Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Determinator on September 08, 2009, 02:54:07 AM

Title: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 08, 2009, 02:54:07 AM
Why oh why do the likes of Flex, MD etc always have routines of the *pros,* which is totally ridiculous for the average 'natural' trainer, who would rapidly overtrain and gain nothing from such routines. We recall that, in general, such magazines are primarily targeted at the beginner, just starting out (hence the silly repitition of articles: choose you carb sources etc...how many times??), hence are probably 'natural' at that stage. Doing 24 sets etc for biceps is just ridiculous guidance if one is a beginning 'natural' and it may go some way to explain why so many beginners give up after 6 months to a year, after investing a lot of cash in protein powders etc, following the routines of the *pros,* and are gobsmacked at their lack of any real development.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 08, 2009, 02:57:48 AM
because it's a scam to sell supplements and bb related stuff using bodies built on hormones and such

It don't matter that much how you train. It does but you don't need to push yourself to thelimit...

Just stimulate, recover , grow and repeat. Oh yeah : using hormones

Othrwise bodybuilding would look like this :

3-4 years tops to reach your natural plateau , then coast .
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: webcake on September 08, 2009, 03:08:29 AM
It comes down to producing a marketable/interesting magazine.

Writing an article saying "3 sets BB curls, 3 sets hammer curls' isn't interesting enough to most people, even though that routine is much better than some 20 set routine used by Ronnie Coleman. They want an inside idea on what the pros do, pictures, and a much more in depth workout description.

I don't know why anyone buys the magazines anyway. Just the same old recycled training programs and ghost written articles.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 08, 2009, 03:13:14 AM
because it's a scam to sell supplements and bb related stuff using bodies built on hormones and such

It don't matter that much how you train. It does but you don't need to push yourself to thelimit...

Just stimulate, recover , grow and repeat. Oh yeah : using hormones

Othrwise bodybuilding would look like this :

3-4 years tops to reach your natural plateau , then coast .

Yes, a good reply.
I seemed to have suffered the same affect. After about 3 years I was at my ''biggest'' (which for an ecto isn't great, but people that hadn't seem me in a while would comment). Since it has been the same old same old, no matter what routines/diets that i try. We sometimes look and think 'hang on, are my traps getting a tad bigger there?, but it is just all in the mind, probably. In fact, about 2 years ago i went on a so-called 'ripping phase.' yes, i got my abs up more, but i lost a lot of muscle, and i haven't got it back to the 'glory' days. How do the *pros* manage to get ripped and still keep all of the muscle? Is it drugs again here too?
Is this what happens to nearly all naturals? They never really get much bigger after the first few years? Others' have commented that once they reached their plateau, as they increased their calories a touch, they got a bit around the midsection, even if the increased calories were small and quality.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: JasonH on September 08, 2009, 03:16:15 AM
It comes down to producing a marketable/interesting magazine.

Writing an article saying "3 sets BB curls, 3 sets hammer curls' isn't interesting enough to most people, even though that routine is much better than some 20 set routine used by Ronnie Coleman. They want an inside idea on what the pros do, pictures, and a much more in depth workout description.

I don't know why anyone buys the magazines anyway. Just the same old recycled training programs and ghost written articles.

True - I can't remember the last time I bought a bodybuilding magazine. What with the advent of the internet and all, it's easier than ever before to get the proper information from regular people who have made a success of bodybuilding their own way; these ghostwritten pro articles are pointless.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 08, 2009, 03:17:50 AM
It comes down to producing a marketable/interesting magazine.

Writing an article saying "3 sets BB curls, 3 sets hammer curls' isn't interesting enough to most people, even though that routine is much better than some 20 set routine used by Ronnie Coleman. They want an inside idea on what the pros do, pictures, and a much more in depth workout description.

I don't know why anyone buys the magazines anyway. Just the same old recycled training programs and ghost written articles.

Exactly. Surely they are aimed at total beginners. Moreover, it seems crazy business sense, as what is the point of putting silly overtraining routines of the *pros* in the magazines, when the beginner will give up soon after as a result of lack of progress. Surely it would be more wise to place 'normal' routines in their mags; hence the beginners will prosper and will likely continue to buy the mags? I mean, I'm sure that we all would by the mags regularly if they had routines that we could all gain from??
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: TestDummy on September 08, 2009, 03:18:41 AM
I remember when I was a kid and would read those magazines over and over and go buy all that old Weider shit... I also remember being all shocked when I found out ALL PRO BB's use steroids!!! I still buy a mag every now and then... I find it helps me stay focused and motivated, even if alot of what they say it crap.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 08, 2009, 03:20:22 AM
Naturally you will grow up to a certain point...from then on, no matter what you do you can get only fatter... strength wise is the same

