Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Training Q&A => Topic started by: Vince B on March 19, 2015, 08:35:06 PM
-
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.
-
if only you had wings, you could fly away, lol...
-
(http://i.imgur.com/TQ4ZlMF.jpg)(http://oi58.tinypic.com/2w4mbl1.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/pS6fRA8.png)
-
So you just discovered that Isometric Exercise can grow muscles? Cutting edge Dude!
-
So you just discovered that Isometric Exercise can grow muscles? Cutting edge Dude!
I knew that in 1965 when I used the York isometric program to put a half inch on my arms in a week.
Stretching is different from Isometric contractions but I agree they are similar.
-
I knew that in 1965 when I used the York isometric program to put a half inch on my arms in a week.
Stretching is different from Isometric contractions but I agree they are similar.
Stretching isn't similar to isometric contractions at all. You can't lift something by stretching.
-
Stretching isn't similar to isometric contractions at all. You can't lift something by stretching.
You don't lift anything doing an isometric contraction, either.
We lifted these heavy wardrobes and had to hold them up and negotiate a twisting path for several minutes. It was tough.
Then repeat. The point it the biceps were under several mechanical tension in that position. Doesn't matter what you call it.
-
You don't lift anything doing an isometric contraction, either.
We lifted these heavy wardrobes and had to hold them up and negotiate a twisting path for several minutes. It was tough.
Then repeat. The point it the biceps were under several mechanical tension in that position. Doesn't matter what you call it.
All stabilizer muscles are in isometric contraction mode to stabilize any lift. Stretching is relaxing your muscles. If you contract any of your muscles much in stretching, then you are doing some serious damage to your tendons and ligaments. So, yeah, it matters what you call it.
-
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.
Pics of your daughter lifting heavy things and straining from the exertion.
-
Wow so manual labor builds muscles who knew, nice discovery vanceassill
-
Wow so manual labor builds muscles who knew, nice discovery vanceassill
For a guy supposed to be interested in advancing science I expect a more intelligent response or a contribution even. Then again, maybe not.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=394408.0;attach=428409;image)
-
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.
Now are you going to build a 10'x10' isometric "machine"? Lol
-
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2z4z1ja.gif)
-
should place two speakers on the top of that bad boy bicep machine and have them blast only Chris Isaak.
-
should place two speakers on the top of that bad boy bicep machine and have them blast only Chris Isaak.
Vince is in his 70's, looks horrible, and is still chasing hypertrophy lol. Don't senior citizens have better things to do with their time?
-
For a guy supposed to be interested in advancing science I expect a more intelligent response or a contribution even. Then again, maybe not.
maybe if u do manual labor 2 whole days in a row u will see crazy gains vince
-
should place two speakers on the top of that bad boy bicep machine and have them blast only Chris Isaak.
Somewhere Chris Isaak is looking at Google images and muttering to himself, "you've got to be fucking kidding me".
-
Somewhere Chris Isaak is looking at Google images and muttering to himself, "you've got to be fucking kidding me".
hahaha, oh, that was so funny...
Should be a good thread to wake up to tomorrow this one...
-
Vince is in his 70's, looks horrible, and is still chasing hypertrophy lol. Don't senior citizens have better things to do with their time?
soon will get the girls! Manual labors for!
-
soon will get the girls! Manual labors for!
He just needs to get those 19" arms to get the girls.
-
Now are you going to build a 10'x10' isometric "machine"? Lol
Ok, smartass, what you have invented? I have built a whole gym of original equipment.
-
Ok, smartass, what you have invented? I have built a whole gym of original equipment.
Um, but the question is: The machines you have invented, are they currently being used in todays gyms? Are they being utilized to change physiques? The answer is most likely, "no." Thus, who gives a crap abut your useless inventions if they don't do anything.
Either way, Coach is doing more in the fitness industry than you will ever do, even with your shitty inventions.
-
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.
time under tension, and also i doubt you are curling loads as heavy as a wardrobe. kind of the same "new soreness" when you try a new routine. different stress
-
yawn
-
Ok, smartass, what you have invented? I have built a whole gym of original equipment.
I actually have two that are being searched awaiting pending. Nothing training related.
-
I actually have two that are being searched awaiting pending. Nothing training related.
If I had to redo the patent thing I wouldn't apply for a patent. I would build the device or whatever then not display it and if good sell the design and let them patent it.
Costs a fortune to patent and then there are expensive renewal fees. Let someone else pay for these while you collect a royalty.
-
time under tension, and also i doubt you are curling loads as heavy as a wardrobe. kind of the same "new soreness" when you try a new routine. different stress
Well, the point is I was hardly doing a curl. Just putting tension in a stretched position and still got the muscles sore. My biceps have been sore less than 10 times
in over 57 years of training.
-
Old fart "forgot" to confront mighty Arnie at AU Arnold Classic , ;D
-
If I had to redo the patent thing I wouldn't apply for a patent. I would build the device or whatever then not display it and if good sell the design and let them patent it.
Costs a fortune to patent and then there are expensive renewal fees. Let someone else pay for these while you collect a royalty.
What a bullshit, hey Vincenza very soon you'll be on NSW Restricted DL ;D
-
(http://s24.postimg.org/s76j8bgfp/3hl_Kz_LX.jpg)
-
Basile, Thai basile, or sweet basile, is a common name for the Australian hypertrophy expert Vince Basile (UK /ˈbæzəle/;[1] US /ˈbeɪzəle/[2]) of the family schmoe-tus maximus, sometimes known as Saint Basile in some English-speaking countries.
Basile is possibly native to India,[3] and has been dropping loads there several times,[4] It was thoroughly familiar to Greek authors Theophrastus[5] and Dioscorides. Basile may taste somewhat like anise, with a strong, pungent, often sweet smell.
There are many varieties of basilecum, as well as several related species or species hybrids also called basile.
His most famous achievement is the human exo-skeleton, aka. the biceps suspinator, making any man into a veritable weight lifting terminator.
Warning to the readers:
It is, as noted by several social scientists, not wise to mention blue stars or Melvin Goodrum in Basile's company, as a raging erection and / or significant rage might occur.
-
You didn't discover anything
-
Vince is in his 70's, looks horrible, and is still chasing hypertrophy lol. Don't senior citizens have better things to do with their time?
Exactly. The guy is an OAP and is still concerned about adding an inch to his arms. :-\
Dude's gone totally senile and should be taken into care.
-
Getting them into my ute was the easy part.
(http://i.imgur.com/lPzji.gif)
-
Lee Priest tore his bicep lifting his Mom's TV...
-
What you discovered was something entirely different than what you think you discovered.
Muscles adapt to any given exercise.
Bodybuilders and weight trainers usually do the same exercises or similar exercises over and over again with minor variations.
This is why when you introduce a radically new exercise to your routine for a muscle you will usually get DOMS.
By you moving the stuff all that happened was that your muscle/biceps etc were experiencing a new movement they hadn't done or been used to for a while and got shocked creating DOMS.
If you keep moving your furniture around same way over and over again after few times you won't get DOMS no more.
It's all about adaptation, what your body is great at and is a survival mechanism.
The key is to confuse the muscle by constantly changing movements forcing the muscle into new adaptation.
Of course none of this matters once you have reached your natural genetic limit other than steroid use etc and that will only take you so far too.
-
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.
if Goodrum puts his erect phallus deep in your mouth, thereby pressing you down against the bed, does that prove that you have discovered gravity?
-
Overcomplicating relative nonsense. Ain't a perfect science: Train intensely and consistently. Eat right. Genetics and drugs determine the rest, plenty of real-life examples proving this, year after year.
Join the fucking Elk's Lodge already.
-
time under tension, and also i doubt you are curling loads as heavy as a wardrobe. kind of the same "new soreness" when you try a new routine. different stress
^this.
no new groundbreaking discovery. doesnt even mean that it was more intense than your training session.
if you are such a guru, you should know this from physiology 101 in the first year of college.
-
Exactly. The guy is an OAP and is still concerned about adding an inch to his arms. :-\
Dude's gone totally senile and should be taken into care.
The need for Vince to try and feel relevant and important is astounding. The sad thing is that when he dies, no one will ever remember these crazy ramblings. They will have no impact on the fitness world in any manner.
-
Ok, smartass, what you have invented? I have built a whole gym of original equipment.
^^
Can we see a photo of you working out at each of these unique machines/equipment??
-
(http://i.imgur.com/K4czooP.jpg)
-
The snakes name in the movie A Clockwork Orange was BASILE...Alex's favorite piece of music was Ludwig van Beethoven's 9th Symphony...But make no mistake. It's not like BASILE is going to re-create Beethoven's 9th :-\
-
^^
Can we see a photo of you working out at each of these unique machines/equipment??
some of Vince's machines are x-rated, such as the Sydney Double Fist. You might want to reconsider asking for pictures of such devices.
-
(http://s18.postimg.org/mgahbwaex/basile_mech_warrior_24_11_2014.jpg)
-
(http://s18.postimg.org/mgahbwaex/basile_mech_warrior_24_11_2014.jpg)
lmao...I've never seen this one...
-
lmao...I've never seen this one...
I made that photoshop and I am quite happy with how it turned out. :)
-
Next time I'm at McDonald's I'll order a Mech Basile.
Also if soreness is a good sign then the famous getbig line - "you won't recover" is actually a slogan worth covering some pricey equipment.
