Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Positive Bodybuilding Discussion & Talk => Topic started by: Vince B on July 15, 2008, 05:47:28 PM
-
Hapless Pellius wrote that he needed bodybuilding drugs even at 47 years old. He wasn't huge or anything like that, he just felt he needed them to give him an edge in his contact sports that he enjoys. He claims that he has tried just about everything and concludes that drugs are a necessity.
Today on the positive board he enquired about supplements and prohormones and wondered if these chemicals would help him in his quest to stay strong, etc.
I thought that Pellius was the epitome of what the thinking is in bodybuilding and that is very sad. Why is it that an intelligent very experienced trainee believes so much nonsense? Or are the current beliefs nonsense?
I notice that the widely respected Milos has posted the drugs required by advanced bodybuilders to compete at the highest level. It is a frightening revelation. Oh, we have read similar prescriptions from others and what a reality it is that exists in the pro ranks. When the most knowledgeable among us deliver a long list of potent drugs what are the beginners and novices to think? Somehow all that information was distilled from decades of experimenting and reading. The human systems were studied and what bodybuilders discovered were various shortcuts to spur muscle growth. Oh, there is a notion that the chemists know what they are talking about because the language is impressive. In the old days we thought muscles were broken down by exercise and then rebuilt. Nowadays there is another language and this is based on the science behind physiology.
What are we to conclude then about the sport of bodybuilding? If it is true that the top guys and their advisers know exactly how to build muscle then that pretty much kills the sport as we know it. It isn't bodybuilding but chemical enhancement plus some specific training.
The question that Pellius wants to know: Is possible to build size and strength naturally? Yes, it is. Even at his age. When I read what he writes I shake my head. Why? Well, because he is informed. He also has tried just about every training method out there. When he gives up the natural way it is because he is convinced the drugs are necessary. It is as if he has read all the ads for supplements and all the steroid literature. Maybe he studied some of the science, too. If this is true, and Pellius represents the informed and experienced trainee, then what will it take for him to believe it is possible to get big naturally and without supplements? In short, Pellius is a victim of the information age and advertising.
I fear his beliefs are held like those who are believers re religions. I doubt there is any argument that can convince him. He and most muscleheads on internet forums are not open to new ideas. They prefer and insist on relying on their own brains. What a pity that is because they will miss important information. You have to be prepared to abandon a lot of what you thought was fact and reasonable. You have to discard some precious beliefs about even basic ideas in exercise and nutrition.
It is possible to build large muscles and get stronger and do it totally naturally. It really is a simple process. It should also be rapid. There is nothing mysterious about it. However, if you insist on keeping your beliefs then you won't be able to accept the truth. How is it that today with super gyms in every major city that we have people believing they need drugs? We don't even need supplements! I honestly think people have been brainwashed and newcomers get the treatment soon enough when they start associating with muscleheads and reading magazines. If you lie down with dogs you are going to get some fleas. In this case, they are false beliefs and nonsense. When that rubbish is established in your brain you will not be open to reason any more. You will then become a believer and you might very well end up like Pellius. Confused, dismayed and disgraced. After all that has happened to him the last thing he will abandon are the beliefs that caused all the trouble in the first place.
To be continued.....
-
mersey dotes and dosy dotes and little lambs eat ivy
-
Folks. Could this be the 'Lost Theory of Hypertrophy' that Vince has hinted about for years!?
Stay tuned and he'll...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz 8)
-
Written by a guy who needed to use D-bol in his BB training....
Priceless!
-
Written by a guy who needed to use D-bol in his BB training....
Priceless!
Zing!
-
To answer the question.
Yes, they do.
-
I see the flotsam are pulling up chairs waiting for the next installment.
I smile that some authorities in bodybuilding have succeeded by promoting false ideas. How is that possible in this enlightened age? How come something as simple as building muscles is not completely understood? How come the chemists have hijacked this sport and decreed that drugs are necessary for rapid growth?
There really is a lot of nonsense circulating as information and knowledge. It is not knowledge.
What we need are philosophical tools to separate the truth from the nonsense. What is the test of truth of a bodybuilding theory? It cannot be word of mouth. Anecdotal experience, no matter now established, may be mistaken.
What we need is to establish what is necessary and what sufficient re building muscles. My point is that drugs and supplements might be sufficient but they are not necessary. Is it any wonder that confusion reigns in the brains of muscleheads?
-
Folks. Could this be the 'Lost Theory of Hypertrophy' that Vince has hinted about for years!?
Stay tuned and he'll...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz 8)
The flotsam of Getbig would not understand. Before we can explore The Theory, we must establish our method of inquiry, and what we mean by "method of inquiry," as well as the nature of inquiry in general. Any discussion of The Theory is fruitless until we have an understanding of those methods which are suitable and those which are not, and the criteria by which we may assess those methods, as well as examine the viability of that criteria of assessment. We must distinguish fact from fiction, fraction from friction, and dispell the myths and rumours which have trapped the great sport in a quagmire of ignorance.
-
Anyone else think Basile is starting to sound like Charlie Browns Teacher?
-
basile, you dont even know how to build muscle yourself you fat fuck , plz stfu already.
-
The flotsam of Getbig would not understand. Before we can explore The Theory, we must establish our method of inquiry, and what we mean by "method of inquiry," as well as the nature of inquiry in general.
Is this your excuse for postponing presenting your "wonderful theory" for 2 years+ ? ::)
-
Anyone else think Basile is starting to sound like Charlie Browns Teacher?
"Starting to"?
Vince Basile invented talking like the adults in "Peanuts".
-
Vince, there is no doubt you have been there and done that. Along with that comes knowledge, no doubt. If you truly believe we are all misguided, I encourage you to write a book about your ideas. We are all enthusiastic about training on here, and would love to actually hear what your theories are. That is of course assuming you could fit in the time beside all the wonderful work you do in Ufology. 8) :D
-
Vince, there is no doubt you have been there and done that. Along with that comes knowledge, no doubt. If you truly believe we are all misguided, I encourage you to write a book about your ideas. We are all enthusiastic about training on here, and would love to actually hear what your theories are. That is of course assuming you could fit in the time beside all the wonderful work you do in Ufology. 8) :D
Vince has been a little busy right now attending the out-of-town funerals of strangers, providing free personal training to underprivileged children, and creating award-winning photographic art. However, as his schedule allows, I'm sure he'll be publishing his revolutionary theories on hypertrophy in a well-respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal.
-
What hasn't been explained by most theories is why do so many get so little out of doing so much? If general information about training is shared by just about everyone who lifts weights then how come growth is slow or imperceptible in the vast majority of guys working out? Just about everyone seems to be on a plateau and cannot keep growing.
HIT insists people don't train with enough intensity and are working muscles too frequently. Are they correct about this or were Arthur and Mike mistaken?
Is Stuart McRobert right when he tells us too many overtrain and that is why they don't grow?
Is Bryan Haycock right when he claims you need to train the Hypertrophy Specific Training way?
Maybe you just need to do what works for you?
Ah, the bullshit that passes for knowledge out there. It really is a circus that is perpetuated by muscleheads. I mean, do guys actually absorb and believe that crap about supplements written in muscle magazines!! There must be a lot of knuckleheads out there if they do. I see enough who come to my gym with those same beliefs. It is like a virus in their heads. Advertising is effective but mostly it is exaggerated scamming. You don't need that stuff to get big muscles. What you do need is proper nutrition. It is my view that supplements are not necessary.
-
Vince has been a little busy right now attending the out-of-town funerals of strangers, providing free personal training to underprivileged children, and creating award-winning photographic art. However, as his schedule allows, I'm sure he'll be publishing his revolutionary theories on hypertrophy in a well-respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Not to say he is wrong or doesn't have any good ideas, but the perspective of "You are all wrong, and I am right" tires me. Especially when you don't actually have an argument. It reminds me of when I was at a conference this month and we were discussing new treatments for HIV, some reject grad student who was forced into "alternative medicine" bursts in the conversation and says we are all wrong, the trick is a natural herb that grows in some Jungle ::). I have learnt in my 20 years that truth is surely not measured by mass appeal, but all I ever hear from you Vince is the same old criticism without any substantial argument to go along with it.
-
What hasn't been explained by most theories is why do so many get so little out of doing so much? If general information about training is shared by just about everyone who lifts weights then how come growth is slow or imperceptible in the vast majority of guys working out? Just about everyone seems to be on a plateau and cannot keep growing.
HIT insists people don't train with enough intensity and are working muscles too frequently. Are they correct about this or were Arthur and Mike mistaken?
Is Stuart McRobert right when he tells us too many overtrain and that is why they don't grow?
Is Bryan Haycock right when he claims you need to train the Hypertrophy Specific Training way?
Maybe you just need to do what works for you?
Ah, the bullshit that passes for knowledge out there. It really is a circus that is perpetuated by muscleheads. I mean, do guys actually absorb and believe that crap about supplements written in muscle magazines!! There must be a lot of knuckleheads out there if they do. I see enough who come to my gym with those same beliefs. It is like a virus in their heads. Advertising is effective but mostly it is exaggerated scamming. You don't need that stuff to get big muscles. What you do need is proper nutrition. It is my view that supplements are not necessary.
When will you present your Hypertrophy theory? Please don't come with your "scientific method" gibberish excuse once again. A lot of people here = well educated, and a lot more intelligent than you. At the same time, your theory does not need to be comprehended to the finest detail, if your theory is legit, it will work for the finest "knucklehead" in the only testing ground that matters here: The real world ::)
-
I'm thinking of asking Ron to change my username to "Flotsam". ;D
-
What hasn't been explained by most theories is why do so many get so little out of doing so much? If general information about training is shared by just about everyone who lifts weights then how come growth is slow or imperceptible in the vast majority of guys working out? Just about everyone seems to be on a plateau and cannot keep growing.
HIT insists people don't train with enough intensity and are working muscles too frequently. Are they correct about this or were Arthur and Mike mistaken?
Is Stuart McRobert right when he tells us too many overtrain and that is why they don't grow?
Is Bryan Haycock right when he claims you need to train the Hypertrophy Specific Training way?
Maybe you just need to do what works for you?
Ah, the bullshit that passes for knowledge out there. It really is a circus that is perpetuated by muscleheads. I mean, do guys actually absorb and believe that crap about supplements written in muscle magazines!! There must be a lot of knuckleheads out there if they do. I see enough who come to my gym with those same beliefs. It is like a virus in their heads. Advertising is effective but mostly it is exaggerated scamming. You don't need that stuff to get big muscles. What you do need is proper nutrition. It is my view that supplements are not necessary.
Perhaps no matter how hard you try, you can't overcome what natured intended playing by the rules(not using drugs). We didn't evolve to resemble our close cousins, the gorilla.
-
Praise and blame will fall off me like rain from an umbrella.
