you can have either deleted or edited the post. You know that you said it, so cut the crap. 3. Denying that I proved you wrong about genetics affecting separations in manners besides determining fat distribution. 4. Saying that you only read my posts that are directed at you, when it is obvioulsy not true. 5. Recogizing that I am definitely and not "probably" right about Ronnie carrying more mass at the 1999 Olympia than at the 2001 ASC. Saying "I got owned" would be even better. you didn't refute anything. I said that separations are influenced by genetics only to the extent that genetics determines where we carry more body fat and water. Anyone can overcome this by losing non-subcutaneous lean mass. You're inferring that someone can diet down to 4% body fat and still have no definition.
I most
definitely did prove you wrong, and
no, I am not inferring that someone would have no definition at 4% bodyfat. Your argument that the only part geetics play in separations is flat out wrong. My point is that everyone increases separations as they drop bodyfat, but the relation is not linear. Like I said, two guys at 4% bodyfat might still have differing levels of bodyfat due to differing fat distributions, yes, but if your assertion is correct, then they should also have the exact same amount of separations in their entire bodies. I mean, if the only role genetics play in separations is determinig fat distribution, then two bodybuilders with the same bodyfat percentage should have the same amount of bodyfat
overral.
This is obviously not true, since bodybuilders who are at the exact same amount of bodyfat show not merely a different amount of separations in their different bodyparts, but also a different amount of separations overral. For you to be right, two guys at 4% bodyfat should have the same amount "X" of separations in their entire bodies, since genetics, according to you, has no say in separations besides determining where it's distributed. Obviously
false. No two bodybuilders at 3%, 4% or whatever bodyfat percentage has ever shown the exact amount of separations in their etire bodies, which clearly points out to the fact that there are other variables besides subcutaneous fat levels that determines how separated a muscle will become. For your theory to be correct, when you equate bodyfat levels for two bodybuilders, they should have an exact same amount of separations overral, and if you equate the bodyfat percentage of their respective bodyparts - such as, an example, quads -, they should also show the exact same amount of separations there.
You even tried to save your idiotic argument by trying to say that the minimum theoretical is 0% and not 4%, when the reality is that this makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to save your argument. It doesen't matter what the minimum is; what matters when it comes to proving your assertion is isolation your variabel and seeing if it is responsible for producing muscular separations. For your assertion to be true, the quad of bodybuilder A with 4% of it's weight in subcutaeous bodyfat needs to have the same amount of separations as the quad of bodybuilder B with 4% of it's weight in subcutaneous bodyfat. Their quads should also have the same amount of separations when their weight in subcutaeous bodyfat is equated. The same is true for the whole body: if they are at 4% bodyfat, then they can have a different amount of separations in different bodyparts and because their bodyfat percetages for different bodyparts will be different, but you'll only be correct if their total amount of separations is exactly the same. Why? Because since they're both at 4% bodyfat, then it means that the different bodyfat percentages of their bodyparts both average 4% for their
total bodies, so their
total amount of separations should be similar. Now is this true? No. An off Flex Wheeler had the more overral separations than an on Dorian Yates, which proves that your assetion that the only role genetics play in separations is determining fat distribution is
flat out wrong, because when you equate bodyfat percentages for either total physiques or similar bodyparts from two different bodybuilders they clearly show a different amout of separations. You're completely, absolutely, 100% wrong about this, and I'm willing to bet my very life on it. Determining fat distruibutio is only one of the geetic factors that affect separations, the others beig tendom attachment, muscle shape, type of muscle fibers. Again: o two bodybuilders show the exact same amount of separations when theur bodyfat is equated, and this is true fo reither bodyparts or total physiques.
this is why I asked for you to post the quote from Peter McGough to make sure. The quote you're referring to didn't come from him. It's from another Flex magazine writer.
You asked for the exact quote, and I gave it to you. I eve gave you the editorial title. I don't know the issue of FLEX, but I am tryig to find out. What I do know for sure is that is that it's from 2006, a solid 5 years ater he said Ronnie was the most ripped ever. And like I said, the issue I was arguing was conditioning, and you posted the quote to prove a point about conditioning. You latter tried to change the argument from that to that McGough said Ronbnie was the best overral. This was irrelevant to what I was arguing, and even if he thinks that Ronnie was the best overral, the point I was tryig to make about who's the mosty conditioned between the two stads. So I replied to you posting that quote from five years latter, where McGough is adamant that no one has ever been as hard and dry as Dorian Yates. So McGough was either playing a prank or he just plain cotradicted himself about who's the most conditioned ever.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