Love to make fun of Vince, but I kinda like him.
-
Nice photo of Arnold in todays Manly Daily , ;D ;D ;D
Vince must be fuming ;D
-
Overcomplicating relative nonsense. Ain't a perfect science: Train intensely and consistently. Eat right. Genetics and drugs determine the rest, plenty of real-life examples proving this, year after year.
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.
-
What you discovered was something entirely different than what you think you discovered.
Muscles adapt to any given exercise.
Bodybuilders and weight trainers usually do the same exercises or similar exercises over and over again with minor variations.
This is why when you introduce a radically new exercise to your routine for a muscle you will usually get DOMS.
By you moving the stuff all that happened was that your muscle/biceps etc were experiencing a new movement they hadn't done or been used to for a while and got shocked creating DOMS.
If you keep moving your furniture around same way over and over again after few times you won't get DOMS no more.
It's all about adaptation, what your body is great at and is a survival mechanism.
The key is to confuse the muscle by constantly changing movements forcing the muscle into new adaptation.
Of course none of this matters once you have reached your natural genetic limit other than steroid use etc and that will only take you so far too.
More Bro Science. I thought you were smarter than this? How can a muscle be confused? Only the brain can. No wonder you can't get big even with heaps of gear.
-
I discovered something today. I always believed if people were exposed to the truth they would embrace it and benefit. Or at least stop doing ineffective things.
It is patently clear to me that two things are required for maximum hypertrophy. The correct theory and proper application. However, one needs sufficient intelligence to
know what to do and this is where most fall down. They are too dumb to get big. Incredible, because everyone figures getting big is a thing even Goodrum can do!
If you have false beliefs about hypertrophy then arguing with you is like arguing with religious people. You aren't going to change your beliefs. So you literally
can't see the truth and therefore you can't benefit. This fact more than anything else explains why countless millions of trainees don't make further gains. They aren't
smart enough to get big!
-
I discovered something today. I always believed if people were exposed to the truth they would embrace it and benefit. Or at least stop doing ineffective things.
It is patently clear to me that two things are required for maximum hypertrophy. The correct theory and proper application. However, one needs sufficient intelligence to
know what to do and this is where most fall down. They are too dumb to get big. Incredible, because everyone figures getting big is a thing even Goodrum can do!
If you have false beliefs about hypertrophy then arguing with you is like arguing with religious people. You aren't going to change your beliefs. So you literally
can't see the truth and therefore you can't benefit. This fact more than anything else explains why countless millions of trainees don't make further gains. They aren't
smart enough to get big!
Haven't you been failing to get big for decades?
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/29/article-2240087-16428F27000005DC-671_634x424.jpg)
-
I discovered something today. I always believed if people were exposed to the truth they would embrace it and benefit. Or at least stop doing ineffective things.
It is patently clear to me that two things are required for maximum hypertrophy. The correct theory and proper application. However, one needs sufficient intelligence to
know what to do and this is where most fall down. They are too dumb to get big. Incredible, because everyone figures getting big is a thing even Goodrum can do!
If you have false beliefs about hypertrophy then arguing with you is like arguing with religious people. You aren't going to change your beliefs. So you literally
can't see the truth and therefore you can't benefit. This fact more than anything else explains why countless millions of trainees don't make further gains. They aren't
smart enough to get big!
I tried and practiced what you told me on the phone, I didn't notice any gains at all.
When I went on testosterone enanthate at 750mg + I put an inch and half on my arms.
Just being honest
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/29/article-2240087-16428F27000005DC-671_634x424.jpg)
Great gym did u pull that off the net or do u train at gym box?
-
I tried and practiced what you told me on the phone, I didn't notice any gains at all.
When I went on testosterone enanthate at 750mg + I put an inch and half on my arms.
Just being honest
You are not an expert in hypertrophy so how would you know exactly what to do? Run to the chemist?
Exercise selection can be very important for guys who can't make further gains.
Put it this way, those who got huge must have done many things right. So, either they knew what to do
or someone helped them. For everyone else it is clear that doing the same things over and over will
not result in huge muscles. Perhaps they need a new theory? I can't imagine any musclehead throwing
out his cherished beliefs and starting afresh. Nope, everyone will take their false beliefs to their graves.
-
I actually have two that are being searched awaiting pending. Nothing training related.
Your answer is that you have invented nothing at all re new gym equipment. Same goes for just
about all bodybuilders, even the champions. Please list those who have patents for new gym equipment.
You know, people joke about machines but I honestly would never do that. If people knew what
went into conceiving then building and modifying a new device they would never make jokes about it.
Some designs require over 100 hours of design time. Think about that.
-
You are not an expert in hypertrophy so how would you know exactly what to do? Run to the chemist?
Exercise selection can be very important for guys who can't make further gains.
Put it this way, those who got huge must have done many things right. So, either they knew what to do
or someone helped them. For everyone else it is clear that doing the same things over and over will
not result in huge muscles. Perhaps they need a new theory? I can't imagine any musclehead throwing
out his cherished beliefs and starting afresh. Nope, everyone will take their false beliefs to their graves.
Look my friend you are making a meal of this.
Its rather simple.
You tell me exactly what do to and I do it to the letter.
I film and post the workouts here for your inspection.
If your theory works I should have made some gains on my arms.
If I don't well your theory sucks.
The tape measure won't lie.
Up for the challenge?
-
Great gym did u pull that off the net or do u train at gym box?
this is from an article. the lady claims she enjoyed her experience on this device.
-
this is from an article. the lady claims she enjoyed her experience on this device.
The picture is from gymbox gym, its a great gym in London, has 4 branches, that is the reason I was asking.
My friends work there.
-
the work on the machines does show very impressive effort
the supinator is like a artwork so it gets a lot attention/jokes. 8)
-
I'll bet this creepy old fucker has pages of PPO's in his file.
-
The picture is from gymbox gym, its a great gym in London, has 4 branches, that is the reason I was asking.
My friends work there.
I like the branding. Looks like a nice place to meet some fellow douchebags. I will check have to check it out!
-
Haven't you been failing to get big for decades?
I guess your blinkers edited this out because your delusions can't get around it.
-
I like the branding. Looks like a nice place to meet some fellow douchebags. I will check have to check it out!
Best gym in London. Hottest girls too. if it wasn't so far from me id train there all the time
http://www.gymbox.com/
-
Look my friend you are making a meal of this.
Its rather simple.
You tell me exactly what do to and I do it to the letter.
I film and post the workouts here for your inspection.
If your theory works I should have made some gains on my arms.
If I don't well your theory sucks.
The tape measure won't lie.
Up for the challenge?
The challenge is simple. You come to Sydney and I train you on my machines. You do that and you go home with 1 inch larger arms in a month.
-
You are not an expert in hypertrophy so how would you know exactly what to do? Run to the chemist?
Exercise selection can be very important for guys who can't make further gains.
Put it this way, those who got huge must have done many things right. So, either they knew what to do
or someone helped them. For everyone else it is clear that doing the same things over and over will
not result in huge muscles. Perhaps they need a new theory? I can't imagine any musclehead throwing
out his cherished beliefs and starting afresh. Nope, everyone will take their false beliefs to their graves.
Being an expert in hypertrophy would lead one to the chemist, if they wanted to elicit a maximal hypertrophy response... You need to change your hypertrophy discussion and limit it to training for hypertrophy because your dietary discussion supporting a hypertrophy response is limited to high calorie and low protein. Furthermore you ignore the potential of supraphysiological levels of hormones based on ideology, fear and concern for well being.
Debating with you on that, would be like debating with someone who adheres to religious beliefs. As you say "the righteous do not inherit the Earth".
You are the flotsam that has existed long before the latest crop of jotsom.
-
Haven't you been failing to get big for decades?
Took him ONLY 57 years to get OBESE :D
-
The challenge is simple. You come to Sydney and I train you on my machines. You do that and you go home with 1 inch larger arms in a month.
Just name 1 Mr.Australia who was your pupil ;D
Nobody would ever say : thanks to Basile I am Mr.Australia :)
-
You are not an expert in hypertrophy so how would you know exactly what to do? Run to the chemist?
Exercise selection can be very important for guys who can't make further gains.
Put it this way, those who got huge must have done many things right. So, either they knew what to do
or someone helped them. For everyone else it is clear that doing the same things over and over will
not result in huge muscles. Perhaps they need a new theory? I can't imagine any musclehead throwing
out his cherished beliefs and starting afresh. Nope, everyone will take their false beliefs to their graves.
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!!!!
-
Vince is in his 70's, looks horrible, and is still chasing hypertrophy lol. Don't senior citizens have better things to do with their time?
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???
-
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???
All due respect old dude. But you don't train all but an hour or two a day if that. I'm quiet sure the younger generation can afford to train as much if not more with better response.
-
All due respect old dude. But you don't train all but an hour or two a day if that. I'm quiet sure the younger generation can afford to train as much if not more with better response.
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Then why are you comparing who has more time for what?
Why not?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Meltdown.
Enjoyed every word of it.
-
Vincenzo SUCKS !.
8)
-
(http://fakeposters.com.s3.amazonaws.com/results/2015/03/21/r16k99iupu.jpg)
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
;D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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' :D
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 8)
-
[color=navy
There are other factors that have contributed to the size of modern champions.
