stimulate, dont annihilate!!! key to training success

[Jaime]

Still waiting on Vince's philosophy...Perhaps he can outlay his five step plan to 2 inches on arms in a month..

[Vince B]

Okay, you are now talking about hypertrophy theories which can be discussed.

The pursuit of strength has a limit re hypertrophy training. It isn't the goal. Large muscles are. While training for strength will increase muscle size it doesn't always do so. That is the problem. Bigger muscles are stronger but the most important thing is being able to do many sets with a maximum resistance. This is what big muscles are good at. Do you comprehend this? It is crucial.

When you look at huge bodybuilders you would expect them to be able to throw the shot put out of the stadium. What do we find? They are okay but their big muscles, no matter how strong, are not that good for throwing the shot. Same thing goes for arm wrestling. You would think the guys with the biggest arms would win. John Brzenk proved everyone wrong.

There was a powerlifter called Mike McDonald who could bench somewhere around 600 pounds and he had about 16 1/2 inch arms. How come that strength didn't build his arms larger?

[Vince B]

Still waiting on Vince's philosophy...Perhaps he can outlay his five step plan to 2 inches on arms in a month..

Why should I help jokers like you? My theories are on the internet. Go find them and distill the essence of what I propose.

You write well, Jaime, so probably are not a knucklehead but your beliefs are rather naive and lacking content.

[Jaime]

Why should I help jokers like you? My theories are on the internet. Go find them and distill the essence of what I propose.

You write well, Jaime, so probably are not a knucklehead but your beliefs are rather naive and lacking content.

I train intuitively Vince, my philosophy doesn't fit in to neat little brackets, it's constantly in fluctuation. The only constant would be focused intensity, that is regardless of sets or reps or weight used.

I don't believe that there is a holy grail that all trainers could adhere to for optimal results, as there is such a huge genetic variance involved.

[johnnynoname]

I hate to be the wet blanket here but any intelligent trainer knows that there is no absolutes in terms of what works

I mean, isn't that what tbombz and that old dude arguing about- what is the key to training success?

of course this point will be ignored but fact of the matter is that arguing about "absolutes" is unrealistic.  Remember this- i'm the actual American College of Sports Medicine certified trainer in this thread  so you can all kiss my ass


ps fuck off

[Vince B]

I wonder where intuitive training sits in hypertrophy theory? Nowhere and for good reason. What possible intuition can one have about when to train and how hard? Seems to me a method that works for all muscles is what we should be aiming at. Find the universal principles that stimulate hypertrophy and go from there improvising along the way to sustain growth. It isn't easy and that is why few obtain maximum hypertrophy or even closely approach any such thing.

The right theory and method will be constant. Oh, one can use novelty as a stimulus but then it must be used regularly to have value. When that happens it stops being novelty so that can't be the method.

Someone who is constantly fluctuating implies no method whatever. That is the complete opposite of what I propose. Focused intensity is used by all successful bodybuilders.

[tbombz]

Okay, you are now talking about hypertrophy theories which can be discussed.

The pursuit of strength has a limit re hypertrophy training. It isn't the goal. Large muscles are. While training for strength will increase muscle size it doesn't always do so. That is the problem. Bigger muscles are stronger but the most important thing is being able to do many sets with a maximum resistance. This is what big muscles are good at. Do you comprehend this? It is crucial.

When you look at huge bodybuilders you would expect them to be able to throw the shot put out of the stadium. What do we find? They are okay but their big muscles, no matter how strong, are not that good for throwing the shot. Same thing goes for arm wrestling. You would think the guys with the biggest arms would win. John Brzenk proved everyone wrong.

There was a powerlifter called Mike McDonald who could bench somewhere around 600 pounds and he had about 16 1/2 inch arms. How come that strength didn't build his arms larger?

so how do you propose developing max strength for muliple sets?

[Jaime]

I wonder where intuitive training sits in hypertrophy theory? Nowhere and for good reason. What possible intuition can one have about when to train and how hard? Seems to me a method that works for all muscles is what we should be aiming at. Find the universal principles that stimulate hypertrophy and go from there improvising along the way to sustain growth. It isn't easy and that is why few obtain maximum hypertrophy or even closely approach any such thing.

The right theory and method will be constant. Oh, one can use novelty as a stimulus but then it must be used regularly to have value. When that happens it stops being novelty so that can't be the method.

Someone who is constantly fluctuating implies no method whatever. That is the complete opposite of what I propose. Focused intensity is used by all successful bodybuilders.

It's extremely easy, knowing what you body is telling you that is. You seek to complicate simplistic processes, Johnny summarised perfectly my opinions on the matter.

