I discovered something re hypertrophy yesterday and today.

[The Ugly]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Some guys are literally too dense to comprehend the truth. False beliefs = Bro science = no gains.

No, I actually nailed it.

Your theory's evidence is you - a tubby, atrophied shitpile that has progressively regressed since a fixed Mr. Hooverville in '43. The only hypertrophy you've achieved thereafter is the involuntary penile swell you experience photographing sunbathing lads at Manly.

Already imagining the polite lies forced out at your funeral.

[Coach is Back!]

One would hope younger folks would have a better response.

BTW "coach" training two hours a day is generally overdoing it unless you spend all that time in the gym bullshitting instead of lifting.

Then why are you comparing who has more time for what?

[Primemuscle]

Then why are you comparing who has more time for what?

Why not?

[Vince B]

God dammit Vince, you're not an expert either. For fucks sake. You know the first thing about motor unit recruitment? If you actually think that isolating one fucking body part with a "machine" will get BIGGER (hypertrophy) you're fucking high on your Alzheimer's meds. Machines have their place but they're not the be all to end all. Enough already. Fuck!!!!

Your comments reveal that you have some silly beliefs re hypertrophy. Don't worry, almost everyone shares those same myths. Bro science it is and nothing more.

[King Shizzo]

No, I actually nailed it.

Your theory's evidence is you - a tubby, atrophied shitpile that has progressively regressed since a fixed Mr. Hooverville in '43. The only hypertrophy you've achieved thereafter is the involuntary penile swell you experience photographing sunbathing lads at Manly.

Already imagining the polite lies forced out at your funeral.

Meltdown.

[The Ugly]

Meltdown.

Enjoyed every word of it.

[Teutonic Knight]

Vincenzo SUCKS !.

 

[The Abdominal Snoman]

[hench]

so vince do you believe the wardrobe maneuvering has actually broken down your muscles enough to promote growth? Even though you weren't repping out with the wardrobe do you think constant tension on the muscle causing pain simply from holding it for prolonged time is causing hypertrophy?

[Marty Champions]

so vince do you believe the wardrobe maneuvering has actually broken down your muscles enough to promote growth? Even though you weren't repping out with the wardrobe do you think constant tension on the muscle causing pain simply from holding it for prolonged time is causing hypertrophy?

his next machine will be a hybrid bicep chester droor apparatus

[Natural Man]

No, I actually nailed it.

Your theory's evidence is you - a tubby, atrophied shitpile that has progressively regressed since a fixed Mr. Hooverville in '43. The only hypertrophy you've achieved thereafter is the involuntary penile swell you experience photographing sunbathing lads at Manly.

Already imagining the polite lies forced out at your funeral.

holy shit, that is brutal.

[Vince B]

so vince do you believe the wardrobe maneuvering has actually broken down your muscles enough to promote growth? Even though you weren't repping out with the wardrobe do you think constant tension on the muscle causing pain simply from holding it for prolonged time is causing hypertrophy?

Check the research of Antonio and Gonyea and their studies using quail. They attached a weight to one wing and measured any increase in hypertrophy caused by the progressive overload via stretching.

If one were to carry progressively heavier objects in a stretched position and did protocols that increased both the intensity and duration of the stress then hypertrophy should result.

I don't think it matters how mechanical tension is experienced by the muscle for hypertrophy to occur. Well, I guess there must be considerations of fiber types but impressive gains were achieved

in the avian studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8226539

[Van_Bilderass]

You don't need "full range of motion" to experience hypertrophy. Just look at how deadlifts grow the traps, like I said here many times before. But this is nothing new, noted by so many before. Vince is thinking about stuff that leads to nothing new whatsoever. There is no magic protocol to be discovered, the training part has been exhausted.

[SF1900]

Speaking for myself, we have more time for working out then you youngsters who still should be working for a living. A better question would be, don't you young folks have better things to do with your time then commenting on what we old folks post on an internet forum???

Um, its an internet forum. What else would I comment on? The sole purpose of an internet forum is to discuss things with people.

I don't see what your point is at all.

