Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: BBSSchlemiel on November 19, 2019, 09:22:34 AM
-
All of the low-volume gurus seem to have something wrong with them.
There’s a new one in town who is having meltdowns online because some disagree with him. He portrays himself, like the others to be a savior but is ignored by those who can’t see the light, almost as if he has a burden to bear. TL-DR posts reminiscent of the DC heyday.
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tcMOG0ECqDU/hqdefault.jpg).
"Mike Mentzer lectures a young trainee on the wholesomeness of piss drinking and Ayn Rand while stealthy avoiding Arnold's hitmen."
-
All of the low-volume gurus seem to have something wrong with them.
There’s a new one in town who is having meltdowns online because some disagree with him. He portrays himself, like the others to be a savior but is ignored by those who can’t see the light, almost as if he has a burden to bear. TL-DR posts reminiscent of the DC heyday.
I have found that anyone who claims to know everything, knows very little. It doesn't matter what the subject is. Arrogance is a psychological shield protecting the inner child within.
-
Low volume training combined with meth use causes mentzer-instability.
-
Sometimes I wish I never was influenced by Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer. While I still use low volume training I'm beginning to realize too late in life that you need to use volume too. An exclusive diet of low volume will get you strong and muscular but to stimulate all muscle optimally you need volume as in muscular endurance training through sets as well as heavy weight low set training cycles.
-
You can get strong using low volume
But to reach your potential in size, you need higher volume
-
Sometimes I wish I never was influenced by Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer. While I still use low volume training I'm beginning to realize too late in life that you need to use volume too. An exclusive diet of low volume will get you strong and muscular but to stimulate all muscle optimally you need volume as in muscular endurance training through sets as well as heavy weight low set training cycles.
But do you think it's worth it? The "additional" gains you think you would have made compensate for the investment of more of your life? Have you tried additional volume?
I was never a good responder no matter what protocol I used. It didn't matter if I trained 6,5,4,3 times a week. 10 sets, 5 sets, two sets. I've noticed no difference in my physique training two times per week other than having more time to do other things. So I train two times/week and read, play chess more, spend time with family, and owning tiny tits on GetBig ;) .
That was probably one of my main impetus for me cutting back so drastically on volume. I wasn't going to looked jacked no matter what I did so why bother? At least I didn't get burned out and have been training with weights nonstop for 48 years. My main goal now is to able to climb a flight of stairs without passing out and not having a pot belly.
-
All of the low-volume gurus seem to have something wrong with them.
There’s a new one in town who is having meltdowns online because some disagree with him. He portrays himself, like the others to be a savior but is ignored by those who can’t see the light, almost as if he has a burden to bear. TL-DR posts reminiscent of the DC heyday.
Correlation vs. Causation
Are crazy people attracted to brutal training or does brutal training create crazy people?
-
(https://i2.wp.com/muscleandbrawn.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/dorian-yates-and-mike-mentzer.png?fit=649%2C429&ssl=1)
(https://i1.wp.com/bonvecstrength.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/mike-mentzer-dorian-yates.jpg)
-
The oldtimers from the 40s and early 50s knew how to train without drugs.
Look to their routines for advices if you are a natty.
Reeves, early Reg Park, Eiferman, Grimek, Clancy Ross, the old York routines, etc.
Don't use a pre-contest routine for general training.
Any training regimen devised during the drug era is not optimal for nattys. Mentzer was on a load of drugs.
Yates was on a load of drugs. Arnold was on drugs. Why would you think you can train like them if you are not on drugs?
If you are a drug user then you can have success with just about any training routine.
-
Correlation vs. Causation
Are crazy people attracted to brutal training or does brutal training create crazy people?
Great question! I think there’s something to it. Look at how mellow Cutler is and then look at the online meltdowns of low volume gurus.
-
But do you think it's worth it? The "additional" gains you think you would have made compensate for the investment of more of your life? Have you tried additional volume?
I was never a good responder no matter what protocol I used. It didn't matter if I trained 6,5,4,3 times a week. 10 sets, 5 sets, two sets. I've noticed no difference in my physique training two times per week other than having more time to do other things. So I train two times/week and read, play chess more, spend time with family, and owning tiny tits on GetBig ;) .
That was probably one of my main impetus for me cutting back so drastically on volume. I wasn't going to looked jacked no matter what I did so why bother? At least I didn't get burned out and have been training with weights nonstop for 48 years. My main goal now is to able to climb a flight of stairs without passing out and not having a pot belly.
you left out the BJJ ::)
-
The oldtimers from the 40s and early 50s knew how to train without drugs.
Look to their routines for advices if you are a natty.
Reeves, early Reg Park, Eiferman, Grimek, Clancy Ross, the old York routines, etc.
Don't use a pre-contest routine for general training.
Any training regimen devised during the drug era is not optimal for nattys. Mentzer was on a load of drugs.
Yates was on a load of drugs. Arnold was on drugs. Why would you think you can train like them if you are not on drugs?
If you are a drug user then you can have success with just about any training routine.
I would agree with you & anyone over 40 who hammers away at their Joints Heavy Duty style is a complete ass. Feed the muscles with blood chase the pump. Higher Reps squeezing & Feeling the muscles. you know it makes sense !
-
I would agree with you & anyone over 40 who hammers away at their Joints Heavy Duty style is a complete ass. Feed the muscles with blood chase the pump. Higher Reps squeezing & Feeling the muscles. you know it makes sense !
Check out my training logs on the Y page. 44 and year in year out great shape. Agree with you 10000% on the heavy duty nonsense and making priority volume. So stupid people chasing 1 rep maxes etc. Total stupid shit.
-
I would agree with you & anyone over 40 who hammers away at their Joints Heavy Duty style is a complete ass. Feed the muscles with blood chase the pump. Higher Reps squeezing & Feeling the muscles. you know it makes sense !
And surely they would have built a foundation and basically all the muscle they're going to have in their 20's and 30's anyway.
The focus is then more on maintaining.
-
You can still train heavy at older ages but you have to use common sense and allow adequate recovery time.
Volume training can wear you down also and wreck your joints.
Many volume training bodybuilders from the past have had hip, knee and shoulder replacements.
-
You can still train heavy at older ages but you have to use common sense and allow adequate recovery time.
Volume training can wear you down also and wreck your joints.
