Arthur Jones arrived on the bodybuilding scene in 1969 and stuffed up hypertrophy training for decades. Even to this day we have the phenomenon of countless pseudo-intellectuals seeking out the right method from the on line sites such as HST and HIT. Well, I have news for you. All those groups are variations of what Arthur Jones preached 35 years ago. Arthur is the smartest guy who ever posted in bodybuilding magazines. He had us reading his ads for goodness sake! Those ads were state of the art theory about bodybuilding. His logic was so sensible it led to most of us doubting our protocols and I think just about everyone sought to do less instead of more to make gains. He demonstrated his ideas by training Sergio Oliva in 1972 and helped Sergio be at his largest ever. That Arnold won the Olympia in Essen is the stuff of controversy. Even Arnold admits Sergio was superior.
The point is does high intensity training and other brief training methods lead to maximum hypertrophy? Nope. It isn't going to happen. It is a big lie. Today we have nonsense about positions of flexion. All nonsense. I read the magazines and cannot see anything worthwhile written there for a long time. The last guy with something new to say other than myself was a Dennis guy who back in the 70s suggested a waste products theory of hypertrophy and used Larry Scott and Sergio Oliva as examples. Somehow he was forgotten and editors like Holman and publishers like Robert Kennedy became the theory guys. Yeah, sure.
There are some truths in bodybuilding. One is progressive resistance. That is the cornerstone of hypertrophy and permeates all theories and programs. The extension of progressive resistance is that in order to get large muscles you have to hoist heavy weights. Not rocket science at all. How come so few guys ever get really big muscles? If the formula is simple where are all the huge guys? You are lucky if you find one or two in each gym. Various hardcore gyms have heaps more big guys. That hasn't changed in over 30 years. Guys get to be a certain size and stop. Just about everyone is on a plateau. So what is the formula for success? Is there a simple formula to follow?
The sad truth is that various drugs and substances have ruined the whole bodybuilding scene. The very biggest guys are probably all using drugs. Please post anyone who is huge but not using? What has happened is that bodybuilding theory is now almost irrelevant because drugs will make up for what is lacking in theory. The big guys hang out together so they all gravitate towards doing similar things. Same drugs, same kind of training, more or less.
Well, there is a simple formula but unfortunately just about everyone who has developed any visible muscle feels he is an expert and knows how to get huge. In principle most of these people are wrong. They do not know how to get huge. Well, not naturally that is.
I could post my ideas here but this in not the proper place to post sensible things. Besides, all manner of flotsom and jetsom will emerge claiming to know more than all the Ironagers. The the real Ironagers trained before 1955. After that it is all suspect.
What is obviously true is that way too many bodybuilders have closed minds. They literally can never know the truth. Beliefs persist like a religion and it is uncanny how so many believe so much rubbish. This is unlikely to change from what I can see. Zillions of guys will blast away in the gym and remain on lifelong plateaus! It really is a crazy activity.
give a guy enough food and gh and he could ride a tricycle all day and still win a local NPC show.
That's an absolute fallacy.
matt C showed us some studies that a group on gear will add more muscle mass by sleeping than a group of natties training their asses off. Was he wrong?
perhaps i was exaggerating a tad about the tricycle. it might be a 2-wheeler.
Oh, Matt C told you that?
Arthur Jones arrived on the bodybuilding scene in 1969 and stuffed up hypertrophy training for decades. Even to this day we have the phenomenon of countless pseudo-intellectuals seeking out the right method from the on line sites such as HST and HIT. Well, I have news for you. All those groups are variations of what Arthur Jones preached 35 years ago. Arthur is the smartest guy who ever posted in bodybuilding magazines. He had us reading his ads for goodness sake! Those ads were state of the art theory about bodybuilding. His logic was so sensible it led to most of us doubting our protocols and I think just about everyone sought to do less instead of more to make gains. He demonstrated his ideas by training Sergio Oliva in 1972 and helped Sergio be at his largest ever. That Arnold won the Olympia in Essen is the stuff of controversy. Even Arnold admits Sergio was superior.
The point is does high intensity training and other brief training methods lead to maximum hypertrophy? Nope. It isn't going to happen. It is a big lie. Today we have nonsense about positions of flexion. All nonsense. I read the magazines and cannot see anything worthwhile written there for a long time. The last guy with something new to say other than myself was a Dennis guy who back in the 70s suggested a waste products theory of hypertrophy and used Larry Scott and Sergio Oliva as examples. Somehow he was forgotten and editors like Holman and publishers like Robert Kennedy became the theory guys. Yeah, sure.
There are some truths in bodybuilding. One is progressive resistance. That is the cornerstone of hypertrophy and permeates all theories and programs. The extension of progressive resistance is that in order to get large muscles you have to hoist heavy weights. Not rocket science at all. How come so few guys ever get really big muscles? If the formula is simple where are all the huge guys? You are lucky if you find one or two in each gym. Various hardcore gyms have heaps more big guys. That hasn't changed in over 30 years. Guys get to be a certain size and stop. Just about everyone is on a plateau. So what is the formula for success? Is there a simple formula to follow?
The sad truth is that various drugs and substances have ruined the whole bodybuilding scene. The very biggest guys are probably all using drugs. Please post anyone who is huge but not using? What has happened is that bodybuilding theory is now almost irrelevant because drugs will make up for what is lacking in theory. The big guys hang out together so they all gravitate towards doing similar things. Same drugs, same kind of training, more or less.
Well, there is a simple formula but unfortunately just about everyone who has developed any visible muscle feels he is an expert and knows how to get huge. In principle most of these people are wrong. They do not know how to get huge. Well, not naturally that is.
I could post my ideas here but this in not the proper place to post sensible things. Besides, all manner of flotsom and jetsom will emerge claiming to know more than all the Ironagers. The the real Ironagers trained before 1955. After that it is all suspect.
What is obviously true is that way too many bodybuilders have closed minds. They literally can never know the truth. Beliefs persist like a religion and it is uncanny how so many believe so much rubbish. This is unlikely to change from what I can see. Zillions of guys will blast away in the gym and remain on lifelong plateaus! It really is a crazy activity.
matt C showed us some studies that a group on gear will add more muscle mass by sleeping than a group of natties training their asses off. Was he wrong?
perhaps i was exaggerating a tad about the tricycle. it might be a 2-wheeler.
I could post my ideas here but this in not the proper place to post sensible things. Besides, all manner of flotsom and jetsom will emerge claiming to know more than all the Ironagers. The the real Ironagers trained before 1955. After that it is all suspect.
As he did three years ago on this forum Vince states a good case and then follows up with nothing. Tells us what's wrong with every method out there eludes to the "fact" that he has the "secret" formula and just as he did back then when Milos and I called him on it, he says "well this is not the place to post this information.
DOMS the breaks.
Curiosity with scepticism is healthy. Did you notice one of the guys who most needs help 'yawns' in this thread. How typical of knuckleheads to dismiss what others say and cling to notions that result in hardly any improvement at all. That is the problem. Too many think they know what they are doing. The results say otherwise.
I have no obligation to describe specific methods and prescriptions. Suffice is to point out the folly of what so many believe. This is, afterall, a discussion board of opinions regarding bodybuilding, etc.
I agree with many of your Points Vince. BTW, is Aurther Jones still alive?
I will not dismiss your theories.
And no, you have no obligation whatsoever to describe specific methods, or give examples on what you believe is the least faulty (ie, most correct) way to train.
It would, however, be very nice to get a look at a typical training layout, if you were to design it for a natural athlete.
I believe it would also help people understand what you mean with your DOMS training.
How about it? Spill the beans mate.
YIP
Zack
give a guy enough food and gh and he could ride a tricycle all day and still win a local NPC show.
give a guy enough food and gh and he could ride a tricycle all day and still win a local NPC show.
;D Why would I take ANY of this old man's advices??? (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/cyberpump28_3.jpg)Monster forehead
Put up or shut the fuck up >:(
I have no obligation to describe specific methods and prescriptions. Suffice is to point out the folly of what so many believe. This is, afterall, a discussion board of opinions regarding bodybuilding, etc.
Arthur Jones arrived on the bodybuilding scene in 1969 and stuffed up hypertrophy training for decades. Even to this day we have the phenomenon of countless pseudo-intellectuals seeking out the right method from the on line sites such as HST and HIT. Well, I have news for you. All those groups are variations of what Arthur Jones preached 35 years ago. Arthur is the smartest guy who ever posted in bodybuilding magazines. He had us reading his ads for goodness sake! Those ads were state of the art theory about bodybuilding. His logic was so sensible it led to most of us doubting our protocols and I think just about everyone sought to do less instead of more to make gains. He demonstrated his ideas by training Sergio Oliva in 1972 and helped Sergio be at his largest ever. That Arnold won the Olympia in Essen is the stuff of controversy. Even Arnold admits Sergio was superior.no offense dude but if you know so much then why aren't you big?
The point is does high intensity training and other brief training methods lead to maximum hypertrophy? Nope. It isn't going to happen. It is a big lie. Today we have nonsense about positions of flexion. All nonsense. I read the magazines and cannot see anything worthwhile written there for a long time. The last guy with something new to say other than myself was a Dennis guy who back in the 70s suggested a waste products theory of hypertrophy and used Larry Scott and Sergio Oliva as examples. Somehow he was forgotten and editors like Holman and publishers like Robert Kennedy became the theory guys. Yeah, sure.
There are some truths in bodybuilding. One is progressive resistance. That is the cornerstone of hypertrophy and permeates all theories and programs. The extension of progressive resistance is that in order to get large muscles you have to hoist heavy weights. Not rocket science at all. How come so few guys ever get really big muscles? If the formula is simple where are all the huge guys? You are lucky if you find one or two in each gym. Various hardcore gyms have heaps more big guys. That hasn't changed in over 30 years. Guys get to be a certain size and stop. Just about everyone is on a plateau. So what is the formula for success? Is there a simple formula to follow?