It obviously varies acording to genetics, how well you eat etc...but there is a plateau and ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: io856 on September 08, 2009, 03:30:21 AM
maybe they should employ you guys if you got better ideas
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 08, 2009, 03:30:21 AM
Naturally you will grow up to a certain point...from then on, no matter what you do you can get only fatter... strength wise is the same

It obviously varies acording to genetics, how well you eat etc...but there is a plateau and ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

Are the drugs that the *pros* use really harmful? i mean, you hear that they can cause all sorts of complications, but the *pros* that we see in the mags all seem to be there, year after year. If the average joe took some, are they really that bad?
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 08, 2009, 03:35:20 AM
maybe they should employ you guys if you got better ideas

They won't- there is a recession on. Jumping on, for once, a half decent thread. Jerk.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 08, 2009, 03:38:06 AM
Are the drugs that the *pros* use really harmful? i mean, you hear that they can cause all sorts of complications, but the *pros* that we see in the mags all seem to be there, year after year. If the average joe took some, are they really that bad?
The side effects are greatly exagerated

long term megadosing like the pros do will lead to a short lifespan and other complications

taking some stuff to look better in the short run is ok....not the best idea health wise but nothing will happen if you do
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 08, 2009, 03:42:22 AM
The side effects are greatly exagerated

long term megadosing like the pros do will lead to a short lifespan and other complications

taking some stuff to look better in the short run is ok....not the best idea health wise but nothing will happen if you do

yes, but the problem would occur if your tookk some 'light' stuff, put on 15 quality pounds, and had to go off it again, and say by by to the new muscle. That would be pretty tuff to take for anyone, and, as you said, you could not be on it forever.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 08, 2009, 03:44:59 AM
sevastase, you seem to know you stuff. What do you recommend an optimal programme for a natural? 3 times a week (which is what i currently do)? what excercises number of sets etc? Do you have to take all sets to complete failure, including drops etc?
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: ManBearPig... on September 08, 2009, 03:50:07 AM
yes, but the problem would occur if your tookk some 'light' stuff, put on 15 quality pounds, and had to go off it again, and say by by to the new muscle. That would be pretty tuff to take for anyone, and, as you said, you could not be on it forever.

that's why it's called "cycling".  you get off the roids until your internals / test levels are back to normal, and then start poking again.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: kiwiol on September 08, 2009, 03:50:26 AM
Othrwise bodybuilding would look like this :

3-4 years tops to reach your natural plateau , then coast .

Wrong. You'll never come close to looking like a pro naturally, but the longer you train, the bigger and stronger you get. A guy who has trained for 15 - 20 years will be a lot better after that time than he was after the first 3 - 4 years, as long as he does it right.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: The Wizard of Truth on September 08, 2009, 04:17:24 AM
Wrong. You'll never come close to looking like a pro naturally, but the longer you train, the bigger and stronger you get. A guy who has trained for 15 - 20 years will be a lot better after that time than he was after the first 3 - 4 years, as long as he does it right.
Some guys in my gym look the exact same or worse now in the 8yrs ive been there,naturals
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Mars on September 08, 2009, 04:21:45 AM
lol i never followed a training scheme from that magazine anyway. i bet they have some program with all exercises there are in it and with a push on the button they produce another training scheme each month. its an insult to the reader they arent able to built a scheme themselves.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: kiwiol on September 08, 2009, 04:30:35 AM
Some guys in my gym look the exact same or worse now in the 8yrs ive been there,naturals

How do they lift, though? You aren't going to improve as a natural if you don't use progressive overload and train with enough intensity.

Obviously, the rate of an average person's gains will start declining after the first couple of years or so, but you can still continue to improve as long as you put in the effort. When I started, I was only around 140 lb, but 18 years later at my peak, I weighed about 220 lb. Everything takes a lot of time when you don't use anabolics.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Mars on September 08, 2009, 04:34:14 AM
How do they lift, though? You aren't going to improve as a natural if you don't use progressive overload and train with enough intensity.

Obviously, the rate of an average person's gains will start declining after the first couple of years or so, but you can still continue to improve as long as you put in the effort. When I started, I was only around 140 lb, but about 18 years later at my peak, I weighed about 220 lb. Everything takes a lot of time when you don't use anabolics.

 haha i know of "guys" in my gym who train 8 years and still look the same as the first day they stept in. these guys must be the most dedicated persons in the world.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: The Wizard of Truth on September 08, 2009, 04:40:15 AM
How do they lift, though? You aren't going to improve as a natural if you don't use progressive overload and train with enough intensity.