Many volume training bodybuilders from the past have had hip, knee and shoulder replacements.
Yes, the shoulders are not meant to carry heavy weights for long periods of time. 20 Years ago Matt Furey had people doing "Combat Conditioning" which consisted of doing thousands of Hindu pushups and squats daily. The people who followed those routines for years are wrecked now.
-
Yes, the shoulders are not meant to carry heavy weights for long periods of time. 20 Years ago Matt Furey had people doing "Combat Conditioning" which consisted of doing thousands of Hindu pushups and squats daily. The people who followed those routines for years are wrecked now.
overhead pressing is going to destroy your shoulders sooner or later, when has homo sapien ever had to push directly overhead in nature?
delts are for pushing away and down from the body and raising the arms out to the sides.
Pecs are teh same, they are only fully contracted when your hands are at your waist
-
You can still train heavy at older ages but you have to use common sense and allow adequate recovery time.
Volume training can wear you down also and wreck your joints.
Many volume training bodybuilders from the past have had hip, knee and shoulder replacements.
I will counter this by saying that Dorian’s body is so damaged from his low-volume, high-intensity training that he doesn’t even lift anymore
-
I will counter this by saying that Dorian’s body is so damaged from his low-volume, high-intensity training that he doesn’t even lift anymore
Yates is at the extreme end of the scale.
-
All of the low-volume gurus seem to have something wrong with them.
There’s a new one in town who is having meltdowns online because some disagree with him. He portrays himself, like the others to be a savior but is ignored by those who can’t see the light, almost as if he has a burden to bear. TL-DR posts reminiscent of the DC heyday.
who?
Has anyone else taken the mantel from Mr rinsed beef and carb cutoffs?
-
overhead pressing is going to destroy your shoulders sooner or later, when has homo sapien ever had to push directly overhead in nature?
delts are for pushing away and down from the body and raising the arms out to the sides.
Pecs are teh same, they are only fully contracted when your hands are at your waist
Exactly right. No need to do overhead pressing at all.
-
you left out the BJJ ::)
Ah, still firmly planted in your head. A day doesn't go by where you are not thinking about me and following around this board.
Complete and utter ownage.
-
I would agree with you & anyone over 40 who hammers away at their Joints Heavy Duty style is a complete ass. Feed the muscles with blood chase the pump. Higher Reps squeezing & Feeling the muscles. you know it makes sense !
LMAO! Someone.like you giving training advise.
"Chase the pump." Ba ha ha! Oh brother....
-
You can still train heavy at older ages but you have to use common sense and allow adequate recovery time.
Volume training can wear you down also and wreck your joints.
Many volume training bodybuilders from the past have had hip, knee and shoulder replacements.
Blah.. Blah.. Blah. You're the King of bro science this must be why we see more older people doing high reps and frequent training.
Most older lifters can't do heavy weights or heavy duty bullshit. Maybe you're super man. Look at mentzer later on both brothers or even yates. They could not train like that for ever. Your average guy in the Gym who has worked hard all his life has most often injuries. Back or knees. But Let's get them on heavy duty.. 😆
-
The oldtimers from the 40s and early 50s knew how to train without drugs.
Look to their routines for advices if you are a natty.
Reeves, early Reg Park, Eiferman, Grimek, Clancy Ross, the old York routines, etc.
Don't use a pre-contest routine for general training.
Any training regimen devised during the drug era is not optimal for nattys. Mentzer was on a load of drugs.
Yates was on a load of drugs. Arnold was on drugs. Why would you think you can train like them if you are not on drugs?
If you are a drug user then you can have success with just about any training routine.
It's funny how most people don't realize that the best naturals from the 1950's look identical to the best naturals today. No difference whatsoever.
The only changes in bodybuilding over the last several decades are the drugs. Training itself hasn't evolved even one percent.
-
Blah.. Blah.. Blah. You're the King of bro science this must be why we see more older people doing high reps and frequent training.
Most older lifters can't do heavy weights or heavy duty bullshit. Maybe you're super man. Look at mentzer later on both brothers or even yates. They could not train like that for ever. Your average guy in the Gym who has worked hard all his life has most often injuries. Back or knees. But Let's get them on heavy duty.. 😆
I'm shocked Ponal.
And here I thought we were the closest of friends...
-
It's funny how most people don't realize that the best naturals from the 1950's look identical to the best naturals today. No difference whatsoever.
The only changes in bodybuilding over the last several decades are the drugs. Training itself hasn't evolved even one percent.
The training changed, from full body to split routines.
-
The training changed, from full body to split routines.
solid post
-
I'm shocked Ponal.
And here I thought we were the closest of friends...
Told you before numb nuts.. I have no friends!
-
Yes, the shoulders are not meant to carry heavy weights for long periods of time. 20 Years ago Matt Furey had people doing "Combat Conditioning" which consisted of doing thousands of Hindu pushups and squats daily. The people who followed those routines for years are wrecked now.
Really?
Those body weight exercises wrecked their joints?
-
Really?
Those body weight exercises wrecked their joints?
Fuck yes they did if they did that many reps. I've seen guys on Youtube talk about wrecking their shoulders with that volume on bodyweight exercises. Gymnasts are usually shot by 25.
-
Fuck yes they did if they did that many reps. I've seen guys on Youtube talk about wrecking their shoulders with that volume on bodyweight exercises. Gymnasts are usually shot by 25.
I thought that was just horses...
-
I thought that was just horses...
Or sent to the glue factory.
-
Check out the Y page training log for real bad ass training in real life.
-
But do you think it's worth it? The "additional" gains you think you would have made compensate for the investment of more of your life? Have you tried additional volume?
I was never a good responder no matter what protocol I used. It didn't matter if I trained 6,5,4,3 times a week. 10 sets, 5 sets, two sets. I've noticed no difference in my physique training two times per week other than having more time to do other things. So I train two times/week and read, play chess more, spend time with family, and owning tiny tits on GetBig ;) .
That was probably one of my main impetus for me cutting back so drastically on volume. I wasn't going to looked jacked no matter what I did so why bother? At least I didn't get burned out and have been training with weights nonstop for 48 years. My main goal now is to able to climb a flight of stairs without passing out and not having a pot belly.