The sad truth is that various drugs and substances have ruined the whole bodybuilding scene. The very biggest guys are probably all using drugs. Please post anyone who is huge but not using? What has happened is that bodybuilding theory is now almost irrelevant because drugs will make up for what is lacking in theory. The big guys hang out together so they all gravitate towards doing similar things. Same drugs, same kind of training, more or less.
Well, there is a simple formula but unfortunately just about everyone who has developed any visible muscle feels he is an expert and knows how to get huge. In principle most of these people are wrong. They do not know how to get huge. Well, not naturally that is.
I could post my ideas here but this in not the proper place to post sensible things. Besides, all manner of flotsom and jetsom will emerge claiming to know more than all the Ironagers. The the real Ironagers trained before 1955. After that it is all suspect.
What is obviously true is that way too many bodybuilders have closed minds. They literally can never know the truth. Beliefs persist like a religion and it is uncanny how so many believe so much rubbish. This is unlikely to change from what I can see. Zillions of guys will blast away in the gym and remain on lifelong plateaus! It really is a crazy activity.
Yes, Arthur Jones is still alive.Jones is still in Florida, running MedX. All the other companies are part of Nautilus, which is not the same entity he was involved with. His son runs Hammer Strength.
I addition to Nautilus he owns the Bowflex, Stairmaster and MedX (evaluation and rehabilitation equipment ) lines. If memory serves me, he has some connection to Hammer Strength as well.
The Beef
no offense dude but if you know so much then why aren't you big?
See: Vince when he was younger.he wasn't big at all to come off like such an expert.
no offense dude but if you know so much then why aren't you big?Cause remeber he doesn't beleive in lifting heavy weight - no benching, squating or heavy deadlifting. And gear is so terrible but it wasn't so bad for him to pop dbols for 6 weeks ???
Yes, Arthur Jones is still alive.
I addition to Nautilus he owns the Bowflex, Stairmaster and MedX (evaluation and rehabilitation equipment ) lines. If memory serves me, he has some connection to Hammer Strength as well.
The Beef
Could you pls lay out all your expert training and nutritional principls for putting on most muscle in shortest amt of time (all-natural) Vince? It could be intriguing, esp for guys like Vince G & Alexxx.he doesn't know, if he knew he'd be big himself.
Monster forehead
There is so much negativity among members of this board and in fact just about everyone with some muscular development considers that they know how to build muscle. They assume it is just a matter of training harder and they can get bigger. The unvarnished truth is that it is extremely difficult to make muscles quite large. There might be many, many ways to explain why maximum size is so difficult but there is no way to know which explanations are true.monster excuses.
It is possible to account for maximum size without referring to DOMS or any other phenomenon. I used DOMS as a likely feedback mechanism and speculated what it might be like to grow continuously and at a marked rate. I had to dismiss much of what I thought I knew about physiology to construct my theory. It was forced upon me by the facts.
Can one build up huge size by doing pushups? Obviously, no. Why do thinkers suggest the absurd? The ultimate hypertrophy theory will be consistent with all the facts already known about muscles and growth. Philosophically, it is possible to grow at a maximum rate. Suppose we do a thought experiment. Assume that someone has managed to train in a fashion that led to obtaining maximum muscle size in the shortest time possible. It would be a simple process to reverse engineer everything and know what to do on each workout right back to the first session. It is clear that there have been some men who have developed huge size. We need look no further than the top Olympians. However, they have cheated by using agents for a shortcut. It may be that we cannot obtain such size naturally, although I see no reason, in principle, why this might be so. Women are another matter and it is unlikely anyone can replicate Ms Olympia size naturally.
Many are wondering why I didn't get huge in the past. I obviously didn't have the right theory about training. There were also problems about equipment deficiencies that are no longer a shortcoming. I am no longer motivated to get huge. Also, I have many injuries from past training that do not make training enjoyable. However, it is also part of my theory that significant size can be developed at just about any age. That goes against what most of us have been told. However, hypertrophy is easy to trigger so it is just a matter of application to continue the process.
Is intensity an important factor in hypertrophy? Well, I prefer to think about thresholds and as long as sufficient tension is placed on a muscle for a sufficient length of time and then repeated at the optimal frequency then there is no reason one shouldn't keep growing. The actual application of this process is complicated because in moving systems there are just too many slight differences. In other words, it is difficult to test training among individuals because there is no way to know if they are doing things in precisely the same fashion.
It is likely that size is related to effort in training and that as one grows larger the amount of effort increases exponentially. This might help to explain why so few obain huge size. Again, how are we supposed to discover how much effort is required when no one is studying such things?
I have found it is dangerous to merely think about this process. Arthur Jones was mistaken in some of his thinking about how muscles contract. It is clear no one knew what we now know at the molecular level in the muscles. The maximum size theory must be consistent with all known and future reseach. So far no one has managed to falsify my theory. Some armchair speculators dismiss various ideas I have written about but the research agrees with what I have found. At least that is encouraging. I welcome considered criticism because the true theory will survive all such criticism. Just make sure you know what you are talking about as well.
Please remember that I cannot respond while I am at work or asleep. Eventually I will reply to various questions.
he doesn't know, if he knew he'd be big himself.
;D Why would I take ANY of this old man's advices??? (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/cyberpump28_3.jpg)
no offense dude but if you know so much then why aren't you big?
So far no one has managed to falsify my theory.
a calorie is a calorie. you eat too much you get fat. if you eat 5000 calories and burn 5100 calories you get leaner and grow muscle over time if done consistently most people do not do the WORK of 5000 calories perday, that requires a good amount of muscle/energy/work to be able to consistently burn this many calories. lets say if someone eats 10,000 calories over a long period of time and burns 10,100 calories over a long period of time, they would have put on alot of muscle, becuase their calorie burning furnace (MUSCLE TISSUE) has had to ADAPT to a high workload daily, you have to do a SHITLOAD of working out to burn 10,000 calories, focusing on legs mainly squats leg lunges or presses would be the key to burning this many calories, fairly moderate way so you dont injure yourself because you will be sore as hell adapting to the high workload.you can only burn so much in a period of time doing bicep curls....Long-winded, incomplete and general obvious stuff; establishes nothing. Burning calories isn't particularly relevant to muscle gain. Completely overlooks the idea of working smart as well as hard, because the author doesn't understand the difference.
Vince before we go any further I'd like to see or hear an example of who you think epitomizes your bodybuilding ideal, or at least who came the closest that you are aware of to having achieved what a "successful bodybuilding routine" would produce.He's referring to training to potential; what his ideal is or isn't is an aside.
yeah you clowns make sure you dont overtrain hahah im the biggest nucca here and will always be cause everyone is so stupid about training and nutrition. ive written many of posts yet they get deleted on the subjector
the key to gaining muscle and losing fat is simply
hardwork...but its all a simple equation
a calorie is a calorie. you eat too much you get fat. if you eat 5000 calories and burn 5100 calories you get leaner and grow muscle over time if done consistently most people do not do the WORK of 5000 calories perday, that requires a good amount of muscle/energy/work to be able to consistently burn this many calories. lets say if someone eats 10,000 calories over a long period of time and burns 10,100 calories over a long period of time, they would have put on alot of muscle, becuase their calorie burning furnace (MUSCLE TISSUE) has had to ADAPT to a high workload daily, you have to do a SHITLOAD of working out to burn 10,000 calories, focusing on legs mainly squats leg lunges or presses would be the key to burning this many calories, fairly moderate way so you dont injure yourself because you will be sore as hell adapting to the high workload.you can only burn so much in a period of time doing bicep curls....overtime your muscles will be fairly efficient at assimilating 10,000 calories a day for the amount of work you put into it, i cant say for sure how many new pounds of muscle this equates to, but i would bet on a person eating this much and doing this much work would be bigger than a guy doing the 5000 calorie a day diet
Long-winded, incomplete and general obvious stuff; establishes nothing. Burning calories isn't particularly relevant to muscle gain. Completely overlooks the idea of working smart as well as hard, because the author doesn't understand the difference.
He's referring to training to potential; what his ideal is or isn't is an aside.
Nah, us seeing why he thinks we NEED a better/more effective/more efficient training philosophy is crucial here.Making muscles larger/hypertrophy is what he's talking about; no "ideal" is needed to undertand this, actually detracts from the point.
The essence of bodybuilding is to transcend what we have developed and take it to another level. We all see others with superior development so that helps us aim for what is possible. We may or may not be able to achieve comparable results to others. If we can exceed what we have now that is still progress. Bodybuilding is simply reconstructing ourselves on a weekly basis.
If I can instruct someone about the theory and he has the capacity to absorb that information it is then likely this person can benefit from the theory. If individuals have no grasp of the theory behind the training and what is guiding them how on earth will they know what their task is and if they are on the right track? Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that the correct theory be explained first.
The problem with putting a theory out there is that you just know some of the experts here will be all over it like flies on sh--.
More interesting is the premise that there's greater potential that isn't realized; doesn't mean anyone necessarily has the answer on that yet.
The problem with putting a theory out there is that you just know some of the experts here will be all over it like flies on sh--.
Look at those who are writing articles. If they are not huge then beware. Simple as that.
Would some of you people recognize the true theory of hypertrophy if you saw it? The point is what is the test of truth of any theory? Well, in bodybuilding it surely is whether that theory can produce the results it claims. HST and HIT and Heavy Duty and every other theory has failed to generate continuous growth in believers. What happens is that those who do not make gains blame the theory.
One fact that cannot be disputed is that Arthur Jones helped generate additional size on already huge Sergio Oliva. So, what Arthur said cannot easily be dismissed.color]
You're right, Vince. Our feeble intellects simply can't handle the ideas you put forth.