Obviously, the rate of an average person's gains will start declining after the first couple of years or so, but you can still continue to improve as long as you put in the effort. When I started, I was only around 140 lb, but 18 years later at my peak, I weighed about 220 lb. Everything takes a lot of time when you don't use anabolics.
They dont have any intensity
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Per Se on September 08, 2009, 05:03:30 AM
Wrong. You'll never come close to looking like a pro naturally, but the longer you train, the bigger and stronger you get. A guy who has trained for 15 - 20 years will be a lot better after that time than he was after the first 3 - 4 years  ::) , as long as he does it right.


Good post.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: wavelength on September 08, 2009, 05:04:01 AM
they must write something between the ads and they have run out of things that make sense
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 08, 2009, 05:19:10 AM
sevastase, you seem to know you stuff. What do you recommend an optimal programme for a natural? 3 times a week (which is what i currently do)? what excercises number of sets etc? Do you have to take all sets to complete failure, including drops etc?
3-4 times a week tops

medium heavy

never failure . No need for forced reps or drop sets... maybe once a month go heavy and test your strength

Be CONSISTENT

under 1 hour in the gym

for legs ONLY squats

preexhaust chest, delts

1 day on one off ...

eat good not too clean but not much junk

no need to stuff yourself

3 times a week do some form of cardio...even running a bit ( you're young...be active )

Like hit the heavy bag, play basketball or whatever sport you like

No supplements

Do use organic supplements

omega 3 fishoils

vitamin D plus organic Calcium in citrate form plus 15min sun exposure daily without sunglasses ( use coconut organic oil when in the sun )

use castor oil daily under your eyes and on the skin, even on the scrotum ( to help the testicles to function better )

use whole organic certified foods

if you smoke...smoke only organic certified ciggies ( American Spirit family )

it's ok to smoke as it grounds you..but make it organic tobacco.

Have sex as often as possible with great looking women

Look for love but don't settle for cheap sex

Treat your body like a fine Ferrarri even though it's infinetly more powerfull and more precious while even more complex.

Did I mention the daily need for a fine assed hoe ?

Here's my daily fix ( used to be as I recycle them constantly  :D )




Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Playboy on September 08, 2009, 05:26:49 AM
Why oh why do the likes of Flex, MD etc always have routines of the *pros,* which is totally ridiculous for the average 'natural' trainer, who would rapidly overtrain and gain nothing from such routines. We recall that, in general, such magazines are primarily targeted at the beginner, just starting out (hence the silly repitition of articles: choose you carb sources etc...how many times??), hence are probably 'natural' at that stage. Doing 24 sets etc for biceps is just ridiculous guidance if one is a beginning 'natural' and it may go some way to explain why so many beginners give up after 6 months to a year, after investing a lot of cash in protein powders etc, following the routines of the *pros,* and are gobsmacked at their lack of any real development.
For entertainment purposes. That's why.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 08, 2009, 05:27:17 AM
How do they lift, though? You aren't going to improve as a natural if you don't use progressive overload and train with enough intensity.

Obviously, the rate of an average person's gains will start declining after the first couple of years or so, but you can still continue to improve as long as you put in the effort. When I started, I was only around 140 lb, but 18 years later at my peak, I weighed about 220 lb. Everything takes a lot of time when you don't use anabolics.

What, an 80lb improvement, mostly quality? Whatever. Seriously deluded, as confirmed by the 'lots' of uploads of yourself. .
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 08, 2009, 05:34:59 AM
What, an 80lb improvement, mostly quality? Whatever. Seriously deluded, as confirmed by the 'lots' of uploads of yourself. .
he's full of shit and he knows it

I been bodybuilding for close to 20 years, competed, trained naturally, on drugs, been trained by professionals, etc ....

No such thing as 15 years of constant progress lol

I am sometimes astounded at the morons claiming this

They are either liars or just plain retarded

In kiwi's case I suspect the first ;)
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 08, 2009, 05:41:04 AM
he's full of shit and he knows it

I been bodybuilding for close to 20 years, competed, trained naturally, on drugs, been trained by professionals, etc ....

No such thing as 15 years of constant progress lol

I am sometimes astounded at the morons claiming this

They are either liars or just plain retarded

In kiwi's case I suspect the first ;)

I suspect both.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: kiwiol on September 08, 2009, 06:14:09 AM
he's full of shit and he knows it

I been bodybuilding for close to 20 years, competed, trained naturally, on drugs, been trained by professionals, etc ....