You remind me of Arthur Jones saying in effect that everything has a price and everything has a value. He then went on to say that if hours a day in a gym is what it took for a good physique it wasn't worth it.
The overwhelming amount of successful bodybuilders have used volume. Most of the bodybuilders Jones used to push his machines were volume trainers. Maybe the most famous was Sergio. The deception was the weeks he spent in Florida was the reason for his success. No, he trained with volume prior to going to Florida and with volume after. Many can testify to that fact that have been in the gym with him.
Viator the poster child for Nautilus got into his best ever condition using volume and plenty of it for the 1982 Olympia. I was in communication with a guy that was in the gym many a time with Viator. He said he was counting 15 sets a body part and more. Even Mentzer commented that Viator was using more sets after leaving employment with Nautilus.
Mentzer was using up to four sets a body part but counted one or two work sets according to my source who was in the gym with him. Joe Means the guy used in El Darden's book is often used as a Nautilus success story. He said in an interview that he used volume using super sets, tri set and giant sets prior to show in an interview with Bill Reynolds. Another guy I was in communication with. Yes, he used Nautilus machines along with barbells, dumbbells and typical pulleys.
Does low sets work? Of course it does. Maybe the biggest example is Dorian Yates who trained 45 minutes to an hour four times a week to win the Olympia.
Bill Pearl said that if you trained to failure all the time eventually training would be so hellish that it would lead to missed training days. He said in effect that training consistency is an important part of success. Another famous bodybuilder named Padilla said he tried heavy duty but again said in effect he started to dread training. He also said he didn't see any significant gains. Padilla said he was using heavy weights and not taking it easy.
All of this leads to another point. Should we be taking training advice from bodybuilding drug users? Can they illustrate their bodybuilding knowledge and work ethic without the drug assist or will they look like crap? To answer your direct question have I ever used volume? I did when I was about 19. I got really lean but lost strength because I wasn't using heavy weights. I couldn't because it's relatively muscular endurance training.
-
combination of both can work.
also I feel posing is under rated... it is a brutal workout in self
-
Wo drugs and garbage most of these people are shiit. Total fail and weak fat garbage. Soft and mentally fragile.
Pussies. Oh brutal shoulder workouts w few db sets. Wwaaahhhhhh.
Cable crossovers wwaahhhhhh.
Pathetic nonsense.
-
You remind me of Arthur Jones saying in effect that everything has a price and everything has a value. He then went on to say that if hours a day in a gym is what it took for a good physique it wasn't worth it.
The overwhelming amount of successful bodybuilders have used volume. Most of the bodybuilders Jones used to push his machines were volume trainers. Maybe the most famous was Sergio. The deception was the weeks he spent in Florida was the reason for his success. No, he trained with volume prior to going to Florida and with volume after. Many can testify to that fact that have been in the gym with him.
Viator the poster child for Nautilus got into his best ever condition using volume and plenty of it for the 1982 Olympia. I was in communication with a guy that was in the gym many a time with Viator. He said he was counting 15 sets a body part and more. Even Mentzer commented that Viator was using more sets after leaving employment with Nautilus.
Mentzer was using up to four sets a body part but counted one or two work sets according to my source who was in the gym with him. Joe Means the guy used in El Darden's book is often used as a Nautilus success story. He said in an interview that he used volume using super sets, tri set and giant sets prior to show in an interview with Bill Reynolds. Another guy I was in communication with. Yes, he used Nautilus machines along with barbells, dumbbells and typical pulleys.
Does low sets work? Of course it does. Maybe the biggest example is Dorian Yates who trained 45 minutes to an hour four times a week to win the Olympia.
Bill Pearl said that if you trained to failure all the time eventually training would be so hellish that it would lead to missed training days. He said in effect that training consistency is an important part of success. Another famous bodybuilder named Padilla said he tried heavy duty but again said in effect he started to dread training. He also said he didn't see any significant gains. Padilla said he was using heavy weights and not taking it easy.
All of this leads to another point. Should we be taking training advice from bodybuilding drug users? Can they illustrate their bodybuilding knowledge and work ethic without the drug assist or will they look like crap? To answer your direct question have I ever used volume? I did when I was about 19. I got really lean but lost strength because I wasn't using heavy weights. I couldn't because it's relatively muscular endurance training.
I think it was Dorian that pointed out that it wasn't one set to failure per bodypart but rather one set to failure per exercise with each body part requiring different movements (Bench, Incline, flies, cable).
When I train, right when I reach positive failure, a point where I cannot do another complete rep, I say to myself, "OK, now it begins." One principle that I got from Authur Jones and made the most sense was this: "As long as you are working within your functional ability; doing things that are already easy, exercise will do little or nothing by way of increasing size, strength, and functional ability." If I can do 8 reps on a particular movement with a particular weight and just keep doing that over and over again, never trying for ninth rep, then it will do nothing to stimulate an adaptive response.
Now, for someone like me, approaching 60 years old, with the same diet, I have no allusions about gaining any more meaningful muscle mass. But I do it because I think there are other benefits to always trying to push yourself. Physical conditioning as well as developing physical and mental toughness. Bill Pearl is right when he says it would be hellish to stay consistent. Consistency has been my strongest point. Trudging off to the gym consistently for 47 years. But there is no way I could have maintained that consistency training, whether intensely or just going through the motions, if I had to go to the gym six days a week. I could do it if it was my profession if that's what I did for a living, but going to school, working for a living, family obligations it would get old quick. Even when I was in high school with np real demands other than school on my time I would often get burnt out going to the gym.
Remember one of Jones' basic principles was that training should be intense, short, and infrequent. Most of my life I trained three days a week by now have cut it down to twice a week.
-
I think it was Dorian that pointed out that it wasn't one set to failure per bodypart but rather one set to failure per exercise with each body part requiring different movements (Bench, Incline, flies, cable).
When I train, right when I reach positive failure, a point where I cannot do another complete rep, I say to myself, "OK, now it begins." One principle that I got from Authur Jones and made the most sense was this: "As long as you are working within your functional ability; doing things that are already easy, exercise will do little or nothing by way of increasing size, strength, and functional ability." If I can do 8 reps on a particular movement with a particular weight and just keep doing that over and over again, never trying for ninth rep, then it will do nothing to stimulate an adaptive response.