As far as Arthur Jones helping Sergio acheive greater size: Was Sergio natural at that show? If not, how can you be sure that wasn't a combination of drugs that helped Sergio achieve that size?
I'd like to hear him elaborate on how steroids have ruined bodybuilding any moreso than they've helped create it.
I can see there are not many students of hypertrophy here. It is so easy to laugh and dismiss others instead of contributing to some progress in bodybuilding. The arrival of stacking in drug protocols ended hypertrophy theory for the most part. I have no idea what drugs Sergio was using and what contributed what. However, he never again duplicated the size he had when working with Arthur. So I credit Arthur, his methods and machines with generating more hypertrophy in one of the giants of all time. That is no mean feat.
If we look at many of the top guys we discover that they cannot sustain huge size for long and if they take a long break they can not duplicate the former size they had. I give you Dilette and Sonbaty. We have more to learn about androgen receptors and such. Somewhere, somehow natural bodybuilding overlaps with open bodybuilding. At the moment no one has a clue about what is possible naturally. As soon as most guys reach a peak or come into contact with others who are larger they adopt the current practices and abandon natural training. What a pity that is.
Sometimes it is a matter of beliefs and I wonder how solid our theories of hypertrophy are. Oh, it is far easier to criticize theories than to present true ones. What bothers me is that the very process is now discouraged and ridiculed. Who would have thought that would even happen to bodybuilding?
To obtain maximum hypertrophy you cannot put it down to simple numbers.
Question to students of hypertrophy. What do we make of the animal studies that generated hypertrophy? Are they essential and required knowledge or are they irrelevant or mostly so? Does hyperplasia occur? What exactly is DOMS and why does it happen?
I am confident I can exceed previous muscle size at my age and naturally. It would be interesting to see what others could do who have less injuries and tenderness in joints. The sky is the limit. I doubt many are crazy enough to do what I suggest. My ideas are so unusual I get called crazy and an idiot when I post them. If others insist on using what they think is true about training then they will never be able to accept new ideas. Clearly most theories are false in science and this is also true about something as pedestrian as bodybuilding. Has anyone ever wondered why we are still discussing and arguing this very subject? Grown men are still debating hypertrophy theory endlessly on line and this will continue until someone comes up with the true theory of hypertrophy. So far no one has done that. Sceptics clearly know that. It takes an accident or unusual experience to abandon pet theories and beliefs. I can assure you that is required before you can appreciate the requirements of maximum hypertrophy training.You are typing long rambling Paragraphs which basically reveal nothing, just stating we dont know how Hypertrophy occurs in an as many different ways as you can.The only hint you have given to your theory, is it takes a driven, goal setting, willing to mix styles and not shy to push himself to the limits person to build muscle, we didnt know this already?
I could prove my theory in three months. By then I would know if it is true or not or partly so. If I can do this at 64 and without drugs or supplements that would be something newsworthy in the Irongame.
I am confident I can exceed previous muscle size at my age and naturally. It would be interesting to see what others could do who have less injuries and tenderness in joints. The sky is the limit. I doubt many are crazy enough to do what I suggest. My ideas are so unusual I get called crazy and an idiot when I post them. If others insist on using what they think is true about training then they will never be able to accept new ideas. Clearly most theories are false in science and this is also true about something as pedestrian as bodybuilding. Has anyone ever wondered why we are still discussing and arguing this very subject? Grown men are still debating hypertrophy theory endlessly on line and this will continue until someone comes up with the true theory of hypertrophy. So far no one has done that. Sceptics clearly know that. It takes an accident or unusual experience to abandon pet theories and beliefs. I can assure you that is required before you can appreciate the requirements of maximum hypertrophy training.
I could prove my theory in three months. By then I would know if it is true or not or partly so. If I can do this at 64 and without drugs or supplements that would be something newsworthy in the Irongame.
The experiments with fowl are interesting for hypertrophy. Dr Antonio was able to generate a 300% increase in one muscle in 30 days. That is phenomenal. What might be possible in humans if they used that research to base protocols on?
It is 4 am here in Sydney and I am off to bed. See you lads later.
My ideas are so unusual I get called crazy and an idiot when I post them. If others insist on using what they think is true about training then they will never be able to accept new ideas.
2) everybody responds differently to training -ie. we all individuals (intone like 'Life of Brian' ;) )
I'd like to hear him elaborate on how steroids have ruined bodybuilding any moreso than they've helped create it.
One fact that cannot be disputed is that Arthur Jones helped generate additional size on already huge Sergio Oliva. So, what Arthur said cannot easily be dismissed. That success has to be part of the true hypertrophy theory. What a pity Sergio didn't return to train with Arthur and see how big he could have become.Jones' training of Oliva was the most beneficial of his career; Oliva said he later regretted that he didn't continue with it.
I'm notShut up, you. :D
It's simple really.
Instead of forcing the bodybuilders to develop the best possible training methods, steroids allowed for enormous mass gains with the same level of knowledge on training as previously.
If you would look at some of the strength feats at the ancient Greek Olympics, you would be surprised to see the power displayed. An athlete named Bybon, lifted a 315 lbs stone above his head.
With one hand.
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Olympics/pictures/1990.12.0675.jpeg)
Strength training hasn't developed much.
The steroids are paralysing the world of sport, instead of improving it. I won't mention names, but I wouldn't call anyone a great mind, as far as training goes, if his success is with clients that are on the juice.
Take out the drugs of the equation, and you are left with only training, mental training, nutrition and rest.
That way, you are forced to take the training methods to a higher level, instead of upping the dosage.
I know a guy who competed in NOC recently, and didn't do all that well, he shared with the board earlier this year, that he upped the dosage in order to improve.
What if there would not have been any drugs. Then the only thing he could have improved on, was the other parameters.
You get the picture.
This is not really about drugs being bad for the health, or whatever.
It's how they have paralysed the evolution of training systems.
I urge you to look up the training protocols of the Ukraine powerlifters. The Russians. The Bulgarians.
All these protocols relies on drug use. The Bulgarians have tried to find a natural version of their 18 workouts/week protocol. It's currently 8 workouts a week.
But it's still a protocol based on faulty premises.
It's originally made to fit drug users. The Bulgarians still don't really have no idea of what is optimal for the natural trainer.
YIP
Zack
Gravity Training is the most efficient way to train.
Arthur jones traiing he did with casey viator would almost be fun to trySupposedly they have to carry the trainee from one machine to the next; throwing up is common. Eventually they get used to it.
Arthur jones traiing he did with casey viator would almost be fun to try but apparently u have to have access to nautilus machines that can be used (e.g.) for flys then bench press.
If this workout style was as effective using say pek dek then bench press, then it might b worth trying.
davie
So you're saying that there's no better way you can think of for Vince Basile to impress the world than by having honed an ability to pick up heavy rocks overhead without the use of drugs. Interesting. How often do you advise this to others?
Instead of forcing the bodybuilders to develop the best possible training methods, steroids allowed for enormous mass gains with the same level of knowledge on training as previously.
Would some of you people recognize the true theory of hypertrophy if you saw it? The point is what is the test of truth of any theory? Well, in bodybuilding it surely is whether that theory can produce the results it claims. HST and HIT and Heavy Duty and every other theory has failed to generate continuous growth in believers. What happens is that those who do not make gains blame the theory.
One fact that cannot be disputed is that Arthur Jones helped generate additional size on already huge Sergio Oliva. So, what Arthur said cannot easily be dismissed. That success has to be part of the true hypertrophy theory.
Max Rep, your last post quoting Sergio Oliva is quite inaccurate if you are trying to suggest how Arthur Jones trained him. You are implying that Sergio did 32 sets for a bodypart and trained for 3 1/2 hours each workout. That is hogwash and you know it. That is the worst example of journalism I have seen on Getbig for some time. To me that is intellectual dishonesty.
The workouts Arthur had Sergio do were absolutely brutal and the account is a great read. Jones combined Nautilus machine training with free weights and came up with workouts that almost destroyed Sergio. For thighs Sergio warmed up on a Leg Press exercise and went to failure with a heavy weight. He raced over to do leg extensions with heaps of plates for as many reps as he could then without resting did something like 10 or 15 reps full squatting with something like 400 pounds. The first time Sergio tried to duplicate Casey's workout he collapsed when he decended in the first rep of the squat. Eventually he was able to perform that super-human tri-set. It is clear that few people were capable of training that hard. Jones had a champion bodybuilder who's pride was at stake and he was motivated to defeat Arnold who he had lost to in the Olympia. Jones knew exactly what was required to make Sergio larger and he succeeded magnificently.
Compare Sergio's condition in 1972 to Dorian's in 1993.
Max Rep, your last post quoting Sergio Oliva is quite inaccurate if you are trying to suggest how Arthur Jones trained him. You are implying that Sergio did 32 sets for a bodypart and trained for 3 1/2 hours each workout. That is hogwash and you know it. That is the worst example of journalism I have seen on Getbig for some time. To me that is intellectual dishonesty.
I like you Vince, But do you know what gives me the shits VB? Posts like the above... Earlier in the thread you carry on how drugs have ruined BB, yadda yadda yadda..
Then you post alleged Hypertrophy workouts of Sergio/Viator.. Now you tell me, how is any natural or clean trainee supposed to benefit from copying or emulating these workouts?? when these guys were juiced to their eyeballs.
If you'd read the entire interview you would also note that Sergio credits HIT with being THE most effective training method that he ever used... if memory serves, I remember Sergio also pointed out that the biggest regret of his bodybuilding career was not sticking with Arthur Jones and eclipsing Arnold completely... I also remeber that Sergio said he utilised Arthur's HIT techniques in his free weight workouts when he returned to training on his own... (although he did admit having to slightly increase the volume to compensate for the lack of equipment).As i've pointed out quite clearly, there is ambiguity in how much of the benefits were due to any one thing. According to what Sergio said, anecdotally the machines were the biggest difference, not HIT or having someone push him, but it's not clear. A better interviewer might've been able to flush that out.
