all posts post new thread

Old Forum Ultimate Warrior Dies of Heart disease

Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

My point is that for a man of average height and frame, getting much over 200 lbs requires either getting fat or taking steroids. This is backed up by the very robust evidence that "natural" bodybuilders, who put enormous amounts of effort into building muscle, very rarely exceed that weight. You said that it is the muscle mass, not the steroids, but if you need the steroids to get that much muscle, it doesn't really matter anymore even if you are technically right (which I'm not saying is necessarily true). I don't know Hugh Cassidy, but at 290, he was either fat or using steroids. People on this board are not taking steroids, so warning against building too much muscle seems like the wrong advice – you should just warn against anabolic steroid use.

Also, your claim about higher rates of heart disease due to upper body mass needs some clarification. Visceral adiposity is correlated with heart disease rates, but nobody has ever proved that it is the mass of the tissue, and not its endocrine or metabolic activity that causes heart problems. Never mistake correlation with causation. Also, the association only holds up for fat. Nobody has ever linked upper body muscle mass with heart disease in drug-free men. Quite the opposite actually – muscle mass is one of the best predictors of health, especially in old age when it is hard to keep.

I am not trying to be conformational here, but I'm not sure you understand what the ad hominem fallacy involves. This is where someone proposes that an argument is invalid simply because of who the person is that is making the argument. So, if Hugh Cassidy was the person I was disagreeing with and I said "You must be wrong because you are a powerlifter, and we all know that powerlifters are (insert insult)...", that would be an ad hominem attack.

Genetic limits on muscle mass in the absence of obesity are a very real thing that have been supported by evidence. Humans simply do not reach a weight of 290 lbs without being obese or stimulating muscular growth with anabolic steroids. I am not attacking him personally, I am simply stating a matter of fact. I just searched and found a picture of Mr. Cassidy lifting in the "super heavyweight" class, and he clearly has a bulging abdomen that meets any definition of obesity, despite his clearly large muscle mass. So if I stated that he was obese or on steroids, and photography clearly shows obesity ( I don't know about the drugs), then my "attack" is not ad hominem, but it pointing out a very real fact.
Ultimate Warrior was an animal, feral, unhinged and berserker all rolled into one showman champion of everything good about testosterone (natural and synthetic). The man could hold men 220lb+ overhead before throwing them, and was a maniac in the ring as well as the gym. Bigger is better, if you're male. RIP
Except that all of those qualities you listed will (deservingly) land a man in prison if he exhibits them outside of the circus show of a "wrestling" ring.
The Scientist,

Hugh Cassidy advised to eat one's way through one's sticking points, meaning if one wanted to lift heavier one neeeded to increase mass. Because their is no weight limit in the super heavyweight division only one's genetic potential limits one's size. The extra fat helps give some bounce in the bottom portion of the squat. This is not done at the lower weiht classes. And, no, he was not on steroids.


Bigger is not always better when fighting. It's the go muscles like the triceps not the show muscles like the biceps that help deliver the punch. Most boxers, including heavyweights like Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis, did not have biceps the size of crossfit competitors or body builders. Speed, not power, is more important in a fight. I do Han Shi Yi Quan, an internal Chinese boxing art, where we avoid muscle contraction. The contraction actually pinches off the power rather than releasing it. Think Girevoy Sport versus StrongFirst methods. StrongFirst will get one strong but GS will get one more reps.
Scientist, you must have grown up in the nice part of town.

Nick, I appreciate what you're saying, but sometimes a fight goes to ground or close, so size, as well as strength and technique, can be the difference. It's one of those "it depends" things, that is, is size and brawn the best tool for the job?

The fight only goes to the ground when you are knocked down or out. MMA is not realistic and their stand up fighting is lacking. The origins of grappling is the one losing the fight holding on for dear life. In a street fight the chance of somebody using a knife or more likely in the USA, a gun, makes it a really bad idea to go to the ground. It is also more likely that your opponent's friend(s) will jump in. Fight on your feet not your back and end the fight as quickly as possible. If the other guys have superior numbers and weapons then run like hell. There is no shame in surviving. Now that's the real ultimate warrior.
Scientist, tell me something.  Are sanctimony and arrogance qualities you want your son to have?  Asking for a friend.