No such thing as 15 years of constant progress lol

I am sometimes astounded at the morons claiming this

They are either liars or just plain retarded

In kiwi's case I suspect the first ;)

I haven't said it's 15 years of constant progress - I specifically mentioned that the rate of your improvement will start to decline after the first couple of years. You can continue to improve your strength and size, by which I don't mean you can keep adding an inch to your arm every year or 2 or anything like that.

Are you telling me that if someone doesn't take drugs, they can't push more weight beyond what they can at the end of the first 3 or 4 years of training? Or that someone will be no better after 15+ years of training than they were after the first 3 or 4 years?

Quote
I been bodybuilding for close to 20 years, competed, trained naturally, on drugs, been trained by professionals, etc ....

By your own admission, you took long periods of time off. Not to mention your genetics are above average at best (not your response to hormones, but your capacity to put on size) and that you've never trained as a natural for 5 or more years straight with decent effort. Besides, Vince Goodrum claims the same thing you have in the above quote, so it doesn't mean anything.

I suspect both.

Not surprising, since you don't sound too bright. Carry on.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: kiwiol on September 08, 2009, 06:23:27 AM
What, an 80lb improvement, mostly quality? Whatever. Seriously deluded, as confirmed by the 'lots' of uploads of yourself. .

No you nimrod. Ronnie Coleman weighed about 200 lb or so when he started lifting and weighed 330 lb at his peak, which is 130 lb of gain. I was about 140 lb when I started lifting at 15 and was 220 lb 2 years ago, when I was 31. I was also about 20% bodyfat, which mean I'd have stepped onstage around 160 - 170 lb if I was competing.

If you think a guy can't weigh 170 lb onstage at 5'8"+ naturally, that's fine - just don't act like you know what you are talking about cause you clearly don't.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Per Se on September 08, 2009, 06:23:43 AM
I suspect both.

I don't like these threads about "what is or isn't possible for a nattie", "How big can I get...?" etc etc.

I'm not sure what level you're at and I'm not sure about you attitude.

You laugh at Kiwi, but this guy is a serious lifter who throughout the years has seemingly enjoyed training and made good gains.  Not sure why you say he is deluded for gaining 80lbs??  That's 80lbs over an 18 year period, that's what - just over 4 pounds (on average) gained per year trained. WHAT'S SO HARD TO BELIEVE ABOUT THAT?  

Since I began training I've put on 55lbs, and I'm still quite a long way from where I wana be. When I'm there, I guess I'll have gained 70lbs or so from my starting point. But I will get there I have no doubt about that.

You can't always pay people like Sevastase too much mind...I just read what he recommended you to do, and if he does that....He really doesn't train very hard at all - and I would strongly advise you not to follow that particular plan.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: njflex on September 08, 2009, 06:31:46 AM
i trained legs and after finishing hamstrings 2 guys were still doing chest ,after 4 exercising in i started to see them still going,they were doing drop sets on inclines smith i figured then they have to be done nooo!they did 3 more exercises after that ,total 7 exercises chest alone sets even with avg 3 must have been with drops 25/30 .
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: pumpster on September 08, 2009, 06:47:57 AM


You can't always pay people like Sevastase too much mind...I just read what he recommended you to do, and if he does that....He really doesn't train very hard at all - and I would strongly advise you not to follow that particular plan.

lol train using seve's no intensity plan coupled with an insane steroid protocol and unlock the secrets to looking just like him. Oh man that's too funny.

Obviously kiwiol's got the cogent well thought out approach and has actually trained seriously overr a long period of time.

Quote
Not surprising, since you don't sound too bright. Carry on.

lol seve according to these geniuses has gone from the reality of mediocre genetics to above average genetics. ::)
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Per Se on September 08, 2009, 06:53:33 AM
lol train using seve's no intensity plan coupled with an insane steroid protocol and unlock the secrets to looking just like him. Oh man that's too funny.

Obviously kiwiol's got the cogent well thought out approach and has actually trained seriously overr a long period of time.


LOL exactly!!
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: kiwiol on September 08, 2009, 07:17:54 AM
I don't like these threads about "what is or isn't possible for a nattie", "How big can I get...?" etc etc.

I'm not sure what level you're at and I'm not sure about you attitude.

You laugh at Kiwi, but this guy is a serious lifter who throughout the years has seemingly enjoyed training and made good gains.  Not sure why you say he is deluded for gaining 80lbs??  That's 80lbs over an 18 year period, that's what - just over 4 pounds (on average) gained per year trained. WHAT'S SO HARD TO BELIEVE ABOUT THAT?  

