Open letter to HIT believers, hardgainers, etc. Seminar.

[Tapeworm]

So far no one has managed to falsify my theory.  

Vince-
I'm not being negative here - but I'm unclear as to what it is you are proposing to maximize hypertrophy most efficiently.  Have you discussed this in previous threads?  What exactly IS the theory?  

Please - state your theory and a recommended workout schedual.  I'd genuinely like to discuss it with you.

[Marty Champions]

yeah you clowns make sure you dont overtrain hahah im the biggest nucca here and will always be cause everyone is so stupid about training and nutrition. ive written many of posts yet they get deleted on the subjector

 the key to gaining muscle and losing fat is simply

hardwork...but its all a simple equation

a calorie is a calorie. you eat too much you get fat. if you eat 5000 calories and burn 5100 calories you get leaner and grow muscle over time if done consistently most people do not do the WORK of 5000 calories perday, that requires a good amount of muscle/energy/work to be able to consistently burn this many calories. lets say if someone eats 10,000 calories over a long period of time and burns 10,100 calories over a long period of time, they would have put on alot of muscle, becuase their calorie burning furnace (MUSCLE TISSUE) has had to ADAPT to a high workload daily, you have to do a SHITLOAD of working out to burn 10,000 calories, focusing on legs mainly squats leg lunges or presses would be the key to burning this many calories, fairly moderate way so you dont injure yourself because you will be sore as hell adapting to the high workload.you can only burn so much in a period of time doing bicep curls....overtime your muscles will be fairly efficient at assimilating 10,000 calories a day for the amount of work you put into it, i cant say for sure how many new pounds of muscle this equates to, but i would bet on a person eating this much and doing this much work would be bigger than a guy doing the 5000 calorie a day diet


as you can see getting muscle and losing fat is a simple equation

****the more you eat the more energy you can exert******
this is the key to putting on muscle, but in order to put on muscle, we DO NOT want to get fat. I hate gettin fat even though i can easily let a few pounds creep up on me. But for males the key to gaining muscle would be to eat ALOT, BUT we have to ASSIMILATE all those calories and not let them GO TO WASTE (UGLY FAT GAIN). I have done strict dieting before and got very lean under 2000 calories a day, but i could only workout but so hard before i got fatigued with those low calories. Now i eat around 8000 calories a day i have put on a small amount of fat ( which is fine because if i want to lose it ill just diet for a couple of days) but the point is im growing muscle, not in pounds, but small amounts by the week, im noticing smaller veins becoming more pronounced and muscle definition coming out. Its a slow proces, but with all these extra calories my body doesnt want to quit when im in the gym i can workout for 2 hours with tons of cardio and not tire out, its amazing THE POWER OF FOOD

[Hedgehog]

Before anyone dismisses Basile, lets see what he brings to the table.

Some kind of layout, some kind of hypothetical workout program for two-three weeks.

Or at least list one weeks workouts.

That would give us an idea of what frequency, what volume, what load, et al.

YIP
Zack

[SteelePegasus]

daddywaddy, here is how muhc of a joke you are!

I am reading a story on Espn about Amere Stoudimere  about a basketball player for Phoenix. By all accounts he doesn't train as a BB

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/trainingcamp06/columns/story?id=2621039


"On the plus side, he moved freely, ran the floor well, showed some strong moves around the glass, and reported that a hearty summer regimen of weights and swimming has brought him into the season at a svelte 237 pounds, with 7 percent body fat."

I would argue that with 2 month training he would own you.


Dwayne Wade another basketball player, yet again he doesn't train as a BB. From this pic I would argue that he is not that far behind you

you are a stupid tool!!