Also, that was in fact an ad hominem attack, albeit once removed (as you implicitly argue that someone with that BMI either takes 'roids or cannot control his eating).


Just sayin'
Nick, I agree with you completely. I also prefer diffusing situations rather than escalating them. But I have ended up on the ground once and I have also needed to forcibly restrain an individual, and extra size would have been helpful in those situations. In saying that, I like to think of humans as intelligent weapons, so deploying what skills you have appropriately is usually the difference between walking away or being carried away.
I hope that when I die the occasion sparks internet forum debates as heated as this one.

The guy was alive, he was muscular, and now he has passed away.  As far as I can tell, that's as much as any of us actually know about the situation.

This is getting tiresome. Sanctimony refers to showing a hypocritical or insincere commitment to moral or religious values. I have no idea how that applies here. Arrogance involves a person having an inflated sense of position or importance. I haven't bragged about myself in any way and don't intend to. I simply made a set of claims that I think are supported by evidence.

Lastly, an ad hominem once removed would mean that I was attacking a person because of their association with a different person: "you are wrong because you associate with that guy, and we all know he is stupid..."  The "hominem" part of this comes from Latin for person, and so the claim must be made based on who the person is, not about a specific trait that they have. My argument has nothing to do with any individual, but with a simple observation about the implausibility of reaching a certain weight without being either obese or pharmaceutically enhanced.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk. I just can't stand sitting back and ignoring people who make unsubstantiated claims.

Throwers and powerlifters gain mass during a 12 week cycle to be able throw farther and lift more. One's genetic potential and work habits will decide how successful one is. Not everyone bigger and stronger than you is on steroids.
Of course. That must be why every major athletic organization bans steroid use - it has no effect. It also explains why lifters in drug tested organizations lift dramatically less weight compared to those in non-tested organizations - the power lifters who refuse drug tests really are just working harder, and drug use has nothing to do with it.

I am going to have to be done with this. The inability to form a coherent argument that is not based on irrelevant anecdote is  more than I want to handle.
The Klitschko brothers, NFL linemen, Olympic throwers et al. are bigger than the average human being due to genes, diet and work habits, not steroids. I never said steroids has no effect but not everyone uses or needs them. My father was a college lineman, shot putter and heavyweight boxer. He was 6' 2" and 240 at his biggest. Both of my uncles, maternal and fraternal, weighed almost 400lbs. I am 5' 9.5" and currently 180lbs and have weighed as much as 220lbs. If I wanted to add 40lbs of muscle without using steroids I could. Many of my friends could not. But just as they could not add that much muscle they also cannot gain as much fat as I could either. I prefer weighing 180lbs and, yes, I would outlive the 220lb version of me.
the religious implications of sanctimony can be overlooked here. And a polysyllabic troll is still a troll
I vote for a close on this topic. The level of discussion has gone from unsubstantiated claims to personal attacks. So the level of "only for ladies and gentlemen" has gone down the toilet.
Wow... I don't know were all the hate is coming from...

i am personally sick of people attacking someone like the scientist for clearly stating an opinion.

having a clearly articulated position, and defending oneself when people attack you because they don't have the facts to challenge your position, doesn't make him a troll, ungentlemanly, or arrogant.

go back and read who made personal attacks on whom.

now, i disagree with his premise, but if i was going to post, i would have started with Nicks Last post.

normally i would just let everyone express  themselves and stay out of it, but these troll comments are outdated and have to stop. Just because he doesn't sound like the kind of guy you'd want to drink with doesn't mean you have the right to disrespect them...

thank you for allowing me to rant.
Experience often trumps science, as does the truth. Nazi scientists said the Jews were an inferior race. Eugenicists have done the same with Africans. Scientists working for the tobacco, coffee and alcohol companies manipulated and hid data that would have a negative effect on their business, and still do. The people who died from alcohol or tobacco use and their loved ones do not need science to tell them how they became ill.

"I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image."

In the first episode of Krzysztof Kieslowski's "The Decalogue", a film about the ten commandments, a university professor trains his son in the use of reason and the scientific method. The father has created a computer program that predicts the thickness of ice on a nearby lake that his son likes to skate on. But unexpected warm weather causes the ice to melt enough that the boy falls through the ice and drowns.
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Top Bottom