There is a theory of hypertrophy and it should be shared by everyone. That is the duty of all students of hypertrophy. Some acquire good information then keep it to themselves or promote courses and training to profit themselves. That is fine with me. Everyone should benefit if they have acquired knowledge in anything important.
One fruitful path would be to inspect successful trainers and see what their theories are. If enough information is assembled then perhaps an outline of the basic theory can be formed. I suspect there are too many egos involved and competition and jealousy will impede our quest. We may have to abandon the experts because they are hardly open and enthusisatic about sharing what they know.
-
Praise and blame will fall off me like rain from an umbrella.
There is a theory of hypertrophy and it should be shared by everyone. That is the duty of all students of hypertrophy. Some acquire good information then keep it to themselves or promote courses and training to profit themselves. That is fine with me. Everyone should benefit if they have acquired knowledge in anything important.
One fruitful path would be to inspect successful trainers and see what their theories are. If enough information is assembled then perhaps an outline of the basic theory can be formed. I suspect there are too many egos involved and competition and jealousy will impede our quest. We may have to abandon the experts because they are hardly open and enthusisatic about sharing what they know.
Your IQ = probably not very high.
-
Bob Chick has made a good living and built a great physique from using supplements and hormones, and his health seems fine. Vince, maybe if more people followed Bob's example there would be fewer people that looked like you or I. Also it would be cool if your posts were like 60% shorter...that's a lot of shit to read!
-
Your IQ = probably not very high.
Did he just ask for us to make a theory when he is the one claiming to have the answer? ??? ???
-
Vince, maybe if more people followed Bob's example there would be fewer people that looked like you or I.
Fewer people who look like Vince would result in fewer scared people on Australia's beaches.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=85967.0;attach=92328;image)
-
The din of the flotsam resonates like recess in primary school. I forgot that everyone is an expert here so I will tolerate some scepticism.
I can't humour you people all day long as I have to go to my gym to do an installation.
In the meantime, here are some new handles I made for the cross over pulleys at my gym. We have three stations and I am putting handles on the Cybex station. This design helps prevent discomfort when the handles contact the forearms. The polyurethane grips rotate and are 1 1/8" in diameter. Stainless steel is used throughout for all handles in Vince's Gym.
-
The din of the flotsam resonates like recess in primary school. I forgot that everyone is an expert here so I will tolerate some scepticism.
I can't humour you people all day long as I have to go to my gym to do an installation.
In the meantime, here are some new handles I made for the cross over pulleys at my gym. We have three stations and I am putting handles on the Cybex station. This design helps prevent discomfort when the handles contact the forearms. The polyurethane grips rotate and are 1 1/8" in diameter. Stainless steel is used throughout for all handles in Vince's Gym.
Awesome...first you re-invented the wheel....now....
the HANDLE!!
-
Awesome...first you re-invented the wheel....now....
the HANDLE!!
Thats nothing...You should see what he has in the vault awaiting final approvel...I won't give it up completely but you will be amazed at what the new Vince Basile SEA SAW for kids is going to look like...
-
That is what is sad in bodybuilding. A new handle can be designed even in 2008. I don't expect anything as simple as this from any of the flotsam and pumpkin heads here!
-
That is what is sad in bodybuilding. A new handle can be designed even in 2008. I don't expect anything as simple as this from any of the flotsam and pumpkin heads here!
Yeah, Basile....I suppose a new spoon can be designed as well, just isn't necessary, like your "handle".
-
Poor Vince has to stay locked in the garage taking apart gym equipment and looking at funeral photos because his 478 lb girlfriend took away internet access.
-
Praise and blame will fall off me like rain from an umbrella.
There is a theory of hypertrophy and it should be shared by everyone. That is the duty of all students of hypertrophy. Some acquire good information then keep it to themselves or promote courses and training to profit themselves. That is fine with me. Everyone should benefit if they have acquired knowledge in anything important.
One fruitful path would be to inspect successful trainers and see what their theories are. If enough information is assembled then perhaps an outline of the basic theory can be formed. I suspect there are too many egos involved and competition and jealousy will impede our quest. We may have to abandon the experts because they are hardly open and enthusisatic about sharing what they know.
???
-
Bodybuilding needs drugs all sports need drugs, the problem is and always has been the amount of drugs, no one wants to see true natural guys on the olympia stage, they look like aids victims. Then at the other end of the spectrum you have the current pro look, i have said it before bodyweights and heights need to be capped, this would make the sport healthier, for example if your 6 feet tall the most you could weigh in at could be 240, 5 feet 10 220lbs, etc this would reduce drug abuse, not eliminate it but it would be a step in the right direction, 5 feet 9 and 263lbs is muscular obesity, The individuals would have to be a lot more creative with their training if they knew they couldnt just keep taking more gear and getting bigger, imagine Cutler having to try and bring his back up but not his bodyweight, at the moment everyone just takes more gear eats more protein and trains that bodypart harder, the other positive of this approach would be guys staying in the sport longer as they would be healthier.
-
Bodybuilding needs drugs all sports need drugs, the problem is and always has been the amount of drugs, no one wants to see true natural guys on the olympia stage, they look like aids victims. Then at the other end of the spectrum you have the current pro look, i have said it before bodyweights and heights need to be capped, this would make the sport healthier, for example if your 6 feet tall the most you could weigh in at could be 240, 5 feet 10 220lbs, etc this would reduce drug abuse, not eliminate it but it would be a step in the right direction, 5 feet 9 and 263lbs is muscular obesity, The individuals would have to be a lot more creative with their training if they knew they couldnt just keep taking more gear and getting bigger, imagine Cutler having to try and bring his back up but not his bodyweight, at the moment everyone just takes more gear eats more protein and trains that bodypart harder, the other positive of this approach would be guys staying in the sport longer as they would be healthier.
Eaxactly, lifetime naturals have a very unhealthy look when they are onstage. Like concentration camp prisoners. Except this guy: http://contest.bodybuilding.com/gallery/contestant/7294/mode/jim/page/14
-
Vince shut the fuck up, you tell everyone that they should go and do what they say e.g. "I'm going to bench 600lbs" You say well... go and do it right???
SO why don't you man the fuck up and prove your horseshit theories in the absence of supplements. Hell, find one of these "gullible muscleheads" you talk about to do the work for you... On that note, I bet you sell and advertise supplements in your gym. So you are all talk! You make money off the stuff!
GO SCREW! you are hypocritical to say the least. For the love of god, analyze yourself! "Everyone is an expert" right??? Yeah you are a CHUMP too... Prove otherwise, you have been spouting all this fucking bullshit for years. I'm sick OF IT you are NO better than any musclehead supplement user! You HAVE NOT distinguished yourself FROM ANYONE this century in the iron game.
YOU DON'T ACTIVELY respond to ANY post posted in here PERIOD. I expect you will continue your hypocritical ways ignorant of reason and a slave to the "philosophy of science". i.e. a pompous ass
-
Chick, did you suck penis to fuel your drug addiction when you competed?
-
Is this your excuse for postponing presenting your "wonderful theory" for 2 years+ ? ::)
Was my Basile impersonation so convincing? ;D
-
Vince did Ray touch you? It's okay. We're not mad at you anymore.
-
I smile that some authorities in bodybuilding have succeeded by promoting false ideas. How is that possible in this enlightened age? How come something as simple as building muscles is not completely understood? How come the chemists have hijacked this sport and decreed that drugs are necessary for rapid growth?
More test = more and faster muscle.
age= less test most of the time
at 48, you'll probably need extra test
-
Poor Ron, imagine being the owner of this site. It is worse than the wild west where everyone is trying to be the fastest or whatever in town. You ride into town and are met with bullets, arrows, tomatoes and pumpkins! Only the reckless and fearless dare proceed.
Well, it is a challenge to offer anything of value to the converted. They really have lost the capacity to accept new ideas. Instead, they cling to all that makes sense to them. I don't blame them, either, and that is why new knowledge has little chance of taking hold.
We saw Arthur Jones try to persuade millions to embrace his ideas. Heck, in 1970 everyone read his advertisments in Ironman that went on for many pages. The information was that good. Eventually the HIT methods lost favour because most people who tried it didn't progress like Arthur promised them. Neither were Nautilus machines superior to just lifting weights. That must have been a bitter pill for Arthur and it wasn't long before he abandoned his association with muscleheads. A few notables kept the flame burning but when Mike Mentzer died in 2001 there wasn't much reason to peddle that stuff anymore. Well, Ellington Darden has probably made a good living with HIT and at least the system tries to be both scientific and consistent.
The raw and vulgar truth is HIT doesn't work. Oh, there might be a few souls who swear that it does. It is a great way to get injured. You see, if Arthur was mistaken about basic things like how muscles contract then his whole theory comes crumbling down. Muscles don't contract like boxcars but slide into each other. The logic from Arthur was superb. Unfortunately, the theory is literally false. It isn't even a close approximation to the truth.
What is sad is the meagre amount of experiments done by scientists to settle debates about which method is most effective. It would be an easy thing to do. Arthur spent millions on experiments but I am not sure all that information is available to the public to study.
Anyway, let us do a simple experiment to see how theory applies to what we do in gyms. Suppose you are hired to design a leg extension machine. You have unlimited funds and can buy all the various leg extension machines made by different companies. That, in fact, is partly what happens in some big equipment companies. Then you can use yourself and even recruit other experts so that collectively you come up with what you feel is the best design.
What are the necessary things that must be right to make an effective machine? Well, it has to pivot in the right place and duplicate the movement of the leg extending itself. You would be surprised at how little agreement there is re something so essential. Surely all companies can get this pivot point right? Well, a clever engineer might be able to devise a self-locating pivot point that best suits each individual. I don't think this has been done yet but it is conceivable. The thing is the machine should be simple and not the most expensive design out there.
The one thing almost all leg extension machines agree about is the angle of the user when seated. Usually the user is tilted back a bit but not too much. The reason for this is to keep the body upright and make it easy to get on and off the machine. Over 25 years ago I believe Icarian came up with a design where the user actually leaned back while sitting. I remember that it felt good when I used this machine perhaps around 1980. Others said the same thing. Yet when Nautilus, Universal, Cybex and just about everyone else built their leg extension machines the angle while sitting was just a bit titled up. The idea was to keep long legs from hitting the floor. There is always a problem accommodating the exteme sizes in populations and the very tall and very short challenge designers. Usually compromises have to be made and equipment usually suits people from about 4-10 to 6-7 or so. Those shorter or taller will not feel comfortable on most pieces of gym equipment. The extremely obese will also have a problem accessing most equipment because they won't fit in or the machines won't handle the bodyweight.
