Advice for Fart Powder Aficionados

[Vince B]

Pellius, you amaze me. Yes, I told you in the past that you were ingesting too much protein. I think you cut back by 100g/day to about 200g. Now that you state you intake about 90-100 g I would say you agree with my

comment re 100g/day.

In the thread about DOMS you challenged me and then what did I find? You used the DOMS method to gauge the effectiveness of your calf workouts. No DOMS pain no gain.

The statement that nobody here changes what their beliefs was a generalization. More precisely it should read, "Few change their minds."

I do believe you are one very reluctant disciple of my principles and methods!

[pellius]

Pellius, you amaze me. Yes, I told you in the past that you were ingesting too much protein. I think you cut back by 100g/day to about 200g. Now that you state you intake about 90-100 g I would say you agree with my

comment re 100g/day.

In the thread about DOMS you challenged me and then what did I find? You used the DOMS method to gauge the effectiveness of your calf workouts. No DOMS pain no gain.

The statement that nobody here changes what their beliefs was a generalization. More precisely it should read, "Few change their minds."

I do believe you are one very reluctant disciple of my principles and methods!

There is one very, very important difference in our approach to training and the role that DOMS plays and it's the only aspect that I've argued about. And that's localized as well as systemic recovery.
I believe, like Mentzer and Jones, that building a twenty inch arm is very low on the priority scale when the body divies out it's recuperative resources to keep the body functioning. If your body is in a weakened state or has not had sufficient recovery due to lack of sleep and/or sustained physical and even mental stress, then you are not in an optimal physical state for that 20 inch arms. Do you think you could make any gains if you have the flu? Pneumonia? Cancer? Why? Because your body is expending vast resources that you even need extra rest and sleep to ameliorate these added stresses before your body even considers big muscles. Purposely keeping yourself in a high stress state, DOMS, a state of muscle breakdown, is counter productive to "building up".

And I don't consider myself a Basile disciple but do pay close attention to what you say as you have
been through several generations in this cult and are a thinking person and therefore had to have picked up a thing or two regarding this cult.
 

[Vince B]

There is one very, very important difference in our approach to training and the role that DOMS plays and it's the only aspect that I've argued about. And that's localized as well as systemic recovery.
I believe, like Mentzer and Jones, that building a twenty inch arm is very low on the priority scale when the body divies out it's recuperative resources to keep the body functioning. If your body is in a weakened state or has not had sufficient recovery due to lack of sleep and/or sustained physical and even mental stress, then you are not in an optimal physical state for that 20 inch arms. Do you think you could make any gains if you have the flu? Pneumonia? Cancer? Why? Because your body is expending vast resources that you even need extra rest and sleep to ameliorate these added stresses before your body even considers big muscles. Purposely keeping yourself in a high stress state, DOMS, a state of muscle breakdown, is counter productive to "building up".

And I don't consider myself a Basile disciple but do pay close attention to what you say as you have
been through several generations in this cult and are a thinking person and therefore had to have picked up a thing or two regarding this cult.
 

Well the difference here is that I have done what I claim and you have not. So how can you argue against my achievements? I am not here just to shit stir. I have information that I consider worthwhile and that is why I post most of the time. It took me decades to figure the DOMS method out. It wasn't at all obvious and just about everyone overlooks it. The scientists haven't been interested because few if any actually care about bodybuilding. It is a scientific vacuum. Hence in the lack of proper evidence arises all manner of bullshit and ideas. Everyone thinks they are experts. Whereas I know that you really have to be an expert to know if someone else is one or not. That doesn't mean I know more than anyone else or everyone else but at least I came up with my own theory, method, and machines to work with.

[Van_Bilderass]

What debate? I merely made a statement about protein requirement and that is all. Believe what you like. This isn't the forum to
have an intellectual discussion.

You can have an intellectual discussion here too. It's you who has an disagreeable style of debating which is why you haven't been well received anywhere else either. You could for example read the ISSN position paper and then argue your points against it. There's a few here who would like a serious discussion. The authors have degrees and such which you find important for credilbility.

[dj181]

No, bodybuilders should do their own research or buy a thick textbook on nutrition and find out things.

This is a forum where we all have opinions. No one changes what they believe about training or nutrition no matter what.

People really are sheep when it comes to beliefs. Yet they are quick to attack others. wtf is that?

I have

I found out that progressive overload wasn't necessary for.muscle growth

it was fatigue that was required, basically training til failure, but it want necessary to add more weight to.the bar

[ratherbebig]

so basically the whole protein fart name comes from people who are too cheap to buy premium isolate protein.

glad we got that sorted.

[Vince B]

You can have an intellectual discussion here too. It's you who has an disagreeable style of debating which is why you haven't been well received anywhere else either. You could for example read the ISSN position paper and then argue your points against it. There's a few here who would like a serious discussion. The authors have degrees and such which you find important for credilbility.