So what ???, contributed to your obesity mr."expert" :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
Basil master troll ranking achieved
-
Of course, Vince, "your discovery" is nothing new. What remains to be determines is what is the most consistently productive form of training. Maybe that is the reason for so much confusion. Because of the body's adaptive response to stress nothing is "consistently" productive. Nothing works forever or even for very long for an experienced trainee.
Along with full range movement, Jones also advocated not only the negative portion of an exercise but the stretch portion as well. In fact, the stretch portion is impossible without negative resistance which he believed is one of the values of eccentric training and necessary for advancement. He considered the stretch portion so valuable that he advocated doing a "pre-stretch" while performing a movement. That as you lower the weight into the stretch position you actually "bounce" a bit which he believed generated a more powerful contraction similar, if not exactly, to the golgi stretch reflex.
This belief in focusing on the stretch position has been around for a while. In Larry Scott's day they called it burns. When Weider started his "lab" it was called partials. Those fellows at Ironman who site that bird wing experiment built a career on X-reps (their name for burns). I believed they were primarily responsible for putting on 3 inches on my calves.
One thing a person notices is that the way they are taught to train: strict and deliberate form, bares very little resemblance to how the pros train which seems to be just throwing weights around. When you watch Ronnie perform, say T-bar rows, you will notice that as he lowers the weight when he reaches the bottom he just throws it back up. This magnifies the resistance in the stretch portion as momentum more than muscle contraction takes it up the rest of the way.
Jason Huh seems to have instinctively or deliberately notice this relationship and just discards full range movements altogether and just concentrates on the stretch portion essentially performing partials on all his movements.
-
unfortunately `soreness` cannot be measured
it may be interesting to talk about but
basing a protocol or theory on it is not possible
-
Basile, ignore the flotsam.
I am proud that you are willing to share your newly found hypertrophy discoveries with us.
-
(http://s15.postimg.org/oudhuo3nv/ak57w_Kx.jpg)
-
I feel the burn more in partials the stress feels greater if done slowly and really tensing. But if not on drugs etc would the reps Huh is doing here actually be productive? There's hardly any range of motion there, no squeeze at the top, no stretch at the bottom, no real stress appears to be happening. I'm sure slashing the weight so he could slow down and really grind and concentrate on each rep would be more beneficial
Of course, Vince, "your discovery" is nothing new. What remains to be determines is what is the most consistently productive form of training. Maybe that is the reason for so much confusion. Because of the body's adaptive response to stress nothing is "consistently" productive. Nothing works forever or even for very long for an experienced trainee.
Along with full range movement, Jones also advocated not only the negative portion of an exercise but the stretch portion as well. In fact, the stretch portion is impossible without negative resistance which he believed is one of the values of eccentric training and necessary for advancement. He considered the stretch portion so valuable that he advocated doing a "pre-stretch" while performing a movement. That as you lower the weight into the stretch position you actually "bounce" a bit which he believed generated a more powerful contraction similar, if not exactly, to the golgi stretch reflex.
This belief in focusing on the stretch position has been around for a while. In Larry Scott's day they called it burns. When Weider started his "lab" it was called partials. Those fellows at Ironman who site that bird wing experiment built a career on X-reps (their name for burns). I believed they were primarily responsible for putting on 3 inches on my calves.
One thing a person notices is that the way they are taught to train: strict and deliberate form, bares very little resemblance to how the pros train which seems to be just throwing weights around. When you watch Ronnie perform, say T-bar rows, you will notice that as he lowers the weight when he reaches the bottom he just throws it back up. This magnifies the resistance in the stretch portion as momentum more than muscle contraction takes it up the rest of the way.
Jason Huh seems to have instinctively or deliberately notice this relationship and just discards full range movements altogether and just concentrates on the stretch portion essentially performing partials on all his movements.
-
I feel the burn more in partials the stress feels greater if done slowly and really tensing. But if not on drugs etc would the reps Huh is doing here actually be productive? There's hardly any range of motion there, no squeeze at the top, no stretch at the bottom, no real stress appears to be happening. I'm sure slashing the weight so he could slow down and really grind and concentrate on each rep would be more beneficial
You see, an analysis like this is Bro Science. Please use terminology relevant to hypertrophy. Intensity of effort and time under tension.
What trainees need to attempt is isolating the target muscles so that the mechanical tension is felt there. It matters not is one does
complete reps. Just complete sufficient time under tension with adequate intensity.
I remember a huge guy at McGill University back in 1961-2. He did only partials and had all manner of stretch marks
from his size. He knew what to do. Most of us fail to make rapid gains so keep reading and asking to find something that works.
It is possible to measure DOMS. You can do that in several ways. By how long it takes to disappear, by felt pain, and location of pain.
If you can keep your biceps sore for a month your arms will be an inch larger. Well, as long as you gain weight.
-
You see, an analysis like this is Bro Science. Please use terminology relevant to hypertrophy. Intensity of effort and time under tension.
What trainees need to attempt is isolating the target muscles so that the mechanical tension is felt there. It matters not is one does
complete reps. Just complete sufficient time under tension with adequate intensity.
I remember a huge guy at McGill University back in 1961-2. He did only partials and had all manner of stretch marks
from his size. He knew what to do. Most of us fail to make rapid gains so keep reading and asking to find something that works.
It is possible to measure DOMS. You can do that in several ways. By how long it takes to disappear, by felt pain, and location of pain.
If you can keep your biceps sore for a month your arms will be an inch larger. Well, as long as you gain weight.
Basile remember everything from 1961 , but nothing from 2014 :D Vinces DEMENTIA is progressing ;)
-
Of course, Vince, "your discovery" is nothing new. What remains to be determines is what is the most consistently productive form of training. Maybe that is the reason for so much confusion. Because of the body's adaptive response to stress nothing is "consistently" productive. Nothing works forever or even for very long for an experienced trainee.
Along with full range movement, Jones also advocated not only the negative portion of an exercise but the stretch portion as well. In fact, the stretch portion is impossible without negative resistance which he believed is one of the values of eccentric training and necessary for advancement. He considered the stretch portion so valuable that he advocated doing a "pre-stretch" while performing a movement. That as you lower the weight into the stretch position you actually "bounce" a bit which he believed generated a more powerful contraction similar, if not exactly, to the golgi stretch reflex.
This belief in focusing on the stretch position has been around for a while. In Larry Scott's day they called it burns. When Weider started his "lab" it was called partials. Those fellows at Ironman who site that bird wing experiment built a career on X-reps (their name for burns). I believed they were primarily responsible for putting on 3 inches on my calves.
One thing a person notices is that the way they are taught to train: strict and deliberate form, bares very little resemblance to how the pros train which seems to be just throwing weights around. When you watch Ronnie perform, say T-bar rows, you will notice that as he lowers the weight when he reaches the bottom he just throws it back up. This magnifies the resistance in the stretch portion as momentum more than muscle contraction takes it up the rest of the way.
Jason Huh seems to have really shitty and lazy training but he is big because of all the drugs he is on. When you stick enough drugs into your body, and have good genetics, you will grow. It has nothing to do with this nonsense of partial training to maintain tension. have instinctively or deliberately notice this relationship and just discards full range movements altogether and just concentrates on the stretch portion essentially performing partials on all his movements.
Fixed.
-
Basile, ignore the flotsam.
I am proud that you are willing to share your newly found hypertrophy discoveries with us.
;D
;D
;D
-
(http://s15.postimg.org/oudhuo3nv/ak57w_Kx.jpg)
Nice nursing home chair ;)
-
"Vance, uh, Baysole. What can you say? Says here, Vance, uh, he always studied the hypertrophy. You gotta give him that. Goddamn! You gave this guy a muscle and he hypertrophied it! This guy was a hypertrophy studying son of a bitch.
"He, uh, took some pictures ...
"Ah, I got nothing."
-
(http://s3.postimg.org/pybgzuxnn/96g890g8g98g5.jpg)
-
(http://s3.postimg.org/pybgzuxnn/96g890g8g98g5.jpg)
FAKE,fake,fake WHERE is his double chin & 25 kg of HIS pork gone >:(
;D
-
"Vance, uh, Baysole. What can you say? Says here, Vance, uh, he always studied the hypertrophy. You gotta give him that. Goddamn! You gave this guy a muscle and he hypertrophied it! This guy was a hypertrophy studying son of a bitch.
"He, uh, took some pictures ...
"Ah, I got nothing."
C'mon, no Burr fans here?
-
C'mon, no Burr fans here?
Burr was on Iron Age, if I remember well 8)
-
You see, an analysis like this is Bro Science. Please use terminology relevant to hypertrophy. Intensity of effort and time under tension.
What trainees need to attempt is isolating the target muscles so that the mechanical tension is felt there. It matters not is one does
complete reps. Just complete sufficient time under tension with adequate intensity.
I remember a huge guy at McGill University back in 1961-2. He did only partials and had all manner of stretch marks
from his size. He knew what to do. Most of us fail to make rapid gains so keep reading and asking to find something that works.
It is possible to measure DOMS. You can do that in several ways. By how long it takes to disappear, by felt pain, and location of pain.
If you can keep your biceps sore for a month your arms will be an inch larger. Well, as long as you gain weight.
Again, you're full of shit. There isn't one bit evidence that DOMS is a factor in hypertrophy or sports performance. You're talking out of your ass with nothing to back it up.