[Vince B]

You don't need "full range of motion" to experience hypertrophy. Just look at how deadlifts grow the traps, like I said here many times before. But this is nothing new, noted by so many before. Vince is thinking about stuff that leads to nothing new whatsoever. There is no magic protocol to be discovered, the training part has been exhausted.

Adequate time under sufficiently intense tension is what induces hypertrophy. So of course the details about how you progressively do that are not that important.

You have consistently been critical of whatever I post re hypertrophy but have not offered anything original yourself. Getbiggers are great like that.

There are magical protocols and most have not been discovered. How do you explain the lack of progress of countless millions lifting weights and blasting away in

thousands of gyms around the world? All that effort and so much bro science with so little returns.

[Teutonic Knight]

Adequate time under sufficiently intense tension is what induces hypertrophy. So of course the details about how you progressively do that are not that important.

You have consistently been critical of whatever I post re hypertrophy but have not offered anything original yourself. Getbiggers are great like that.

There are magical protocols and most have not been discovered. How do you explain the lack of progress of countless millions lifting weights and blasting away in

thousands of gyms around the world? All that effort and so much bro science with so little returns.

35 kg of your body fat = hypertrophy

 

[Van_Bilderass]

Adequate time under sufficiently intense tension is what induces hypertrophy. So of course the details about how you progressively do that are not that important.

You have consistently been critical of whatever I post re hypertrophy but have not offered anything original yourself. Getbiggers are great like that.

There are magical protocols and most have not been discovered. How do you explain the lack of progress of countless millions lifting weights and blasting away in

thousands of gyms around the world? All that effort and so much bro science with so little returns.

I have not offered anything original because I have nothing original. It has all been done before, it has all been thought of before, just like these weighted stretches on animals have been discussed before. There is not a lack of progress in trainees, NOT AT ALL. There is a lack of realistic expectations, for example your hypothesis of trainees theoretically being able to rival steroided and otherwise drugged individuals in hypertrophy, if only they discover the right training methodology. This hypothesis is preposterous to anyone with half a brain since drugs remove and alter so many physiological limitations to hypertrophy that can never be altered through training or nutrition.

A beginning trainee will see rapid progress when he starts out on a weight training program. This quickly comes to halt in EVERYONE, regardless of what training program he uses. Sure, there are better and worse programs but this does not change the bottom line, without drugs you will not look like a "bodybuilder" does today.

YOU are the one who claims to know something no one else does, NOT me or the rest of the guys debating you. But what really is your contribution to this field? Nothing useful. You are arrogant without anything to back up that arrogance.

The same lack of progress to the field of training methodology can be seen in the field of nutrition/diet for building muscle mass. Some claim nutrition for bodybuilding has become more advanced which supposedly has made bodybuilders bigger overall. It's all bullshit, bodybuilders eat the same foods they always have done. The only thing that has made bodybuilders bigger/harder is new/more drugs, nothing else.

[Vince B]

I have not offered anything original because I have nothing original. It has all been done before, it has all been thought of before, just like these weighted stretches on animals have been discussed before. There is not a lack of progress in trainees, NOT AT ALL. There is a lack of realistic expectations, for example your hypothesis of trainees theoretically being able to rival steroided and otherwise drugged individuals in hypertrophy, if only they discover the right training methodology. This hypothesis is preposterous to anyone with half a brain since drugs remove and alter so many physiological limitations to hypertrophy that can never be altered through training or nutrition.

A beginning trainee will see rapid progress when he starts out on a weight training program. This quickly comes to halt in EVERYONE, regardless of what training program he uses. Sure, there are better and worse programs but this does not change the bottom line, without drugs you will not look like a "bodybuilder" does today.

YOU are the one who claims to know something no one else does, NOT me or the rest of the guys debating you. But what really is your contribution to this field? Nothing useful. You are arrogant without anything to back up that arrogance.

The same lack of progress to the field of training methodology can be seen in the field of nutrition/diet for building muscle mass. Some claim nutrition for bodybuilding has become more advanced which supposedly has made bodybuilders bigger overall. It's all bullshit, bodybuilders eat the same foods they always have done. The only thing that has made bodybuilders bigger/harder is new/more drugs, nothing else.

Not so fast. There are other factors that have contributed to the size of modern champions. The gym equipment has been improved in many ways. There are many new machines that weren't around say 40 years ago. For example, seated leg curls, new calf machines, triceps machines, biceps-supinator, etc.