Since I began training I've put on 55lbs, and I'm still quite a long way from where I wana be. When I'm there, I guess I'll have gained 70lbs or so from my starting point. But I will get there I have no doubt about that.

You can't always pay people like Sevastase too much mind...I just read what he recommended you to do, and if he does that....He really doesn't train very hard at all - and I would strongly advise you not to follow that particular plan.

Thanks man. I'm not claiming you can add an inch to your arm or a plate to your deadlift every year, but if you keep pushing yourself, you are going to make some kind of gain at some humble level. Sure, you'll hit a plateau like everyone, but you can break through it as long as your approach is sensible.

I remember the first time I went into a gym, I couldn't even lift an Olympic barbell off the floor with a plate on each side (135 lb). At my peak, I deadlifted 540 lb for 4, which was my best lift (my squat is not as good and bench is my worst lift). It took me over 12 years to get to 5 plates and it was difficult as fcuk.

For Sevastase, it's possible for him to know that he was a Roman gladiator in his previous life hundreds of years ago, but not for a guy with good genetics to have 19" arms naturally after 15+ years of training ;D

Obviously kiwiol's got the cogent well thought out approach and has actually trained seriously overr a long period of time.

Yup. Lifting is the only physical "sporting" activity I do and I always try and lift as intensely as anyone out there does. How can someone who is a beginner or another who hasn't lifted consistently for even 5 years tell a guy who has 15+ years of serious lifting under his belt that he's lying? It's not like I'm claiming that I'm going to win the Mr Olympia or anything.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: MCWAY on September 08, 2009, 07:25:39 AM
Why oh why do the likes of Flex, MD etc always have routines of the *pros,* which is totally ridiculous for the average 'natural' trainer, who would rapidly overtrain and gain nothing from such routines. We recall that, in general, such magazines are primarily targeted at the beginner, just starting out (hence the silly repitition of articles: choose you carb sources etc...how many times??), hence are probably 'natural' at that stage. Doing 24 sets etc for biceps is just ridiculous guidance if one is a beginning 'natural' and it may go some way to explain why so many beginners give up after 6 months to a year, after investing a lot of cash in protein powders etc, following the routines of the *pros,* and are gobsmacked at their lack of any real development.

The readers are often curious as to how their favorite bodybuilders train. But, where do these articles indicate that the average natural trainer should train exactly like that particular bodybuilder? IT DOESN'T.

In fact, if you read some of the articles in the magazines, it has information on how beginner and intermediate lifters should train and eat, in order to make good gains.

When you have a 20-inch arm, it's going to take more to stimulate it than a 15 or 16-inch one. I've been reading magazines for years and I've NEVER seen an artcle suggesting that someone just starting out training should mimick the high-volume routine of a professional bodybuilder. In fact, it was a beginner's article, written by Mike Mentzer, in a 1988 issue of Muscle and Fitness, that got me started with weight training 20 years ago.

Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 08, 2009, 07:28:44 AM
yawn

you fucking juiced you midget

with your genes you'd still be a twink

post your pic with the blonde at the table and the ones where you're jacked on hormones

your credibility is zero

I absolutely pwn you in strength size and genetics the difference is : I admit to the exact dosages and duration

kiwiol : " I'm natural and been steadily progressing over the last 72 years through constant training dieting hard work and desciplene... "  ::)

stop the lies man ...you juiced and youre clueless as to what's going on if you insist on these retarded statements

get a fucking life

Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: kiwiol on September 08, 2009, 07:31:10 AM
yawn

you fucking juiced you midget

with your genes you'd still be a twink

post your pic with the blonde at the table and the ones where you're jacked on hormones

your credibility is zero

I absolutely pwn you in strength size and genetics the difference is : I admit to the exact dosages and duration

kiwiol : " I'm natural and been steadily progressing over the last 72 years through constant training dieting hard work and desciplene... "  ::)

stop the lies man ...you juiced and youre clueless as to what's going on if you insist on these retarded statements

get a fucking like



Hahahahaha ;D
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Per Se on September 08, 2009, 08:53:47 AM
yawn

you fucking juiced you midget

with your genes you'd still be a twink

post your pic with the blonde at the table and the ones where you're jacked on hormones

your credibility is zero

I absolutely pwn you in strength size and genetics the difference is : I admit to the exact dosages and duration

kiwiol : " I'm natural and been steadily progressing over the last 72 years through constant training dieting hard work and desciplene... "  ::)

stop the lies man ...you juiced and youre clueless as to what's going on if you insist on these retarded statements