What seems to happen in the design community is that designs become established and then this is the way those machines are made. The angle of seats on leg extensions vary by a few degrees but that is all. Well, I thought about the leg extension machines that I made and realised one problem was that users tend to rise off the seat when attempting heavy resistances. I wondered if there was a way to compensate for that. I didn't like the Nautilus solution of using belts to keep the user in position. I came up with a version that Icarian had used decades before but tried to see if I could go further re an angle than they did. The intention was to tilt the user's legs upward so that more of his bodyweight would be under the pivot point. So far the solution works and it feels very good. I doubt my design will affect the way leg extension machines are made in the future but there you are.
In a similar way many ideas that we absorb over the years re training seem to become what makes sense to us. That is our reality and we have kept these ideas because they seem to work. The trouble starts when we stop growing. How come all those ideas don't generate more growth? Surely they must work! Millions of believers cannot possibly be mistaken. Well, it seems that they can be and in fact are mistaken about lots of things. I will develop this idea in another post.
-
Chick, did you suck penis to fuel your drug addiction when you competed?
::)
-
vince basille talks shit
looks like shit
the end
-
maybe haha
-
(http://i33.tinypic.com/2rcwksh.jpg)
Haha. Tell me you didn't, really? :D
-
Awesome...first you re-invented the wheel....now....
the HANDLE!!
LMAO.....Jesus Christ how big is that handle????? looks like the equivalent of what Forest Gump had on his legs but for your hands!! lololol
-
Poor Ron, imagine being the owner of this site. It is worse than the wild west where everyone is trying to be the fastest or whatever in town. You ride into town and are met with bullets, arrows, tomatoes and pumpkins! Only the reckless and fearless dare proceed.
Well, it is a challenge to offer anything of value to the converted. They really have lost the capacity to accept new ideas. Instead, they cling to all that makes sense to them. I don't blame them, either, and that is why new knowledge has little chance of taking hold.
We saw Arthur Jones try to persuade millions to embrace his ideas. Heck, in 1970 everyone read his advertisments in Ironman that went on for many pages. The information was that good. Eventually the HIT methods lost favour because most people who tried it didn't progress like Arthur promised them. Neither were Nautilus machines superior to just lifting weights. That must have been a bitter pill for Arthur and it wasn't long before he abandoned his association with muscleheads. A few notables kept the flame burning but when Mike Mentzer died in 2001 there wasn't much reason to peddle that stuff anymore. Well, Ellington Darden has probably made a good living with HIT and at least the system tries to be both scientific and consistent.
The raw and vulgar truth is HIT doesn't work. Oh, there might be a few souls who swear that it does. It is a great way to get injured. You see, if Arthur was mistaken about basic things like how muscles contract then his whole theory comes crumbling down. Muscles don't contract like boxcars but slide into each other. The logic from Arthur was superb. Unfortunately, the theory is literally false. It isn't even a close approximation to the truth.
What is sad is the meagre amount of experiments done by scientists to settle debates about which method is most effective. It would be an easy thing to do. Arthur spent millions on experiments but I am not sure all that information is available to the public to study.
Anyway, let us do a simple experiment to see how theory applies to what we do in gyms. Suppose you are hired to design a leg extension machine. You have unlimited funds and can buy all the various leg extension machines made by different companies. That, in fact, is partly what happens in some big equipment companies. Then you can use yourself and even recruit other experts so that collectively you come up with what you feel is the best design.
What are the necessary things that must be right to make an effective machine? Well, it has to pivot in the right place and duplicate the movement of the leg extending itself. You would be surprised at how little agreement there is re something so essential. Surely all companies can get this pivot point right? Well, a clever engineer might be able to devise a self-locating pivot point that best suits each individual. I don't think this has been done yet but it is conceivable. The thing is the machine should be simple and not the most expensive design out there.
The one thing almost all leg extension machines agree about is the angle of the user when seated. Usually the user is tilted back a bit but not too much. The reason for this is to keep the body upright and make it easy to get on and off the machine. Over 25 years ago I believe Icarian came up with a design where the user actually leaned back while sitting. I remember that it felt good when I used this machine perhaps around 1980. Others said the same thing. Yet when Nautilus, Universal, Cybex and just about everyone else built their leg extension machines the angle while sitting was just a bit titled up. The idea was to keep long legs from hitting the floor. There is always a problem accommodating the exteme sizes in populations and the very tall and very short challenge designers. Usually compromises have to be made and equipment usually suits people from about 4-10 to 6-7 or so. Those shorter or taller will not feel comfortable on most pieces of gym equipment. The extremely obese will also have a problem accessing most equipment because they won't fit in or the machines won't handle the bodyweight.
What seems to happen in the design community is that designs become established and then this is the way those machines are made. The angle of seats on leg extensions vary by a few degrees but that is all. Well, I thought about the leg extension machines that I made and realised one problem was that users tend to rise off the seat when attempting heavy resistances. I wondered if there was a way to compensate for that. I didn't like the Nautilus solution of using belts to keep the user in position. I came up with a version that Icarian had used decades before but tried to see if I could go further re an angle than they did. The intention was to tilt the user's legs upward so that more of his bodyweight would be under the pivot point. So far the solution works and it feels very good. I doubt my design will affect the way leg extension machines are made in the future but there you are.
In a similar way many ideas that we absorb over the years re training seem to become what makes sense to us. That is our reality and we have kept these ideas because they seem to work. The trouble starts when we stop growing. How come all those ideas don't generate more growth? Surely they must work! Millions of believers cannot possibly be mistaken. Well, it seems that they can be and in fact are mistaken about lots of things. I will develop this idea in another post.
::)
-
Vince invented bodybuilding but not d-bol
-
Well, this is what I think. All the IFBB bodybuilders are strong. Kevin does at his max 500 for 3 or 4. That Dexter can do about 365 for 8. Dillett does machine shoulder presses with 360lb on BFTO '98, therefore can do 315 for 10 at least. So I think they can all do at least, at least 315 for 10 on bench press. And they're all good reps contracting the muscles real good. Even if they don't do 710lb deadlifts, like Arnold "did", the way they handle the lighter weights leads me to believe they could. But what they did worked for them, so they don't need to. I think anabolic steroids make you bigger because they allow person to train with heavier weights, and that's it.
-
Vince looks like my grandfather :o
-
There is a relationship between size and strength but it is not a linear one. The biggest guys are very strong but the strongest guys are not always the biggest. We can conclude that larger muscles, for any individual, will usually be stronger but strength is but one factor in hypertrophy. The progression in strength is probably more important than the amount lifted.
To use a logical thought experiment it is easy to see that one cannot keep getting stronger because limits are there that the human body cannot exceed. Suppose a trainee can bench press 300 pounds for 1 rep. That is a pretty good performance for most guys who lift weights. Well, is it possible for a trainee to gain but 5 pounds a week on his bench press? That doesn't sound like it is anything to boast about. However, since there are 52 weeks in a year, our trainee would be lifting 260 more pounds at the end of a year. Add the 300 and this hero would be lifting 560 pounds. That would be unlikely but perhaps possible if drugs were used. At the end of two years this superman would be lifting 820 pounds. In 3 years he would be benching 1080 pounds. Clearly, no one can keep adding even 5 pounds a week to their bench 1rm. No one.
If it is true that there are limits to strength gains then gaining strength cannot be a necessity for hypertrophy. It may be sufficient most of the time but it is not a requirement. What else contributes to hypertrophy but isn't strength? The training factor seems to be some sort of muscular endurance. In a nutshell, big muscles are good at lifting heavy weights over and over again. To put that in gym language, big muscles can do set after set after set with a heavy weight. For example, for the bench press someone with large muscles should be able to do set after set with over 300 pounds, no worries at all. If we reverse engineer this process it means that if you can do set after set after set of 10 strict reps with 315 pounds you should have over 18 inch arms. If you can do the same with 405 pounds you should have over 19 inch arms. Beyond that it is not clear if there is a relationship. The examples given are just pulled out of the air but are probably accurate. Strength and muscular endurance varies among trainee populations so it is not possible to give exact formulas without extensive testing of large bodybuilders.
Arthur Jones warned bodybuilders to build size and not demonstrate strength. Therefore, it is foolish to see how much you can lift. Doing low reps is also a dangerous practice because you risk tearing the connective tissue. Once that happens your career might as well be over. I doubt many in the future will be given gifts like Dorian who won the Olympia with badly torn biceps.
Whatever the ultimate program for hypertrophy it had better be a safe one that avoids serious injuries.
So far, if we apply our test of truth then we find that what we have said corresponds with what we find in the gym. The big bodybuilders do set after set after set with fairly heavy weights. Well, isn't that what even laymen think is all that is required? Ah, how can something so simple be so difficult to achieve? If all we have to do is use a big volume and progress with heavier weights why isn't everyone who does that really big? It seems it is easier to explain acquiring big muscles than it is to account for why few attain really large size.
You can see that as soon as anyone mentions large bodybuilders we contaminate the hypertrophy process. Why? Well, we do not know what is responsible for their growth. If we have a group of strictly natural bodybuilders then the training protocols matter. That isn't so obvious when considering the users of AAS and other agents. I prefer to limit my discussion to purely natural training. I have no interest in chemical enhancement. Others can claim guru status for that enterprise.
-
Nice read, Vince. From the videos I watched
Frank Mcgrath: 315x10, 405x5[incline BP], 185lb barbell curls for 8. Gustavo Badell also did 185 for 8 reps on BFTO '05.
Dennis James: 315x10, 405x6, 455x3 on BFTO '98
Levrone: 315x10, 405x6, 455x6 and 455x4, 495x3 on BFTO '98
Tom Prince 'said': I inclined 495 x 6, and 545 x 2. Squatted 755 x 2 and 805 x 1 http://musclemayhem.com/forums/showthread.php?p=409141#post409141
Jay: 225lb for 14, 315 for 9 on One Step Closer. He could of done 225 for more than that, easily and 315 for more than 9, but stopped there.
Ronnie: 315 x 12, 405 x 10, 495 x 5 on The Cost of Redemption.
According to this article, Gunter also a strong fella: 225 for 12 on first set to failure in this workout. "He regularly incline presses 365 for six to eight reps in the off season." Few pros do barbell bench presses, especially precontest, but Glass believes heavy compound lifts are best for muscle density and that those who rely on isolation lifts and machines look flat on bodybuilding contest stages. Schlierkamp does his first set with 225 for 12 reps, his second with 275 for nine and his third with 295 for eight. All the while, at Glass' urging, he keeps up a brutal pace." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_1_21/ai_98542690/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1
In his first video, Ronnie could do barbell rows with 315 with excellent form, but it was obvious not too much more. As he got bigger, he got stronger: 495lb x 10 in The Unbelieveable. That is incredible. If suckmymuscles posts are anything to go by, Kovacs could do even more: 528lb for 8, I think. Kovacs was bigger than Ronnie. Would you expect then, someone bigger and more muscular than even him, to lift more? eg. more than 528lb for 8. Yes! I would. All the biggest animals are the strongest[overall strength, and not how agile or dexterous they are]. Can there be people who look relatively less impressive or not as big, but lift a big weight? Yes!