[Marty Champions]

youll argue anything, you need to start focusing on yourself though quit worrying about how great i am and trying to belittle my masterfullness


yeah he gets paid millions of dollars to screw around, if i played any college ball id be a pro football or b-ball, but i dont take any college classes and they dont let on walk ons

i would be the white dennis rodman of rebounding for shure id kick ass in b-ball or football

[pumpster]

a calorie is a calorie. you eat too much you get fat. if you eat 5000 calories and burn 5100 calories you get leaner and grow muscle over time if done consistently most people do not do the WORK of 5000 calories perday, that requires a good amount of muscle/energy/work to be able to consistently burn this many calories. lets say if someone eats 10,000 calories over a long period of time and burns 10,100 calories over a long period of time, they would have put on alot of muscle, becuase their calorie burning furnace (MUSCLE TISSUE) has had to ADAPT to a high workload daily, you have to do a SHITLOAD of working out to burn 10,000 calories, focusing on legs mainly squats leg lunges or presses would be the key to burning this many calories, fairly moderate way so you dont injure yourself because you will be sore as hell adapting to the high workload.you can only burn so much in a period of time doing bicep curls....

Long-winded, incomplete and general obvious stuff; establishes nothing. Burning calories isn't particularly relevant to muscle gain. Completely overlooks the idea of working smart as well as hard, because the author doesn't understand the difference.

Vince before we go any further I'd like to see or hear an example of who you think epitomizes your bodybuilding ideal, or at least who came the closest that you are aware of to having achieved what a "successful bodybuilding routine" would produce.

He's referring to training to potential; what his ideal is or isn't is an aside.

[jmt1]

yeah you clowns make sure you dont overtrain hahah im the biggest nucca here and will always be cause everyone is so stupid about training and nutrition. ive written many of posts yet they get deleted on the subjector

 the key to gaining muscle and losing fat is simply

hardwork...but its all a simple equation

a calorie is a calorie. you eat too much you get fat. if you eat 5000 calories and burn 5100 calories you get leaner and grow muscle over time if done consistently most people do not do the WORK of 5000 calories perday, that requires a good amount of muscle/energy/work to be able to consistently burn this many calories. lets say if someone eats 10,000 calories over a long period of time and burns 10,100 calories over a long period of time, they would have put on alot of muscle, becuase their calorie burning furnace (MUSCLE TISSUE) has had to ADAPT to a high workload daily, you have to do a SHITLOAD of working out to burn 10,000 calories, focusing on legs mainly squats leg lunges or presses would be the key to burning this many calories, fairly moderate way so you dont injure yourself because you will be sore as hell adapting to the high workload.you can only burn so much in a period of time doing bicep curls....overtime your muscles will be fairly efficient at assimilating 10,000 calories a day for the amount of work you put into it, i cant say for sure how many new pounds of muscle this equates to, but i would bet on a person eating this much and doing this much work would be bigger than a guy doing the 5000 calorie a day diet

A calorie IS NOT a calorie




 the "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.

Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc. Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we now know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.

[McFarland]

Long-winded, incomplete and general obvious stuff; establishes nothing. Burning calories isn't particularly relevant to muscle gain. Completely overlooks the idea of working smart as well as hard, because the author doesn't understand the difference.

He's referring to training to potential; what his ideal is or isn't is an aside.

Nah, us seeing why he thinks we NEED a better/more effective/more efficient training philosophy is crucial here. 

[Vince B]

To reply to Hedgehog. There is a philosophy of hypertrophy even though no one has written much about it. On bodybuilding sites people usually insist on sets and reps and exercises instead of finding out about the theory behind the training. If I can instruct someone about the theory and he has the capacity to absorb that information it is then likely this person can benefit from the theory. If individuals have no grasp of the theory behind the training and what is guiding them how on earth will they know what their task is and if they are on the right track? Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that the correct theory be explained first. The leap from the philosophy of hypertrophy to the technology is still not as easy as it sounds because that is where immense experience becomes absolutely essential. If a person has not obtained maximum hypertrophy or demonstrated it through another it is highly unlikely that the technology of hypertrophy will be accurate and therefore valid. So it is still possible to have the true theory but apply it insufficiently and not get the results.

My theory insists that if rapid, measureable gains are not obained on a daily basis then something is wrong about the training. Now that is a severe test for any bodybuilding theory and I know of no other theory that makes that bold claim. Most theories suggest gains occur over a time period and may or may not be recordable as a continuous process. It is my belief that progress on limbs that can be measured with a tape can occur steadily and be significant and measureable the day following the workout.