-
Again, you're full of shit. There isn't one bit evidence that DOMS is a factor in hypertrophy or sports performance. You're talking out of your ass with nothing to back it up.
If you knew the science of hypertrophy you wouldn't make such a silly statement. Of course there is scientific evidence.
My word should be gold around here and not just ordinary anecdotal observations.
-
If you knew the science of hypertrophy you wouldn't make such a silly statement. Of course there is scientific evidence.
My word should be gold around here and not just ordinary anecdotal observations.
Bullshit, this is what I do for a living. Research and apply what works and what doesn't work with our athletes and hypertrophy is a big factor. Why should your word be gold if you have nothing to back it up. Years ago this very argument came up and I presented a shit load of data. Not from one source but several. DOMS has nothing to with adding hypertrophy, power, strength and especially performance.
-
Bullshit, this is what I do for a living. Research and apply what works and what doesn't work with our athletes and hypertrophy is a big factor. Why should your word be gold if you have nothing to back it up. Years ago this very argument came up and I presented a shit load of data. Not from one source but several. DOMS has nothing to with adding hypertrophy, power, strength and especially performance.
Thank goodness hypertrophy doesn't depend on opinions. What is obvious to me seems to be foolish to you. I can see a clear correlation between DOMS and growth.
-
Thank goodness hypertrophy doesn't depend on opinions. What is obvious to me seems to be foolish to you. I can see a clear correlation between DOMS and growth.
It's not an opinion genious. It's scientific fact. What are you do Vince, cripple people everyday in the gym and say "no it's ok, you not being able to walk or wipe your ass is a good thing. It means you're growing" but you know Vince, even with science you have to apply some commonsense with practical application. Even without studying I can tell you you're full of shit because 40 years of training tells me so, science just backs me up.
-
With Basile's old age, he gets sore getting in and out of his white van. He then translates that soreness into hypertrophy...WTF!
-
It's not an opinion genious. It's scientific fact. What are you do Vince, cripple people everyday in the gym and say "no it's ok, you not being able to walk or wipe your ass is a good thing. It means you're growing" but you know Vince, even with science you have to apply some commonsense with practical application. Even without studying I can tell you you're full of shit because 40 years of training tells me so, science just backs me up.
Well, Coach, you obviously don't know how to conduct yourself in an intellectual discussion. So you have 40 years experience. I have 57. It isn't how long you have been around gyms lifting weights but how long you
have been actively searching for the true theory of hypertrophy. This includes reading the research in the area.
I rather doubt that many of us, and especially you, can even comprehend the scientific literature. Sometimes we need others to interpret the studies.
I haven't seen a single study done on maximum human hypertrophy. Not one. The scientists aren't interested so I doubt they know what the theory is.
It really is amazing that in 2015 people still argue about lifting weights. We have been to the moon and can put 128 Gb of data on a micro SD card but we have no clue about the true theory of hypertrophy
that explains all growth from training and all non-growth as well. Yes, the method had better be a safe one because we have to avoid injuries at all costs.
-
Well, Coach, you obviously don't know how to conduct yourself in an intellectual discussion. So you have 40 years experience. I have 57. It isn't how long you have been around gyms lifting weights but how long you
have been actively searching for the true theory of hypertrophy. This includes reading the research in the area.
I rather doubt that many of us, and especially you, can even comprehend the scientific literature. Sometimes we need others to interpret the studies.
I haven't seen a single study done on maximum human hypertrophy. Not one. The scientists aren't interested so I doubt they know what the theory is.
It really is amazing that in 2015 people still argue about lifting weights. We have been to the moon and can put 128 Gb of data on a micro SD card but we have no clue about the true theory of hypertrophy
that explains all growth from training and all non-growth as well. Yes, the method had better be a safe one because we have to avoid injuries at all costs.
When you've been training for 57 or 40 it doesn't matter. It becomes irrelevant. But what it relevant if you pay attention to what works and what doesn't. For example. I can tell you when I was younger that if trained legs on a smith before a show I lost a lot of size. Then I didn't know why even though I was sore. I know why now! It's because the isolation of the smith caused little recruitment of other motor units. This isn't hearsay, this is fact. YOU might not find a study on maximum hypertrophy but there is on DOMS. Unless you have some kind peer reviewed study and several studies to back it, you have nothing.
-
you need to discover a method for quantifying DOMS
it's probably impossible but good luck with it
hope this helps
-
you need to discover a method for quantifying DOMS
it's probably impossible but good luck with it
hope this helps
The interesting thing is why does the body sometimes experience DOMS after an exertion? What exactly is happening in the muscles?
If I can walk down stairs and get really sore calves then is that the same kind of DOMS I experience from heavy lifting, especially after a layoff?
Once we know all about the mechanism we can determine the value for hypertrophy.
I am talking about natural bodybuilding here. I rather doubt the pros have much clue about what is responsible for their growth. It could
be many things or a group of things combining to give the huge size.
I was telling an older woman about my theory and she replied that she didn't want to get sore. That was the end of our discussion.
If we go back to our primitive animal ancestors then what purpose did the DOMS have? Is it just something that happens when we do
some unusual exertion? We all know that soon enough the soreness stops and it becomes increasingly more difficult to train hard enough
to experience DOMS. I can tell you that in our gym we have always introduced people to resistance training gradually....so they don't get
DOMS. In the literature on DOMS we find they are looking for ways to reduce the effect not generate it.
About 17 years ago I was training arms to get them bigger. I got to a point where they wouldn't grow any more. About 17 inches.
Then one day I did the lying triceps movement where you support your upper arms on pads. The next day my triceps were quite sore.
A light went on in my brain. Ah, ha! Maybe this is the key to hypertrophy that I have been searching for? So I kept training arms and calves
for 30 days while still sore. Both body parts were growing rapidly. I was so keen I couldn't wait for my next workout. I was getting stronger by the week as
well which pleased me. I trained every 3rd day. Over the month I was growing 1/10" per workout which is impressive. Then I had to end
the experiment. I was putting my elbows on the pads like Larry Scott and everyone else did. Nope, I damaged the sheath that goes over
the elbows. Now I know you never put your elbows on a surface under tension. Keep elbows clear of all pads just like we do with the knees
when we do lying leg curls. My Achilles tendons experienced some damage. I was doing multiple sets with up to 700 pounds for 60
bouncing reps. I discovered that ballistic movements can be dangerous. I put on over an inch on my calves doing that. So I would modify
what I was doing but still try to generate DOMS.
I doubt anyone would want to try this for all body parts during a week. Nope, just target a couple of body parts.
-
My BRAIN experienced some damage.
No need to tell us ;D
-
Well, Coach, you obviously don't know how to conduct yourself in an intellectual discussion. So you have 40 years experience. I have 57. It isn't how long you have been around gyms lifting weights but how long you
have been actively searching for the true theory of hypertrophy. This includes reading the research in the area.
I rather doubt that many of us, and especially you, can even comprehend the scientific literature. Sometimes we need others to interpret the studies.
I haven't seen a single study done on maximum human hypertrophy. Not one. The scientists aren't interested so I doubt they know what the theory is.
It really is amazing that in 2015 people still argue about lifting weights. We have been to the moon and can put 128 Gb of data on a micro SD card but we have no clue about the true theory of hypertrophy
that explains all growth from training and all non-growth as well. Yes, the method had better be a safe one because we have to avoid injuries at all costs.
Lol at scientists not knowing what theory is.
At this point I'd say you're trolling. Or just really stupid and delusional.
-
::)
-
(http://s28.postimg.org/76ybhykcs/Oyup5_VC.jpg)
-
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/800/447/db2.gif)
-
The interesting thing is why does the body sometimes experience DOMS after an exertion? What exactly is happening in the muscles?
If I can walk down stairs and get really sore calves then is that the same kind of DOMS I experience from heavy lifting, especially after a layoff?
Once we know all about the mechanism we can determine the value for hypertrophy.
I am talking about natural bodybuilding here. I rather doubt the pros have much clue about what is responsible for their growth. It could
be many things or a group of things combining to give the huge size.
I was telling an older woman about my theory and she replied that she didn't want to get sore. That was the end of our discussion.
If we go back to our primitive animal ancestors then what purpose did the DOMS have? Is it just something that happens when we do
some unusual exertion? We all know that soon enough the soreness stops and it becomes increasingly more difficult to train hard enough
to experience DOMS. I can tell you that in our gym we have always introduced people to resistance training gradually....so they don't get
DOMS. In the literature on DOMS we find they are looking for ways to reduce the effect not generate it.
About 17 years ago I was training arms to get them bigger. I got to a point where they wouldn't grow any more. About 17 inches.
Then one day I did the lying triceps movement where you support your upper arms on pads. The next day my triceps were quite sore.
A light went on in my brain. Ah, ha! Maybe this is the key to hypertrophy that I have been searching for? So I kept training arms and calves
for 30 days while still sore. Both body parts were growing rapidly. I was so keen I couldn't wait for my next workout. I was getting stronger by the week as
well which pleased me. I trained every 3rd day. Over the month I was growing 1/10" per workout which is impressive. Then I had to end
the experiment. I was putting my elbows on the pads like Larry Scott and everyone else did. Nope, I damaged the sheath that goes over
the elbows. Now I know you never put your elbows on a surface under tension. Keep elbows clear of all pads just like we do with the knees
when we do lying leg curls. My Achilles tendons experienced some damage. I was doing multiple sets with up to 700 pounds for 60
bouncing reps. I discovered that ballistic movements can be dangerous. I put on over an inch on my calves doing that. So I would modify
what I was doing but still try to generate DOMS.