I think it's a combination of strength, training like a bodybuilder, genetics—definitely, and not being a fat mother-fucker!
-
VINCE IF YOU WANT RESPECT YOU HAVEE TO DISPLAY SOME KIND OF KNOWLEDGE THAT ISNT BASED OFF SPECULATION ALONE.
YOU NEED T LEARN THE BIO MECHANICS AND CELLULAR LEVEL RESPONCE TO WEIGHT TRAINING
THIS IS ALL OUT THERE FR YOU TO LEARN
YET YOU ACT LIKE YOU MUST THEORIZE ON WHAT MAKES "HYPERTROPHY" OCCUR
THERE NEED BE NO THEORIES
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE SCIENCE IS OUT THERE FREE FOR THE TAKING
-
i know to many so called Training-experts who never made it in the Gym......
-
Candidizzle is a student of hypertrophy but fails to grasp the importance of the philosophy of science. Is there such as thing as the philosophy of hypertrophy? I haven't read any specific such discipline but surely there must be one if there are competing theories to account for the phenomena that need to be explained in exercise science.
As long as I can remember, bodybuilders always had theories that guided their training. What trainees found was that bodies and muscles, specifically, adapted to lifestyles and exercise regimes. Why does this happen? Well, that is probably a long, detailed story. The evolutionary thinkers can jump in here and make suggestions about what might have happened that helped us survive as a species. I use thought experiments to conjecture about what might have happened. Here is one example.
Suppose a primitive human was out hunting for prey some 500,000 years ago. Suppose that individual got into a life and death struggle but was unable to snag the prey. The hunter went to bed hungry and weary that night and in the morning would have been totally exhausted and sore as heck from the struggle the previous day. Could our survivor use his muscles yet again to help him catch prey and therefore survive? Well, if he couldn't then we as humans probably wouldn't be here today. I don't think it is clear why we get sore from exceptional feats or activities but we do. That soreness can be extreme the following days and it is as if the body is telling us to take it easy. Well, can we make a life or death sustained exertion with really sore muscles? I know the answer and our survival depends on it. Should we train again before a muscle has recovered and is no longer sore?
There is another way we can use conjecture to analyze phenomenon. Suppose we look at lifestyle and see what kind of physiques result in populations who do various things. If we look at paintings of ancient people we find that gastrocnemius muscles were well developed in soldiers and even common people. Unless artists exaggerated what they saw then we can conclude that carrying loads and walking a long way and doing this all the time will result in large muscles. Would we find that obese people have large gastrocnemius muscles? Do the women who carry heavy loads on their heads also develop large calf muscles? If not, then why not?
If we examine people who do really hard physical work do we find that they have large muscles? I suppose some of the hardest working laborers are bricklayer's helpers. They mix concrete and deliver materials to more than one bricklayer. They do a lot of lifting and keep it up for most of their working day. Do we find that they are muscular? Yes, of course, but an interesting thing is they aren't that big. So the muscular size of populations is related both to lifestyle and demands made on the muscles. Unless laborers continually increased the loads they were lifting then an optimum size would occur and no extra mass need be there. The student of hypertrophy will know that muscles can adapt to daily stresses and do not need rest days to grow. Does that mean bodybuilders should train muscles daily? Should athletes train every day? What about swimmers?
It should be clear that speculating on such things is not very fruitful for the student of hypertrophy. Would the laboratories of scientists be preferred? Candidizzle is convinced that all the knowledge that is required is there in the literature of exercise science. Does this mean the scientists have studied large muscled champions and know everything about their muscles? Well, there is a problem there because few if any studies have been done on Mr Olympia champions or even Mr Universes. One of the peculiar things about academia is that there is a bias about brawn. It is okay to make inquiries into strength but no one seems interested in why muscles hypertrophy and keep growing like what happens to bodybuilders. You would think this would be something that should be explained already. Surely we know whether those huge muscles are explained by hypertrophy or hyperplasia or perhaps both? Surely we know the exact composition of the champions from fibers right down to molecules?
Perhaps we cannot do invasive studies on living adults to see what their muscles are composed of. It would be an easy matter to do studies on rats, cats and even fowl to tell us what we want to know. Then it is a simple matter to extrapolate those results and, voila, we comprehend human maximum hypertrophy.
One of the undeniable things about the science is that it is very interesting when perusing the animal studies. What exactly can we make of the studies of Antonio and others re those fowl? Surely the hypertrophy seen was amazing. Can humans duplicate what the fowl achieved? What of Gonyea's favourite cat? Did she explain satellite cell hyperplasia or not? Is the size of limb muscles in rats anything near what is achievable in humans?
What do the scientists tell us about using various chemicals to promote muscle growth? Is there everything we need to know if we want to go down that path? Surely all the details of hypertrophying muscles are textbook entries in undergraduate exercise physiology? No student of hypertrophy would need to consult muscle gurus who prescribe formulae for success in bodybuilding.
-
lol. you are so pretentious its funny.
vince basile = Gandhi+Jesus+mlkjr+ Buddha + Einstein
i salute you oh great one
-
Candidizzle is a student of hypertrophy but fails to grasp the importance of the philosophy of science. Is there such as thing as the philosophy of hypertrophy? I haven't read any specific such discipline but surely there must be one if there are competing theories to account for the phenomena that need to be explained in exercise science.
As long as I can remember, bodybuilders always had theories that guided their training. What trainees found was that bodies and muscles, specifically, adapted to lifestyles and exercise regimes. Why does this happen? Well, that is probably a long, detailed story. The evolutionary thinkers can jump in here and make suggestions about what might have happened that helped us survive as a species. I use thought experiments to conjecture about what might have happened. Here is one example.
Suppose a primitive human was out hunting for prey some 500,000 years ago. Suppose that individual got into a life and death struggle but was unable to snag the prey. The hunter went to bed hungry and weary that night and in the morning would have been totally exhausted and sore as heck from the struggle the previous day. Could our survivor use his muscles yet again to help him catch prey and therefore survive? Well, if he couldn't then we as humans probably wouldn't be here today. I don't think it is clear why we get sore from exceptional feats or activities but we do. That soreness can be extreme the following days and it is as if the body is telling us to take it easy. Well, can we make a life or death sustained exertion with really sore muscles? I know the answer and our survival depends on it. Should we train again before a muscle has recovered and is no longer sore?
There is another way we can use conjecture to analyze phenomenon. Suppose we look at lifestyle and see what kind of physiques result in populations who do various things. If we look at paintings of ancient people we find that gastrocnemius muscles were well developed in soldiers and even common people. Unless artists exaggerated what they saw then we can conclude that carrying loads and walking a long way and doing this all the time will result in large muscles. Would we find that obese people have large gastrocnemius muscles? Do the women who carry heavy loads on their heads also develop large calf muscles? If not, then why not?
If we examine people who do really hard physical work do we find that they have large muscles? I suppose some of the hardest working laborers are bricklayer's helpers. They mix concrete and deliver materials to more than one bricklayer. They do a lot of lifting and keep it up for most of their working day. Do we find that they are muscular? Yes, of course, but an interesting thing is they aren't that big. So the muscular size of populations is related both to lifestyle and demands made on the muscles. Unless laborers continually increased the loads they were lifting then an optimum size would occur and no extra mass need be there. The student of hypertrophy will know that muscles can adapt to daily stresses and do not need rest days to grow. Does that mean bodybuilders should train muscles daily? Should athletes train every day? What about swimmers?
It should be clear that speculating on such things is not very fruitful for the student of hypertrophy. Would the laboratories of scientists be preferred? Candidizzle is convinced that all the knowledge that is required is there in the literature of exercise science. Does this mean the scientists have studied large muscled champions and know everything about their muscles? Well, there is a problem there because few if any studies have been done on Mr Olympia champions or even Mr Universes. One of the peculiar things about academia is that there is a bias about brawn. It is okay to make inquiries into strength but no one seems interested in why muscles hypertrophy and keep growing like what happens to bodybuilders. You would think this would be something that should be explained already. Surely we know whether those huge muscles are explained by hypertrophy or hyperplasia or perhaps both? Surely we know the exact composition of the champions from fibers right down to molecules?
Perhaps we cannot do invasive studies on living adults to see what their muscles are composed of. It would be an easy matter to do studies on rats, cats and even fowl to tell us what we want to know. Then it is a simple matter to extrapolate those results and, voila, we comprehend human maximum hypertrophy.
One of the undeniable things about the science is that it is very interesting when perusing the animal studies. What exactly can we make of the studies of Antonio and others re those fowl? Surely the hypertrophy seen was amazing. Can humans duplicate what the fowl achieved? What of Gonyea's favourite cat? Did she explain satellite cell hyperplasia or not? Is the size of limb muscles in rats anything near what is achievable in humans?
What do the scientists tell us about using various chemicals to promote muscle growth? Is there everything we need to know if we want to go down that path? Surely all the details of hypertrophying muscles are textbook entries in undergraduate exercise physiology? No student of hypertrophy would need to consult muscle gurus who prescribe formulae for success in bodybuilding.
Why are these posts so long? :P
Who's reading these?
-
Why are these posts so long? :P
Who's reading these?
No one... That's the point.
-
I thought this was the positive board. No insults or name calling though I think adjectives like "hapless" is acceptable as it describes more of a condition like "clueless," "luckless," "ignorant." But personal insults and name calling should be reserve for the G&O board.
Vince, I wish I could train at your gym. Some of the equipment pics you post on IA makes me salivate.
I wish I caught this thread earlier so I can respond to each of your posts so excuse the randomness. I do think there is only one correct theory of muscle hypertrophy. I know, I know, we are all different but only in specifics. Biologically, physiologically we are identical. Heart, lungs, need oxygen, protein, carbohydrates.... If you have a bacterial infection you need an antibiotic. I happen to be allergic to penicillin but can take tetracycline. General principles the same: antibiotic. Specific varies from individual to individual.
Frequency, duration and intensity as far as I know are the only three variables vis-a-vis training protocols. These will vary from individual to individual and even among yourself as condition changes daily, i.e., stress, amount of rest, nutrition.... Finding the proper dosage is the rub.
Nutrition supplements are not needed but they make things easier. When I was a teen I just couldn't keep weight simply by eating. Also, I didn't have the time. But I could always pound a weight gain shake between meals and even after meals when I couldn't take another bite of solid food I could still drink. Vitamins are not necessary if you eat a varied diet. I don't. A multi insures, I believe, that I'm getting some of everything -- or at least more than I would from eating. I can never be sure if my boron or manganese intake is up to snuff.
Sure, construction workers movers and brick layers are usually stronger than the average bear. But it's not because of the work they do. If one of your gifts are physical strength then you are more likely to do things that take advantage of that predisposition. Dr. Doug McDuff termed this genetic selection. A guy built like Woody Allen ain't going to move your piano. It's like saying playing basketball makes you taller.