To get some glimpse of what I am suggesting it requires that we address the potential each of us have for growth. What is the maximum increase that any of us can generate from a single workout if given the limits of 12 hours of training in a single day? Well, surely this is an interesting problem. I do hope everyone appreciates that what might stimulate maximum growth in novices and others who have not trained a muscle for a time is quite different from that of moderate and advanced trainees. If we further restrict things to make them practical we might miss the potential for growth that is possible. The idea that one goes to a gym and trains for an hour or two is just about universal in bodybuilding. There have been a few individuals who trained longer but they did not obtain more hypertrophy than those who trained much briefer. I rather doubt any of these men actually exhausted their growth potential and those results with professionals are contaminated because of the use of drugs. We have no idea exactly what is responsible for their growth and that is why bodybuilding magazines have lost a lot of their value. Most of us simply do not believe what those writers are telling us. They either simply do not know or have no idea what is causing the growth. In the absense of any real information writers can claim just about anything they wish. The research quoted in magazines reveals the interests of those scientists and not bodybuilders. We should be learning heaps from science but most of the recent research is of limited value or not relevant whatsoever. We have been extrapolating training ideas from animal studies for decades now. It really would be refreshing if we had some good research into the maximum hypertrophy phenomenon.

[McFarland]

Vince who do you aspire to look more like by applying these theories? 

[pumpster]

Nah, us seeing why he thinks we NEED a better/more effective/more efficient training philosophy is crucial here. 

Making muscles larger/hypertrophy is what he's talking about; no "ideal" is needed to undertand this, actually detracts from the point.

[Vince B]

The essence of bodybuilding is to transcend what we have developed and take it to another level. We all see others with superior development so that helps us aim for what is possible. We may or may not be able to achieve comparable results to others. If we can exceed what we have now that is still progress. Bodybuilding is simply reconstructing ourselves on a weekly basis.

[McFarland]

The essence of bodybuilding is to transcend what we have developed and take it to another level. We all see others with superior development so that helps us aim for what is possible. We may or may not be able to achieve comparable results to others. If we can exceed what we have now that is still progress. Bodybuilding is simply reconstructing ourselves on a weekly basis.

No, Vince...give us one example of someone demonstrating superior development. 

[Tapeworm]

If I can instruct someone about the theory and he has the capacity to absorb that information it is then likely this person can benefit from the theory. If individuals have no grasp of the theory behind the training and what is guiding them how on earth will they know what their task is and if they are on the right track? Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that the correct theory be explained first.

Fine.  For the fourth time: WHAT IS "THE THEORY"?

Please start your next post with the words, "My theory is this -" and then explain it.

[pumpster]

The problem with putting a theory out there is that you just know some of the experts here will be all over it like flies on sh--.

More interesting is the premise that there's greater potential that isn't realized; doesn't mean anyone necessarily has the answer on that yet.

[Tapeworm]

The problem with putting a theory out there is that you just know some of the experts here will be all over it like flies on sh--.

Maybe, but at least then we'll know what we're talking about. 

WHAT IS "THE THEORY"?

[McFarland]

More interesting is the premise that there's greater potential that isn't realized; doesn't mean anyone necessarily has the answer on that yet.

That's right.  I wanna know if he really thinks there's been a bodybuilder that's done it right that could have done it easier, or if he has an explanation as to why he couldn't have looked more like that guy had he followed the same theories/programs/procedures, or if he has a good reason as to why he wasn't willing to do what it apparently took that guy to do.  But first things first.  I just wanna see him tell us ONE PERSON he thinks looks good.  My guess is that if he does have someone in mind that he'd like to look like, it'll be someone that 1) did juice and 2) didn't die from doing it, or anymore so from his doing anything else.  At which point his whole argument will become moot.          

[Thin Lizzy]

The problem with putting a theory out there is that you just know some of the experts here will be all over it like flies on sh--.