Let us talk about credibility. I don't know of anyone who obtained a PhD in maximum human muscle hypertrophy. Many degrees out there on anorexia. Funny about that, huh? There is NO science of bodybuilding. At best we have broscience. Which isn't exactly nothing but goodness me there are a lot of thick heads who lift weights.

The problem we have on muscle forums is a test for truth. Without such a test what happens is what you read here. Many opinions and no consensus. I expect that but really, it is a major waste of time doing this sort of thing over and over.

[Van_Bilderass]

Let us talk about credibility. I don't know of anyone who obtained a PhD in maximum human muscle hypertrophy. Many degrees out there on anorexia. Funny about that, huh? There is NO science of bodybuilding. At best we have broscience. Which isn't exactly nothing but goodness me there are a lot of thick heads who lift weights.

The problem we have on muscle forums is a test for truth. Without such a test what happens is what you read here. Many opinions and no consensus. I expect that but really, it is a major waste of time doing this sort of thing over and over.

So we can say nothing about protein intake since the data is so lacking? I don't think that is the case, we have the recommended daily allowance for the population at large and we have data for people who lift or do other physical activity and the recommended protein intake trends upward from the RDA i.e. higher protein intake and the athlete does better wrt lean mass accrual and more muscle retention when in deficit. There is a lot of research on acute protein boluses and protein synthesis etc. For example, for an older fella such as yourself you would need twice as much protein in a single meal to maximally stimulate protein synthesis vs a young guy. And etc.

You obviously DO think we can conclude some things, as you state 50-100g is enough. But what is THAT based on?

[ratherbebig]

i would speculate that maintaining muscle requires less protein than when youre trying to gain

what you guys think

[dj181]

So we can say nothing about protein intake since the data is so lacking? I don't think that is the case, we have the recommended daily allowance for the population at large and we have data for people who lift or do other physical activity and the recommended protein intake trends upward from the RDA i.e. higher protein intake and the athlete does better wrt lean mass accrual and more muscle retention when in deficit. There is a lot of research on acute protein boluses and protein synthesis etc. For example, for an older fella such as yourself you would need twice as much protein in a single meal to maximally stimulate protein synthesis vs a young guy. And etc.

You obviously DO think we can conclude some things, as you state 50-100g is enough. But what is THAT based on?

I know you will ignore me but maybe others would like to listen

Dr. JM Blakely who is rather knowledgeable within the realm of strength and muscle building told me and my friend who were cutting under his guide gold us we don't need any more than 100 grams of protein

and when he cut himself he was only getting bout 60 grams of pro per day and maintained his super.bemch strength while getting leaner

[Board_SHERIF]

For those of you still falling for the scam of taking protein powder like me, here's some advice on dealing with the gas. Good ol' baking soda. Half a teaspoon in half a glass  once a day will sort you out.

Been taking about 200 g/daily of protein in shakes for the last few months and there have been a few embarrassing moments. Started with the baking soda a few days ago and everything has been rosy. 

Mix with a tiny bit of olive oil - the fat will help digest

[pellius]

Well the difference here is that I have done what I claim and you have not. So how can you argue against my achievements? I am not here just to shit stir. I have information that I consider worthwhile and that is why I post most of the time. It took me decades to figure the DOMS method out. It wasn't at all obvious and just about everyone overlooks it. The scientists haven't been interested because few if any actually care about bodybuilding. It is a scientific vacuum. Hence in the lack of proper evidence arises all manner of bullshit and ideas. Everyone thinks they are experts. Whereas I know that you really have to be an expert to know if someone else is one or not. That doesn't mean I know more than anyone else or everyone else but at least I came up with my own theory, method, and machines to work with.

Vince, you amaze me. One of the biggest complaints and why people attack you is that you have never proven your DOMS theory. You have tried a couple of times where you claim you will put inches on your arms. You even claimed that you could surpass your Mr. Canada condition even at your advanced age. All were abject failures. Where as I have proved, with pictures, how using my methods put on a solid, lasting three inches on my calves on a muscle group notoriously unresponsive to training.

Please tell me how you have done what you claim using your diet and training principles. I know you claim how forty years ago your arms responded to your DOMS training. But all we have to go by is your words and dubious claims. No concrete proof. All previous attempts have failed.

Again a perfect example of how you accuse others of doing what you, yourself, do. Claiming I have not proven anything and that you have when in fact, IN ACTUAL REAL LIFE FACT, its the opposite.

[Vince B]

Pellius, if you were a student of the philosophy of science you would know that bold theories are required to get new knowledge about phenomena.

Let us discuss Hans Selye's theory of stress. The doctor lived in Montreal and he noticed that just about all patients had a few similar symptoms when sick.