The technology of applied hypertrophy training has been fine tuned by many and protocols have been adopted that make training both more effective and more efficient.

The frequency of training has varied. In the real old days we trained body parts every second day. Then along came split routines so we trained 6 days a week. MWF upper body and legs on the alternate days. Sunday was rest.

So the concept of stress was applied to bodybuilding a la Mentzer and Jones. Essentially, frequency for most muscles is every 3rd or 4th day

Various people have come up with theories and methods that have been tested over the decades. HIT, while promising, didn't deliver any champions. Ditto for Heavy Duty.

These theories have been incorporated into the methods we see today. The waste products theory of hypertrophy was considered and I believe Sergio and Larry Scott practiced

variations where they kept pumping blood into the target muscle while generating lots of painful lactic acid. Now just about everyone does this type of training.

With the more intense programs came injuries and many of the top guys have suffered career ending injuries. Whether the injuries were aggravated by drug use is unknown.

My contribution is simple. DOMS. Instead of trying to avoid it I embraced and used it as a guide to training that triggered growth. I published articles about this in Ironman

in 2000 and 2001. Show me articles published by yourself or anyone else here on Getbig re hypertrophy theory. My theory also helps explain why most hard trainees stop

growing. Until my theory is refuted I will continue to use it. Others can do as they please since just about everyone else considers they are experts.

[Van_Bilderass]

My contribution is simple. DOMS. Instead of trying to avoid it I embraced and used it as a guide to training that triggered growth. I published articles about this in Ironman

in 2000 and 2001. Show me articles published by yourself or anyone else here on Getbig re hypertrophy theory. My theory also helps explain why most hard trainees stop

growing. Until my theory is refuted I will continue to use it. Others can do as they please since just about everyone else considers they are experts.

DOMS might be one sign that something positive is happening from a hypertrophy standpoint. It's however not a essential feature of a successful training program. It's highly individual, some get very sore, some rarely get sore. Both types of people can grow. Mentzer said he never got sore except for when he started training after a layoff. A much more useful parameter to keep track of is the load placed on the muscle - there has to be progression in load and/or volume, but mainly load. You are not the only one to believe soreness is a positive indicator, but to me it's pretty useless unless you are also getting stronger. You can easily experience crippling soreness by running downhill but the load is too low to be optimal for hypertrophy.

There are many bodybuilders today who try to train as frequently as possible. Many others believe once a week is ideal. There really is nothing new happening in bodybuilding, all these old ideas are constantly being recycled. But regardless of what bodybuilders do, without drugs the approximate average limitations are not being surpassed. An optimal training program can only get you to your limit faster, it will not push the limit itself further.

I'm not claiming anything I say is new, it has all been thought of by others.

[Vince B]

DOMS might be one sign that something positive is happening from a hypertrophy standpoint. It's however not a essential feature of a successful training program. It's highly individual, some get very sore, some rarely get sore. Both types of people can grow. Mentzer said he never got sore except for when he started training after a layoff. A much more useful parameter to keep track of is the load placed on the muscle - there has to be progression in load and/or volume, but mainly load. You are not the only one to believe soreness is a positive indicator, but to me it's pretty useless unless you are also getting stronger. You can easily experience crippling soreness by running downhill but the load is too low to be optimal for hypertrophy.

There are many bodybuilders today who try to train as frequently as possible. Many others believe once a week is ideal. There really is nothing new happening in bodybuilding, all these old ideas are constantly being recycled. But regardless of what bodybuilders do, without drugs the approximate average limitations are not being surpassed. An optimal training program can only get you to your limit faster, it will not push the limit itself further.

I'm not claiming anything I say is new, it has all been thought of by others.

Okay, at least this is a good discussion. When people do different things re frequency, for example, it means people are confused and there is no universal theory of hypertrophy that is being followed. Everyone has been doing their own thing since the 1940s it seems. That

hasn't changed. The ideal frequency has to be something closer to 3rd or 4th day. It can't vary from 2 to 7 days. Mentzer even claimed his students gained more when they rested even longer between workouts.