So what? If his theory is so sound, it should be able to stand the heat

Vince sounds like some Stock Market tout who claims to have "The System"

[Vince B]

Would some of you people recognize the true theory of hypertrophy if you saw it? The point is what is the test of truth of any theory? Well, in bodybuilding it surely is whether that theory can produce the results it claims. HST and HIT and Heavy Duty and every other theory has failed to generate continuous growth in believers. What happens is that those who do not make gains blame the theory.

One fact that cannot be disputed is that Arthur Jones helped generate additional size on already huge Sergio Oliva. So, what Arthur said cannot easily be dismissed. That success has to be part of the true hypertrophy theory. What a pity Sergio didn't return to train with Arthur and see how big he could have become. It appears than many top champs get to a certain size and stop growing. Additional extreme training often leads to career ending injuries. I have stated before that bodybuilding is one of the most dangerous activities because one is always pushing the limit to cause more adaptation.

Speaking of adaptation it is clear that this mechanism has to be known and then used to guide training. The one problem with following the work of Selye and others is that the doctors might have been mistaken about these mechanisms. Even HIT people make assumptions about growth and that might limit what can be obtained with those methods. The biggest obstacle to continuous growth is adaptation. Somehow you have to trigger growth but not let the muscles adapt. Once muscles 'recover' the repeated bout effect occurs and similar training will no longer generate hypertrophy. That is probably why so many have trouble growing. We have been told stuff we accepted as true without actually looking into how the body grows. We are literally the blind following the blind. Seek real knowledge and then you might be able to transcend where you are now. Clearly, continuing to do what you are doing now is never going to give you the results you want. Look at those who are writing articles. If they are not huge then beware. Simple as that. One problem in bodybuilding, besides the drugs, is that most champions are incapable of passing on information about how to train. Can anyone tell me how Arnold actually got as big as he did? The one exception is Larry Scott. His information is clearly based on thorough trial and error which is about as good as it gets in bodybuilding. I doubt Mike Mentzer was fair dinkum about what made him grow. He is one of the few philosophers in bodybuilding and I acknowledge his contribution to that sparse subject.

[Tapeworm]

So it's Zen and the Art of Bodybuilding is it?

[McFarland]

Look at those who are writing articles. If they are not huge then beware. Simple as that.

There, that's even simpler. 

[Thin Lizzy]

Would some of you people recognize the true theory of hypertrophy if you saw it? The point is what is the test of truth of any theory? Well, in bodybuilding it surely is whether that theory can produce the results it claims. HST and HIT and Heavy Duty and every other theory has failed to generate continuous growth in believers. What happens is that those who do not make gains blame the theory.

One fact that cannot be disputed is that Arthur Jones helped generate additional size on already huge Sergio Oliva. So, what Arthur said cannot easily be dismissed.color]

You're right, Vince. Our feeble intellects simply can't handle the ideas you put forth.


As far as Arthur Jones helping Sergio acheive greater size: Was Sergio natural at that show? If not, how can you be sure that wasn't a combination of drugs that helped Sergio achieve that size?

[McFarland]

You're right, Vince. Our feeble intellects simply can't handle the ideas you put forth.


As far as Arthur Jones helping Sergio acheive greater size: Was Sergio natural at that show? If not, how can you be sure that wasn't a combination of drugs that helped Sergio achieve that size?

I'd like to hear him elaborate on how steroids have ruined bodybuilding any moreso than they've helped create it.     

[Thin Lizzy]

I'd like to hear him elaborate on how steroids have ruined bodybuilding any moreso than they've helped create it.     

I think Vince just wants to sell us some used Nautilus machines.

[SteelePegasus]

Vince, you are losing me here! First you claim that we don't understand the mechanics behind unlimited growth, fair statement. Then you post dribble that only you care to follow, how does that help us. Then you go off and say that we need to understand the theory first...

you are beginning to sounds like a more intelligent TA. Granted you know a lot of more than him but in the end you are doing the same thing that he is! You bombard this site information yet fail to deliver a practical application.

fuck man, if you are trying to prove how to smart you are then clearly you are targeting the wrong audience. 

once again, I am guessing that your theory amounts to "progressive 6 X 6"