He came up with the idea of stress causing these symptoms. Stress could be disease, an injury or even exercise. He worked out the phases that the body

goes through before adaptation and even over-compensation occurred. In exercise you couldn't avoid triggering a general adaptation syndrome where the trainee

starts sweating, gets heated, and might even start shaking if the exercise is sufficiently intense like in lifting heavy weights over and over. There was also

a local adaptation that occurred in smaller areas. Eg, a sliver causing swelling but no major discomfort. Perhaps training calves might be almost a local

adaptation because no real overall effort has to be made by the user. Well, this might be wishful thinking. Ray Mentzer and I discussed this issue and concluded

that no matter what kind of exercise protocols you did everyone had to go through the same symptoms to get muscles to grow...even calves.

Selye insisted that the body had to recover before adaptation completed. This is what just about everyone believed who lifted weights. Arthur Jones and

Mike Mentzer both demanded that training be infrequent because of the time it takes to recover and hence grow.

Could everyone be mistaken about recovery and growth? Well, this is where a bold idea is required.

Let us go back to some accumulated broscience or anecdotal reports. Some experts came up with the idea that to make the calves grow you could hit them

hard and often. Perhaps train them every day! Some guys reported making the calves grow using daily workouts. Well, how is this possible if the muscles

have to recover before adaptation and super compensation occurs? No one knew, they just knew that it worked for calves. I don't think many tried training

other muscles on a daily basis except abdominals. By the way, look at how often swimmers train. How can they progress if they train so often?

What can we conclude here about frequency for optimal growth? Do we let the muscle recover completely before maximum growth occurs? When is it best

to retrain the target muscle?

In 1999 I wanted to see if I could make my arms grow again. So I applied my Stress theory of hypertrophy and got to the point where I was sweating,

pumped, and even shaking. I was applying severe mechanical tension to the muscles and did so until enough time under tension was sufficient to cause

growth. This method caused some rapid growth in my arms but lo and behold the gains slowed to a stop when I hit 17 1/2 inches cold. What the heck

was stopping further growth? Could my theory be mistaken? Well, if we keep repeating the same thing over and over while getting no further growth what

do we call that? Insanity. Or a plateau. Or perhaps we reached maximum hypertrophy for that muscle? I refused to accept the I couldn't get any bigger.

Then I did something different. This is also a requirement for progress to maximum hypertrophy. Novelty. I had been using triceps pressdowns on a machine

I had devised and built. It allowed for one to do the exercise in a strict fashion. I abandoned pressdowns and did some triceps extensions on an apparatus

I built after Larry Scott gave a seminar in our gym. It this worked for Larry perhaps it will work for me. It sure did! The day after my arms were really sore.

DOMS had set in and lasted for a few days. A bright light went on in my mind. Why did DOMS occur in muscles that were being severely trained with hyper

intensity. I didn't care why DOMS occurred but THAT it occurred. My hunch was to do whatever it took to trigger DOMS. Well, not just anything, but typical

protocols used by advanced bodybuilders. I reasoned that if we could stimulate DOMS after each and every workout that maximum hypertrophy would

result. Can you imagine my delight when I could measure my arms being larger the next morning. Oh, there have been accusations of mere inflammation and

not hypertrophy. Yes, I accepted that. However, a principle that guided me was an idea Larry Scott came up with. He said that if you could pump a muscle

bigger than before it would grow. Who was I to discard this advice? If it worked for Larry then it must have some value.

So began the DOMS experiment in 1999. I decided to train my arms and calves using this method to see how big I could get them. It worked. The muscles

were responding and I was putting 1/10 inch on both arms and calves after every workout for those muscle groups. Now what about frequency? This is where

I applied accumulated anecdotal experience from my own past training. When I was training for pinch gripping on a machine I built I found that training

every 3rd day was optimal. If I trained sooner I didn't lift more weight that day. If I waited for the 4th day then no additional weight could be lifted. Only if

I persisted doing workouts every 3rd day did I progress until I was able to do a one handed pinch grip with 92.5 kg. This is still the world record in the lift.

So I applied this protocol to my arm and calf training. What happened? Something quite amazing. Oh, we had all assumed that we had to let the muscles

recover before hitting them again. How could good Doctor Selye be wrong? How could Arthur Jones be wrong about recovery? They were both mistaken.

My muscles were growing. Yes, it was painful to retrain sore muscles but after a few lighter sets the soreness evaporated and I was able to keep training

both muscles hard. I was so excited that I ran to the gym in anticipation of more growth. The workouts were intense and severe but boy did I enjoy them.

After all these years I finally could cause rapid, sustained growth in my muscles. I put an inch on my arms in just 10 workouts during that month and

just a little over an inch on my calves. Oh, I forgot to mention....even though my muscles were sore when I retrained them I actually progressed in the

amount of resistance used in all exercises. That wasn't supposed to happen but it did. I concluded that I avoided the dreaded Repeated Bout Effect.

It takes a big effort to lift a heavy tyre such as you see in strongman events. However, it doesn't take that much effort to keep the tyre moving while up.