One thing not mentioned is the repeated bout effect. People have to avoid this otherwise it becomes increasingly more difficult to stimulate more hypertrophy. Don't let the muscle recover!

To those people who don't get really sore from training we ask what would happen re hypertrophy if they could get sore?

To test the DOMS theory pick a muscle you seldom get sore. Biceps, for example. Then do protocols that result in very sore biceps. I also superset triceps to get a bigger overall arm pump.

Retrain every 3rd day to keep them sore. Continue for at least two weeks. Aim to gain at least two pounds bwt in those two weeks by eating more. 1/2 inch gain on arms should result.

I don't advocate doing just anything to get sore. Like your example of running down hill. By the way, that is a good way to damage your knees. No, do things that you see big bodybuilders doing.

Lots of sets with plenty of weight for 10 to 20 reps. Start at 20 reps and keep at that resistance for 6 sets. You will be down to 10 to 12 reps by the end.

[Teutonic Knight]

I published articles about this in Ironman
in 2000 and 2001. Show me articles published by yourself or anyone else here on Getbig re hypertrophy theory. My theory also helps explain why most hard trainees stop

growing. Until my theory is refuted I will continue to use it. Others can do as they please since just about everyone else considers they are experts.

Name just 1 Mr.Australia who was/is your 'product' 

Why Joe Weider didn't notice this "talented" fatman 

So many pro sport organizations in Sydney & nobody give a fuck about his "expertise" 

Remember Vince, FAT body = NO brain 

[Teutonic Knight]

[color=navy

 There are other factors that have contributed to the size of modern champions.

So what  , contributed to your obesity mr."expert" 

[Pray_4_War]

We all assume that putting mechanical tension on a muscle if done intensely enough and for long enough will cause hypertrophy. The next day that muscle is usually quite sore which indicates damage and hence possible growth.

Yesterday I had to shift two heavy wardrobes. Getting them into my ute was the easy part. Delivering them to my daughter's pad was a challenge. It was a long walk and the tension from the stretch was severe.

We did two trips and at the end it felt like a biceps workout. Today my biceps are quite sore. I had an arm workout three days ago so this must have been more intense.

It appears that it doesn't matter how we put mechanical tension on a muscle whether stretching or doing training. Of course, I remember the studies done on the chickens where a weight was attached to one wing.

The load was increased over a time and the hypertrophy in the weighted wing was impressive. Well, the only thing is stretching a muscle isn't exactly pleasant or fun. But I suppose if you held the weight in a stretched

position in curls, for example, that would help increase the amount of mechanical tension.

Thanks for sharing that Mr Basile, it was really insightful.............. ......................sa id no one, ever.

[pellius]

We all assume that putting mechanical tension on a muscle if done intensely enough and for long enough will cause hypertrophy. The next day that muscle is usually quite sore which indicates damage and hence possible growth.

Yesterday I had to shift two heavy wardrobes. Getting them into my ute was the easy part. Delivering them to my daughter's pad was a challenge. It was a long walk and the tension from the stretch was severe.

We did two trips and at the end it felt like a biceps workout. Today my biceps are quite sore. I had an arm workout three days ago so this must have been more intense.

It appears that it doesn't matter how we put mechanical tension on a muscle whether stretching or doing training. Of course, I remember the studies done on the chickens where a weight was attached to one wing.

The load was increased over a time and the hypertrophy in the weighted wing was impressive. Well, the only thing is stretching a muscle isn't exactly pleasant or fun. But I suppose if you held the weight in a stretched

position in curls, for example, that would help increase the amount of mechanical tension.

This reminds me of an experience Arthur Jones related when he also made a "discovery" doing the course of daily life. He had walked down a long flight of stairs, I think it was the Empire State Building, and experienced a soreness in his calves that he had never experience before despite his decades of various types of training on his calves. He realized that walking down stairs required only the eccentric (negative) portion of muscle contraction. This led him to experiment more with eccentric contraction and led him to conclude this was the most important phase of the three types of muscle contraction for the purpose of building muscular strength and size. It certainly seems to cause more DOMS than concentric (positive) contraction but I don't think it has been conclusively proven it is the most effective for muscle hypertrophy. At least not consistently.

 

[Marty Champions]

Basil master troll ranking achieved