get a fucking like



No, you're not credible....seemingly anyone with a better build than you takes steroids  ::)
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: JOHN MATRIX on September 08, 2009, 12:20:52 PM


thats about as fine a butthole as ive seen. perfect skin. all round perfect. POST MORE PICS!!!!
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: just_a_pilgrim on September 08, 2009, 03:23:56 PM
Yes, a good reply.
I seemed to have suffered the same affect. After about 3 years I was at my ''biggest'' (which for an ecto isn't great, but people that hadn't seem me in a while would comment). Since it has been the same old same old, no matter what routines/diets that i try. We sometimes look and think 'hang on, are my traps getting a tad bigger there?, but it is just all in the mind, probably. In fact, about 2 years ago i went on a so-called 'ripping phase.' yes, i got my abs up more, but i lost a lot of muscle, and i haven't got it back to the 'glory' days. How do the *pros* manage to get ripped and still keep all of the muscle? Is it drugs again here too?
Is this what happens to nearly all naturals? They never really get much bigger after the first few years? Others' have commented that once they reached their plateau, as they increased their calories a touch, they got a bit around the midsection, even if the increased calories were small and quality.


Pretty much same for me, after 3 years natural i wasn't going anywhere (juiced after 4 for 4 years)

I tried a lot of things like lower volume to recover more but at that point it all dried up

Gear will help hold muscle when dieting but you will still lose some, i stay very lean nowadays, pretty much contest lean, i don't look massive with a shirt on, if i ever blow up even 5-10 pounds it is very noticeable, that's basically the sacrifice you have to be that lean, if you want to walk around 'massive' put on 20 pounds but you won't look as impressive underneath, maybe just bigger with a shirt on (the general public has no idea however).

Look at Sev's physique when he is at his biggest, great abs, not a massive guy but he could walk around bigger and less cut like a lot of permabulkers do. I think those guys would be suprised how much they would have to lose to actually be lean.

increasing your calories over what you burn will put on some fat whether it be clean or not

After the natural gains dry up you will gain more maturity and quality but that's it, it's the same for long term juicers really like Dex or Priest, Dex though seemed to gain a little bit in the last 10 years.

I am replying like Sev did i thought it was very readable  ;D
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Ursus on September 08, 2009, 03:30:53 PM
In the past year I have added about 10kg to my bench pres (injury) my first year training i got to a 275lb press for one rep.

In teh next 4 years (littered with injurie from being stupid) I have only added 100lbs. In my next 4 I maybe only expect 50lbs. Maybe teh 4 years after that another 20lbs who knows.

Whilst I will never make incredible progress again I would like to think that I will make some for of progress - progress of any sort be it 1lb or 1 rep is still loving in right direction!
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 08, 2009, 06:31:48 PM
 :D

liers and losers all gnging up on me in this thread use I tell it like it is  ;D

here u go homos

beat this : 100 mg dbol for 6 weeks

please post your bench that beats this 405x3

Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: pumpster on September 08, 2009, 06:39:39 PM
 ???

Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Red Hook on September 08, 2009, 07:22:28 PM
i trained legs and after finishing hamstrings 2 guys were still doing chest ,after 4 exercising in i started to see them still going,they were doing drop sets on inclines smith i figured then they have to be done nooo!they did 3 more exercises after that ,total 7 exercises chest alone sets even with avg 3 must have been with drops 25/30 .

what if they enjoy the process of training and this is serves as their means of stress management and or escapism? and why are you studying them?  whether right or wrong they are paying their dues just as you are and  entitled to follow what ever regiment they want. But of course you know better than them are entitled to enforce you "better training practices" on them.

you seem like the experts at my gym that will walk up to anyone and give unsolicited advice.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: njflex on September 08, 2009, 08:15:22 PM
what if they enjoy the process of training and this is serves as their means of stress management and or escapism? and why are you studying them?  whether right or wrong they are paying their dues just as you are and  entitled to follow what ever regiment they want. But of course you know better than them are entitled to enforce you "better training practices" on them.

you seem like the experts at my gym that will walk up to anyone and give unsolicited advice.
you be wrong ,i could care less btw,and no i keep to myself.just an observation and insight into overtraining.oh by btw u really hooked me red...
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 09, 2009, 01:30:26 AM


You can't always pay people like Sevastase too much mind...I just read what he recommended you to do, and if he does that...

.He really doesn't train very hard at all -

and I would strongly advise you not to follow that particular plan.