In other words, perhaps the RBE could be avoided if we didn't wait for complete recovery? This sounds like insanity. Surely it was crazy and even dangerous

to retrain really sore muscles? Well, in my case it worked like magic. Gains were rapid and solid. Damn, that was a great month for me. I ended up

writing two articles for Ironman Magazine and they were published in 2000 and 2001. Did anyone out there listen or even notice what I had done? I doubt

it. When I posted my theory and ideas on the internet they were challenged and discarded completely. I was perceived as some eccentric old guy who

boasted a lot but knew bugger all. Where were my successful students, etc.? Well, the guys in my gym were Getbiggers. They all thought they knew how to

train and some of my ideas seemed absolutely ridiculous. For example, I told them they could make their whole upper bodies bigger just targetting arms for

a month. Nope, nobody was buying this. They literally could not accept these new ideas. To do so they would have to discard the totality of what they believed.

Why would they risk losing size in hard fought gains in chest, back and shoulders by just training arms? So I had no followers. No matter, I didn't need them.

If what I did worked for me then it would work for everyone. I was that confident.

So, behold the likes of Van B and Pellius rising up to challenge my DOMS theory. Where is my scientific proof? I don't need any proof. Science doesn't work

that way. Either something is right and works or it does not. My method delivers whether or not others believe it. So far not a single individual has even tried

my theory. That is how entrenched beliefs are in the minds of bodybuilders. Could they be mistaken? Are they growing rapidly? Well, they are mistaken and

that is why they aren't growing rapidly. I hear all manner of excuses like they aren't taking drugs and/or they don't have the genetics! Tell that to Larry Scott.

There was a narrow framed guy who persisted and found a way to make his muscles keep growing until he was the best built guy in the world. That was

some success story. Well, what happened to my DOMS experiment in 1999. I injured both my elbows and achilles tendons. Both have an explanation and

now can be avoided. Larry was seen putting his elbows on pads to do those lying triceps extensions. That is what we all did. Well, all that friction with heavy

resistance caused inflammation to the sheath covering the elbow joint. To avoid damage it is imperative that elbows avoid contacting pads and other surfaces.

I have modified machines so that elbows don't contact pads during biceps or triceps exercises. That solves the elbow problem. Oh, just a small note here.

I damaged my elbow joints way back in 1965 by doing pull overs on a bench with up to 250 pounds. What I do now are a few light sets for high reps and the

elbow pain evaporates and I can train with heavy resistances. Might sound crazy but desperate methods are required to solve the sore elbows problem.

What about the Achilles tendons? I had never had this pain in all the years lifting weights. Well, I was using really heavy standing heel raises on my 1000 pound

calf machine. I would warm up then eventually use up to 600 or 700 pounds and do bouncing reps for as many as I could do which would be sixty or so short reps.

Then I would stop and walk in a couple of small circles then repeat many, many times using the same heavy resistance. That was extremely painful but I persisted because it

stimulated rapid growth. I kept using the same exercise as long as DOMS kept appearing the day after. And growth! But there was some accumulated damage

occurring because of the ballistic way I was performing the exercise. I had done bouncing in the past for donkey raises and didn't cause any perceived damage.

I concluded that the muscles would keep growing if retrained every third day but perhaps the connective tissue might not. So perhaps the DOMS method can't

be sustained indefinitely? It might be wiser to use it for a couple of weeks and then target other muscles. Anyway that is some background behind what I did

and why.

[pellius]

Pellius, if you were a student of the philosophy of science you would know that bold theories are required to get new knowledge about phenomena.

Let us discuss Hans Selye's theory of stress. The doctor lived in Montreal and he noticed that just about all patients had a few similar symptoms when sick.

He came up with the idea of stress causing these symptoms. Stress could be disease, an injury or even exercise. He worked out the phases that the body

goes through before adaptation and even over-compensation occurred. In exercise you couldn't avoid triggering a general adaptation syndrome where the trainee

starts sweating, gets heated, and might even start shaking if the exercise is sufficiently intense like in lifting heavy weights over and over. There was also

a local adaptation that occurred in smaller areas. Eg, a sliver causing swelling but no major discomfort. Perhaps training calves might be almost a local

adaptation because no real overall effort has to be made by the user. Well, this might be wishful thinking. Ray Mentzer and I discussed this issue and concluded

that no matter what kind of exercise protocols you did everyone had to go through the same symptoms to get muscles to grow...even calves.

Selye insisted that the body had to recover before adaptation completed. This is what just about everyone believed who lifted weights. Arthur Jones and

Mike Mentzer both demanded that training be infrequent because of the time it takes to recover and hence grow.

Could everyone be mistaken about recovery and growth? Well, this is where a bold idea is required.