Now, for someone like me, approaching 60 years old, with the same diet, I have no allusions about gaining any more meaningful muscle mass. But I do it because I think there are other benefits to always trying to push yourself. Physical conditioning as well as developing physical and mental toughness. Bill Pearl is right when he says it would be hellish to stay consistent. Consistency has been my strongest point. Trudging off to the gym consistently for 47 years. But there is no way I could have maintained that consistency training, whether intensely or just going through the motions, if I had to go to the gym six days a week. I could do it if it was my profession if that's what I did for a living, but going to school, working for a living, family obligations it would get old quick. Even when I was in high school with np real demands other than school on my time I would often get burnt out going to the gym.
Remember one of Jones' basic principles was that training should be intense, short, and infrequent. Most of my life I trained three days a week by now have cut it down to twice a week.
Oh shut up! 😄
-
Wo drugs and garbage most of these people are shiit. Total fail and weak fat garbage. Soft and mentally fragile.
Pussies. Oh brutal shoulder workouts w few db sets. Wwaaahhhhhh.
Cable crossovers wwaahhhhhh.
Pathetic nonsense.
Look at casey viator.. Was a fat mess after heavy duty & drugs... 😆
-
bet half the Heavy duty fools believe the Colorado experiment too ::) is Casey wearing a hair piece in this video? ;D
-
If you work all day on your feet that covers the volume aspect of training, so when u get home all u need is 2 sets to failure
-
It's funny how most people don't realize that the best naturals from the 1950's look identical to the best naturals today. No difference whatsoever.
The only changes in bodybuilding over the last several decades are the drugs. Training itself hasn't evolved even one percent.
Many of today's naturals aren't natural.
-
I think it was Dorian that pointed out that it wasn't one set to failure per bodypart but rather one set to failure per exercise with each body part requiring different movements (Bench, Incline, flies, cable).
When I train, right when I reach positive failure, a point where I cannot do another complete rep, I say to myself, "OK, now it begins." One principle that I got from Authur Jones and made the most sense was this: "As long as you are working within your functional ability; doing things that are already easy, exercise will do little or nothing by way of increasing size, strength, and functional ability." If I can do 8 reps on a particular movement with a particular weight and just keep doing that over and over again, never trying for ninth rep, then it will do nothing to stimulate an adaptive response.
Now, for someone like me, approaching 60 years old, with the same diet, I have no allusions about gaining any more meaningful muscle mass. But I do it because I think there are other benefits to always trying to push yourself. Physical conditioning as well as developing physical and mental toughness. Bill Pearl is right when he says it would be hellish to stay consistent. Consistency has been my strongest point. Trudging off to the gym consistently for 47 years. But there is no way I could have maintained that consistency training, whether intensely or just going through the motions, if I had to go to the gym six days a week. I could do it if it was my profession if that's what I did for a living, but going to school, working for a living, family obligations it would get old quick. Even when I was in high school with np real demands other than school on my time I would often get burnt out going to the gym.
Remember one of Jones' basic principles was that training should be intense, short, and infrequent. Most of my life I trained three days a week by now have cut it down to twice a week.
I find that most fans of HIT eventually get down to working out twice a week with something like 6 exercises for one work set. They come to realize that's all they can do if they are pushing every set to absolute failure. Is this working out in an optimal way though? If you want I can cite the study but one university back in the day wanted to see how many calories were used in a typical 12 machine Nautilus work out to failure. They found they averaged 174 calories. Doing that twice a week doesn't sound like exercising to me. Now imagine the guys that preach 4 to 6 exercises twice a week because they train so (intensely)? They must severely diet because they are not getting into condition from exercise. I don't want to get into the HIT vs volume debate but I will leave it at this. If intensity was the magic bullet we would all warm up and aim for a one rep max for every exercise because that would be the most intensity anyone could do. One thing is factual. Arthur Jones was an out of shape shrimp who weighted under 150lbs most of his life. Those few pictures of him at a claimed 200 plus are not impressive. Another point is how strong can anyone get? If you started with 20lbs dumbbells for curls after 30 years of training are you using 100lbs for curls? Of course not. Training for a lack of a better term muscular endurance can take you further in terms of achievement goals.
-
HIT was an early form of white gymcels over complicating lifting to compensate for crap genetics. In the 00s it was the doggcrapp perma bulking generation. In the 10s it's the nerds on youtube.
Just find out what works for you and keep consistent. No need to over analyse the ramblings of a crystal meth addicted guru.
-
Volume gurus don’t have much to defend
Volume works period
I still do h.i.t but reps are 10-12
-
HIT was an early form of white gymcels over complicating lifting to compensate for crap genetics. In the 00s it was the doggcrapp perma bulking generation. In 10s it's the nerds on youtube.
Just find out what works for you and keep consistent. No need to over analyse the ramblings of a crystal meth addicted guru.
;)
-
HIT was an early form of white gymcels over complicating lifting to compensate for crap genetics. In the 00s it was the doggcrapp perma bulking generation. In 10s it's the nerds on youtube.
Just find out what works for you and keep consistent. No need to over analyse the ramblings of a crystal meth addicted guru.
Literal lulz!
-
Fatigue is fatigue or fati guy
Working 10 hours you are fatigued an only have energy for one set
Or
20 sets to failure and having the day off youl be fatigued
The person who maintains higher calories will carry more muscle than a person who does 20 sets but eats 500 calories less
-
You train for your objective.
As for Arthur Jones and his theories, NFL and college teams got sold on his ideas...for awhile. Then after their teams got ass-kicked they went back to doing power cleans and free weights.
Machine training has its limitations. Sitting on your butt or laying down doing exercises just doesn't strengthen the stabilizing muscles along the spine and core that are needed for real power and strength.
Jones was a salesman/con-man. He did make quality machines and sold a ton of them and made his fortune.
His theories about strength training using machines were false.
-
You train for your objective.
As for Arthur Jones and his theories, NFL and college teams got sold on his ideas...for awhile. Then after their teams got ass-kicked they went back to doing power cleans and free weights.
Machine training has its limitations. Sitting on your butt or laying down doing exercises just doesn't strengthen the stabilizing muscles along the spine and core that are needed for real power and strength.
Jones was a salesman/con-man. He did make quality machines and sold a ton of them and made his fortune.
His theories about strength training using machines were false.