I say stuff the drugs and supplements and let us find a way to get huge naturally, quickly and steadily. This is what is guiding me and I think I have an idea how to do it. Now all I need is one subject to volunteer to try what I say. He will have to be intelligent, experienced and capable of following directions to the letter. Too many people improvise and soon lose the direction they were going.You are absolutely DELUSIONAL if you think there is some "scientific" routine that will make the average natural trainee bigger than what we have seen so far.
Max Rep, your last post quoting Sergio Oliva is quite inaccurate if you are trying to suggest how Arthur Jones trained him. You are implying that Sergio did 32 sets for a bodypart and trained for 3 1/2 hours each workout. That is hogwash and you know it. That is the worst example of journalism I have seen on Getbig for some time. To me that is intellectual dishonesty.
The workouts Arthur had Sergio do were absolutely brutal and the account is a great read. Jones combined Nautilus machine training with free weights and came up with workouts that almost destroyed Sergio. For thighs Sergio warmed up on a Leg Press exercise and went to failure with a heavy weight. He raced over to do leg extensions with heaps of plates for as many reps as he could then without resting did something like 10 or 15 reps full squatting with something like 400 pounds. The first time Sergio tried to duplicate Casey's workout he collapsed when he decended in the first rep of the squat. Eventually he was able to perform that super-human tri-set. It is clear that few people were capable of training that hard. Jones had a champion bodybuilder who's pride was at stake and he was motivated to defeat Arnold who he had lost to in the Olympia. Jones knew exactly what was required to make Sergio larger and he succeeded magnificently.
Compare Sergio's condition in 1972 to Dorian's in 1993.
Dorian dwarfs Sergio. In the same condition as Sergio, Yates is 300lbs.
I just want to chime in with some personal experience of my own for what it's worth. I'm a natural bodybuilder that has competed at the national level. I was at a plateau in my strength and bodyweight. A coworker let me listen to some Mentzer audio tapes on high intensity training. The tapes blew me away. Everything Mentzer said made logical sense. At that time I was doing the standard 3 exercises for 3 sets for each bodypart working out 4 days a week. To cut my volume down to 1 or 2 sets sounded insane to me but logically it made sense after listening to those tapes. I decided to cut back my volume gradually, first by doing only 2 sets of each exercise bringing my total sets per bodypart down from 9 to 6 and I also increased my recovery time by not training on consecutive days. My strength went up and I put on some body weight. After a few weeks I cut some more volume out by decreasing the number of exercises down to 2 so now I was doing 4 work sets per bodypart. My strength went up again and I put on some mass. Finally I went down to 1 set per exercise for 2 movements per large bodypart and one set for smaller bodyparts. Again my strength increased and my lean body mass went up. I kept a training journal and every single workout I was either able to increase my poundages a little or squeeze out an extra rep. It was amazing, I broke through all my plateaus and made considerable gains and was in and out of the gym in 45 mins. I can't recommend HIT for everyone especially beginners. I believe you have to be an advanced lifter to utilize HIT properly. Only an advanced lifter can generate the intensity needed to train this way. My training partners didn't respond nearly as well to HIT, they were athletes, not bodybuilders and they didn't have the mind/muscle connection to be able to generate the intensity necessary to train this way. I no longer compete but I still keep my intensity high and keep my volume low. Anything but high intensity feels like a waste of time to me and I believe the logic and science behind HIT make it the most sound method of training.
How about you cut it to 1 work set per muscle? It would only make sense..I didn't superset so I did one pressing movement for chest and one flye movement for example. Large bodyparts were trained like that and small bodyparts were trained with only one set.
I didn't superset so I did one pressing movement for chest and one flye movement for example. Large bodyparts were trained like that and small bodyparts were trained with only one set.
Did you reach a plateay or are you still gaining?
I just want to chime in with some personal experience of my own for what it's worth. I'm a natural bodybuilder that has competed at the national level. I was at a plateau in my strength and bodyweight. A coworker let me listen to some Mentzer audio tapes on high intensity training. The tapes blew me away. Everything Mentzer said made logical sense. At that time I was doing the standard 3 exercises for 3 sets for each bodypart working out 4 days a week. To cut my volume down to 1 or 2 sets sounded insane to me but logically it made sense after listening to those tapes. I decided to cut back my volume gradually, first by doing only 2 sets of each exercise bringing my total sets per bodypart down from 9 to 6 and I also increased my recovery time by not training on consecutive days. My strength went up and I put on some body weight. After a few weeks I cut some more volume out by decreasing the number of exercises down to 2 so now I was doing 4 work sets per bodypart. My strength went up again and I put on some mass. Finally I went down to 1 set per exercise for 2 movements per large bodypart and one set for smaller bodyparts. Again my strength increased and my lean body mass went up. I kept a training journal and every single workout I was either able to increase my poundages a little or squeeze out an extra rep. It was amazing, I broke through all my plateaus and made considerable gains and was in and out of the gym in 45 mins. I can't recommend HIT for everyone especially beginners. I believe you have to be an advanced lifter to utilize HIT properly. Only an advanced lifter can generate the intensity needed to train this way. My training partners didn't respond nearly as well to HIT, they were athletes, not bodybuilders and they didn't have the mind/muscle connection to be able to generate the intensity necessary to train this way. I no longer compete but I still keep my intensity high and keep my volume low. Anything but high intensity feels like a waste of time to me and I believe the logic and science behind HIT make it the most sound method of training.
The ideas of Larry Scott are another thing and much closer to the truth regarding hypertrophy.
Well said Vince,
Max_Rep should know that the details of Arthur Jones training Sergio are a matter of record... many witnesses have attested to the nature of the training involved.
Max_Rep's post IS completely dishonest: it's a cut and paste job from an old interview Sergio gave in which Sergio's answers have been taken out of context and replaced with answers to different questions.
Sergio made the point in that interview that he trained very high volume with lots of partial reps till he went down to Deland, Florida... With Arthur Jones, Sergio trained exclusively HIT style and achieved what he himself considered his best ever physique.
If you'd read the entire interview you would also note that Sergio credits HIT with being THE most effective training method that he ever used... if memory serves, I remember Sergio also pointed out that the biggest regret of his bodybuilding career was not sticking with Arthur Jones and eclipsing Arnold completely... I also remeber that Sergio said he utilised Arthur's HIT techniques in his free weight workouts when he returned to training on his own... (although he did admit having to slightly increase the volume to compensate for the lack of equipment).
What Arthur Jones managed to do was greatly improve the physiqes of steroid using volume trainers with brief, infrequent, high intensity workouts... Ellington Darden (www.drdarden.com) has been doing the same with scores of natural trainees for decades now.
To my knowledge no one has ever managed to improve the physique of a dedicated HIT advocate via volume training. That should tell us something.
For the record, the vast majority of heavily muscled (relatively speaking) naturals are HIT trainers (the rest are low volume higher intensity types)... I can't think of a single notable natural volume trainer... that should also tell us something.
The Luke
You keep mentioning Larry Scott. Now I don't know what principles Larry Scott has developed or used successfully but what I do know is I watched a Larry Scott training video once and it was one of the funniest things I have seen. He was doing these exercises that looked ridiculous and half the time he couldn't even demonstrate them properly to the training camp in the video. And when the training camp tried to mimic his movements you could tell they felt awkward and were getting no benefit from the weird exercise form. He did a bizzare form of pullup and other weird movements, no movement was done conventionally, not even a flat bench press. He did things like inverted chest flyes using handles attached to chains hanging from the ceiling. He couldn't even maintain his balance while performing the movement and literally fell down half the time. I watched the tape mostly for entertainment purposes and didn't glean anything useful from it. You couldn't workout like Larry Scott in a normal gym because normal gyms don't have chains hanging from the ceiling etc. Please tell me that somebody else here has seen this tape and can vouch for what I said above because I know it sounds bizarre. I only wish I still had the tape so I could upload it to YouTube.
If you study nutrition textbooks written for graduate students in nutrition then that should be sufficient to address nutritional concerns. The research by supplement companies is suspect to say the least. I guess bodybuilders who are not growing (which is just about everyone) doesn't want to think he is not getting enough protein, etc. The protein requirement is still controversial but I am on record as saying that bodybuilders ingest perhaps 3 times more protein that they need. The rest gets converted to energy and that is a complete travesty of resources in our world.
The theories about nutrition are endlessly ridiculous. In my opinion there is more nonsense than knowledge out there.
The formula is simple: Adequate nutrition + Training stimulus = possible hypertrophy
If you are not growing and ingest enough energy they your training stimulus is inadequate. I can't make it any simpler than that.
Max_Rep,
You need to re-read that interview... the marathon training Sergio describes is what he did BEFORE training with Arthur Jones. It's pointless to take a excerpt from an interview out of context... it's absolutely reprehensible to change the context of someones statement in order that it supports your argument. You, my friend are guilty of the latter.
The Luke
Max Rep should realize that some of us have lived through the Jones era. We were all amazed that Sergio gained while training with Arthur.
.
Max_Rep,
I read that Ironman interview with Sergio Oliva in the actual magazine and the way you presented it is misrepresentative.
Did you read an online transcript that might have been edited/altered?
The Luke
We all know that a few weeks on any new program will bring about a new growth spurt. To say that Jones was solely responsible for Sergio's growth is to leave out several unknown factors.
Max Rep commentary… 32 sets on a body part. Body parts 2 times a week. Workout length 3 ½ hours. Yup that sounds like Jones style training the way we’ve been sold it to me!