Let us go back to some accumulated broscience or anecdotal reports. Some experts came up with the idea that to make the calves grow you could hit them

hard and often. Perhaps train them every day! Some guys reported making the calves grow using daily workouts. Well, how is this possible if the muscles

have to recover before adaptation and super compensation occurs? No one knew, they just knew that it worked for calves. I don't think many tried training

other muscles on a daily basis except abdominals. By the way, look at how often swimmers train. How can they progress if they train so often?

What can we conclude here about frequency for optimal growth? Do we let the muscle recover completely before maximum growth occurs? When is it best

to retrain the target muscle?

In 1999 I wanted to see if I could make my arms grow again. So I applied my Stress theory of hypertrophy and got to the point where I was sweating,

pumped, and even shaking. I was applying severe mechanical tension to the muscles and did so until enough time under tension was sufficient to cause

growth. This method caused some rapid growth in my arms but lo and behold the gains slowed to a stop when I hit 17 1/2 inches cold. What the heck

was stopping further growth? Could my theory be mistaken? Well, if we keep repeating the same thing over and over while getting no further growth what

do we call that? Insanity. Or a plateau. Or perhaps we reached maximum hypertrophy for that muscle? I refused to accept the I couldn't get any bigger.

Then I did something different. This is also a requirement for progress to maximum hypertrophy. Novelty. I had been using triceps pressdowns on a machine

I had devised and built. It allowed for one to do the exercise in a strict fashion. I abandoned pressdowns and did some triceps extensions on an apparatus

I built after Larry Scott gave a seminar in our gym. It this worked for Larry perhaps it will work for me. It sure did! The day after my arms were really sore.

DOMS had set in and lasted for a few days. A bright light went on in my mind. Why did DOMS occur in muscles that were being severely trained with hyper

intensity. I didn't care why DOMS occurred but THAT it occurred. My hunch was to do whatever it took to trigger DOMS. Well, not just anything, but typical

protocols used by advanced bodybuilders. I reasoned that if we could stimulate DOMS after each and every workout that maximum hypertrophy would

result. Can you imagine my delight when I could measure my arms being larger the next morning. Oh, there have been accusations of mere inflammation and

not hypertrophy. Yes, I accepted that. However, a principle that guided me was an idea Larry Scott came up with. He said that if you could pump a muscle

bigger than before it would grow. Who was I to discard this advice? If it worked for Larry then it must have some value.

So began the DOMS experiment in 1999. I decided to train my arms and calves using this method to see how big I could get them. It worked. The muscles

were responding and I was putting 1/10 inch on both arms and calves after every workout for those muscle groups. Now what about frequency? This is where

I applied accumulated anecdotal experience from my own past training. When I was training for pinch gripping on a machine I built I found that training

every 3rd day was optimal. If I trained sooner I didn't lift more weight that day. If I waited for the 4th day then no additional weight could be lifted. Only if

I persisted doing workouts every 3rd day did I progress until I was able to do a one handed pinch grip with 92.5 kg. This is still the world record in the lift.

So I applied this protocol to my arm and calf training. What happened? Something quite amazing. Oh, we had all assumed that we had to let the muscles

recover before hitting them again. How could good Doctor Selye be wrong? How could Arthur Jones be wrong about recovery? They were both mistaken.

My muscles were growing. Yes, it was painful to retrain sore muscles but after a few lighter sets the soreness evaporated and I was able to keep training

both muscles hard. I was so excited that I ran to the gym in anticipation of more growth. The workouts were intense and severe but boy did I enjoy them.

After all these years I finally could cause rapid, sustained growth in my muscles. I put an inch on my arms in just 10 workouts during that month and

just a little over an inch on my calves. Oh, I forgot to mention....even though my muscles were sore when I retrained them I actually progressed in the

amount of resistance used in all exercises. That wasn't supposed to happen but it did. I concluded that I avoided the dreaded Repeated Bout Effect.

It takes a big effort to lift a heavy tyre such as you see in strongman events. However, it doesn't take that much effort to keep the tyre moving while up.

In other words, perhaps the RBE could be avoided if we didn't wait for complete recovery? This sounds like insanity. Surely it was crazy and even dangerous

to retrain really sore muscles? Well, in my case it worked like magic. Gains were rapid and solid. Damn, that was a great month for me. I ended up

writing two articles for Ironman Magazine and they were published in 2000 and 2001. Did anyone out there listen or even notice what I had done? I doubt

it. When I posted my theory and ideas on the internet they were challenged and discarded completely. I was perceived as some eccentric old guy who

boasted a lot but knew bugger all. Where were my successful students, etc.? Well, the guys in my gym were Getbiggers. They all thought they knew how to

train and some of my ideas seemed absolutely ridiculous. For example, I told them they could make their whole upper bodies bigger just targetting arms for

a month. Nope, nobody was buying this. They literally could not accept these new ideas. To do so they would have to discard the totality of what they believed.

Why would they risk losing size in hard fought gains in chest, back and shoulders by just training arms? So I had no followers. No matter, I didn't need them.