Your body doesn't like muscle beyond normal levels, meaning what it needs to do whatever it is it does. It likes fat. From your body's perspective fat is stored energy and a good thing. I think most, if not all of us, have an unlimited capacity to store fat naturally. Not so with muscle. Even at rest muscle requires continuous metabolic suppport: blood supply, oxygen, nutrients, etc. Your heart and lungs are organs that don't change that much with exercise. They get more efficient but there's point of diminishing returns. Give it the slightest reason and your body will shed muscle. When your leg is in a cast you don't lose fat. Atrophy takes place at a rapid rate. I think one of the health problems bodybuilders face is not steroids per se but just being so big. It's a tremendous strain on your cardiovascular system carrying an extra 70 pounds of muscle.
I started training with weights when I was twelve. But did pushups, pullups and even tied a belt around my Tonka trunk and did curls. I wanted to be a fighter and wanted to be strong. I wanted to be Bruce Lee when I was a tot and thought he was huge and muscular. Not because of low self-esteem as you contend why anybody goes into bodybuilding but because I was inspired. I saw that and said, "Crap, I want to do that! I want to be like that!"
I've tried every training protocol that I can think of. I'm sure I'm missing something. But I wasn't finding, or didn't know where to look, for alternatives. I want to kick butt now. I don't have unlimited time. Anabolic steroids work. My first cycle was 3 dbols and day and I felt it.
Athletes are a pragmatic lot. They don't have either the time or desire to be a research scientist. When they find something that works they jump on it. Every high level athlete in a sport that requires strength uses chemical enhancement. No matter how good you get without them you can always get better with them and most want to see how far they can go.
I think it was OK that you went to Lee Priest's grandfather's funeral. I don't know why people give you a hard time about that. Unless a family specifically request a private ceremony you do them honor by attending. I watched Bruce Lee's funeral on PBS and I bet 98% of them attending were not invited. They went anyway to honor him. To have so many people attend my own funeral service would please me. In a sense even more so if I didn't know them personally because somehow I had touched their lives without ever even meeting them. I would be pleased and honored if you attended my funeral even if you shake your head in regret and bemoan that the misguided, confused and hapless Pellius should die without grasping your wisdom. I have my limits. Both physically and intellectually.
I know some will say you only went to the funeral to be in Lee Priest's aura. Perhaps so. But I've learned to not try to judged motives as much as to judge behavior. Motives I can never be sure of. Concrete behavior is, well, concrete. I prefer someone do good for selfish reasons then to do bad with good intentions. I also find that people tend to judge their own motives very generously and others more critically.
I wish I could sit down at your gym and discuss various issues with you. Also to soak in your stories and experiences. If for no other reason than that you are probably one of the few who have the attention span to have read this far without dozing off.
Eternally hapless,
Pellius
-
Pellius contributes in style and elevates the thread.
About the funeral I went to. Funerals are for the living and not the dead. Thus, I went to support Lee. Being a Mr Canada made me feel that Lee and I have won national titles and have that bond and there is no need for anything else. A couple of guys from my gym know Lee personally and I represented them, too. A pity they couldn't attend but they didn't know where it was, etc. Thanks to the internet I found out all I needed to know. I took photos, too, and Lee personally thanked me for being there and for taking the photos. The flotsam on the G&O forum love to stir me so have to dig pretty low to do so. Lee told me his grandfather, Owen, would have been proud to have strangers there. The guy was friendly and was quite the man. Lee really missed being in Australia and was absent for way too many years because he had to stay in the US for over 7 years to gain his green card. Lee told me he might be moving back to Australia so we will see what he does.
This thread was moved from the G & O forum at my request because I won't debate dickheads there on serious matters. Perhaps one of the moderators here can clean it up a bit. I have had jerks impersonate me on other forums and I find that sort of behaviour rather infantile. Thus, the reference to the feeder site was not me there but an impostor who was banned immediately for posting rubbish.
-
Theory of Hypertrophy=good genetics, lift hard, eat, rest, repeat..key is good genetics.
-
Pellius makes several statements that I would bet are shared by just about everyone who lifts weights seriously.
Do we need supplements? Well, I would bet that we do not. Not even extra vitamins. I remember how an English academic at UBC, Lionel Pugh, challenged me about vitamins. I told him I took B and C and he told me the sewers of Vancouver were coated in vitamins. That made me pay more attention to studies and not muscle magazines. Truth be told, muscle mags are still peddling supplements and more today than in the past.
You see, folks, you don't take my word for supplements but look at the professional nutrition literature. That is the only source of excellent and up to date information that approaches knowledge about what good nutrition is. A decent textbook for graduate students is usually at least 3 inches thick and containing extensive bibliography at the end of each chapter. The only shortcoming of those texts is the paucity of information concerning advanced bodybuilding. That doesn't mean you should extrapolate and just double or triple the recommended daily requirements for vitamins, minerals and things like protein.
I have witnessed the logic of taking extra just in case. The main worry should be getting a balanced diet and not specific supplements. It is my conjecture that no supplements are required for rapid, sustained muscular growth. If one knows enough about nutrition there will be no necessity to ingest extra chemicals. Do some of the supplements work as advertised? Well, the only thing I know for sure re those supplements is they cost a lot of money and bodybuilders should do the minimum and not the maximum when it comes to nutrition. Why believe you need so much protein to build muscle? I haven't seen the requirement in the literature. Is it any wonder, then, that academics still regard bodybuilders as mostly brawn?
More tomorrow.
-
vince, are you familiar with the term "rate of digestion" and how it applies to various types of protein ?
surely you are not.
leanr about it. then youll realize that SOME supplements can be very beneficial. :D
-
Theory of Hypertrophy=good genetics, lift hard, eat, rest, repeat..key is good genetics.
Yes, this idea is up there with 'do what works for you'. The problem here is most of us have absolutely no idea what our genetic potential for building muscle is. How would anyone know what his genetic potential is?
My example of suspect genetics is Larry Scott. The guy is narrow and quite ordinary if you see him walking around. However, even in his late 60s his arms are still quite large and impressive. What people underestimated about Larry was his high intelligence and extreme motivation that saw him forge new ways to get bigger and bigger. He was almost a god when he won the first Mr Olympia in 1965. I was in York Pa at the time trying to get a job with York. In those days Joe was seen as the bad guy who exaggerated stuff and claimed to be the trainer of champions. I would say that Larry clearly transcended any genetic potential anyone in those would have given the Mr Idaho who showed up at Vince's Gym in Studio City in the early sixties. Gironda wasn't impressed at all and after Larry told him he had just won the Mr Idaho contest Vince replied, "So what!" Ah, the good old days in the Irongame.
The point is we don't know what our potential is for growing muscles. Oh, we might have a notion about it after blasting away for about 5 or 10 years. We never know if it was our lack of potential or maybe we just didn't train right. Today there is also those blasted drugs and this is another factor in the quest for size. Everyone has another excuse for not getting really big.
-
this is the positive board, vince. if you cant refrain from resorting to personal attacks you can leave.
if all you want to know is whats necessary, you must define necessary.
-
Vince, I am new to this site but I have scoured the forums for years. I say this with the most sincerity, good sir. Shut the fuck up already.
Love, Dustin.
;D keep it positive
-
;D keep it positive
lol I didn't realize I was in here until after I posted... ah well, I sent him my love :D
He's just annoying as hell. Keyboard warrior if you will. Ramble, ramble, holier than thou, elitist this, bogus theory with no credibility that.... it's extremely annoying. Can you block people on this site because I don't want to even see Vince's username on my screen anymore.
-
lol I didn't realize I was in here until after I posted... ah well, I sent him my love :D
He's just annoying as hell. Keyboard warrior if you will. Ramble, ramble, holier than thou, elitist this, bogus theory with no credibility that.... it's extremely annoying. Can you block people on this site because I don't want to even see Vince's username on my screen anymore.
i wish
-
Again, I don't think you need vitamin supplements provided you eat a well balanced diet. I, like most, don't. The answer is that we should but I just don't have the time to shop and cook or for that matter even the knowledge to what the nutritional value all foods have. I know some, but not enough. My belief is that you need vitamins but getting more than necessary, or high dose vitamins, won't make you super man. Vitamins are just micronutrients in food. Getting more than necessary won't help just like eating more than you need will make you fat. But if you are deficient in a vitamin you won't really know for sure by just how you feel but it will manifest itself somehow. Say, you are deficient in calcium; you won't know until years later when your bones become brittle. Say, you're deficient in the B-vitamins. You will feel sluggish and lethargic. You'll live and continue with your day to day activities -- even training -- but you won't be a optimum health. It was discovered that many track athletes, by virtue of their training, we're not getting enough magnesium. Magnesium supplements improved their performance. Personally, high dose fish oil has made a quantitative difference in how I feel. I've had surgeries to both knees and both shoulders. When a Dr. suggested Omega 3 fish oils it did wonders for my joints and general inflammation and stiffness. Of course, I could get the same effect by eating salmon 3 times a week but it's easier for me to pop the gel caps.
Supplements, are just that. Supplements. They are a convenient and easy way to get the micro and macro nutrients whether in the form of a muti-vitamin or a meal replacement shake. With multis I just look at it as cheap insurance.
For those who don't like reading Vince's post or even the sight of his name offends your tender sensibilities, Ron, as far as I know, has a policy that it is left to your discretion as to which post you choose to read. All participation and even non participation is optional.
-
Well, if I can debate this with Pellius this will be sufficient. I am up against some resistance because the false beliefs are held as if they are facts. Some learning in bodybuilding and nutrition can be dangerous.
Let me tell you a story about a German bloke who used to hang around English Bay in Vancouver in the sixties. That was my beach and what a setting it is. There are lots of high rise apartments there and the beach really is a meeting place for lots of people. In those days you could park nearby but today you have to pay to park there. Times don't always change for the better.
Well, this German was into being healthy and subscribed to the notion that we all needed extra vitamins. He swore he loved carrot juice and that it was doing wonderful things for his health. I warned him that he was ingesting too much vitamin A and this vitamin stores in the body. He just kept drinking up to 2 litres of this 'magic elixir' every day! One day he disappeared and many days later he told us he had to go to the hospital because he got sick from the vitamin A. He didn't need any extra vitamins but no one could tell him that.
Pellius argues that he needs extra vitamins and if he is deficient in some he suffers in various ways. Well, what is the test of truth that this is so? I haven't read anything he wrote that supports his conjecture.
In Australia there is an ad for vitamins that is plainly misleading. The ad asks if people feel 100%. If they don't feel 100% then they might need vitamins! What a load of rubbish. How would anyone know if they feel 100%? Again, this is just plain bullshit and gullible people can be persuaded to buy things they don't need. These same people might be convinced they need to cleanse their systems from time to time.