Just how effective would the training regime of a sprinter be to a marathon runner, with their overabundance of slow twitch muscle fibres? No value at all would be the answer.

[Vince B]

Okay, Jaime, now why do sprinters, cycle sprinters and short distance speed skaters have big legs? They along with bodybuilders are doing something similar. Same thing with weightlifters re their traps and spinal erector muscles. Hard to the limit repetitive training is what causes hypertrophy.

[johnnynoname]

It's extremely easy, knowing what you body is telling you that is. You seek to complicate simplistic processes, Johnny summarised perfectly my opinions on the matter.

Just how effective would the training regime of a sprinter be to a marathon runner, with their overabundance of slow twitch muscle fibres? No value at all would be the answer.

Furthermore, genetics determine how much of particular muscle type a persons body contains-

Not everyone has the same amount of Muscle type I, IIa and IIb muscles and each of those muscle groups respond best to different types of times under tension so you would have to be a fucking idiot to argue that one type of training.

You can't train a person with a good amount of Type I muscle with lifts that have a total TUT of 60-120 seconds per set and vice versa

seriously, get your head out of your ass if you believe in a absolute best way

btw, I'm not a google warrior so I'm probably not gonna have a good follow up argument to all the other google warriors on here. I"m sorry- I tend to type stuff from memory

[TacoBell]

Furthermore, genetics determine how much of particular muscle type a persons body contains-

Not everyone has the same amount of Muscle type I, IIa and IIb muscles and each of those muscle groups respond best to different types of times under tension so you would have to be a fucking idiot to argue that one type of training.

You can't train a person with a good amount of Type I muscle with lifts that have a total TUT of 60-120 seconds per set and vice versa

seriously, get your head out of your ass if you believe in a absolute best way

btw, I'm not a google warrior so I'm probably not gonna have a good follow up argument to all the other google warriors on here. I"m sorry- I tend to type stuff from memory

Hahaha, we get it, you being a trainer is slightly more than a cover for other exploits. 

[Jaime]

Furthermore, genetics determine how much of particular muscle type a persons body contains-

Not everyone has the same amount of Muscle type I, IIa and IIb muscles and each of those muscle groups respond best to different types of times under tension so you would have to be a fucking idiot to argue that one type of training.

You can't train a person with a good amount of Type I muscle with lifts that have a total TUT of 60-120 seconds per set and vice versa

seriously, get your head out of your ass if you believe in a absolute best way

btw, I'm not a google warrior so I'm probably not gonna have a good follow up argument to all the other google warriors on here. I"m sorry- I tend to type stuff from memory

Exactly. Genetics...Everybody's muscles are different in their construction, so it is pretty fucking obvious that there isn't a single philosophy for all.

[johnnynoname]

Hahaha, we get it, you being a trainer is slightly more than a cover for other exploits.  

yes it does

Exactly. Genetics...Everybody's muscles are different in their construction, so it is pretty fucking obvious that there isn't a single philosophy for all.

not so much in their construction per se but more in terms of there distribution. but you are 100 percent right in that there is no single great philosophy

[Master Blaster]

thats what this thread is about. the evolution of my personal hypertrophy theory. hypertrophy, myofibral hypertorphy not just sarcoplasmic,  is directly related to muscle strength. fact. taking this into consideration, i have tried various methods to increase strength as rapidly as possible.  i stumbled upon this method of training, sub failure training, last year. its taken me a while to become confident and comfortable with it. i now come to find out this way of training is exactly how olympic powerlifters lift. i still have much to learn, but this bit of knowledge about stimulation as opposed to annihilation has been very helpful to me over the past several months.

I agree that you can't destroy your muscles every workout. But here's the thing:

IF STRONGER = MORE MUSCLES THAN MR. OLYMPIA WOULD BE THE STRONGEST MAN ON THE FUCKING PLANET

I know you're going to claim I misunderstand your theory, but you're wrong...

I'm just following it to it's illogical conclusion

[tbombz]

I hate to be the wet blanket here but any intelligent trainer knows that there is no absolutes in terms of what works

I mean, isn't that what tbombz and that old dude arguing about- what is the key to training success?

of course this point will be ignored but fact of the matter is that arguing about "absolutes" is unrealistic.  Remember this- i'm the actual American College of Sports Medicine certified trainer in this thread  so you can all kiss my ass


ps fuck off

Furthermore, genetics determine how much of particular muscle type a persons body contains-

Not everyone has the same amount of Muscle type I, IIa and IIb muscles and each of those muscle groups respond best to different types of times under tension so you would have to be a fucking idiot to argue that one type of training.