I just recomended him what I think would serve him best

But for bitches like you who talk without knowing, I would take you to the gym and slap you around a bit

I am waiting for your videos or pics you butt pirate  :D
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: io856 on September 09, 2009, 02:21:14 AM


I just recomended him what I think would serve him best

But for bitches like you who talk without knowing, I would take you to the gym and slap you around a bit

I am waiting for your videos or pics you butt pirate  :D

haha and when exactly have they seen you train anyway  ::)
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 09, 2009, 02:30:23 AM
haha and when exactly have they seen you train anyway  ::)
per se is a butt pirate equipped with alien technology

he been following me all over
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Tapeworm on September 09, 2009, 03:58:19 AM
D, we all get frustrated.  If you're going to hinge your decision to continue to work out on improvements made week by week, then you're going to lose interest.  You're not going to get stronger and bigger every single workout.  Some days you'll be tired, dehydrated, unmotivated, or just unable to find your zone.  The trick is not to convince yourself that there's something wrong with you or your training just because you don't look like a competitive bodybuilder.  Without drugs, no one looks like that.

Most important is that you find a training plan that you enjoy and look forward to.  If a full body workout is too much to face up to, and it has been for me in the past, then split it up.  Avoid ego lifting and injury, and take satisfaction in knowing that you are doing the right thing for your health (including what you choose to eat).

Fwiw, I think Kiwi made some good points.  A beginner's gains will slow down drastically, but there's no such thing as a permanent plateau imo.  Besides, what if Kiwi is wrong?  Does that mean you should stop training when you look, feel, and perform as well as you ever have and slide back into unfitness?

Find a workout plan you enjoy and make it part of your life.  The improvements will take care of themselves.  And don't go around rubbing castor oil on your balls or believeing everything you read on the internet.  ;)
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: webcake on September 09, 2009, 04:11:11 AM
D, we all get frustrated.  If you're going to hinge your decision to continue to work out on improvements made week by week, then you're going to lose interest.  You're not going to get stronger and bigger every single workout.  Some days you'll be tired, dehydrated, unmotivated, or just unable to find your zone.  The trick is not to convince yourself that there's something wrong with you or your training just because you don't look like a competitive bodybuilder.  Without drugs, no one looks like that.

Most important is that you find a training plan that you enjoy and look forward to.  If a full body workout is too much to face up to, and it has been for me in the past, then split it up.  Avoid ego lifting and injury, and take satisfaction in knowing that you are doing the right thing for your health (including what you choose to eat).

Fwiw, I think Kiwi made some good points.  A beginner's gains will slow down drastically, but there's no such thing as a permanent plateau imo.  Besides, what if Kiwi is wrong?  Does that mean you should stop training when you look, feel, and perform as well as you ever have and slide back into unfitness?

Find a workout plan you enjoy and make it part of your life.  The improvements will take care of themselves.  And don't go around rubbing castor oil on your balls or believeing everything you read on the internet.  ;)

Did you throw a spider on that crazy bitch yet?
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 09, 2009, 04:20:50 AM
No you nimrod. Ronnie Coleman weighed about 200 lb or so when he started lifting and weighed 330 lb at his peak, which is 130 lb of gain. I was about 140 lb when I started lifting at 15 and was 220 lb 2 years ago, when I was 31. I was also about 20% bodyfat, which mean I'd have stepped onstage around 160 - 170 lb if I was competing.

If you think a guy can't weigh 170 lb onstage at 5'8"+ naturally, that's fine - just don't act like you know what you are talking about cause you clearly don't.

You never went from 140 to 220. Live with it. Fantasy island.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: kiwiol on September 09, 2009, 04:23:01 AM
I love the penis

 ???
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 09, 2009, 04:23:38 AM
I don't like these threads about "what is or isn't possible for a nattie", "How big can I get...?" etc etc.

I'm not sure what level you're at and I'm not sure about you attitude.

You laugh at Kiwi, but this guy is a serious lifter who throughout the years has seemingly enjoyed training and made good gains.  Not sure why you say he is deluded for gaining 80lbs??  That's 80lbs over an 18 year period, that's what - just over 4 pounds (on average) gained per year trained. WHAT'S SO HARD TO BELIEVE ABOUT THAT?  

Since I began training I've put on 55lbs, and I'm still quite a long way from where I wana be. When I'm there, I guess I'll have gained 70lbs or so from my starting point. But I will get there I have no doubt about that.

You can't always pay people like Sevastase too much mind...I just read what he recommended you to do, and if he does that....He really doesn't train very hard at all - and I would strongly advise you not to follow that particular plan.
You are simply an idiot. Period.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 09, 2009, 04:24:38 AM
???

Pics, or you fantasy claims did not occur.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: kiwiol on September 09, 2009, 04:26:03 AM
Pics, or you fantasy claims did not occur.