Pellius claims he doesn't have the time to eat properly so he supplements his diet with vitamins and minerals. All he is doing is wasting his money. If he is a student of nutrition he should be able to buy the basic foods that will provide what he needs. There is no NECESSITY to take supplements. The simple test is to not take those supplements and see what happens. Pellius probably can't do this because he fears long term damage if he doesn't get the essential nutrients. Well, if he doesn't know which foods to eat then I can't help him.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamina.asp
-
Pellius wrote:
I've tried every training protocol that I can think of. I'm sure I'm missing something. But I wasn't finding, or didn't know where to look, for alternatives. I want to kick butt now. I don't have unlimited time. Anabolic steroids work. My first cycle was 3 dbols and day and I felt it.
Athletes are a pragmatic lot. They don't have either the time or desire to be a research scientist. When they find something that works they jump on it. Every high level athlete in a sport that requires strength uses chemical enhancement. No matter how good you get without them you can always get better with them and most want to see how far they can go.
Do strength athletes always need to use steroids to keep their strength? I can't understand why someone who is 6 feet tall and under 190 would believe he needs steroids. That is unlikely in the extreme. What probably happened in Pellius' case is he came to believe he needed more drugs because the Dianabol was no longer working. Eventually he came to embrace the nonsense believed by the drug gurus that post on the internet. Too many people fool around and mess up their systems instead of using natural processes to get the results they want. There is no necessity for anyone to use loads of drugs to get bigger and stronger. If you are well over 40 and believe this then it will be almost impossible to dislodge those beliefs. Such people will probably take those false beliefs to their graves. A sensible person tries to get rid of falsehoods that they accept. This is not so easy because the literature re the drugs many take is not helpful. That doesn't mean you listen to drug gurus in gyms and on the internet. That is just plain crazy. Why abandon the scientific process just to justify foolish behaviour? 187 pounds is hardly evidence that the drugs even work. Experimenting with more and more drugs is evidence that all logic and reason have been abandoned.
-
What probably happened in Pellius' case is he came to believe he needed more drugs because the Dianabol was no longer working.
vince steroids do not stop working. thats completely false.
-
I am not going to debate steroids with anyone on Getbig. Period. I maintain that one can get big without any help from drugs or supplements. Nothing posted here has changed my mind one bit.
-
OK, I just noticed this thread is on The Positive Board now.............
be-f'ing-have. ;)
As of "Todays" posts........this thread will be controlled by The Positive Board mods.
I'm not going to go back and clean it up, if another mod wants to, that's up to them.
-
I am not going to debate steroids with anyone on Getbig. Period. I maintain that one can get big without any help from drugs or supplements. Nothing posted here has changed my mind one bit.
theres nothing to debate on that point, vince. seroids do not quit working. in fact, the longer your on them the better they work. its one of the few exceptions to the rule of "down regulation" in the body. in fact the reaction is quite the opposite.
-
OK, I just noticed this thread is on The Positive Board now.............
be-f'ing-have. ;)
As of "Todays" posts........this thread will be controlled by The Positive Board mods.
I'm not going to go back and clean it up, if another mod wants to, that's up to them.
I'll step up and apologize for the sailor talk and insults lol, I'll save it for the other forums. :D
But as for all this nonsense... that's all it is - nonsense. A brother don't know nuthin' bout steroids.
-
theres nothing to debate on that point, vince. seroids do not quit working. in fact, the longer your on them the better they work. its one of the few exceptions to the rule of "down regulation" in the body. in fact the reaction is quite the opposite.
So you don't believe in the whole "receptor burnout" theory?
-
So you don't believe in the whole "receptor burnout" theory?
not at all, thats pure balogna ! every study and every reputable endocrinologist and every hournal of endocrinology and all real world experiences all strongly disagree with that.
andorgen receptors never stop working. and increasing the number of androgenss upregulates AR densiity. as well as the fact that the higher the androgens the more active your satellite cells become, the more blood volume you get, the more lipolysis you get, better glusoe metabolism and glycolysis, more gh (igf-1), less shgb,.... and the more you add and the longer you keep your levels eevated the more all of these effects become pronounced.
:)
-
not at all, thats pure balogna ! every study and every reputable endocrinologist and every hournal of endocrinology and all real world experiences all strongly disagree with that.
andorgen receptors never stop working. and increasing the number of androgenss upregulates AR densiity. as well as the fact that the higher the androgens the more active your satellite cells become, the more blood volume you get, the more lipolysis you get, better glusoe metabolism and glycolysis, more gh (igf-1), less shgb,.... and the more you add and the longer you keep your levels eevated the more all of these effects become pronounced.
:)
What is the cause of Palumboism? Shrinking arms/legs, discolored skin, abnormally large midsection, mishaped muscles.........you know the drill?
-
i can only speculate
but, if i was to speculate
i would say a combonation of poor genetics+ mega doses of steroids + mega doses of GH
but of course, thats the common speculation
as for the physioloigical explanation?
i couldnt even begin to speculate
-
i can only speculate
but, if i was to speculate
i would say a combonation of poor genetics+ mega doses of steroids + mega doses of GH
but of course, thats the common speculation
as for the physioloigical explanation?
i couldnt even begin to speculate
Several bbers looked good early in their careers, only to fall victim later. I don't think it is genetic.
Why would a bber who has a good physique go to mega doses? In order to get bigger, right? Could that be receptor overload? Too much, too fast?
-
you cant over load an androgen receptor.
what might happen is high dose aas gets converted to too much estrogen or too much dht which results in some fucked up side effects.
-
The dogma and beliefs are well established in the minds of many on this forum. Some make definitive statements about physical processes as if they are world authorities on the subject. We are unlikely to have world scientific authorities on a bodybuilding forum. The curious thing is the scientists don't seem to have a forum where they debate steroids and hypertrophy.
I used to wonder if scientists could come up with ways to shortcut the growth process. So far, only the drug 'doctors' have done that. I say no thanks to the drug path. Too many side effects to make that attractive.
-
The dogma and beliefs are well established in the minds of many on this forum. Some make definitive statements about physical processes as if they are world authorities on the subject. We are unlikely to have world scientific authorities on a bodybuilding forum. The curious thing is the scientists don't seem to have a forum where they debate steroids and hypertrophy.
I used to wonder if scientists could come up with ways to shortcut the growth process. So far, only the drug 'doctors' have done that. I say no thanks to the drug path. Too many side effects to make that attractive.
Did you use steroids to become Mr Canada 1970?
Not a flame, a serious question.
-
I started training in February, 1959. About March 1970 I started using 2 Dianabol tablets a day. Did that for about 6 weeks then went off the drugs. Worried about losing too much size so resumed just before the contest which was at the end of May that year. I have used Dianabol a couple more times after that with mild gains. Today I am confident I would exceed any gains I made using Dianabol.
-
I started training in February, 1959. About March 1970 I started using 2 Dianabol tablets a day. Did that for about 6 weeks then went off the drugs. Worried about losing too much size so resumed just before the contest which was at the end of May that year. I have used Dianabol a couple more times after that with mild gains. Today I am confident I would exceed any gains I made using Dianabol.
How tall are you?
You look good, not overly bloated or unhealthy looking.
-
I am 5 - 9 1/2. About average. I grew two inches when I was 18. Never had good nutrition at home but did when I went to a military college in St Jean Quebec on an officer training plan.
I don't have the cuts that are expected, today, either. I thought I looked fairly big at 210 pounds two weeks out from that contest. I was about 190 at the Mr Canada show in 1970. Luckily it was in Vancouver and not back east where all the big guys lived!
-
I am 5 - 9 1/2. About average. I grew two inches when I was 18. Never had good nutrition at home but did when I went to a military college in St Jean Quebec on an officer training plan.
I don't have the cuts that are expected, today, either. I thought I looked fairly big at 210 pounds two weeks out from that contest. I was about 190 at the Mr Canada show in 1970. Luckily it was in Vancouver and not back east where all the big guys lived!
All Dball
-
I started training in February, 1959. About March 1970 I started using 2 Dianabol tablets a day. Did that for about 6 weeks then went off the drugs. Worried about losing too much size so resumed just before the contest which was at the end of May that year. I have used Dianabol a couple more times after that with mild gains. Today I am confident I would exceed any gains I made using Dianabol.
Looking great.
-
The dogma and beliefs are well established in the minds of many on this forum. Some make definitive statements about physical processes as if they are world authorities on the subject. We are unlikely to have world scientific authorities on a bodybuilding forum. The curious thing is the scientists don't seem to have a forum where they debate steroids and hypertrophy.
I used to wonder if scientists could come up with ways to shortcut the growth process. So far, only the drug 'doctors' have done that. I say no thanks to the drug path. Too many side effects to make that attractive.
vince i pray to you at night and worship in the direction of canada 4 times a day
-
When I won Mr Canada I wrote that I wanted to beat Frank Zane in a contest. When Frank came to my penthouse in 1979 he told me I don't have to visit Disneyland because I have been in Fantasyland all my life. When I look at my photo from that contest I felt I could have done well had I continued with my training. However, I was unwilling to do the drugs like Decadurabolin that the champions back then were using. I can tell you that if I had been training with guys like Zane I would have been motivated and who knows what I could have done. Anyway, those days are gone so it is all just conjecture. I do know that if I knew what I know now I could have given those guys a good go. Not Arnold and Sergio who were from another planet. Imagine growing up when those guys appeared. I can remember going to a gym and then seeing the latest photo of Sergio and going straight home because I thought what was the point. I would never approach the level of that giant and few since have, either.
-
Candid, no need to light any candles for me in your church. Just keep reading the literature and you might be able to apply all that information and build a decent physique. If you fail you can be a personal trainer extraordinaire.
I hope this helps.
-
Vince,
How much of your bodyweight gains do you attribute to steroids in 1970? You commented that you were worried about losing size when off them. Just curious.
The physique you had for Mr Canada was rock solid, btw.
-
Vince, there are so many issues that you bring up that I would like to discuss and debate with you but I have noticed a trend where you do not address the point or counterpoint being made. It seems as if you just hear what you expect to hear and continue on rebutting an opinion or point of view that was not made.
You do that to Candi and others that choose to engage. To give a specific example in my case: In my first post on this thread I randomly tried to address issues brought up and I admit since I came into the fray late it was meandering and my language was less than precise. Still, I believe my points were clear. On the subject of nutritional supplements and vitamins I stated at various points in my thread:
"Nutrition supplements are not needed but they make things easier."
"Vitamins are not necessary if you eat a varied diet."
In my second post I began my first sentence with the much more emphatic declaration:
"Again, I don't think you need vitamin supplements provided you eat a well balanced diet."
I then elaborated a bit further by saying:
"My belief is that you need vitamins but getting more than necessary, or high dose vitamins, won't make you super man."
Now, I would have thought that when I say you need vitamins in the above statement that it was implicit that they can come solely from food sources. Perhaps I need to spell everything out with ponderous detail. Still, the point was clear that I don't believe in getting extra vitamins.