If what I did worked for me then it would work for everyone. I was that confident.

So, behold the likes of Van B and Pellius rising up to challenge my DOMS theory. Where is my scientific proof? I don't need any proof. Science doesn't work

that way. Either something is right and works or it does not. My method delivers whether or not others believe it. So far not a single individual has even tried

my theory. That is how entrenched beliefs are in the minds of bodybuilders. Could they be mistaken? Are they growing rapidly? Well, they are mistaken and

that is why they aren't growing rapidly. I hear all manner of excuses like they aren't taking drugs and/or they don't have the genetics! Tell that to Larry Scott.

There was a narrow framed guy who persisted and found a way to make his muscles keep growing until he was the best built guy in the world. That was

some success story. Well, what happened to my DOMS experiment in 1999. I injured both my elbows and achilles tendons. Both have an explanation and

now can be avoided. Larry was seen putting his elbows on pads to do those lying triceps extensions. That is what we all did. Well, all that friction with heavy

resistance caused inflammation to the sheath covering the elbow joint. To avoid damage it is imperative that elbows avoid contacting pads and other surfaces.

I have modified machines so that elbows don't contact pads during biceps or triceps exercises. That solves the elbow problem. Oh, just a small note here.

I damaged my elbow joints way back in 1965 by doing pull overs on a bench with up to 250 pounds. What I do now are a few light sets for high reps and the

elbow pain evaporates and I can train with heavy resistances. Might sound crazy but desperate methods are required to solve the sore elbows problem.

What about the Achilles tendons? I had never had this pain in all the years lifting weights. Well, I was using really heavy standing heel raises on my 1000 pound

calf machine. I would warm up then eventually use up to 600 or 700 pounds and do bouncing reps for as many as I could do which would be sixty or so short reps.

Then I would stop and walk in a couple of small circles then repeat many, many times using the same heavy resistance. That was extremely painful but I persisted because it

stimulated rapid growth. I kept using the same exercise as long as DOMS kept appearing the day after. And growth! But there was some accumulated damage

occurring because of the ballistic way I was performing the exercise. I had done bouncing in the past for donkey raises and didn't cause any perceived damage.

I concluded that the muscles would keep growing if retrained every third day but perhaps the connective tissue might not. So perhaps the DOMS method can't

be sustained indefinitely? It might be wiser to use it for a couple of weeks and then target other muscles. Anyway that is some background behind what I did

and why.

"Where is my scientific proof? I don't need any proof. Science doesn't work that way."

Often in a debate it's clarity rather than agreement that is the issue. Thank you for providing that clarity. When there is a fundamental difference in a world view and definition of terms then there is an impasse and chasm which cannot be bridged.

"Science doesn't require proof? It doesn't work that way?"

OK, Vince. That does clear up a lot of the disagreements we have.

Love the tricep setup you have there.

[tres_taco_combo]

Get a quality whey islolate and you will have zero gas or bloating, you will have to shell out extra money, but it's your body and your health. Look into Isopure, clean protein and you won't see a paragraph when it comes to the ingredients list.

yep.  take 1 scoop per day so a tub lasts me forever

[Vince B]

I am replying to Pellius about hypertrophy. Since there is no science of hypertrophy what is the test of truth of claims made about muscle growth?

If my method doesn't work for all male bodybuilders then I have a problem and either have to make adjustments and exceptions or abandon the method.

Regarding the statement about proofs in science well all theories can turn out to be false. At best we have good guesses or are partly right about phenomenon.

It might turn out that we are mistaken. At the moment I don't see any evidence that compels me to either change or abandon my ideas.

[Van_Bilderass]

I know you will ignore me but maybe others would like to listen

Dr. JM Blakely who is rather knowledgeable within the realm of strength and muscle building told me and my friend who were cutting under his guide gold us we don't need any more than 100 grams of protein

and when he cut himself he was only getting bout 60 grams of pro per day and maintained his super.bemch strength while getting leaner

I don't know the guy, remember seeing him in some powerlifting mag back in the day. Anyway, there's several questions that come up regarding his statements. For example, is he honest about the 60 gram claim (remember Nasser claimed to eat less than 100 grams in the off season lol), is he honest but somehow mistaken about his intake? Did he perhaps have cheat days where he loaded up on the protein and etc.

I look like a piece of shit, especially currently, but have recently maintained good strength and even increased it a bit on a horrible diet where some days I've only had 50 grams of protein. But I'm on steroids, not gaining any new lean mass, and will after several days have higher intakes simply due to hunger.