Agreed. Jones's genius wasn't science but marketing. He convinced millions sitting in his "blue monster" machines was superior to free weights and calisthenics.
-
You train for your objective.
As for Arthur Jones and his theories, NFL and college teams got sold on his ideas...for awhile. Then after their teams got ass-kicked they went back to doing power cleans and free weights.
Machine training has its limitations. Sitting on your butt or laying down doing exercises just doesn't strengthen the stabilizing muscles along the spine and core that are needed for real power and strength.
Jones was a salesman/con-man. He did make quality machines and sold a ton of them and made his fortune.
His theories about strength training using machines were false.
all good points
If my objective is to be big and strong as possible and lean then training has very little to do with it compared to calorie intake
You can have a medium volume traing routine at 4500 calories
Or low volume training with 5000 calories
After 6 months the 5kcalorie guy will be stronger ... The leaner of the two may be equal
-
all good points
If my objective is to be big and strong as possible and lean then training has very little to do with it compared to calorie intake
You can have a medium volume traing routine at 4500 calories
Or low volume training with 5000 calories
After 6 months the 5kcalorie guy will be stronger ... The leaner of the two may be equal
Bodyfat levels are controlled by diet.
If you are cutting you will lose some strength because you lose muscle tissue along with fat. Unless you are taking drugs.
Drugs alter everything so let's remove them from the equation and only assume natty.
For a natty, being as lean as possible and being as strong as possible are incompatible goals. Neither will be achieved.
Training methods are most important for power and strength. You can't train just any way if you want maximal power and strength.
Oly lifters compete in weight classes so some of them cut weight to be in a lower weight class. They train specifically for their objective: power. They don't do 3 sets of 10 incline curls. Now this appears to contradict my earlier statement but it doesn't. The Oly lifter will probably only drop water weight quickly for a short time and then re-hydrate prior to competition. He also will not go to extreme low bodyfat levels in any event.
-
You train for your objective.
As for Arthur Jones and his theories, NFL and college teams got sold on his ideas...for awhile. Then after their teams got ass-kicked they went back to doing power cleans and free weights.
Machine training has its limitations. Sitting on your butt or laying down doing exercises just doesn't strengthen the stabilizing muscles along the spine and core that are needed for real power and strength.
Jones was a salesman/con-man. He did make quality machines and sold a ton of them and made his fortune.
His theories about strength training using machines were false.
True, sitting in machines is not the way to train an athlete.
-
Bodyfat levels are controlled by diet.
If you are cutting you will lose some strength because you lose muscle tissue along with fat. Unless you are taking drugs.
Drugs alter everything so let's remove them from the equation and only assume natty.
For a natty, being as lean as possible and being as strong as possible are incompatible goals. Neither will be achieved.
Training methods are most important for power and strength. You can't train just any way if you want maximal power and strength.
Oly lifters compete in weight classes so some of them cut weight to be in a lower weight class. They train specifically for their objective: power. They don't do 3 sets of 10 incline curls. Now this appears to contradict my earlier statement but it doesn't. The Oly lifter will probably only drop water weight quickly for a short time and then re-hydrate prior to competition. He also will not go to extreme low bodyfat levels in any event.
calories and type of food trump volume training or any specific training
A respectable balance of the two. "strength vs leaness' still has everything to do 99 percent with quality of food and calories
Lack of mineral dense calories =more fat gain less muscle per kcal
-
There is no overtraining - only under-eating and not sleeping enough.
-
True, sitting in machines is not the way to train an athlete.
A natty athlete needs very little training just not sedentary
He just needs a good diet to maximize muscle to fat ratio
-
There is no overtraining - only under-eating and not sleeping enough.
I disagree u get to a point of high volume training with little or no strength gain even if stuffing your face for a natty.
-
A natty athlete needs very little training just not sedentary
He just needs a good diet to maximize muscle to fat ratio
What kind of athlete are you talking about?
Bowling? Golfing? Billiards?
-
just fucking lift 3-5 times a week maybe 3-5 sets per exercise. a mix of compound & Fluffy moves .. let´s not get complicated here guys..FFS
-
There is no overtraining - only under-eating and not sleeping enough.
Hans Selye wrote a book and was nominated for a Nobel Prize for explaining why the above statement is completely wrong, haha.
-
just fucking lift 3-5 times a week maybe 3-5 sets per exercise. a mix of compound & Fluffy moves .. let´s not get complicated here guys..FFS
So true. I lift twice every 7-10 days doing a whole body workout of just 7 exercises. After years of training I have discovered this gives me the greatest training effect possible. Natty of course.
-
So true. I lift twice every 7-10 days doing a whole body workout of just 7 exercises. After years of training I have discovered this gives me the greatest training effect possible. Natty of course.
Been training twice a week as well and have noticed the same.
-
So true. I lift twice every 7-10 days doing a whole body workout of just 7 exercises. After years of training I have discovered this gives me the greatest training effect possible. Natty of course.
Same. Wish I knew this in my 20's as I would have had a lot of time for other pursuits. Oh well, better late than never.
-
Hans Selye wrote a book and was nominated for a Nobel Prize for explaining why the above statement is completely wrong, haha.
Haha, any pictures of this Nobel prize beast who tell men of muscle how to train because I bet you he a pencil neck pumpkin head who look like he never pick a weight or see the inside of a gymnasium in his life.
Am I right?
-
Just to throw out an observation that I have made over and over in real life.... People training with moderate/high volume with moderate weights always seem to make fresh gains and improvements when they change over to a low rep, low volume, high intensity training program. However, I have never really seen many (a few, but the vast majority do not) make new gains or see additional growth when changing from a low volume/high intensity program to a program with moderate or high volume and higher reps.
Arnold once said that after you build the muscle all you need to do is "polish it with getting a good pump". The only advantage it seems that some people have from dropping the low volume / high intensity routine is to allow for minor nagging injuries to heal and give the CNS system a break.
Just what I have observed time and again.
-
Just to throw out an observation that I have made over and over in real life.... People training with moderate/high volume with moderate weights always seem to make fresh gains and improvements when they change over to a low rep, low volume, high intensity training program. However, I have never really seen many (a few, but the vast majority do not) make new gains or see additional growth when changing from a low volume/high intensity program to a program with moderate or high volume and higher reps.