Now I would think that any reasonable person would think that my stance on vitamins were made abundantly clear. Yet, in response, you blithely reply:
"Pellius argues that he needs extra vitamins...."
Please address this. It would seem impossible to have any meaningful discussion when one just hears what they want to hear.
You seem to think, and have broadly declared, that everyone here has already made up their minds. Their dogmatism is beyond redemption. You are here fighting a battle already lost but your courage and spirit compells you to fight the good fight.
Methinks, my Aussie friend, doth protest too much. Doth indeed.
-
Pellius, the issue is whether an aspiring bodybuilder needs supplements such as vitamins and minerals. To that I say they are not necessary and what you wrote above agrees with my view. It is another matter whether Pellius, who might not be living the ideal life re meals, etc., is getting enough nutrients. Your point is that if you suspect your diet is inadequate then you take the supplements. My view is still a bit controversial because I would claim you might not be missing anything important. Again, what is the test of whether you are getting all you need via what you eat? That is probably difficult to determine. If you are well read in nutrition then you might have a good idea of any inadequacies. What I have seen with bodybuilders is they absorb all manner of information that really isn't solid. For example, they will believe they need various nutrients in specific amounts when there is no universal support for those levels. I cite protein here and that continues to be a controversial subject and quite an expensive nutrient to buy. The supplement companies churn out volumes of information re what bodybuilders need but where is the support for their claims? There isn't much in the literature at all. Oh, if you dig around you can find some studies that support supplementation. I am not arguing that supplements don't assist bodybuilders. I am arguing that they are probably not necessary.
I think there is another issue here. Bodybuilders seems to want to do whatever is optimum re building muscles. Thus, whatever might enhance and support building muscles is embraced by musclemen.
I well remember my mate Dave Tremblay having those same concerns. He would visit my home and when invited to stay for dinner would decline and produce cannisters of foul smelling powders that were supposed to be good for him. He ended up having skin problems and not that much muscle size. I met Dave years later in Vancouver when he owned a gym. I was surprised to see that he was now a vegetarian and his skin problems had improved. Well, sometimes ageing improves the skin. However, his diet was vastly different and we laughed about the amount of protein he used to ingest. Plus, he was taking supplements like Brewer's yeast in large amounts. He would stir a dozen eggs in a container and add ingredients and that was a meal. Goodness me, but how did his system handle all those things? The truth is he overloaded his system with too much protein and other nutrients. So, the lesson here is not to saturate your system with nutrients just because you believe they are going to be good for you.
While we are on that subject, let me address the misconception junk food. My claim is there is probably no such thing as junk food. Either something is food and can be used by the body or it is junk and has no nutritional value at all. The only food that comes close to being junk is mushrooms. They have no calories and just a few minerals. This is a good thing to eat if you want to fill yourself up and not ingest too many calories. Hamburgers are foods that could sustain people for quite a while. No one could survive and be healthy if all they ate were French fries. So, it is possible to have a junk diet. That is what people are really talking about when they say things are junk food. It would be possible to set up a McDonald's experiment where people are locked up like the Big Brother show. These hapless subjects would be able to eat only so-called junk food. They would have a gym there and there could be an incentive for the person who gained the most lean mass. Naturally, no drugs or supplements would be allowed. The question is could a bodybuilder eat at McDonald's exclusively and be healthy and gain lean mass? I have no doubt about this at all. That show about Up Size Me or whatever it was called was a sham. The jerk stopped exercising and did everything he could to increase his chances for poor nutrition. Had he selected wiser and continued his activities such as walking he would have not ended up like he did. The amusing thing is that show helped McDonald's because they changed what they offered people re their menus. The bottom line is people have to be informed and then take responsibility for lifestyles and diets.
If Pellius wants to debate me then please be specific in your claims and counter what I post and we can discuss what we don't agree on. It is clear from what he writes that he is an educated person who is informed about bodybuilding and nutrition. Let us discuss those beliefs and ideas that he has.
-
In any discussion or debate I think one of the objectives is not so much winning or losing or convincing one or the other to their way of thinking but simply clarity. To be sure that all concerned is talking about the same thing and all points of view are clearly and rationally presented and stated.
A good example is when people conflate or fail to distinguish between gay and same sex marriage. As Arnold once said, "I support gay marriage as long as it's between a man and a woman."
It seems after all that we are not that far apart in regard to nutritional supplements.
It does please me greatly that in regard to junk food we are kindred spirits. I often find myself a lone voice in the wilderness (no comparison to pre-WW2 Churchill intended). Junk food, broadly speaking, is often used to describe food that is high in fat. Being in a nation where 2 out of 3 (and growing) people are overweight such calorie dense food is best avoided. But if I were a Sudanese grubbing for UN scraps I'd tend to go for the crisco oil or butter sticks rather than the corn meal. A gram of fat having over twice the caloric value of both protein and carbohydrates would not go unnoticed.
I firmly believe that a bodybuilding trying to put on supra levels of muscle mass needs far more protein than the average Joe who spends more of his free time in front of the idiot box than in the gym. But that in no small part is due to the fact that a growing bodybuilder simply needs far more calories period. So that applies to carbohydrates and fats as well. The ideal macro nutrient profile of those increased levels of calories is a subject for a different debate.
I do want to make mention that in 1998 I was diagnosed as bordering on anemia. Iron supplements and B12 shots quickly cleared up the problem. I still take supplemental sublingual B12 tablets (methyl version only) as a form of cheap insurance. Which reminds me of something: I spoke to a very amiable chap from Australia who had a substantial GNC bag stuffed with supplements. We got to talking and he complained about how expensive vitamins and such are in his country. That seems to be one of your issues with supplements. Needless and unnecessary cost. The multi-vit I take is $14.00 for a 100 tabs. They recommend two tabs a day but I only take one. This is over a 3 month supply for $14.00 which, even for someone with my modest means, is also a form of cheap insurance.
I do want to address your ideas on resistance training for the purposes of increasing size, strength and functional ability.
-
Pellius, can we agree on the test for deciding whether we need to supplement our diets or not? Sometimes people get problems digesting food and therefore can have deficiencies. So that is always something to look out for.
However, what is the test for determining how much protein we need? I think Mike Mentzer and Arthur Jones argued that bodybuilders typically ate 2 to 4 times as much protein that they actually needed for any growth. I doubt trial and error is sufficient here because taking way more than is needed proves only sufficiency and not necessity. Scientific tests done on pro bodybuilders is what is needed but we are unlikely to have any such thing because I know of no scientist who is in the slightest interested in that subject. The few that might be interested would probably lose interest because of the drugs those bodybuilders use.
I don't subscribe to high levels of protein. Perhaps 50 grams a day is more than adequate as long as the proteins are the right kind. Science and not gym lore should decide the issue.
One question remains. Is there any argument that anyone can put to you such that you will abandon the notion that you require drugs to assist your quest for strength and size? From what I have read it seems clear that you have been on a plateau for a very long time and those drugs are used merely to maintain what you have. That seems a high price to pay for the meagre results you are getting.
-
science and studies show that aroun 2.5 grams per kilogram of bodyweight is optimum protein intake. thats what the science says, not "gym lore". 50 grams per day is insufficient for a non training sedentary grandmother.
-
science and studies show that aroun 2.5 grams per kilogram of bodyweight is optimum protein intake. thats what the science says, not "gym lore". 50 grams per day is insufficient for a non training sedentary grandmother.
When protein intake is insufficient what happens exactly?
-
well, if protein intake is just suboptimal, then the repercussion would be sub optimal pace of growth. if protein intake is INSUFFICIENT, the the repercussion is going to be loss of muscle.
-
science and studies show that aroun 2.5 grams per kilogram of bodyweight is optimum protein intake. thats what the science says, not "gym lore". 50 grams per day is insufficient for a non training sedentary grandmother.
Exactly. If some hippy-looking dude comes up to you with his swole 120lb frame and scraggly hair, telling you that you only need to get 50g of protein a day regardless if you're a bodybuilder... do not heed his advice ;)
If you don't consume enough protein then no protein synthesis will occur. When you exercise, depending on what you've eaten prior, you'll probably leach amino acids from your muscles. CATABOLISM!!! Why go to the gym only to vigorously work backwards and reduce the amount of muscle you have? Doesn't sound worthwhile to me.
-
You know, this protein issue is one that should be inspected. I mean, show me anyone on Getbig who is natural and rapidly growing. How much protein synthesis is going on with most of you guys? Answer, just enough to stay the same size. That is the problem in bodybuilding. All this bullshit about protein and supplements when hardly anyone is growing at all. This has to be the dumbest sport in the universe. So many do so much for almost nothing at all.
I still say 50 grams is totally sufficient for the needs of most of the guys posting on Getbig.
-
Pellius, can we agree on the test for deciding whether we need to supplement our diets or not? Sometimes people get problems digesting food and therefore can have deficiencies. So that is always something to look out for.
However, what is the test for determining how much protein we need? I think Mike Mentzer and Arthur Jones argued that bodybuilders typically ate 2 to 4 times as much protein that they actually needed for any growth. I doubt trial and error is sufficient here because taking way more than is needed proves only sufficiency and not necessity. Scientific tests done on pro bodybuilders is what is needed but we are unlikely to have any such thing because I know of no scientist who is in the slightest interested in that subject. The few that might be interested would probably lose interest because of the drugs those bodybuilders use.
I don't subscribe to high levels of protein. Perhaps 50 grams a day is more than adequate as long as the proteins are the right kind. Science and not gym lore should decide the issue.
One question remains. Is there any argument that anyone can put to you such that you will abandon the notion that you require drugs to assist your quest for strength and size? From what I have read it seems clear that you have been on a plateau for a very long time and those drugs are used merely to maintain what you have. That seems a high price to pay for the meagre results you are getting.
Well, the question isn't exactly relavant since I intentionally didn't want to gain weight since I competed in the 187 lb class. I already stated that I'm not a bodybuilder in the sense that is understood on this board. I can say both objectively and subjectively that testosterone and nandrolone made a qualitative difference. At 38 yrs. my test level were on the low side. This was determined by a blood test. After going on HRT they hovered around 750-850 and I felt it in both energy and vitality. Deca helped tremendously with the joints since I've had surgery in both knees (95% of the cartilage had been cut out) and both shoulders (one could not be adequately repaired). Also, recovery was substantial and enabled me to continue with a rigorous training regime.
Since there has been no quest for great muscle size, a non-quest that is clearly evident, I do not think I've ever been mistaken for a competitive bodybuilder. But I will say this without undo immodesty: Judging by the comments I get regularly regarding my appearance and the functional ability I am able to demonstrate, it would not be unreasonable for one to surmise, perhaps generously, that I do bear a vague resemblance to one who is not wholly unacquainted with athletic endeavors.