Sorry boys but the accounts of Sergio's workouts with Jones that we ALL read about in the 70's were Jones's accounts. The interview I posted from can be found in the September 2002 issue of IM. I posted Q & A directly from the interview without alteration. Of course I did not post the entire interview as it is much to long for this forum. If it is inaccurate then the interviewer "The Sandwich" or Sergio is responsible for those inaccuracies. What reason would I have to alter them?
I find it quite funny that you take Jones so much at his word. We all read the stories of Sergio's workouts with Casey and how Sergio didn't make it through the workouts. What we don't know with any degree of accuracy was how long Sergio followed those workouts until he went back to his own volume training. Weeks? Months?
We all know that a few weeks on any new program will bring about a new growth spurt. To say that Jones was solely responsible for Sergio's growth is to leave out several unknown factors.
Oliva credits Nautilus and Jones with making the difference
I read that interview and it says what Luke and I have been saying. Oliva credits Nautilus and Jones with making the difference. It was how he used those machines. He insisted on combining free weights with the machines and that is partly why squats were included.
It is refreshing to read that interview because just about everything he said is true or has happened. His account of the corrupt IFBB and so on is a lesson for everyone. I respect Sergio. He tells it like it is because he fears no one. Lee Priest has taken the baton from Sergio but the sheep won't follow.
i'm sorry, and this is no disrespect to vince, but look at the guy. ::)
if he actually did know what builds a body don't you think he would have one? i mean he runs a gym for crissakes! it's not like he doesn't have access to the tools. how many guys have you trained to mr olympia calibre vince? i didn't think so. :'(
he doesn't know shit. he is simply an attention whore. if he did have the 'secret' do you think he would be discussing it (or in this case not even going that far) on a message board ???
IF one could actually grow 'workout to workout' like he says, you would have bodybuilders walking around as big as sky scrapers. think about it people!
what he means by doms training ie delayed onset muscle soreness, is that he THINKS, like a lot of people, that doms indicates muscle growth. however, the simple fact is that it doesn't.
one could get doms doing 100 rep sets of push ups but are you going to get big doing that? waddy please don't bother answering. if so then marines would be looking like bodybuilders. they don't... unless they train bodybuilding.
i believe jones was on the right track with his theories. brief and brutal because if you are seriously training brutal how the hell do you training long.
compare the sprinter to the marathon runner. whose body would you rather have?
Hi to Christian Thibaudeau. A bit of supplement promotion in that Gironda article
HIT argues that it is the right method. If followers do not make gains do they abandon the method? Nope. They simply come up with excuses or explanations to account for the lack of results. It is plain to me HIT theory is false. Period. There are some half truths that might be useful. The whole system is rubbish. Ditto for HST. Those methods are not going to work for massive gains.Vince has some valid points, but is also prone to talking at people (pontificating: not much back and forth, answering selectively) and making blanket statements. Someone with that degree of experience should know better than to talk in absolutes, given the fact that there is nothing conclusive yet about many of these theories. Smarter, in the absence of perfect knowledge, to assume that each has some validity, to pick and choose from each those things which work-most of Gironda's & Jones' theories make sense, but not all.
Hi to Christian Thibaudeau. A bit of supplement promotion in that Gironda article. Larry Scott gave a seminar at my gym in 1979. I recorded it and have it on tape somewhere. It should be put into written form and circulated. At the vary least given back to Larry for his site. Larry joked that some of Vince's ideas were extreme and were occasionally used to get attention.
About the guys who are growing in my gym. The natural guys stay the same it appears. That is sad to see. They won't listen to me because they don't believe me. Well there you are.
Some of the casual trainees make gains but only in the upper body. They hate doing legs. I guess when their arms get bigger they love training arms and specialize on them and look very impressive. Very few guys ever train hard enough to cause any growth.
You see, my method requires growth from each and every workout. Your arms and calves can be measured bigger. If you are not growing you have to try something different and maybe train again the very next day. There is no other way. If something doesn't work immediately you have to do something different.
A case in point which I have mentioned before is triceps training. You are unlikely to get big triceps if you continue to do only pressdowns. It won't happen. What happens is that as you use heavier weights you recruit other muscles to assist that movement and you are no longer working triceps that hard. If they are not really sore the next day you didn't train them right. So get back in the gym again and make them sore. Forget about training any other body part. Find out how to make specific muscles grow rapidly. You don't need drugs and I doubt if you need supplements.
So Vince,what would you have a trainee do to continue growing?
You have given us a history lesson with Scott,Oliva,and Gironda and Jones,but have not elaborated on your theory at all.
Give us a hypothetical case scenario using an imaginary trainee please.
Believing in products is hardly science. I am afraid I am not impressed with the supplement industry. They still exaggerate and that disappoints me. Bodybuilders are gullible because they are not growing so there is a ready market. The general public is also ignorant so buy way too many unnecessary things.
I see I am wasting my time with people like Beast. Where are the champions explaining in great detail how to get really big? You have to pay for that information but it is mostly non-existent. I am trying to involve others and see if together we can be led to the correct hypertrophy theory.
HIT argues that it is the right method. If followers do not make gains do they abandon the method? Nope. They simply come up with excuses or explanations to account for the lack of results. It is plain to me HIT theory is false. Period. There are some half truths that might be useful. The whole system is rubbish. Ditto for HST. Those methods are not going to work for massive gains. The people behind these methods know this, too. That is the sad thing. I have more intellectual honesty than that. I design and build machines. If they aren't used then what good are they? I have to have something right to get them so that bodybuilders will use them. It is not guesswork but applied technology.
I probably cannot specify the complete field theory of hypertrophy that will work for everyone. That is a huge task. I am confident it will work for most individuals. There just are too many factors involved in training with humans. How on earth are we going to control all factors? It is a pipedream. If we can construct the theory that works by building on known results we have a good chance of achieving something worthwhile.
The only reason this thread is still active is because there are interested parties who want to know more. Several people have sent me messages asking me for training advice. I thought if I made a post I might be able to help them in the process. I would prefer to know the theory and some details of equipment, etc. The rest I could figure out. Why is that asking too much of others here? Surely we are not novices with no clue at all?
AND I think that it also validates the way Scott trained (under Vince Gironda... really theyr are Gironda's methods, not Scott's): that is to use very short rest periods. BTW I wrote an article about Gironda's methods a while ago. You can read it here:
http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=06-092-training
AND I think that it also validates the way Scott trained (under Vince Gironda... really theyr are Gironda's methods, not Scott's): that is to use very short rest periods. BTW I wrote an article about Gironda's methods a while ago. You can read it here:
http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=06-092-training
HIT argues that it is the right method. If followers do not make gains do they abandon the method? Nope. They simply come up with excuses or explanations to account for the lack of results.
So Vince what were we supposed to learn here in this thread? You invite the high intensity believers in just to shoot down that training protocol along with every other one mentioned here. You seem to favor Larry Scott's principles but fail to explain what they are and allude to having some theory that will keep natural BBers growing continually. So please what are the Im-Basile Training Priciples? Larry Scott seems to think burn, pump and soreness are growth indicators but science proves they are not. What kind of routine would you suggest for a natural BB that has been training for 10 yrs and is stuck at a plateau as far as strength and growth are concerned? Just lay out a sample routine disregarding diet and supplementation. I'd like to see it and how it differs from the other training programs out there. Thanks.
my friend if you are seeking a practical application of the "Im-basille" theory then you are in the wrong placeLOL :)
as vince has stated before through out his seven pages of rambling:
7 pages comes down to this:
anyone can grow indefinitely using my methods, I won't tell you what they are in the practical sense but all of others don't work. Just remember get sore and stay sore, especially in the triceps. And for cardio try shagging a sheep or two Aussie style preferrable, right Lee ;)
I asked you to drop a suggested routine, as this would sort of give us an idea to how you feel about training.
YIP
Zack
give a guy enough food and gh and he could ride a tricycle all day and still win a local NPC show.
The reason Vince, as to why I change the title of the thread, is because I want to make sure that nobody reads your posts in hope of finding any hints to what you believe is the proper way of training.
Andy used to train at my gym in the 1970s. He and I have communicated because now he lives in the States. I am glad that other older guys are interested in training to get bigger. I hope to outline my method and offer more details as we go.
I am impressed that Andy tried the daily walks with added bodyweight. If you did this systematically and climbed hills and kept adding weight you would probably grow like crazy.
You, Beast, are no scientist at all. I have never posted on this site as anyone else. You can have my gym if you can prove that. In the meantime concentrate on the subject at hand.
Vince -I agree with my good colleague's diagnosis. It seems you are trying to convey some of the gleanings of a lifetime of bb experience but are locked in some kind of 'autistic' spasm resulting in a shambling, rambling rhetoric, and to some, sophistry. :-\
If the author cant communicate his/her ideas clearly to an interested audience, it is the AUTHOR's fault, not the audience.
If you really want to teach people something, condense your 3000 word emails into a nicely formatted, comprehensible, argument rather than this circular, rambling crap you keep posting.
Good luck
Vince, you know the saying "nothing is new under the sun"? Well it can be applied to everything in the world of bodybuilding; even your theory. You are not the first one to advocate super long (4-8 hours) workouts for the same body part using only 1-2 exercises.Too lazy to make that assumption, given that there's no conclusive proof that every possibility's been explored. That's aside from the added consideration that, as VB mentioned, much of the existing/historical info's been compromised, making conclusions difficult.
Beast have you ever been to a seminar? You don't throw shit you kill false ideas with arguments and facts. Be sceptical but contribute if you have anything original there.