One recent example that came up wrt low protein intake is this trainer named Matt Porter. He had regained old size on 80 grams and what he claims HRT'ish drug intake. I there's a difference between maintaining muscle, regaining muscle you sort of already have but which is "untrained" and actually building all new muscle tissue.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BXQln_HFdwi/

I'm pretty sure Vince Basile has said you need to eat a lot to gain muscle. But how do you eat a lot without automatically ingesting way more than say 50 or 100 grams of protein? Same with Nasser, how do you eat to sustain 330lbs without eating more than 100 grams of protein? No, you will automatically ingest more, unless you only drink oil or soda for calories

I would like to see Vince's high calorie muscle building diet for say a 200lbs guy where the protein only lands at 100g max. Vince could you give an example diet?

[Vince B]

Most young guys who take up weight training don't eat enough calories to grow. Plain and simple. They read in magazines that they need more protein. So they buy some and what happens?
Nothing. They look the same. So what do they do then? Steroids? That isn't what they need. More calories. Many can't ingest enough to be grow.

What happens with guys who do eat sufficient calories and are about 200 pounds? If they are eating a balanced diet then it should be easy to get sufficient protein from the foods they eat.
Especially if they studied nutrition and include proteins of high biological value such as eggs and milk. Do these bodybuilders need a protein supplement? I doubt it but many still take extra.

Let me tell you a true story about a serious guy who used to live across the street. One day he came over and eventually it was dinner time. I invited him to stay but he declared he had his
meal with him. So out came a dozen eggs, some milk and cream. Into his blender they went and soon he had his dinner. Not content with that he then ingested a hand full of those awful
dried liver tablets. I told him he was taking way too much protein. He retorted that it was wise to make sure he had enough. They didn't help him grow and his skin looked horrible. I caught
up with him almost 20 years later still looking fit and not big at all. The proverbial swimmers build. His skin was clear because he was now eating mostly raw foods.

I never counted the calories and other nutrients but had a general idea what I was eating. I tried some awful protein when I first started training in 1958. Hoffman protein that didn't mix with
milk or water. I never finished the can. I got stronger but not too much bigger simply because I wasn't eating enough calories. That can happen in a big family. Besides, I played basketball so
imagine how many calories I needed with such an active life style?

When I got to UBC I was confronted by Professor Lionel Pugh who asked if I took any supplements. I told him I took vitamin B and C. He smiled and remarked, "The sewers of Vancouver are
filled with vitamins. That annoyed me so off I went to study nutrition in the UBC library. He was right. I didn't need those vitamins nor did I need more protein. That is pretty much the way
it is even now. No supplements. I could never understand why supplement companies didn't offer a weight gaining high calorie meal. I think Joe Weider tried with Crash Weight Gain Formula #7. He
had a tasty Protein 101 but those products were challenged by the Australian government and Weider had to relabel his products to be more accurate plus he had to give money to nutrition
research.

[Van_Bilderass]

Most young guys who take up weight training don't eat enough calories to grow. Plain and simple. They read in magazines that they need more protein. So they buy some and what happens?
Nothing. They look the same. So what do they do then? Steroids? That isn't what they need. More calories. Many can't ingest enough to be grow.

What happens with guys who do eat sufficient calories and are about 200 pounds? If they are eating a balanced diet then it should be easy to get sufficient protein from the foods they eat.
Especially if they studied nutrition and include proteins of high biological value such as eggs and milk. Do these bodybuilders need a protein supplement? I doubt it but many still take extra.

Let me tell you a true story about a serious guy who used to live across the street. One day he came over and eventually it was dinner time. I invited him to stay but he declared he had his
meal with him. So out came a dozen eggs, some milk and cream. Into his blender they went and soon he had his dinner. Not content with that he then ingested a hand full of those awful
dried liver tablets. I told him he was taking way too much protein. He retorted that it was wise to make sure he had enough. They didn't help him grow and his skin looked horrible. I caught
up with him almost 20 years later still looking fit and not big at all. The proverbial swimmers build. His skin was clear because he was now eating mostly raw foods.

I never counted the calories and other nutrients but had a general idea what I was eating. I tried some awful protein when I first started training in 1958. Hoffman protein that didn't mix with
milk or water. I never finished the can. I got stronger but not too much bigger simply because I wasn't eating enough calories. That can happen in a big family. Besides, I played basketball so
imagine how many calories I needed with such an active life style?

When I got to UBC I was confronted by Professor Lionel Pugh who asked if I took any supplements. I told him I took vitamin B and C. He smiled and remarked, "The sewers of Vancouver are
filled with vitamins. That annoyed me so off I went to study nutrition in the UBC library. He was right. I didn't need those vitamins nor did I need more protein. That is pretty much the way
it is even now. No supplements. I could never understand why supplement companies didn't offer a weight gaining high calorie meal. I think Joe Weider tried with Crash Weight Gain Formula #7. He
had a tasty Protein 101 but those products were challenged by the Australian government and Weider had to relabel his products to be more accurate plus he had to give money to nutrition
research.