Why would I have pics of you blowing another guy ???
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Determinator on September 09, 2009, 04:28:25 AM
Pretty much same for me, after 3 years natural i wasn't going anywhere (juiced after 4 for 4 years)

I tried a lot of things like lower volume to recover more but at that point it all dried up

Gear will help hold muscle when dieting but you will still lose some, i stay very lean nowadays, pretty much contest lean, i don't look massive with a shirt on, if i ever blow up even 5-10 pounds it is very noticeable, that's basically the sacrifice you have to be that lean, if you want to walk around 'massive' put on 20 pounds but you won't look as impressive underneath, maybe just bigger with a shirt on (the general public has no idea however).

Look at Sev's physique when he is at his biggest, great abs, not a massive guy but he could walk around bigger and less cut like a lot of permabulkers do. I think those guys would be suprised how much they would have to lose to actually be lean.

increasing your calories over what you burn will put on some fat whether it be clean or not

After the natural gains dry up you will gain more maturity and quality but that's it, it's the same for long term juicers really like Dex or Priest, Dex though seemed to gain a little bit in the last 10 years.

I am replying like Sev did i thought it was very readable  ;D

A good, true reply.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: just_a_pilgrim on September 09, 2009, 04:33:29 AM
A good, true reply.


 :D
Actually i take back the part about not looking massive in shirts. When i wear a tight shirt i get asked how many steroids i am on. Happened numerous times lately.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Red Hook on September 09, 2009, 05:24:59 AM
you be wrong ,i could care less btw,and no i keep to myself.just an observation and insight into overtraining.oh by btw u really hooked me red...

personally I prefer volume training my self, if I feel particular exercise "feels right" at that given moment I may do countless sets.  Generally I prefer more sets and less stations. But I would agree with you on keeping it under 50 minutes.

drop set and super sets are great for speeding things up. As of recently I am doing  more and more pre-exhaustion.  I usually do flies or "pec dec" first thing on chest days now.

 


Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: njflex on September 09, 2009, 06:36:47 AM
personally I prefer volume training my self, if I feel particular exercise "feels right" at that given moment I may do countless sets.  Generally I prefer more sets and less stations. But I would agree with you on keeping it under 50 minutes.

drop set and super sets are great for speeding things up. As of recently I am doing  more and more pre-exhaustion.  I usually do flies or "pec dec" first thing on chest days now.

 



I AGREE,,your post is what i follow on most days .mix it up ,i only questioned 20/25 set for chest for these 2 individuals that day,i don't even speak or know them.but a chest/tri day for me is probably 20/25 total for both bodyparts.
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Per Se on September 09, 2009, 07:12:54 AM




I just recomended him what I think would serve him best

But for bitches like you who talk without knowing, I would take you to the gym and slap you around a bit

I am waiting for your videos or pics you butt pirate  :D

Lol @ butt pirate.

I don't think anyone here has ever disputed that you were once a strong guy.
With reference to training hard, you know I was referring to the plan you gave Determinator not the the impressive squat and bench vids when u were on drugs.
 
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Per Se on September 09, 2009, 07:19:44 AM
You are simply an idiot. Period.

I genuinely don't understand why you called me an idiot?

Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 09, 2009, 07:25:49 AM
I genuinely don't understand why you called me an idiot?


if you don't get it then you trully are one ;)
Title: Re: Why do the magazines' place emphasis on ridiculous training programmes?
Post by: wild willie on September 09, 2009, 07:40:14 AM
The truth is this, magazines have always exaggerated the routines of the champs. Strydom, Williams, Arnold, Haney......at some point you will hear all the greats mention that their routines are not the same as the ones reported in the magazines.

Strydom has said that his routine has been inacurately reported over the years.
You do see all these routines with heavy weight, forced reps, drop sets, crazy number of sets.......it is all hog wash! Arnold never liked barbell rows, Yates never cared for regular barbell squats.......MANY OF THE CHAMPS DETEST THE BENCH PRESS......yet in every training article you read, it is stated that you must use bench for chest, squats for legs, deadlifts for back,ect......


The magazines would have you believe that Arnie trained all friggin day......Mentzer had a completely different diet than you would expect to see in the magazines.


They also love to advertise all these miracle supplements........rubbi sh.......maybe a protein powder, but not these ridiculous fat burners and pro hormones.......utter nonsense.

Many champs that I have met always say that the magazines don't always give you a true understanding of what they actually do in the gym or at the dinner table. If you want to see the champs as they truly train, go watch a live workout, or buy a battle for the olympia dvd.