-
Since there has been no quest for great muscle size, a non-quest that is clearly evident, I do not think I've ever been mistaken for a competitive bodybuilder. But I will say this without undo immodesty: Judging by the comments I get regularly regarding my appearance and the functional ability I am able to demonstrate, it would not be unreasonable for one to surmise, perhaps generously, that I do bear a vague resemblance to one who is not wholly unacquainted with athletic endeavors.
In Getbig jargon that means you look like a swimmer. If you don't want to add size then your participation in this discussion is rather pointless. You might want to review your goals in the martial arts because the toll on your body is rather severe and continuing in competition is going to aggravate those injuries.
-
Hey, Vince do you think if you took two bodybuilders and one ate McDonald's exclusively and the other ate other food, yet they both could rep out with 315-450lb, curl at least the 65s for reps and deadlift at least 550lb, and then dieted down to 5% bodyfat, do you think eating Mcdonald's food would of made any difference? And candizzle, if you were benching 310 pounds for good textbook 10-12 reps, 495 pounds for a couple, yet only consumed 150 grams of protein per day, you think your arms would be 15 inches because of ''insufficient protein''. ;D
I'm sure some will sit here trying to find a modern miracle or some stuff. When those guys diet down down to low body-fat levels, they are still strong because they still have big muscles—about 19.5-20 inch arms for NPC Heavyweights and IFBB guys. The larger fellas—like Ronnie, Dorian, Dillett—slightly bigger still. If they are at "their weakest" it's because they lost a couple pounds of muscle in the process. But it can't be too significant: shit how weak is 455 for 6 on the incline, also 315 to 370lb on behind neck press? ;D
-
In Getbig jargon that means you look like a swimmer. If you don't want to add size then your participation in this discussion is rather pointless. You might want to review your goals in the martial arts because the toll on your body is rather severe and continuing in competition is going to aggravate those injuries.
You are quite right. But as Frank Zane is often described as one with a swimmer physique and when I look at some the the modern day builds of Olympic level swimmers and compare that to the current crop of top bodybuilders I do not consider being put in that class as necessarily a pejorative.
As to my participation in this discussion being pointless because I am not interested in attaining great physical size I'm not sure I understand. As far as I know, based on your previous post on various threads, you yourself don't seem much interested in gaining muscular size or even maintaining any appreciable level of physical conditioning yet it is a subject you have passion for.
And I have slowed down considerably and much more aware of not doing things or over doing things that will injure me. But Helio Gracie, one of the founders of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and who is now in his 90s, still is active and hits the mat regularly. But, of course, nothing lasts forever. Everything is temporary -- even fleeting. But we try to hang on as long as we can. We do so as we are alive.
-
All bodybuilders want to look good. Depends on how much motivation you have to keep doing it as you get older. I swear every year I vow to look good on the beach that year. Ah, procrastination. Nowadays we worry about skin cancer so sit in beach shelter tents and wear protective clothing and hats. No one should underestimate the sun's power if they live below 40 degrees latitude. Sydney is approximately on the same latitude as Atlanta and Los Angeles. About 35 degrees South. You can tan for at least 9 months of the year here. If you live up in Queensland you can get tanned all year long.
I still want to gain more muscular size. At my age it will be an interesting experiment. I have no doubt I can get bigger arms and perhaps calves. Losing bodyfat isn't so easy as you get beyond 50. Wait and see for the young guys who have no idea what is going to happen to them. The injuries are nagging. Sore shoulders that makes doing bench pressing painful. I tore my biceps deadlifting 509 pounds in 1978. Curse that stupid deadlift movement. Arthur Jones was right. Never demonstrate your strength. Don't arm wrestle anyone, either. Tell them you are good at breaking wrists.
You really have to be careful with connective tissue. More on that subject later if anyone is interested. I still shake my head daily when I see novices and advanced guys doing silly exercises. Some are ineffective and some are dangerous. People do them because they see others doing them or they see photos in magazines.
-
What do you think happens to a person as they get over 50 that makes losing body fat harder?
-
At 50 most people slow down. Instead of doing active things most take it easy and if they go to the gym then the workouts usually do not stimulate hypertrophy. The metabolism isn't the same, either. At 25 it is easy to lose fat in a couple of weeks. At 60 good luck. You usually lose muscle when you diet. The interesting thing is that hypertrophy seems easier to obtain. Not sure why this is so. Perhaps the testosterone increases in some men. You will find body hair increasing as you age. Why should hair that never grew all of a sudden start sprouting when you are older? Ears, nose, eyebrows, chest and back fill with hair while the head thins.
Older guys really need to find some motivation to hit the gym. When you have been a bodybuilder for decades you know exactly what you have to do in the gym to grow. Then you know how often you have to train and the combination can demotivate anyone. If you can't sustain the workouts there is no point doing hypertrophy training. Most older people do not bodybuild and almost no older women do. Somehow, somewhere that motivation has to be found otherwise it just is not worth all that effort.
-
theres nothing to debate on that point, vince. seroids do not quit working. in fact, the longer your on them the better they work. its one of the few exceptions to the rule of "down regulation" in the body. in fact the reaction is quite the opposite.
thats ttoally true my fiend,,,,,if say you go off sust. for 4 weeks thats 4 weeks no muscle gains, but lets say subzet A person go on sust. for 6 months straight he gains 60lbs of muzles....,,,,then you got guy B who does cycles within 6 months,,,,he go off and on he will gain less tahn guy A. Its better you see to stay on longer than shorter cycles while on hormonalized person.
-
Quite interesting read Vince.
Good luck in your quest... also include chin-curls if you wan't a shot at the Mr. O title :D
Q: have you ever seen a dude with really big but short bicep?
-
What is the cause of Palumboism? Shrinking arms/legs, discolored skin, abnormally large midsection, mishaped muscles.........you know the drill?
Palumboism.......Insulin way too much insulin, shrinking arms could be change in diet, old age or lack of training etc, discolored skin.......shit happens.....so I guess Michael Jackson was on roids too since he had discolored skin. Large midsection caused by overeating and too much slin/gh combined, mishaped muscles is caused by injuries or injecting too much steroid or too much oil into the muscle or scar tissue. Not rocket science.
-
Hey, Vince do you think if you took two bodybuilders and one ate McDonald's exclusively and the other ate other food, yet they both could rep out with 315-450lb, curl at least the 65s for reps and deadlift at least 550lb, and then dieted down to 5% bodyfat, do you think eating Mcdonald's food would of made any difference? And candizzle, if you were benching 310 pounds for good textbook 10-12 reps, 495 pounds for a couple, yet only consumed 150 grams of protein per day, you think your arms would be 15 inches because of ''insufficient protein''. ;D
I'm sure some will sit here trying to find a modern miracle or some stuff. When those guys diet down down to low body-fat levels, they are still strong because they still have big muscles—about 19.5-20 inch arms for NPC Heavyweights and IFBB guys. The larger fellas—like Ronnie, Dorian, Dillett—slightly bigger still. If they are at "their weakest" it's because they lost a couple pounds of muscle in the process. But it can't be too significant: shit how weak is 455 for 6 on the incline, also 315 to 370lb on behind neck press? ;D
who do you know who is pushing those numbers? ::)
-
who do you know who is pushing those numbers? ::)
I pushed those numbers once.
The bar didn't move though. :(
-
;D
-
What the hell are you on about, QuakerOats. I'm talking about Dennis James, Kevin Levrone, etc
-
What the hell are you on about, QuakerOats. I'm talking about Dennis James, Kevin Levrone, etc
oh you mean their Smith Machine half reps. ::) get back to me when they're doing that on free weight barbell presses behind the neck to the bottom of the ear.
-
Levrone: 315x10, 405x6, 455x6 and 455x4, 495x3 on BFTO '98. 495lbs for "4" on M3. The man was strong as an ox when he competed. i worked out with kev at his gym in glen burnie. i was in the m3 video. i've seen the guy take off from weights for 4-6 months and still comeback and bench 405 for reps. Before the back injury, i've seen kevin sqaut 650lbs barefooof for reps. (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=85820.msg1227203#msg1227203)
Gunter, also a strong fella: "225 for 12 on first set to failure in this workout. He regularly incline presses 365 for six to eight reps in the off season. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_1_21/ai_98542690/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1) Few pros do barbell bench presses, especially precontest, but Glass believes heavy compound lifts are best for muscle density and that those who rely on isolation lifts and machines look flat on bodybuilding contest stages. Schlierkamp does his first set with 225 for 12 reps, his second with 275 for nine and his third with 295 for eight. All the while, at Glass' urging, he keeps up a brutal pace."
Gunter started off his chest workout with incline barbell presses on the Smith machine using 275 pounds. Gunter went on to do 405 pounds in a drop set going to 315 and then 225." (http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/gunterschlierkampstarpowerdvdreview.html)
Dillett said he could do 15-20 reps with 305lbs on the bench press. (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=87494.0) Cutler did an easy ten with 315 at a bodyweight of 292lbs. Also, Dillett does machine shoulder presses with 360lbs for 8, and easily does 40 pound dumbbell laterals for same amount on BFTO '98.
Dorian:"poundages in the 92 offseason from his log:" (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=119707.0)
flat bench: 435 x 5. I think Dorian inclined 425lbs on the Blood & Guts vid. In the Ask Dorian section of his website he said he inclined 440lbs for 8. He mentions doing rows with 440lbs in the August '08 issue of Flex. Also, squatted 600lbs for 12.
Mcgrath: 315x10, 405x5[both incline], 185lb barbell curls for 9. "ive watched frank bench 500 for a single and rep out 405 on flat for 10-12." (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=115435.0) Gustavo Badell did 185lb barbell curls for 8 on BFTO '05.
On Greg Kovacs:".......I was amazed because the year before I was training at the old World Gym in Venice and he could barely bench 495 for 4" (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=203455.0)
Dennis James: 315x10, 405x6, 455x3 on BFTO '98. Inclined "500lbs" three times on the smith machine on Back to Basics.
Tom Prince: "I inclined 495 x 6, and 545 x 2. Squatted 755 x 2 and 805 x 1," (http://musclemayhem.com/forums/showthread.php?p=409141#post409141) etc
Ronnie: 315 x 12, 405 x 10, 495 x 5—flat benching on The Cost of Redemption.
Cutler: 225x14, 315x9 on One Step Closer. All piece of cake on the flat bench.
If they all stopped taking the drugs, but still had this strength, u think it would matter? Or would they not be this strong without them?
-
HELLO.....
-
Tom Prince: "I inclined 495 x 6, and 545 x 2. Squatted 755 x 2 and 805 x 1," (http://musclemayhem.com/forums/showthread.php?p=409141#post409141) etc
If they all stopped taking the drugs, but still had this strength, u think it would matter? Or would they not be this strong without them?
Ask this guy what he's benching... He's off the sauce.