I doubt anyone would want to try this for all body parts during a week. Nope, just target a couple of body parts.
DOMS is a feedback mechanism that you feel should be incorporated into an idealized training system. It's a vaguely defined concept like "failure". Specifically, DOMS is associated with eccentric loading and we assume it indicates that there's sufficient stimulus in the prior workout.
I gather the idea is; optimal mechanical loading is dependent on certain (difficult to measure) sensory feedback mechanisms like intensity and failure, and DOMS is one of them too. These concepts are cognitive as much as mechanical. If you can eliminate the cognitive aspects (subjective) then the data becomes more reliable.
If DOMS indicates sufficient stimulus then clearly you need to identify the feedback mechanism that indicates excess stimulus.
Physical injury doesn't cut it.
-
DOMS is a feedback mechanism that you feel should be incorporated into an idealized training system. It's a vaguely defined concept like "failure". Specifically, DOMS is associated with eccentric loading and we assume it indicates that there's sufficient stimulus in the prior workout.
I gather the idea is; optimal mechanical loading is dependent on certain (difficult to measure) sensory feedback mechanisms like intensity and failure, and DOMS is one of them too. These concepts are cognitive as much as mechanical. If you can eliminate the cognitive aspects (subjective) then the data becomes more reliable.
If DOMS indicates sufficient stimulus then clearly you need to identify the feedback mechanism that indicates excess stimulus.
Physical injury doesn't cut it.
Explain eccentric, concentric and isometric to Vince. He just knows up, down and stuck.
-
Explain eccentric, concentric and isometric to Vince. He just knows up, down and stuck.
vince seems a little cranky
he doesn't like to discuss and explain his ideas too much.
-
vince seems a little cranky
he doesn't like to discuss and explain his ideas too much.
Especially if involves DIETING & hypertrophy ;D ;D ;D
-
Explain eccentric, concentric and isometric to Vince. He just knows up, down and stuck.
LOL. Guys like the Coach don't have the vocabulary to comprehend anything too complicated.
-
vince seems a little cranky
he doesn't like to discuss and explain his ideas too much.
I am hardly cranky. I have explained in plenty of detail what my theory is but most people
can't comprehend what it is all about. They want sets and reps sort of explanations.
One would hope that a theory should be sufficient for intelligent people to apply.
Have a look at this thread. Some guys keep attacking whatever I say but I totally ignore them.
That is the opposite of being cranky.
-
vince seems a little cranky
he doesn't like to discuss and explain his ideas too much.
The funny thing is that he has a theory, yet if it works so well, why does Basile look like shit? ???
-
I am hardly cranky. I have explained in plenty of detail what my theory is but most people
can't comprehend what it is all about. They want sets and reps sort of explanations.
One would hope that a theory should be sufficient for intelligent people to apply.
Have a look at this thread. Some guys keep attacking whatever I say but I totally ignore them.
That is the opposite of being cranky.
Arthur Jones put a lot of effort into explaining and demonstrating his ideas and training principles. He even wrote about DOMS and soreness as an indicator of sufficient training. I don't think he claimed to have any type of new theory. He just took a more careful approach to developing his machines and so on.
Having an intuition is not a theory so it creates confusion when you use this terminology. This could be excused if you produced something that solves a problem. It's not clear what the problem being solved is though either....hmmmm
-
The funny thing is that he has a theory, yet if it works so well, why does Basile look like shit? ???
vince gets injured whenever he tries out his theories. There's probably something to it but they system needs refinement because we don't know when to stop training. Unless we're missing something... ???
-
Arthur Jones put a lot of effort into explaining and demonstrating his ideas and training principles. He even wrote about DOMS and soreness as an indicator of sufficient training. I don't think he claimed to have any type of new theory. He just took a more careful approach to developing his machines and so on.
Having an intuition is not a theory so it creates confusion when you use this terminology. This could be excused if you produced something that solves a problem. It's not clear what the problem being solved is though either....hmmmm
Arthur Jones was a genius. The smartest guy to get involved in the Iron Game and the gym equipment industry. He was a logical and clear thinker and didn't care about formal education and PhD degrees.
He was mistaken about how muscles contract. He used the analogy of a train with box cars representing sections of each fiber. Unfortunately, the sliding filament theory is more correct so Jones had a
false premise and his HIT system collapses because of it. He stressed the concept of intensity and did experiments on strength and hypertrophy. He told Ray Mentzer he would rather spend money on research than
pay the government taxes!
Arthur and everyone else missed the importance of DOMS. Mr Turbo believes one needs to quantify a term before it can be called scientific. That isn't quite true. Sometimes the best that we have are approximations.
Let us do a thought experiment. If we take a subject with 17 inch arms who has tried everything to get bigger arms but failed. Would this person be able to use the DOMS method to gain an inch in a month?
I have no doubt at all. As long as he followed my protocols which include some special isolating exercises. If I can produce results then my theory is sound. What surprises me is how reluctant so many are to
even try my method. The Coach believes he has enough experience to know just by reading something whether it will work or not. Even the Coach can be mistaken. I challenge everyone here to
do an experiment for at least 2 weeks using the DOMS method on arms. Get both biceps and triceps sore and keep them sore for the two weeks or preferably 4 weeks and see how you go. You must increase
your body weight along the way.
-
vince gets injured whenever he tries out his theories. There's probably something to it but they system needs refinement because we don't know when to stop training. Unless we're missing something... ???
what he needs it actual scientific evidence. According to Basile, the way scientists use the term theory is wrong. All those Harvard and Yale scientists are wrong lol. According to Basile, they are not using the term "theory" correctly lol. Maybe they can learn something from Basile.
Basile is a deluded idiot who is still chasing hypertrophy at his age while looking really bad. You know your life is sad when your his age and you're still arguing with people on the internet about hypertrophy lol
-
Lol at scientists not knowing what theory is.
At this point I'd say you're trolling. Or just really stupid and delusional.
You are a bona fide dope. That isn't what I wrote. Arguing with ignorant people who can't comprehend simple English is a waste of time.
-
You are a bona fide dope. That isn't what I wrote. Arguing with ignorant people who can't comprehend simple English is a waste of time.
You wrote to me and OMR that you use the term "theory" much differently than the scientific community, you deluded moron.
There is only one way to use the term theory according to current scientific understanding. If you're using it differently, then you in fact are assuming to know something they don't know.
I think its a waste of time that you're 70, look like utter garbage and rigged your own bodybuilding show. :D And that you're 70+ arguing with strangers on the internet about your "theory." You're a sad individual.
-
You wrote to me and OMR that you use the term "theory" much differently than the scientific community, you deluded moron.
There is only one way to use the term theory according to current scientific understanding. If you're using it differently, then you in fact are assuming to know something they don't know.
I think its a waste of time that you're 70, look like utter garbage and rigged your own bodybuilding show. :D And that you're 70+ arguing with strangers on the internet about your "theory." You're a sad individual.
I wasn't talking about how scientists use the term 'theory'. I stated that scientists don't have a complete theory about hypertrophy. That is what they don't know.
I am quite familiar with how the concept is used in the philosophy of science because I have a masters degree in the subject.
When someone refutes my theory I will change or abandon it. So far no one has come close to doing any damage to the DOMS theory.
-
Never seen a machine that could load the muscle eccentrically.
you need to train the individual muscle with a lot of variability because it seems it's the repetition of movements is what harms the joints....hmmm
-
I am hardly cranky. I have explained in plenty of detail what my theory is but most people
can't comprehend what it is all about. They want sets and reps sort of explanations.
One would hope that a theory should be sufficient for intelligent people to apply.
Have a look at this thread. Some guys keep attacking whatever I say but I totally ignore them.
That is the opposite of being cranky.
Really ::), U a lying to your self ::)
Already forgetting Manly beach "penthouse" topic ::)
;D
-
You must increase
your body weight along the way.[/color]
and how is yours & Rozs "bodyweight" (read FAT) ;D
-
I wasn't talking about how scientists use the term 'theory'. I stated that scientists don't have a complete theory about hypertrophy. That is what they don't know.
I am quite familiar with how the concept is used in the philosophy of science because I have a masters degree in the subject.
When someone refutes my theory I will change or abandon it. So far no one has come close to doing any damage to the DOMS theory.
I could call Zorba & ask for his opinion about hypershitty theory ;)
-
Never seen a machine that could load the muscle eccentrically.
you need to train the individual muscle with a lot of variability because it seems it's the repetition of movements is what harms the joints....hmmm
I have seen two lines of equipment that increase the load in the eccentric part of the movement. The best were the electronic machines built by
Life Fitness way back in 1991. You did one test rep and it determined what resistance you needed to complete only 12 reps. You could increase
the eccentric resistance to 125% of the concentric load. The best circuit ever for gyms but sadly discontinued.
http://www.ibi-fitness.com/whatis.html
-
Arthur Jones was a genius. The smartest guy to get involved in the Iron Game and the gym equipment industry. He was a logical and clear thinker and didn't care about formal education and PhD degrees.