Arnold once said that after you build the muscle all you need to do is "polish it with getting a good pump". The only advantage it seems that some people have from dropping the low volume / high intensity routine is to allow for minor nagging injuries to heal and give the CNS system a break.
Just what I have observed time and again.
Arnold was right about that. If HIT is so superior why did Viator, Oliva, Dearth, Baker, etc go back to volume? Mentzer's peak was in 79 and he went downhill after that so he didn't continue making gains. Arnold was actually his biggest in the 60's and got smaller but more refined through the 70's. No bodybuilder continues making muscle gains indefinitely and natties stop after a few years of hard training. Why continue to torture yourself when you can train for a pump, feel great and look the same?
-
You get stale after awhile on any routine so you change it up in some way.
-
Dr. Ellington Darden, Dr. Leistner (RIP), Dave Mastorakis, t al advocated and used low volume training for years and have no signs of mental instability that I have seen. I have used it almost exclusively in my adult years and it has worked very well.
-
Arnold once said that after you build the muscle all you need to do is "polish it with getting a good pump". The only advantage it seems that some people have from dropping the low volume / high intensity routine is to allow for minor nagging injuries to heal and give the CNS system a break.
Just what I have observed time and again.
nailed it
also you need to gain your size and strength when youth is on your side too.
-
Haha, any pictures of this Nobel prize beast who tell men of muscle how to train because I bet you he a pencil neck pumpkin head who look like he never pick a weight or see the inside of a gymnasium in his life.
Am I right?
Selye was an endocrinologist who was the first person to ever realize that hormone levels and the corresponding exhaustion of those hormones leads to physical collapse of living organisms.
Because of his work the physiological basis for steroids became evident and as a result lots of guys who couldn't gain an ounce of muscle if they tried suddenly became "mass monsters" haha.
-
Oh shut up! 😄
I know it doesn't reflect well on my character but I can't help but take a perverse pleasure getting under the skin of one of the many cowardly gimmicks who had hoped that their anonymity would spare them humiliation. Knowing that they associate my name with GetBig and every time they logged in they go through my post history looking desperate for an opportunity to even the score, or as Basil threatens "take care of some unfinished business." Following me around like a lost shadow.
Over the years being on this board I've developed a unique talent for singling out these unfortunate, lonely, cowardly souls and with my biting sarcasm and devastating wit, I am able to crush their already compromised self-image that they thought their anonymity would spare them from. Indeed, I believe I've actually rewired their brain circuitry and the mere mention or sight of my name "Pellius" causes newly develop synapses to fire wildly causing these meltdowns.
So, come along my latest little bitch, Ponal, I am finding it quite comfortable and enjoyable being ensconced in your tiny mind albeit a little cramped.
-
I know it doesn't reflect well on my character but I can't help but take a perverse pleasure getting under the skin of one of the many cowardly gimmicks who had hoped that their anonymity would spare them humiliation. Knowing that they associate my name with GetBig and every time they logged in they go through my post history looking desperate for an opportunity to even the score, or a Basil threatens "take care of some unfinished business." Following me around like a lost shadow.
Over the years being on this board I've develop a unique talent for singling out these unfortunate, lonely, cowardly souls and with my biting sarcasm and devastating wit, I am able to crush their already compromised self-image that they thought their anonymity would spare them from. Indeed, I believe I've actually rewired their brain circuitry and the mere mention or sight of my name "Pellius" causes newly develop synapses to fire wildly causing these meltdowns.
So, come along my latest little bitch, Ponal, I am finding it quite comfortable and enjoyable being ensconced in your tiny mind albeit a little cramped.
Your own profile sounds like a sadistic pervert. Hope this helps.
-
You train for your objective.
As for Arthur Jones and his theories, NFL and college teams got sold on his ideas...for awhile. Then after their teams got ass-kicked they went back to doing power cleans and free weights.
Machine training has its limitations. Sitting on your butt or laying down doing exercises just doesn't strengthen the stabilizing muscles along the spine and core that are needed for real power and strength.
Jones was a salesman/con-man. He did make quality machines and sold a ton of them and made his fortune.
His theories about strength training using machines were false.
It all depends on how you define strength and how it is measured. If the test of leg strength was a full squat then those who squatted did better than those using machines. The transfer from machines to free weights wasn't that high. If you were really strong on the Nautilus Duo Squat machine it didn't mean you would be equally as strong in the full squat.
-
I find that most fans of HIT eventually get down to working out twice a week with something like 6 exercises for one work set. They come to realize that's all they can do if they are pushing every set to absolute failure. Is this working out in an optimal way though? If you want I can cite the study but one university back in the day wanted to see how many calories were used in a typical 12 machine Nautilus work out to failure. They found they averaged 174 calories. Doing that twice a week doesn't sound like exercising to me. Now imagine the guys that preach 4 to 6 exercises twice a week because they train so (intensely)? They must severely diet because they are not getting into condition from exercise. I don't want to get into the HIT vs volume debate but I will leave it at this. If intensity was the magic bullet we would all warm up and aim for a one rep max for every exercise because that would be the most intensity anyone could do. One thing is factual. Arthur Jones was an out of shape shrimp who weighted under 150lbs most of his life. Those few pictures of him at a claimed 200 plus are not impressive. Another point is how strong can anyone get? If you started with 20lbs dumbbells for curls after 30 years of training are you using 100lbs for curls? Of course not. Training for a lack of a better term muscular endurance can take you further in terms of achievement goals.
No, I don't think that training twice a week is optimal if you want to build your body. Remember, at this stage, I am weighing the pros and cons. How much meaningful benefit I would get training more versus time lost from other things I want to do with my life. When I think back to my old training buds from the 1980s nobody, other than me, have kept it up .
I don't know how many calories I burn in my hour to hour and a half workout but I do know this: if I don't gorge myself with calories on a workout day I will lose ten pounds over night versus my usual five pounds (weighing just before going to bed and weighing first thing in the morning). This usually entails consuming a quart of ice cream in addition to whatever it is I'm eating. I choose ice cream because I don't like to stuff myself but ice cream goes down easy. Oh, and it also tastes good. So for example, after training and heading to McDs, I had my double QP with cheese, fries, apple pie and the finished it off with a quart of Dryers Rocky Road ice cream which I picked up at Foodland on my walk to Mcd. And if you even casually follow any of my posts, I am hardly severely dieting having been known to fight to the death defending my QP with cheese from any would be marauder.