My point is that if you eat "a lot", which is relative of course, in the way of regular solid meals you are going over your protein recommendations easily. So you may not need extra protein in the way of supplements. However, there are people such as myself who have poor appetites where powders, which are food, become useful.
When you say 50 or 100 grams is enough I doubt you have tried eating high calories from "a balanced diet" to gain muscle while at the same time keeping protein that low - the protein will automatically be much higher. 2 quarts of milk is already 70 grams. Try writing out a high calorie diet for someone trying to gain muscle and calculate the protein, see what happens!
You have respect for the authorities and textbooks and clinical nutritionists I'm sure. The governmental AUS daily rec for protein intake is about .8g per kg for someone maintaining their weight and not breaking down tissue through hard training - that is already way higher than your cited 50g for a 200lbs person. Surely you agree that it's unlikely that eating way below the RDA is optimal for someone trying to gain new lean mass, it would make no sense.

And supplement companies have offered powdered meals and weight gainers for decades, what are you talking about?
You have shit like this

[ratherbebig]

theres a lot of people who eat a lot who trains

they usually end up like perma bulkers

[pellius]

theres a lot of people who eat a lot who trains

they usually end up like perma bulkers

Exactly! I don't know what Vince is talking about. When one takes up weight lifting the first thing I notice is that they start to get fat. Most of the "protein" drinks that first came out were all advertised as weight gainers.

I don't think there's problem, at least here in America, that people aren't eating enough.

[Vince B]

If you owned a gym you would notice many young guys blasting away and staying the same.  I talked to one fellow 3 times over a few years about what he had to do to grow. Never listened. It is a bit sad to watch some of these young men training so hard, getting stronger but not growing much at all. We used to give a member an award for this....the Consistency Award! I think part of the problem is their ideas about 'healthy' eating. Plus, they don't want to get fat. In the old days we all tried to bulk up. We weren't fat just bulky! 

[Van_Bilderass]

If you owned a gym you would notice many young guys blasting away and staying the same.  I talked to one fellow 3 times over a few years about what he had to do to grow. Never listened. It is a bit sad to watch some of these young men training so hard, getting stronger but not growing much at all. We used to give a member an award for this....the Consistency Award! I think part of the problem is their ideas about 'healthy' eating. Plus, they don't want to get fat. In the old days we all tried to bulk up. We weren't fat just bulky!  

No one grows consistently, including drug users! Doesn't mean you are doing something wrong necessarily.

You grow for a brief period when you introduce a new stimulus. Most pro bodybuilders gain very little muscle throughout their careers, even with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of drugs. The growth happens when new stimuli is applied, for example a new class of drugs.

Most time is spent maintaining, regressing and regaining.

Take yourself for example, you hit your peak muscular development circa 1970. Here we are 47 years later with zero gains.

Strength can be continued to be gained through technique improvements and neural factors, apart from actual individual muscle contractile strength. But hey, that's at least something.

You quite liked Mentzer. What did he say? He said you could hit your peak within a couple of years of starting and then that would be it.

This is what Mentzer said

My main point is that with a sound, valid theoretical approach to training, progress should be immediate, continuous and worthwhile all the way to the full actualization of one's potential. Also, that the actualization of one's potential, too, is a genetically determined trait; therefore, there will be those who reach their upper limits in a matter of a few months, some a year and others slightly longer.

In my opinion he isn't far off. Muscular potential is reached quite fast.

[Vince B]

You bring up a good point. Just what percentage of guys who lift weights actually get as big as possible? Probably very few. The thing is how would anyone know if he was at his peak?

I recall that we talked about maximum hypertrophy on HST forum. It was stated that to stimulate the maximum amount of hypertrophy in a day that person would have to lift weights for some 8 hours! I thought about trying it but haven't yet. Imagine if some crazy guy decided to train 8 hours a day three days a week. Might get huge fast.

If we consider how few bodybuilders get huge what is the explanation? This is still an activity done by thousands and not millions of people. So we can't expect to see many huge guys in such a small population.
Another factor is that guys who are naturally well built usually do well at some sport so we lose them as possible bodybuilders.

You stated that, "Growth happens when new stimuli is applied."  If this is true then it is possible to continuously provide new stimuli to keep progressing. Sure, in practice this might not be so easy but in principle, it is possible.

So what about all the trainees that get to the intermediate stage? Say 17 1/2 inch arms on a 5-10 tall frame. Would any amount of variety stimulate more size? That is what we don't know. The damn drugs have spoiled things because now we have no idea what exactly is responsible for the hypertrophy. It can't be just the drugs. When I look at the champs doing videos I don't see superhuman efforts except for Ronnie Coleman and Tom Platz. Those two trained heavy and intense. Injuries are just around the corner if you do things to an extreme.

I just haven't got the motivation to have another go at training hard and consistently to see how big I can get my arms. I tore a biceps back in 1978 and that sucks. Right biceps hurts and I can't do much in the supination movement. My calves are the biggest they have been. 17 1/2 cold and over 18 if I climb a few hills.

[dj181]

If you over eat you just get fat

end of story