He was mistaken about how muscles contract. He used the analogy of a train with box cars representing sections of each fiber. Unfortunately, the sliding filament theory is more correct so Jones had a
false premise and his HIT system collapses because of it. He stressed the concept of intensity and did experiments on strength and hypertrophy. He told Ray Mentzer he would rather spend money on research than
pay the government taxes!
Arthur and everyone else missed the importance of DOMS. Mr Turbo believes one needs to quantify a term before it can be called scientific. That isn't quite true. Sometimes the best that we have are approximations.
Let us do a thought experiment. If we take a subject with 17 inch arms who has tried everything to get bigger arms but failed. Would this person be able to use the DOMS method to gain an inch in a month?
I have no doubt at all. As long as he followed my protocols which include some special isolating exercises. If I can produce results then my theory is sound. What surprises me is how reluctant so many are to
even try my method. The Coach believes he has enough experience to know just by reading something whether it will work or not. Even the Coach can be mistaken. I challenge everyone here to
do an experiment for at least 2 weeks using the DOMS method on arms. Get both biceps and triceps sore and keep them sore for the two weeks or preferably 4 weeks and see how you go. You must increase
your body weight along the way.
If a muscle is being exercised regularly, it will quickly become so accustomed to heavy workloads that it will be almost impossible to induce even a slight degree of muscular soreness; thus, if muscular soreness is produced in an area of the body that has been trained for as long as a week, this is a clear indication that you have not been training hard enough – or that you have been performing the movements improperly.
http://www.arthurjonesexercise.com/Bulletin1/26.PDF
???
-
I have seen two lines of equipment that increase the load in the eccentric part of the movement. The best were the electronic machines built by
Life Fitness way back in 1991. You did one test rep and it determined what resistance you needed to complete only 12 reps. You could increase
the eccentric resistance to 125% of the concentric load. The best circuit ever for gyms but sadly discontinued.
http://www.ibi-fitness.com/whatis.html
interesting to imagine a mechanism that would do the same thing without the electronics.
-
(http://s27.postimg.org/l3obp05er/ieibk7.jpg)
-
very fine artwork :)
made by ironmeister :)
-
made by ironmeister :)
That guy Van Gock (or Glock) would be jealous of this masterpiece 8)
-
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.
Why not submit this to PubMed?
-
C'mon, no Burr fans here?
It's the only podcast I listen to and it was you who posted the first of him I'd seen. So thanks and go fuck ya self.
-
Why not submit this to PubMed?
Because it would get utterly destroyed.
-
Because it would get utterly destroyed.
It will unbore the scientific community :D
-
bahaahhahaahaha just had a look on that realgym website
-
bahaahhahaahaha just had a look on that realgym website
why the fuck did basile put this abomination of a photo on there
Kevin Levrone would be jealous.
-
All stabilizer muscles are in isometric contraction mode to stabilize any lift. Stretching is relaxing your muscles. If you contract any of your muscles much in stretching, then you are doing some serious damage to your tendons and ligaments. So, yeah, it matters what you call it.
How is stretching a muscle relaxing it?
-
bahaahhahaahaha just had a look on that realgym website
why the fuck did basile put this abomination of a photo on there
Nice panties
-
bahaahhahaahaha just had a look on that realgym website
why the fuck did basile put this abomination of a photo on there
I never put my photo up in any of my gyms. My family did that. Natural in the photo, too, but off season by months.
-
Okay, I requested that this thread was moved to this forum. Anyone interested can post here.
We hope the moderators will remove all the personal attacks and non-topic posts.
-
How is stretching a muscle relaxing it?
I meant to say that stretching should only be gently relaxing a muscle, not contracting a muscle. Relaxing into the stretch, doesn't elongate tendons and ligaments.
-
Okay, I requested that this thread was moved to this forum. Anyone interested can post here.
We hope the moderators will remove all the personal attacks and non-topic posts.
I'm not going through the previous 7 pages but from this point forward the thread will be moderated. If you have a specific concern you can PM me.
-
Thanks, Chaos, well done.
-
interesting to imagine a mechanism that would do the same thing without the electronics.
Here are some:
http://www.x-force.se/index.php/products
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9901/fch.html[/b]
I have tried two X-Force machines and found them lacking. You don't always get a smooth transition
when the weight stack returns to the vertical position to effectively increase the resistance for the eccentric phase.
These machines are rather big and sadly, not so user friendly. Good idea, though.
Be interesting to see Scott Naidus's machines. A different way to change the resistance and might be a better solution.
-
Vince, are you familiar with the Keiser air pressure machines? I used them when I was living in So Ca and loved them. Even if you blasted out fast reps there was no momentum. Also, you could provide you own eccentric resistance. Like with the chest press after you pushed out you could press down on the pedals at your feet (right to increase pressure, left to decrease pressure) to increase resistance as you lowered it. Also, as the set wears on and you can't complete another full rep with the current resistance you could again push on the pedal to lessen the air pressure and simulate forced reps.
It had a different feel to it and seemed much easier on the joints.
-
Vince, are you familiar with the Keiser air pressure machines? I used them when I was living in So Ca and loved them. Even if you blasted out fast reps there was no momentum. Also, you could provide you own eccentric resistance. Like with the chest press after you pushed out you could press down on the pedals at your feet (right to increase pressure, left to decrease pressure) to increase resistance as you lowered it. Also, as the set wears on and you can't complete another full rep with the current resistance you could again push on the pedal to lessen the air pressure and simulate forced reps.
It had a different feel to it and seemed much easier on the joints.
Hi Pellius. Yes, I trained on some Keiser pneumatic machines at Golds Gym, Venice, back in 1991. What I found was that they tended to hurt the joints when you increased the load heaps. On lighter resistances they felt okay.
There was one exception, the seated toe extender for the calves. The extra eccentric load was great and there was no pain in the ankles. This could be one of the best calf machines ever made. Trouble is you need a compressor and they can be noisy. Well, you put them in a room that is insulated. The Kaiser chromed machines are probably the best finished exercise machines ever.
-
Here are some:
http://www.x-force.se/index.php/products
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9901/fch.html[/b]
I have tried two X-Force machines and found them lacking. You don't always get a smooth transition
when the weight stack returns to the vertical position to effectively increase the resistance for the eccentric phase.
These machines are rather big and sadly, not so user friendly. Good idea, though.
Be interesting to see Scott Naidus's machines. A different way to change the resistance and might be a better solution.
I remember this Fibo vid, where these machines (same brand I guess) are demonstrated. I understand that a muscle is much stronger in it's eccentric than in it's concentric phase, so it's interesting to see that a manufacturer tries to implement this principle in his line (AFAIK Nautilus was the first one with their blue 'monsters') The question however is, will the general public embrace machines like these? I don't think so. Based on my observations, most machine training people are damn lazy. Another concern is the demonstrated rep speed; the majority of the gym goers lack the right mindset to train this slow (not saying that it isn't effective).
-
Hi Pellius. Yes, I trained on some Keiser pneumatic machines at Golds Gym, Venice, back in 1991. What I found was that they tended to hurt the joints when you increased the load heaps. On lighter resistances they felt okay.
There was one exception, the seated toe extender for the calves. The extra eccentric load was great and there was no pain in the ankles. This could be one of the best calf machines ever made. Trouble is you need a compressor and they can be noisy. Well, you put them in a room that is insulated. The Kaiser chromed machines are probably the best finished exercise machines ever.
Vince! I started at Golds in 1991! Shit we could have been at the gym at the same time. I went around mid morning. The only "famous" guy I knew there when I first started was Don Ross because of a mutual friend, Benny Podda.
Don was great as he would always take the time to talk with me despite always having people around him B.S-ing. He would also introduce me to some of the big shots bodybuilders at the time but the only one I really wanted to meet was Mike Mentzer. What a thrill it was for me. I was like a giddy school girl at a Justin Brieber concert. I was a little taken aback by Mentzer's voice. Not what I imagine at all. Mike always made it a point to call me by my name when we ran into each other. He was always with a client and I had to hurry because I was going to UCLA at the time which was on the way to Gold's from where I lived in Redondo Beach. I always wanted to catch him when he was free and talk with him. I think we would have gotten along famously as we had so much in common outside of bbing. I originally was a Philosophy major before switching to Mathematics so I was familiar with Ayn Rand and Nietsche whom Mike use to quote a lot during is competitive years. Plus, there was a lot of questions and doubts I had about his and Jones training system even though I thought they were basically sound. I mean, if intensity should be maximize and duration minimized why limit yourself to one set? Why not just one super intense rep? Why not take a weight that exceeds your one rep max and do one super intense forced rep with a spotter(s) along with a super slow negative rep and leave it at there?
Anyway, good times then. I remember thinking Flex was the most perfectly built human being and Paul Dillet the most freakiest bodybuilder I've ever seen. Flex use to train with Cormier and one or two other advance bodybuilders. They were just coming up then. I remember Lou going through his transformation where every time I went to train he looked 10 pounds bigger.
Maybe that was you hogging the curling machine I was waiting for. I was always doing super sets and hated when a machine I wanted to use was taken. Gold's also had the Keiser equipment back then. I don't see any gyms having them anymore. Funny that you felt they were hard on the joints. For me it was the opposite. They also had that alternate Nautilus lat machine that you never see anymore. It was a different angle from the pullover and stimulated the behind the neck pull down. The pads were right by your ears and you pushed down and back with your elbows while your arms were kept in the double bicep position while you were midway and drove your elbows to the side of your waist. Pure back and full range of motion.