On another point, don't conflate an intense rep with an intense set. While it is true that you have reached failure on a one rep max because you cannot complete another rep. But just like I said before, when I reach the point of positive failure that's when I tell myself that now it starts. Now is when you are trying to go beyond your normal functional ability. Trying to do something that you were not able to do before to stimulate an adaptive response. These are the intensity variable. So say your ORM max is 200 lbs and you fail at the 2nd rep attempt. This just means you can't generate 200 lbs of force. But I'm sure you can generate 195 lbs, and with each succeeding rep as the force you are able to generate goes down, intensity goes up. So it is these intensity variables: forced reps, drop sets, pre-exhaust... that increases the intensity and "inroads" into the muscle. Digging deeper into the training muscle getting at fibers normally dormant unless taken to complete exhaustion.
When Author Jones trained he developed quite quickly. Actual HIT training is hard and gets harder when you get older. I think it's a mistake to correlate a person's actual accomplishments in a given endeavor with his ability to coach or knowledge of the game. I don't think Freddie Roach or Cus D'Amato could box themselves out of a wet paper bag or that Ronnie Coleman or Phil Heath would make good trainers.
-
Your own profile sounds like a sadistic pervert. Hope this helps.
Ah, you're probably my crowning achievement. No one has been so discredited, so humiliated, so disgraced, so mocked as you. I had to restrain myself, as I always try to do in threads that you invade, on the Frank Zane's thread. It's funny but it's also just so sad and tragic. Just to see someone at your age being a whipping boy. But you bring it on yourself so the onslaught continues.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZvnJY9d/3.gif)
-
Ah, you're probably my crowning achievement. No one has been so discredited, so humiliated, so disgraced, so mocked as you. I had to restrain myself, as I always try to do in threads that you invade, on the Frank Zane's thread. It's funny but it's also just so sad and tragic. Just to see someone at your age being a whipping boy. But you bring it on yourself so the onslaught continues.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZvnJY9d/3.gif)
Keep up the good work.
-
Ah, you're probably my crowning achievement. No one has been so discredited, so humiliated, so disgraced, so mocked as you. I had to restrain myself, as I always try to do in threads that you invade, on the Frank Zane's thread. It's funny but it's also just so sad and tragic. Just to see someone at your age being a whipping boy. But you bring it on yourself so the onslaught continues.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZvnJY9d/3.gif)
We all know what you are. Any grown man who writes what you did is a sick fuck. You should be very quite.
-
We all know what you are. Any grown man who writes what you did is a sick fuck. You should be very quite.
You sound quite tormented.
Sorry, I can't help bullying you around and watching you melt.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4uNSntatWkc/hqdefault.jpg)
-
Keep up the good work.
You make it so easy.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=651720.0;attach=770979;image)
-
You sound quite tormented.
Sorry, I can't help bullying you around and watching you melt.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4uNSntatWkc/hqdefault.jpg)
And you are a sick twisted nearly 60 year old trying to act cool on an internet forum. You exposed yourself as a sick pervert. Nothing will change that. You wrote it all on an open Internet Forum. What a dumb ass you are. 🤣
-
One of the best low volume advocate. One of the few who did HIT. Classic line, mass and no injuries.
-
It all depends on how you define strength and how it is measured. If the test of leg strength was a full squat then those who squatted did better than those using machines. The transfer from machines to free weights wasn't that high. If you were really strong on the Nautilus Duo Squat machine it didn't mean you would be equally as strong in the full squat.
Very true, Vince.
-
Re: Is low-volume training correlated with mental instability?
those who train low volume and are super intense... are they more likely to use and abuse stimulates which creates mental instability?
in order do a MONSTER set.... i feel stims help out more with this style of training then high volume "pump the muscle"
-
Re: Is low-volume training correlated with mental instability?
those who train low volume and are super intense... are they more likely to use and abuse stimulates which creates mental instability?
in order do a MONSTER set.... i feel stims help out more with this style of training then high volume "pump the muscle"
I think the mental instability shows in their choice to work harder for the same results. It's like someone choosing to work 80 hours a week to make the same amount of money they would make working 40.
-
I think the mental instability shows in their choice to work harder for the same results. It's like someone choosing to work 80 hours a week to make the same amount of money they would make working 40.
what if their job was sailing around the Caribbean on a fishing boat?
If you enjoy what you are doing then you will likely spend more time doing it regardless of the financial reward.
Same with training, some go to the gym because they like training, they dont really care about results
Im the opposite, I hate training, I go because I get results, if I could look good without going to the gym I would never go.
-
Low volume training doesn't just mean HIT.
Powerlifters use low volume much of the time.
Most of the time they are using less than max weights and the intensity is purposely low to moderate.
-
what if their job was sailing around the Caribbean on a fishing boat?
If you enjoy what you are doing then you will likely spend more time doing it regardless of the financial reward.
Same with training, some go to the gym because they like training, they dont really care about results
Im the opposite, I hate training, I go because I get results, if I could look good without going to the gym I would never go.
Training every set to failure is nothing like floating in a boat in the Caribbean. The fact that almost every bodybuilder who trained that way went insane, got seriously injured, quit training altogether or switched back to volume proves my point.
-
No, I don't think that training twice a week is optimal if you want to build your body. Remember, at this stage, I am weighing the pros and cons. How much meaningful benefit I would get training more versus time lost from other things I want to do with my life. When I think back to my old training buds from the 1980s nobody, other than me, have kept it up .
I don't know how many calories I burn in my hour to hour and a half workout but I do know this: if I don't gorge myself with calories on a workout day I will lose ten pounds over night versus my usual five pounds (weighing just before going to bed and weighing first thing in the morning). This usually entails consuming a quart of ice cream in addition to whatever it is I'm eating. I choose ice cream because I don't like to stuff myself but ice cream goes down easy. Oh, and it also tastes good. So for example, after training and heading to McDs, I had my double QP with cheese, fries, apple pie and the finished it off with a quart of Dryers Rocky Road ice cream which I picked up at Foodland on my walk to Mcd. And if you even casually follow any of my posts, I am hardly severely dieting having been known to fight to the death defending my QP with cheese from any would be marauder.