I have experimented and it is recorded in Ironman Magazine in the Aug 2000 issue, I think. There was a follow up article, too, in 2001. The method works. There can be no doubt about that. I haven't done the longer sessions but I don't see any problem. Once you get pumped up you will feel great and it is easy to keep going once you are have some rhythm. I think I grew about 1/10" each workout for those bodyparts over the whole month. That is not bad. All day training should do much better than that. I expect over 1/8" per training day. I averaged a workout every 3 days.
Plus, we could also argue that a lot of physical labour workers do not continue to add muscle mass forever despite working hard physically 8-10 hours a day. At first they do gain muscle and strength, but once their body is adapted to the work schedule their muscle growth stops (otherwise they'd all be bigger than Ronnie Coleman). So the actual time spend contracting your muscles against a resistance cannot be the sole factor responsible for growth stimulation.
give the man a cigar.
that's exactly why it fails. your body must be adapting to grow and the thing is it is going to fight you all the way.
therefore, obviously there will be a point where it will say, 'yep, seen this before, can handle this' and hey presto - no growth.
so then you've got to make the loads greater right (to keep the body adapting - anabolic). well, what you're not factoring in here basile and fellow basilidiots is that meanwhile your poor nervous and musculo skeletal systems have to somehow cope and recover from the increasingly exhaustive demands, not to mention hormonal balance and emotional stress.
now, IF (huge IF here people) basile had bothered to EXPERIMENT with his 'theory' (or whatever he calls it at the present time) he would have learned all this... or maybe not.
What refutation? Progressive resistance is built in to this program because strength will increase rapidly and more weight must be added to the maximum resistance. By the end of the month perhaps 50% increases in strength can be made. I don't buy that central nervous system stuff. You can't sustain the same number of reps with the same resistance all day but you still use the same resistance and do as many reps as you can as long as they are still about 8 minimum. Resting a little longer between sets as the day wears on won't make any difference I don't think.
Christ,you`d have to move into a gym to train all day long.
Your theory,in essence,sucks!!
Ridiculous waste of peoples time to read this nonsense.
I am confident I am right about my theory. That is sufficient at the moment. It is up to you experts to refute it. If you cannot do that then hold your p[ea]iece.I don't think you understand how science works, Vince. Once one proposes a theory, it follows that the theorist test that theory. Asking someone to refute/prove it false does not follow. What I mean is, I could say that I am the master of time/space but unless I can prove/demonstrate this and have such a finding reproduced by others, it is nothing but hot air. ???
I think Vince is actually John Titor trying to trick us all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor
Vince -
1. I concur w Dr. Chimps. It is the duty of a theorist to prove his/her theory. You're wrong until proven right.
-bb doc
Alexxx, your question is a foolish one, indeed. Look at photos of Arthur Jones and you won't see a huge guy. Yet his mind was vast and his ideas jolted the very foundations of exercise science. Jones even called all exercise scientists idiots! That was how confident he was right and they were wrong.
I have demonstrated that I can grow rapidly. At my age I do not have the motivation or connective tissue health to proceed with such an extreme program. Why you younger guys can't seize the opportunity to transcend yourselves without drugs is one of the mysteries of humans. Clearly, everyone who has some muscular development considers themselves to be experts. I give as evidence our very own board experts. In fact, who is not an expert here?
I am recruiting subjects as we speak. If all fails I will demonstrate my ideas on myself. I fear no man so will boldly tread where ordinary mortals tremble with fear!
Believe you me their is not one training program that scares me least of all your own laughable 2-4 hour routine pfff! I have done full bodyworkouts everyday with some good results. A real champion will learn self control and instead of indulging into a pump for how many hours you train, he will opt for the ultimate program proven to put on mass faster than any other even if it means training only 3 times a week with weights.
I am recruiting subjects as we speak. If all fails I will demonstrate my ideas on myself. I fear no man so will boldly tread where ordinary mortals tremble with fear!
so Vince, lets say that we send Alexxx over there to train with you. How long will the training last?
Alexxx, are you ready to pack up and move there for several months to train?
Alexxx, you do not have the vocabulary to succeed. A pity.
I am recruiting subjects as we speak. If all fails I will demonstrate my ideas on myself. I fear no man so will boldly tread where ordinary mortals tremble with fear![/color]Wow, Vince. I can see why you use purple for your words. This sounds more promising as you are moving away from airy theory towards empiricism. Any idea of your sample size? Large enough for any kind of conclusions or will they be of an anecdotal nature? Controls? Variance? Very interesting. Keep us posted. Maybe you could make a thread in the training section?
Long story short: the biceps need 80 (yes, eighty) days to recover from a single rep of bicep curls
Are you Retarded?
Are you Retarded?
Hey Bast.. how you feeling? someone said you got polio
not that i know of
(http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/global/david/dwe002/dwe002g/dwe00209g01.gif)
Are you Retarded?
The workouts Vince is advocating would necessitate lengthy layoffs for recovery (weeks).80 days, weeks between workouts..if you're serious you're really onto something with practical applications. ::)
Basically; they flexed some poor bastards bis against resistence using electrodes... as the weight started to lower they ramped up the voltage... they continued doing this till the muscles reached TRUE (cellular) muscle failure.
How do you figure that is the same as 1 biceps curl?
CT I have dealt with that in a previous post in this thread. DOMS does not trigger hypertrophy but DOMS accompanies rapid hypertrophy. DOMS is merely a state that is aimed for with the protocols I have outlined. Namely, heaps and heaps of sets with the maximum resistance for 8 to 15 reps.
If muscle soreness was the trigger for muscle growth then it would stand to reason that:1/It's quite possible that soreness from other activities is not the same thing as DOMS from lifting weights; one can't necessarily be compared to the other.
a) anything that cause muscle soreness will trigger muscle growth
b) every thing that doesn't cause soreness will not trigger growth
CT I have dealt with that in a previous post in this thread. DOMS does not trigger hypertrophy but DOMS accompanies rapid hypertrophy. DOMS is merely a state that is aimed for with the protocols I have outlined. Namely, heaps and heaps of sets with the maximum resistance for 8 to 15 reps.
What evidence do you see for DOMS being related to rapid hypertrophy?
YIP
Zack
His incredible muscle size. ::)
What evidence do you see for DOMS being related to rapid hypertrophy?To be fair, there's no clear proof either way so it's unrealistic to ask for anything more than a theory rather than conclusive evidence.
alex, please don't give Basile the easy cop-out of complaining that he's feeling insulted"Alexxx" once again confirming ongoing immaturity.
I agree with Chris. Vince basile is on the same level of delusion as Ta and Vince G. Somebody should lock them all into a cage and see who comes out with the wackiest idea of breacking out without actully doing so.What does "Alexxx" propose as an alternative..
What does "Alexxx" propose as an alternative..
Alexxx are you so naive to believe you can't defeat me in a debate? What a dreamer. Come up with something original for goodness sake. Just knocking someone and calling them names wins you nothing at a university. You have to have an argument with substance. I do not accept that you are my peer or a bodybuilding expert so your opinions are worthless here or nearly so.
From what I have read about DOMS it seems it is associated with repairing damaged tissue in the muscle. If that is so then all DOMS is indicative of growth. If you do a light resistance and it causes DOMS then some growth is occurring. It is a simple matter to increase the resistance and keep the DOMS and you should grow. If you start with ridiculously light resistances then of course the growth will not be large. If you use significant resistance as suggested the growth will be rapid.
Evidence? Well, I did the DOMS training for a month. Arms and calves. Gained 1 inch on arms and over 1 inch on calves. That was over about 10 workouts so the gain was 1 inch divided by 10 which is pretty good going. I could measure increases the day after training. When you can do that you really get enthusiastic. I am confident that others should also gain rapidly. Of course you must be gaining bodyweight, too. If you don't then you might find you won't grow. Abandon all that stuff about protein and eating healthy. Most of that information is nonsense or not important. Eat a balanced diet and perhaps 4 meals a day. Don't use supplements. Hey, I must be the first bodybuilder in history to say this. Well, I don't lie or bs about training. That is what I believe. Sure, if you read the nutrition research you might be persuaded to do this and that. All a waste of time. Eat what your mum cooked for you but a little more of each serving. Don't eat too much protein because it is too hard on your system to digest. If you eat too much protein it gets converted into energy. That really is dumb and a waste of money and resources.
Someone asked about overtraining. I don't believe it happens in ordinary programs. I heard of a guy who was running in really hot weather and kept going even though he was dehydrated. His muscles sort of fused or something. Very sad. No one lifting weights has to worry about that. I agree with Lee Priest that it is not worth worrying about. I think that idea was supposed to explain why so many are not growing. You were supposed to be overtraining. What a joke. If anything you are undertraining but doing too many body parts. Why do all the body parts twice or three times a week? Do you think they will all grow? Nope. You won't get anywhere like that. That is one of those beliefs you have to abandon.
You know, Hedgehog, the sum of my posts in this thread is original and could easily have been published in a magazine. Yet I have knuckleheads knocking me for no good reason. Do you think anyone with something original to offer here would put up with this crap? I enjoy the responses of CT who is a recognized writer and thinker. Look at his responses and compare them to board heroes who try to dismiss someone instead of refute them. What a pity more people here aren't educated.
Anyway, I have persisted because I expect some to post that distracting stuff. What is the test of truth in this discussion? Results. It has nothing to do with opinions. I have told you I am ready to abandon my theories if they don't work. So instead of blasting me with nonsense go out and prove to yourself that I am all hot air. Try this training on a target muscle like calves. Do anything at all to get them sore. Then keep them sore for a month and see if they grow. You have to gain weight over the month or you are wasting your time. Report your results here.
Let's clarify:
-Some get more soreness than others. The next logical step is to look at soress relative to what is the norm for the individual.
-The absence of DOMS in every workout in no way contradicts the proposition.