Jones was a genius and started the revolution as everyone tried to copy him.
-
About whether the Keiser machines are hard on the joints or not. Let me diverge a bit and talk about an innovative leg press. Cybex made an horizontal leg press and it was popular with lots of people. One day I had a go on it and worked up to a reasonable resistance. The machine felt smooth and great during the warmup with low resistance. As the resistance increased the movement just didn't feel right. It might have been the position of the feet which was quite high relative to the back. Using a weight I could just manage 10 reps on I knew that this wasn't designed properly. That test became a bench mark for me and I always loaded the machines I was trying via a pyramid. Sure enough most machines failed the heavy resistance test. Another promising machine was the Cybex seated toe extension. It, too, failed feeling right when maximum resistance was used. When I looked at the mechanics of it I could see it needed an adjustment to the length from the pivot point to the balls of the feet. What was comfortable and just right would be possible for everyone then. I never did build one of those machines but the idea was solid.
So I loaded up the Keiser machines. At heavy resistance my joints were not happy. So I didn't use them again....except for the seated calf machine. That was a great machine even at heavy resistance and great because the eccentric part of the movement would be increased over the concentric part. One of the best calf machines I have used.
Getting back to Golds Gym at Venice...The Mecca! I was there in April 1991 for two weeks. I stayed with Ray Mentzer at his place. When he lived at my place in Sydney he was with his partner, Kathy and their daughter, Dagny. She was named after the heroine in "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. I read that book way back in 1961. That was heavy going but I guess I looked for a superwoman like that but never found any. I introduced Ray to Pam who he eventually married and they lived in Torrance but didn't have any children together.
I agree that Arthur Jones was the most intelligent person to ever get involved in the Iron Game. I spoke with him for an hour in 1995 after receiving a patent for my biceps-supinator machine. I sure enjoyed that conversation. We got along like a house on fire. What a pity we didn't record it.
Ray introduced me to Mike after I said I would like to meet him. I gave him an unpublished article I wrote on the judging at the 1980 Olympia contest in Sydney. I wonder if he destroyed that article? Anyway, we spoke for about an hour but neither learned anything from the other. I guess I expected more. I doubt he accepted me as an authority in anything, either!
Let us talk about intensity that Arthur referred to. What a shame he wasn't correct about hypertrophy. I think intensity training might be linked more to strength and that was an objective because he sold a lot of his machines to colleges and high schools. We all saw how huge Sergio Oliva got after Arthur trained him for a month or so back in 1991. That was the biggest that Sergio ever got. He discontinued using Nautilus machines and methods because the gym he used in Chicago didn't have a line of Nautilus machines which was a pity. Imagine how great Sergio might have become with two years training like that? Arthur trained Sergio and Casey slightly differently from what he advocated. For legs he would get them to do a quick warm up then do leg presses to failure with a heavy resistance for 25 to 30 reps. With no rest they would go to the leg extension machine and do 20 reps. Then without resting do some squats with a heavy resistance for 15 reps. The first time Sergio followed Casey in this routine he couldn't get up in the squat after descending with something over 400 pounds. Once your body got used to this super tri-set you rested then repeated the sequence.
From my analysis of Arthur's theory on hypertrophy I concluded he was mistaken about intensity. It was a factor but it was not sufficient to continuously trigger hypertrophy in advanced trainees. His methods might work for a while but stop within a month or two. That is a shame because we all liked the idea of briefer training and more effective routines. I blame Jones for my not reaching my maximum muscular size because I didn't do enough volume. I combined what Arthur recommended with what I distilled from Larry Scott. Larry advocated pumping the muscles with brutal quick sets. Up and down the rack for biceps and shoulders. Few of those who tried Larry's routines stayed with them. The main problem was not having access to a row of dumbbells in the gym. If the gym was busy you couldn't hog 10 pairs of dumbbells for yourself. Effective but basically impractical during the busy hours at any gym. My method in those days was to see how few sets I would have to do, including warm up sets, to obtain a maximum pump. We believed John Grimek when he said he didn't grown after doing 100 sets of standing presses. Thus, once you pumped your arms bigger than ever you stopped because it was felt further exercise was ineffective. For me that point was reached after 7 sets. I would stop. What a shame because I was almost there. Just another 5 sets or so would have done the job.
What was it besides intensity that made the muscles grow? I am talking about serious bodybuilders who have at least 16 inch arms. The answer is quite simple, really, but easy to overlook. You can reduce all training protocols to time under tension. The intensity part is involved with how much resistance you are using. I think scientists concluded that you needed to lift a resistance that was 75 to 80 percent of a one rep maximum. If you could do one rep with 200 pounds in the bench press that means you would have to do 150 to 160 pounds in your routine to grow. When it comes to measuring time under tension how do we do that? Well, anecdotal reports from countless people over decades all believed that the last rep or two were the ones that made you grow. Let us say that this is about 5 seconds. Jones would like us believe that one set should have been sufficient. Not even close, unfortunately. It takes much more accumulated time under intense mechanical tension to trigger hypertrophy. I estimated that this total must be from 1 to 2 minutes. Not very long for sure but we are talking about the last two reps in heavy sets. It probably can't be reduced to exact reps, but it is the accumulation of waste products caused by training to failure over and over with a heavy resistance. I would warm up doing a few sets in a pyramid fashion adding more weight for each set. When I couldn't complete my target reps I would use that number to repeat that set with the same weight over and over. Let us talk about bench press and the guy doing 200 pounds. It could be 400 pounds or any number. You keep adding weight until you fail at from 15 to 20 reps. Why such a high number? You will see in a moment. Suppose you ended up doing 15 reps with 140 pounds. You rest about 3 minutes and do another set of bench presses. You will find you might fail at 14 reps. On the 3rd set you fail at 14 reps. Then on the 4th set using the same 140 pounds you fail at 12 reps. Something happens in the muscles and you can't do as many reps. Since you are still doing over 10 reps your form remains good and you get a good pump. This helps avoid injuries as well. You continue until you have done 6 sets with the 140 pounds. You will be down to about 10 reps then. You should be pumped, exhausted and shaking. These are unavoidable symptoms of triggering hypertrophy in trained bodybuilders. There is no easy way to trigger hypertrophy. There are many protocols that you can choose but you have to go through the same physiological states.
If you think this is an easy program then try it on squats and see how you go.
-
Now Ray I would see occasionally in Torrance/Redondo Bch area. Always friendly, always huge. Last time I saw him was at the 24hr gym on Hawthorn/Pacific Coast Hwy in Torrance. It was a while, maybe two years since I last saw him and I was thrilled. I was pointing him out to the other members, including some hard core meat heads, and was just disgusted that now one knew who he was. So much for bbing bringing you any lasting fame with the general public. He did look so good but was still huge. I always thought he had more of a traditional bbing look than Mike did. But that's what I liked about Mike. He had a slightly different look from other bbers in that era. His arms looked so thick just hanging to the side relaxed. And he had a very compact and extremed dense musculature. It's as if you took a hunk of his muscle out to examine it there would be more fibers per square inch and it would be thougher than a dry flank steak to cut through. In contrast someone like Phil Heath would be a nice tender Kobe steak where the knife slices through like butter.
I was reading a thread on another board where it's a Q and A with another alleged pro. I like him and think he is fair dinkum. Of course, it primarily revolves various hormone and peptide protocols but ever now and then an oldster will spoil the fun with a training question. The answer reminded me of you as it seems to be more along the lines of your training beliefs.
Well I have always worked under the theory that if I can physically continue to train the muscle then it is not finished for the day....ok lets take a 16 set workout for chest, that gives 4 sets for incline 4 sets for flat bench, 4 sets for maybe decline, and the maybe 4 sets of pec dec, now I literally cannot imagine anyone whether ur a pro BB, ameteur BB, or anyone who even has a moderate level of fitness who could possibly consider that a full, adequate, muscle building workout session....im truely not trying to sound condesending but I just cant wrap my head around people thinking that a workout such as that is gonna cut it, 16 sets leaves no room for incline flies, champagnes, flat bench flies, hammer strength incline, hammer strength wide chest press, and the list goes on and on and on......the only thing I can think of is the fact that top bodybuilders often lie and swear up and down that they achieved there physique through a combo of moderate gear usage and moderate training.....i just dont know what else it could be causing almost everyone to think this way, but back to the point if u CAN continue to train that session then u NEED to push on until ur smoked, there is no magic number of sets exactly but use ur own good judgement, if u do 16sets and u truely feel like ur muscle is so smoked that u cannot continue....and u think that constitues a 5 to 7 day rest until u hit it again then continue to do 12 to 16 sets, but I think u know that isnt the case......my advice shoot for 50 sets, yes 50 sets, 5 working sets of at least 10 excersizes, 3 for upper chest, 3 mid chest, 3 lower chest, 1 finisher.....then u can look in the mirror and say to urself "fuck man, I did all I could today, im smoked" if u fall a little short of ur goal then u didnt want it enough
-
About how many sets to do to stimulate hypertrophy in advanced bodybuilders. If we go by what we see in videos of most of the top pros we can conclude they do a lot of sets and exercises.