You can't train a person with a good amount of Type I muscle with lifts that have a total TUT of 60-120 seconds per set and vice versa

seriously, get your head out of your ass if you believe in a absolute best way

btw, I'm not a google warrior so I'm probably not gonna have a good follow up argument to all the other google warriors on here. I"m sorry- I tend to type stuff from memory

your wrong. it may vary from person to person, but there is indeed one "best" way to grow large muscles, it just has not been quantified and verified as of yet.

I agree that you can't destroy your muscles every workout. But here's the thing:

IF STRONGER = MORE MUSCLES THAN MR. OLYMPIA WOULD BE THE STRONGEST MAN ON THE FUCKING PLANET

I know you're going to claim I misunderstand your theory, but you're wrong...

I'm just following it to it's illogical conclusion

its not that you misunderstood my theory, its that youve got it completely backwards. its not "stronger=bigger muscles" its = &guy MUSCLES= STRONGER MUSCLES  

its a fact. bigger muscle=stronger muscle.  indisputable.

being stronger doesnt necessarily mean your going to be bigger./ it could be due to improvements in lifting technique, stronger tendons, using more leverage, or more momentum, etc. lots of powerlifters get strong without getting too big, because they arent working the MUSCLE properly. but once you are making sure to always work the muscle properly, like a bodybuilder should, then you can connect strength with size.

[Vince B]

Finally the penny has dropped for some here. Strength is not the goal of bodybuilders but of course they use progression in their training. There comes a point where adding more resistance is dangerous. So top guys have to find other ways to keep growing. Just about everyone uses many, many sets with significant resistance to grow. That is their method. It is universal. So don't say there is no method that everyone uses. It is a fact.

[Master Blaster]

its not that you misunderstood my theory, its that youve got it completely backwards. its not "stronger=bigger muscles" its =  BIGGER MUSCLES= STRONGER MUSCLES 

See, thats a nice little semantical trick to make your theory sound more reasonable.   

[johnnynoname]

your wrong. it may vary from person to person, but there is indeed one "best" way to grow large muscles, it just has not been quantified and verified as of yet.

actually, you're absolutely right







.....this is the thread about getting fucked in the ass by another guy, right?

[Vince B]

Yeah, but he was just seeing what it felt like so it doesn't count. Right? Doesn't mean he liked it and prefers that sort of thing. I mean, who in their right mind would disclose something like that on Getbig!!!!

[Master Blaster]

tbomz didn't get fucked in the ass

he thinks it's "rad" to poke the hornets nest with a stick and shock everyone 

*yawn*

[chaos]

Half right. Doing maximum heavy deadlifts is dumb and dangerous.

What is "maximum heavy deadlifts"?

[dr.chimps]

Finally the penny has dropped for some here. Strength is not the goal of bodybuilders but of course they use progression in their training. There comes a point where adding more resistance is dangerous. So top guys have to find other ways to keep growing. Just about everyone uses many, many sets with significant resistance to grow. That is their method. It is universal. So don't say there is no method that everyone uses. It is a fact.

Translation: More resistance is dangerous. Significant resistance is universal. There is no method. It is a fact.

/are you an idiot/ are you hammered!?

[Master Blaster]

What is "maximum heavy deadlifts"?

have you heard of double secret probation?

[Palpatine Q]

thats what this thread is about. the evolution of my personal hypertrophy theory. hypertrophy, myofibral hypertorphy not just sarcoplasmic,  is directly related to muscle strength. fact. taking this into consideration, i have tried various methods to increase strength as rapidly as possible.  i stumbled upon this method of training, sub failure training, last year. its taken me a while to become confident and comfortable with it. i now come to find out this way of training is exactly how olympic powerlifters lift. i still have much to learn, but this bit of knowledge about stimulation as opposed to annihilation has been very helpful to me over the past several months.

I was fortunate enough to be told this very early into my journey.

Like you said in your previous post......I used to crush myself into dust every time I trained. Beyond failure, WAY beyond failure....every set.

Then my friend Tom who was a national competitor told me...."you need to back off man....you train too hard....there is no way in hell you are going to recover and grow doing what you are doing" So I cut back on the negatives and forced reps....which took some getting used to ( felt like I was doing pussy workouts).   But I immediately felt better overall and started growing again

[Vince B]

Translation: More resistance is dangerous. Significant resistance is universal. There is no method. It is a fact.

/are you an idiot/ are you hammered!?

Hasn't anyone punched your semantic, critical, logical nose yet?