Agreed. However I do think that individualized can get desensitized to muscle soreness, so I would say that it's hard to establish a "scale of soreness" for one individual as it would have to evolve in time.Desentization occurs but i've found that the frequency of workouts in which soreness occurs has increased measurably by (1) finding the most effective exercises and (2) switching some of the variables from time to time to shock the system, and (3) combining them to achieve considerably better mind-muscle connections.
Quickly now, Vince. This thread has gone on for as long as it has because people are genuinely interested in new methods of training, protocols you call them. You have offered up half-theory, which was rightfully pooh-poohed. I am younger than you, but even I have heard enough theory on bb training that to not be skeptical a new 'super' one would be foolish. People, like myself and others here at GB, are looking for something a bit more meaty than this. I think you fully know this. You then offered to do the training yourself, or with someone else 'smart' enough to have read a certain Karl Popper book. I would be willing to bet that more people on this board than you would acknowledge are familiar with him/his ideas. Intellectual snobbery is for the small minded at groups like Mensa who believe that intelligence is an absolute, to hold/lord over other people rather than a quality to be respected and humbled by. Don't be one of those people. Lastly, you have thrown what little you have synthesized to the masses here at GB and indicated that they can do it themselves. Unlikely to happen, as you well know, for many reasons, laziness and inertia being but two. You are an exasperating man, Vince, wanting to be respected for something and lashing out when these wishes are not realized. You must remember that philosophers (and perhaps bbs like yourself), in their latter years, usually always strive for what is referred to as 'grand theory,' all-encompassing ideas that try to tie up all loose ends. Don't feel badly, Einstein, Newton and even, I think, a fellow named Popper fell short of doing so. :)
You know, Hedgehog, the sum of my posts in this thread is original and could easily have been published in a magazine. Yet I have knuckleheads knocking me for no good reason. Do you think anyone with something original to offer here would put up with this crap? I enjoy the responses of CT who is a recognized writer and thinker. Look at his responses and compare them to board heroes who try to dismiss someone instead of refute them. What a pity more people here aren't educated.
People, like myself and others here at GB, are looking for something a bit more meaty than this.Free of charge? ???
Free of charge? ???True. But I didn't get the drift that Vince was spamming. Maybe a little ego-massage, but not spam. ;)$$$ talk, beggars walk..
spend a lot of time on the toes, especially whilst training for comp.Too easy to poke holes in this. I've already pointed out that non-weight/resistance DOMS likely differ in effect.
considering that i weigh about 230lbs when in peak shape there is obviously a great deal of stress on my calves every day in training camp.
i have doms every day during this period. sometimes i can't even walk in the morning until some blood gets in there.
guess what happens when i train like this? my calves get smaller.
what happens when i do less and continue weight training them about once a week very briefly? they get bigger.
if i eat more than i need whilst in training camp i just get fatter. so much for the doms plus 'eat more' theory.Yet another example of poor comprehension. He was talking about eating in regards to gaining muscle whilst using progressive resistance. In addition, it is a prerequisite for making gains but doesn't mean that it will always work.
Too easy to poke holes in this. I've already pointed out that non-weight/resistance DOMS likely differ in effect.
Secondly, i doubt the calves are actually getting smaller and if they are, it's because of the extra lard paired off from the rigorous exercise.
Yet another example of poor comprehension. He was talking about eating in regards to gaining muscle whilst using progressive resistance. In addition, it is a prerequisite for making gains but doesn't mean that it will always work.
Max Rep. People are criticizing me for contributing to this board as an Ironager. I decided to offer my theories about training on the Gossip and Opinion board and others are interested and that is why this thread is still going. I think this is the first time a training thread has been taken seriously on the Getbig G&O board. I don't think it is an accident. I am doing my best to answer questions and so on.
SteelePegasus. One of the things Doug Hepburn taught me when he trained me back in 1969 was not to reduce the resistance. He gave me a program for arms. 20 sets of 5 reps with the same maximum resistance. We were using his personal exercise machine that he invented and it had resistance in one direction only. That protocol using concentric reps generated 1/2 inch on my arms in two weeks. I was very impressed. Doug had to lend the machine to someone he was trying to sell the design to so I stopped going there. Shortly afterwards Arthur Jones started writing in magazines and he told us 20 sets was stupid. Why do volume when one or two sets is sufficient. I also believed that Larry Scott was onto something when he encouraged us to always try to exceed our maximum pump size. Grimek said 100 sets of presses didn't do anything for his shoulders. So I ended up compromising and did 7 or 8 total sets, including warmup for bodyparts. That was how many sets I needed to get a maximum pump. I knew that Sergio did volume training and got a muscle pumped then kept doing more sets to keep it pumped. You can't ignor what you read about how the biggest guys trained.
Keep the resistance at the maximum and rest longer between sets so that you can still do about 8 reps. The maximum resistance done set after set after set is the basic requirement for hypertrophy. That is what big muscles are for!
Fatpanda. I do not recommend training as often as one can. I suggest training every 3rd day. It may well be that daily training is best but I rather doubt that.
Bryan Haycock used scientific research to get his HST method. The method itself is not scientific because it has not been tested and from what I have read the success is modest at best. Where are the giants from using HST? There are none and there can be none because that is a submaximal program. Haycock said he can't get any bigger than he was two years ago. In the language of Getbig he self-owned himself! He knows about the 8 and 4 hour requirements for maximum and 50% hypertrophy respectively. Why does he think he can't grow any more? Tell him to come to my gym and I will get his arms an inch bigger in a month.
SteelePegasus. The trick of doing set after set after set with the maximum you can handle for 8 reps is to select a weight you can do for 15 reps. If you select a weight you can do for 8 to 10 reps to start with then by the 4th set your reps will be half of that and that is not the best rep range for hypertrophy. In addition, doing less that 7 reps is getting into the dangerous zone and you don't want to compromise your form and risk injury. Also, 8 + reps are better for increased blood flow which helps stabilize the muscle. The best method had better be a safe one.
What hypertrophy science? What a joke. That is partly why Haycock proposed a method that cannot generate huge size. Why? Well, big muscles are good for volume training not HIT stuff. So if you want big muscles you have to do volume. There is no other way. HIT has been around for a long time. Well, take a bunch of subjects and train one twin HIT for 3 years and let the other twin train HST. I would bet neither group would gain much. Now, give me one twin and I will show you what is possible in 3 years. My results would eclipse those other methods by a factor of at least 2. This is a bold statement but I think a safe one.
Triceps supersetted with chins or lat pulldowns.Why those muscles together?
with that said wouldn't the first 3-4 sets be a waste of time?IMO the first few sets of this protocol's like ascending pyramid training-the initial sets are essentially warmup sets to lubricate the muscles, joints and ligaments in combination with the psychological preparation for what is to follow, the core portion of the training.
how can you explain this if strength has little to do with hypertrophy, you youself said you have to increase weight to increase the damage done to the muscleI had to explain this recently in another thread-strength gains ARE important, but only within the context of other accompanying variables like moderate reps, reasonably short rests, etc. Not by itself!
Rammer. About negative reps or eccentric contractions. I wouldn't do them because the risk of injury is too great. Do conventional reps and get pumped up. That is much safer. This is one instance where safety is more important than effectiveness.
I had to explain this recently in another thread-strength gains ARE important, but only within the context of other accompanying variables like moderate reps, reasonably short rests, etc. Not by itself!
Fatpanda. The need for more protein is the biggest lie magazines have done to bodybuilding. I advocate 1 gram of protein for every Kg of bodyweight. So if you weigh 220 pounds you need about 100 grams of protein. I would bet that 100 grams is more than enough. Taking more is foolish. I don't trust the research about this subject. There is simply too much money to be made from selling supplements to stupid people. Go and do the research about nutrition. Don't read bodybuilding magazines. I subscribe to Ironman on line. They had a recent issue where they reported from a nutrition conference. Info relevant for bodybuilders that is valuable = zero.
i'm surprised at that vince, you look no more than 160lbs, so should i throw the baby out with the water? i think not.Rather a cheap shot, not pertinent for someone well past prime. Parcells supposedly knows football yet looks embarassingly like a blimp, which no one seems to notice. :-X
i dont understand how you can honestly think 100g of protein a day is enough, untill science says otherwise?
can you answer this question then?
say your body is 230 lbs like you say, and are eating maintenace calories, how can you expect to gain muscle weight if you do not increase protein?
i can admit there is an assimilation problem for the natural trainer, but your body will take care of this itself via hormone/enzyme changes untill it is recycling protein is maxed out. then what will you do? your body will surely start to canabalise its other muscles eventually.
Rather a cheap shot, not pertinent for someone well past prime. Parcells supposedly knows football yet looks embarassingly like a blimp, which no one seems to notice. :-X
Anyone on gear really should be looked at differently; it's an entirely different playing field.
I agree that the source of fitness info should look the part but not with advancing age, no. Small time to go after someone well past prime.
This guy supposedly knows something about training, are you going to attack his knowledge to? hahahahaahahh
Anyone on gear really should be looked at differently; it's an entirely different playing field.
I agree that the source of fitness info should look the part but not with advancing age, no. Small time to go after someone well past prime.
This guy supposedly knows something about training, are you going to attack his knowledge to? hahahahaahahh
Fatpanda. I am not basing my theories on animal studies. I am conjecturing based on those studies and my own experience.
you totally misunderstood what i was saying, i wasn't attacking his knowledge, i was making the point that if i looked at him, and made assumptions about a training style based on his size, i'd be throwing out the baby with the bath water. in effect i do not judge a persons knowledge on his size, he was. i put him in his place, just like i have you.Another paragraph later he's still talking in circles.
i am goint to attack arnolds knowledge for training natural, his encyclopedia of bodybuilding was a joke !This is a fave unproven theory by some getbig amateurs, that somehow all the fundamentals of training change on drugs, with no proof whatsoever that there's any difference other than degree. Absurd.