The main thing in common is plenty of mechanical tension of an intense nature accumulating over the workout. They are all doing similar things. Maybe 4 or 5 exercises and 15 to 25 sets.
Are any doing 50 sets per muscle group? I am not aware of any pro doing that many sets since Steve Michelik.
How many sets do I recommend doing? I can tell you a strategy to find out. Well, it may not be the number of sets. It could be the intensity and it could also be the specific exercises.
What you do is see if any DOMS appears the day after your workout. If not sore then you have to do something different the next time. More heavy sets, a different exercise, etc., until
you generate DOMS the day after.
I remember what Bryan Haycock wrote on his Hypertrophy Specific Forum. He is familiar with the scientific research into hypertrophy. When asked how long someone would have to train
to trigger the maximum amount of hypertrophy that was possible he replied perhaps 8 hours! So maybe doing 50 sets isn't as crazy as it sounds. Michelik wasn't a dope. For him that
is what he ended up doing to get huge. Larry Scott sure did a lot of sets for arms and shoulders. All those up and down the rack sets sure add up.
I was going to try an all day protocol. Warm up arms then alternate the maximum weight supersetting biceps and triceps for the whole day. Would have been interesting but I never
got around to trying it. If we apply the principle of progression it might be that even long sessions can be increased over a period of time. Start with half an hour then eventually
get up to 4 hours or longer. I think Serge Nubret also did very long protocols. So there could be something to all of this for some guys who haven't grown that much.
What bothers me is that the vast majority DON'T do extremely long workouts. That suggests they are not necessary. There seems to be a threshold that when crossed triggers hypertrophy
and we have little idea if sustained training after that point is beneficial.
The current beliefs are as follows. Train hard and eat more and you should grow. Follow what the champs do. If you can't get big it must be because you need drugs. If you take them and
still don't get huge you can blame your genetics. This belief has pretty much ended serious discussions about hypertrophy which is a shame. I still believe it is possible to get huge without
taking any drugs at all.
-
Since this thread was moved to the training board I noticed after perusing other threads that a fella name Ryan Ergo has started posting here. He is a very advance bber and very knowledgeable about training and hormones. I think you would enjoy discussing training with him as he is very well read, has the knowledge and vocabulary, has been training for decades, has competed, and even at breaking the half century mark is practically stage ready within 4-6 weeks.
He's a serious and passionate person when it comes to advance bbing so you won't have to worry about any balonie or ridicule. I don't think I've ever even been on the training board but will definitely start going there just so I can read Ergo's posts. I've know him from other boards and was always impressed with him. He disappeared for about three years from the boards but is back now. I'm actually surprised that he chose GetBig for his return as he is so well know and respected on other boards and is well aware of GB's reputation for brutality and nonsense. Maybe it's because despite what others say about this "dying board" seeing it's better days it still gets the largest audience with the exception of bb.com.
I would be interested in your comments regarding this post. It's similar to what you were taking about vis-a-vis TUT. He believes, like you, like Jones, like myself, and unlike Coach, the inherent limitations of free weights and there's nothing special about muscle contracting pressing a barbell or pressing a hammer incline other than with a barbell you need more skill as more is involved with balancing and controlling a barbell which is a skill and has nothing to do with pure muscle contraction and stimulation.
That body in the pic above was developed in this manner. I made more gains in 2 years then ever before and this is at a time where I trained just as you do currently and was resolved to the fact that free weights was "the way" watch some of my video's particularly some of my earlier ones YouTube ryan ergo for my channel. There is more to it but in a nutshell this is it. That body was trained in this fashion...
Muscle does not know what exercise you are doing. Muscle does not know if you're using a barbell, cable, cement block etc. Muscle can and will only respond to stress that is created and directed toward stimulating the muscle into responding. With the goal being hypertrophy. Bodybuilders accomplish this stress through a series of repetitions that are performed during a set. Muscle does not know about repetitions. The standard repetition is a stutter approach to creating stress on the muscle. A stutter approach is not the best approach. A more prolonged type of TUT (time under tension) is preferred to damage the muscle. If you watch the average trainer perform their set the stuttered TUT will be for that set (8-12 reps) would average a stuttered 12-20 seconds total. This is why the average trainer must do 12-20 sets to have any effect on positive results. This is a very haphazard way to train and will only delay your growth.You must find a machine that will deliver a constant tension throughout your set during both the positive and negative phases. You must train as heavily as possible while still allowing yourself to maintain a constant TUT for a minimum of 45 seconds to 2 minutes per set. Slow the reps down. Muscle does not know reps. Muscle only knows that you are delivering a new kind of constant stress that it cannot get a reprieve from as it does with a stuttered approach. It must, must activate deeper muscle fibers to compensate for this new approach. Often as little as 4-6 reps can destroy the muscle from the TUT it takes to complete the 4-6 reps. If you can go beyond 4-6 reps, do so. The lactic acid and pump will be incredibly painful. You must endure the pain and keep going to complete muscle failure. Your pain threshold will improve and so will your strength and so thus will the gains in new muscle size. Seek out the best machines at your gym for this method. These machines must give you a constant stress throughout the positive phase at a minimum. Most well designed machines can at least do this. If you can find a machine that delivers a constant stress for the negative also, do so. In other words it drives you back into the tension mode upon reversing the movement. This is an optimal machine.
-
Since this thread was moved to the training board I noticed after perusing other threads that a fella name Ryan Ergo has started posting here. He is a very advance bber and very knowledgeable about training and hormones. I think you would enjoy discussing training with him as he is very well read, has the knowledge and vocabulary, has been training for decades, has competed, and even at breaking the half century mark is practically stage ready within 4-6 weeks.
He's a serious and passionate person when it comes to advance bbing so you won't have to worry about any balonie or ridicule. I don't think I've ever even been on the training board but will definitely start going there just so I can read Ergo's posts. I've know him from other boards and was always impressed with him. He disappeared for about three years from the boards but is back now. I'm actually surprised that he chose GetBig for his return as he is so well know and respected on other boards and is well aware of GB's reputation for brutality and nonsense. Maybe it's because despite what others say about this "dying board" seeing it's better days it still gets the largest audience with the exception of bb.com.
I would be interested in your comments regarding this post. It's similar to what you were taking about vis-a-vis TUT. He believes, like you, like Jones, like myself, and unlike Coach, the inherent limitations of free weights and there's nothing special about muscle contracting pressing a barbell or pressing a hammer incline other than with a barbell you need more skill as more is involved with balancing and controlling a barbell which is a skill and has nothing to do with pure muscle contraction and stimulation.
SOME good points here on training,the old adage free weights vs machine,,they all work well in some balance in your training protocol.i love cable work and hammer or stacked versions of machine ,the fixed plane of execution from start to mid to finish on a rep gives the working muscle intended stimulation the full benefit over using say only free weights..
-
SOME good points here on training,the old adage free weights vs machine,,they all work well in some balance in your training protocol.i love cable work and hammer or stacked versions of machine ,the fixed plane of execution from start to mid to finish on a rep gives the working muscle intended stimulation the full benefit over using say only free weights..
Because free weights only provide direct resistance going up and down it is very effective on exercises in the plane of movement such as military press, bench press, squat.... When it's a rotary type like say curls or flies, not so much. Also you don't get the full range of motion with free weights that you can get with a well design, Basile approve, machine. Your pecs bring your upper arm across your torse. With the bench press you're getting maybe 50 degrees of that angle. The Nautilus flies takes you through the full range of motion.
The more interesting question is if full range is necessary. I mean, more people built tremendous pecs using benching movements than with machine flies.
-
Is full range necessary? Nope. One of the issues Nautilus stressed to promote their machines. Put the muscle under severe mechanical tension for a minute or so and you will grow. All protocols can be reduced to this requirement.
Training becomes a means to effectively and safely generate sufficient mechanical tension for the required length of time. When you know this fact it gives you endless ways to train. You can also assess whether protocols are going to result
in hypertrophy. My method is simply to go by the level of DOMS generated from that workout. No DOMS then no or little growth. That is the sad fact. Instead of asking for specific exercises and protocols you focus on getting to the point
where the symptoms of a hypertrophy stimulus is present. Shaking muscles, sweating, a maximum pump and feeling worn out. The effective protocol is to warmup with high reps then use a moderately heavy weight over and over and over.
Supersetting from triceps to biceps or chest to back works well. There are plenty of combinations. You always aim for the maximum pump. Use the same resistance over and over for at least 6 sets. If you are not sore the next couple of days
you have to rethink what you did and change something, preferably the exercise. Once you get an effective exercise it will usually keep working for you to grow muscle.
-
I have personally experienced rapid hypertrophy in my arms using 3 totally different protocols.
1. Isometric training where one holds a loaded barbell against pins for 3 X 10 seconds. M W F. M mid position, W low and F high. Use weight that you fail at 10 seconds.
2. Concentric only machine. 20 sets of biceps curls for maximum that allowed 5 reps. Alternating standing triceps extensions 20 sets X 5 reps.
3. Conventional training. Warm up pyramid. 50 reps adding resistance etc., until can do only 20 reps. Then stay at that weight and do 5 more sets. Biceps alternating with lying triceps extensions.
I have no doubt that eccentric only exercise with also trigger hypertrophy. There may be other protocols as well.