I have outlined my ideas in a systematic fashion so that an experienced and educated person would have much to think about. If one or two respond in a sensible fashion then that is more than I expected on Getbig.
I see little information that anyone has except CT and dr chimps.
Max Rep. People are criticizing me for contributing to this board as an Ironager. I decided to offer my theories about training on the Gossip and Opinion board and others are interested and that is why this thread is still going. I think this is the first time a training thread has been taken seriously on the Getbig G&O board. I don't think it is an accident. I am doing my best to answer questions and so on.
You will all find out age is not very nice to experience. Bodyfat accumulates easily and is difficult to get rid of. If you diet you lose muscle instead of fat which is really disheartening.Perhaps, Vince, with an eye on motivation, you could combine making some gains and testing out your hypothesis, keeping us informed of your progess. I would be very interested in seeing what happens and, I think, for others here, it would add some validity to your words. Age calls us all home before we are ready, so it might be reassuring to see that one can still get better as we get older.
Can a so-called old man still make gains? Of course. I might have a go at doing just that. I just can't seem to get motivated enough to do it. Bodybuilding is not a haphazard enterprise but one requiring dedication and pesistence. What value is there in working that hard just to look good? If someone 64 can get bigger than ever before and do it naturally then that is an impressive result and one thought unattainable by exercise scientists. I am confident I can still generate more hypertrophy by triggering the growth and making it happen. We all have vastly more potential than we imagine or are able to fulfill.
It is rather difficult to interact with undisciplined blokes. It is wasting my time. If you guys want to pontificate and think you are clever then keep going because I see little information that anyone has except CT and dr chimps.
I have outlined my ideas in a systematic fashion so that an experienced and educated person would have much to think about. If one or two respond in a sensible fashion then that is more than I expected on Getbig.
It is rather difficult to interact with undisciplined blokes. It is wasting my time. If you guys want to pontificate and think you are clever then keep going because I see little information that anyone has except CT and dr chimps.Interesting comments VB, but kindly refrain from the personal stuff if you want to be taken seriously. It should've been evident by now that there are others with experience, some of which may rival yours. Amateur & unfriendly to assume otherwise. ;)
Hello Basile.
Outline in the rough how you would have this "twin" train.
Lets try this, I list some questions, and you give it back if you want and if you can:
1. How many workouts per month
2. How many workouts per week?
3. How long would the workouts be?
4. How many excersises used per workout?
5. How many sets per workout?
6. How many repetitions?
7. What percentage of 1RM (1 Rep Max)?
8. How many bodyparts per week or month?
YIP
Zack
Overtraining is not the reason novices fail to make gains. It sounds good but an analysis would refute this conjecture.
Re training frequency. Suppose we need 100 units of a substance to remain healthy. If we take 150 or 200 units we will still have a sufficient but unnecessary amount of that substance. Likewise, it is probably not necessary to train daily to grow at the maximum rate. The ideal is to do exactly what is sufficient and no more. In practice this is never easy to know. Again, we need more research to find such points. When you think about it hypertrophy is not well understood by science at all. Look at all the important questions we have no answers to. The lack of information is what allows so many competing theories to exist. The more we know the less competing theories exist to explain things.
If the muscles and connective tissue require 5 sets to sufficiently warm up then this is a necessity and those sets have to count. If you or anyone else does those 5 warm up sets but do not count them then you are lying to yourself and everyone else about a program. It is about time HST and HIT and other programs started being honest. I dislike when systems claim to be based on science when that is a lie and the reality is trainees have to fine tune and adjust programs before they will grow. In other words they have to do something else and not the prescriptions advocated by the methods. I am ready to debate Dr Ellington Dardon and Bryan Haycock but they have better things to do. Will either of them be prepared to abandon their theories if they are refuted or found wanting? I doubt it. If they are not willing to abandon false theories then they are hardly scientists. I just wish there was more intellectual honesty in bodybuilding. I would bet that all parties mentioned sell things at their sites. The bodybuilding methods are just a way to attract gullible customers. Don't you think we should have the answers to most bodybuilding questions? If everyone was fair dinkum about the theory and science behind bodybuilding we not be in the ignorant position we find ourselves today.
The test of truth of theories is if they work. If my theory doesn't work then it is false. I will be pleased if it is close to the truth. The likelihood that any hypertrophy theory will universally work is small, indeed. At best we can find some method that works for most people.
Would Vince G CSN MFT know an effective program if he saw it? Thank goodness a man's knowledge is not guaged by his physique. I hope Goodrum supports me on this fact.
Vince, you stated in this thread that from what you have read regarding DOMS it is indicative of hypertrophy. I cannot find the quote I saw earlier but I did find this related one:
"In my theory all that is important is the resultant growth from each workout. That is the constant test of the theory's truth. That is the feedback that is important. No growth and you are not doing something right. I use DOMS as the best feedback mechanism to guage growth occurring in muscles. So far no one has refuted my suggestion that DOMS is associated with muscle hypertrophy as long as sufficient nutrition is provided so that growth can occur. I also require that the DOMS be induced by using programs where one repeatedly does sets with the maximum resistance possible for 8 or more reps."
Tell me more about your theory of how DOMS and hypertrophy are related.
Bump for Vince to answer.
If the muscles and connective tissue require 5 sets to sufficiently warm up then this is a necessity and those sets have to count. If you or anyone else does those 5 warm up sets but do not count them then you are lying to yourself and everyone else about a program. It is about time HST and HIT and other programs started being honest.
SteelePegasus. I don't see too many guys my age who have more muscles than me and that includes Arnold. What interests me is the potential of all bodies to grow and even in supposedly old age. Anyway, my theory is independent of individuals. All my results are anecdotal and not a scientific experiment.
By the way, I wasn't knocking you in this thread.
Vince, let me ask you this. If a guy can bench press 365 for 8 reps does doing a warmup with the empty bar for 15 reps count as a set? The warmups required for a HIT workout do not tax the muscles nor give a pump, if they do then you are doing HIT wrong. If I grab a 5 lb plate and do some shoulder rotations to warm up the joint is that a set? Does picking up a couple of plates to load the bar count as a set? Vince I take it that you have never performed a HIT workout in your life. You can either train long or you can train hard. You can't train long and hard which is what you are advocating. I did some searching and found an interesting post on the ironage board from years ago about Dorian training using HIT. It has an account of an actual workout and the weights he handled and the reps. You should check it out Vince:
http://ironage.us/yabbse/index.php?topic=2393.0
HIT works, I know because I did it, and it works better than any other type of training I have ever done. I'm natural and built a national level physique. Why spend 8 hours in the gym when all you need is 45 mins? I wish I had a nickel for all the time you've wasted in the gym Vince. I'd be a multi-billionaire ;D.
When I first started lifting weights in 83, coach made us do Arthur Jones Full Body Workout routine 3 days a week in high school.
I used Mentzers HIT training in the late 90s because of the limited time I had to hit the gym and I got some great results from it although it could have been the gear I started using at the time. I used the same thing for the Metrolina
For the Mountaineer, I used Arnold's split training routine working out twice a day 6 days a week.
Honestly, I think that there is no superior training routine. I just mix it around so the workout doesn't get stale and the body can't really tell the difference. Resistance is resistance
And this is the secret to your success you say?
You are as far gone as the monkey who started this thread.
Come on Alexxx, don't forget Vince won the overall in one of the premier national competitions of his day...you? Where's the respect? He is spouting lots of nonsense now yes BUT if you look closer at his reams of text, there are some gems that will accelerate your progress in BB.
How will he prove his ways. What he is suggesting is nothing new and basically a rip of Arnold's methods.
Come on Alexxx, don't forget Vince won the overall in one of the premier national competitions of his day...you? Where's the respect? He is spouting lots of nonsense now yes BUT if you look closer at his reams of text, there are some gems that will accelerate your progress in BB.
You mean gems like this quote:
"I am naturally lazy and do not like lifting weights. Most weeks I train less than an hour."
Vince, how can you go on for 16 pages about your theories and say you are going to test them on yourself and then say the above quote.
You mean gems like this quote:
"I am naturally lazy and do not like lifting weights. Most weeks I train less than an hour."
Vince, how can you go on for 16 pages about your theories and say you are going to test them on yourself and then say the above quote.
Haha yeah, actually I find some of his stuff funny as heck too. But I find his stuff on injury prevention and what hedid unorthofox that led to one inch increases in armsand calves intriguing. Still, his nutrition theory is garbage to say the least.
His arms and calves didn't grow, the muscle tissue was damaged and inflamed so it measured larger with a tape measure. Go get a sunburn and measure your arms, they will be at least 1/8" bigger because your skin is inflamed and puffy. Did your arms grow?
His arms and calves didn't grow, the muscle tissue was damaged and inflamed so it measured larger with a tape measure. Go get a sunburn and measure your arms, they will be at least 1/8" bigger because your skin is inflamed and puffy. Did your arms grow?
His arms and calves didn't grow, the muscle tissue was damaged and inflamed so it measured larger with a tape measure. Go get a sunburn and measure your arms, they will be at least 1/8" bigger because your skin is inflamed and puffy. Did your arms grow?
Vince looked pretty good when he won the IFBB Mr Canada Overall title.
Imagine huge guys with small, natural waists! It is possible and whoever succeeds will surely be something to marvel at.Even so they would have a hard time proving they are indeed natural ala Skip La Cour
Unless someone actually tries this method it cannot be dismissed out of hand by Getbig armchair experts. Imagine huge guys with small, natural waists! It is possible and whoever succeeds will surely be something to marvel at.
Bump.
???
prince, why don't YOU give it a try and get back to us in a year.
you should be mr olympia by then. :o
???
prince, why don't YOU give it a try and get back to us in a year.
you should be mr olympia by then. :o