On another point, don't conflate an intense rep with an intense set. While it is true that you have reached failure on a one rep max because you cannot complete another rep. But just like I said before, when I reach the point of positive failure that's when I tell myself that now it starts. Now is when you are trying to go beyond your normal functional ability. Trying to do something that you were not able to do before to stimulate an adaptive response. These are the intensity variable. So say your ORM max is 200 lbs and you fail at the 2nd rep attempt. This just means you can't generate 200 lbs of force. But I'm sure you can generate 195 lbs, and with each succeeding rep as the force you are able to generate goes down, intensity goes up. So it is these intensity variables: forced reps, drop sets, pre-exhaust... that increases the intensity and "inroads" into the muscle. Digging deeper into the training muscle getting at fibers normally dormant unless taken to complete exhaustion.
When Author Jones trained he developed quite quickly. Actual HIT training is hard and gets harder when you get older. I think it's a mistake to correlate a person's actual accomplishments in a given endeavor with his ability to coach or knowledge of the game. I don't think Freddie Roach or Cus D'Amato could box themselves out of a wet paper bag or that Ronnie Coleman or Phil Heath would make good trainers.
You missed the point by a mile my friend with Freddie Roach who was a competitive boxer. One last point is Roach is a very ill man suffering from Parkinson. If every coach had to demonstrate their current abilities we wouldn't have any coaches. Muscle fibers do not fire at 90% or 70%. They only fire at 100% Did you exhaust all fibers doing one set of 12 reps to failure? What happens if you cut the weight after failure and got another 12 reps? True at some point intensity is important but it's not the final answer. Like Jeff Everson said, "Until pigs fly you don't have to be a scientist to be a bodybuilder." There have been guys that trained with the most "science" behind them and those that just winged it. Both schools have been successful and both schools have seen failures.
-
One of the best low volume advocate. One of the few who did HIT. Classic line, mass and no injuries.
He often wrote of his approach. It's one warm up set then three sets per exercise and typically three exercises per body part. Some followers of the HIT religion would say that's not low volume. I say it's low volume though.
-
And you are a sick twisted nearly 60 year old trying to act cool on an internet forum. You exposed yourself as a sick pervert. Nothing will change that. You wrote it all on an open Internet Forum. What a dumb ass you are. 🤣
(https://positiveprescription.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/April6_Meltdown_hor_final-1068x500.jpg)
-
I think the mental instability shows in their choice to work harder for the same results. It's like someone choosing to work 80 hours a week to make the same amount of money they would make working 40.
That was my reasoning. Working out far less, two days a week, instead of the daily grind I see everybody else doing for zero results.
-
One of the best 3 day a week and low volume training routines is the alternating A/B routine. That was popular way back. Mon: A-upper body, Wednesday: B-lower body Friday: A, the next Monday: B etc You can go pretty heavy each workout.
Kinda fun doing things that way because you alternate hitting a muscle group twice one week, once the next. Keeps you recovered and fresh. The body of course doesn't run on 7 day clocks but the world seems to. So this is a good fit.
I currently just do twice a week whole body but change up exercises each workout (like flat bench Monday/incline Thursday, etc). This keeps it always interesting and I never get bored or overly fatigued lifting.
-
what if their job was sailing around the Caribbean on a fishing boat?
If you enjoy what you are doing then you will likely spend more time doing it regardless of the financial reward.
Same with training, some go to the gym because they like training, they dont really care about results
Im the opposite, I hate training, I go because I get results, if I could look good without going to the gym I would never go.
So right on. I say the same thing all the time. Most people go to the gym, especially retired people, because it is somewhere to go and interact with people. They just go through the motions not really caring about results but having that satisfaction of thinking they are exercising. It's more of a social thing. There's this one guy that just lies on the worthless situp crunch bench rocking some crunches and starting up conversations with anybody within earshot. It's the only "exercise he does while cocking his head so he can also watch TV. I don't have a problem with that and there are far worse things you can do with your free time. At least they are doing something. My only problem with them is that they hog the equipment. They just sit there forever and don't like to yield when someone else is there to actually work out.
Seeing that I follow a schedule and keep a record notebook, a guy was telling me that he uses the "instinctive principle" to guide his training. "No plan, just go by what my body tells me, what it feels like I should do: Chest or legs or back... whether to go hard or easy or go at all." He says I have to trust my feelings more. Listen to what my body is trying to tell me. I just laughed and said that if I listened to what my body wants to do, to be guided by my feelings, I would never step into a gym. I'd be on the couch right now pounding a gallon of Cookies and Cream ice cream smothered with hot fudge watching The Simpson's reruns.
-
You missed the point by a mile my friend with Freddie Roach who was a competitive boxer. One last point is Roach is a very ill man suffering from Parkinson. If every coach had to demonstrate their current abilities we wouldn't have any coaches. Muscle fibers do not fire at 90% or 70%. They only fire at 100% Did you exhaust all fibers doing one set of 12 reps to failure? What happens if you cut the weight after failure and got another 12 reps? True at some point intensity is important but it's not the final answer. Like Jeff Everson said, "Until pigs fly you don't have to be a scientist to be a bodybuilder." There have been guys that trained with the most "science" behind them and those that just winged it. Both schools have been successful and both schools have seen failures.
I brought up the example of Roach and D-Amato because of your criticism of Jones' physique. When he did train he did put on some legit muscle in a short time. So my point was that just because he wasn't a bbing champion, as D-Amato or Roach weren't champion boxers, does not take away their knowledge. Hell, I doubt doctors are any more healthier than that normal population but their knowledge of health is much greater.
No, you have not exhausted every single fiber at 12 reps to failure but you will exhaust more fibers than doing ORM even though that one rep is 100% intensity. That's where the intensity variable come in.
And of course, intensity is not the be all end all. Your ORM is a perfect example. But neither is volume. There is a point of diminishing returns. Most do volume, but my experience with going to the gyms for decades most don't look like they every lifted a day in their lives. Yes, you have the obvious steroid freaks but just normal guys that train every day after work, it seems like such a waste.
-
One of the best 3 day a week and low volume training routines is the alternating A/B routine. That was popular way back. Mon: A-upper body, Wednesday: B-lower body Friday: A, the next Monday: B etc You can go pretty heavy each workout.
Kinda fun doing things that way because you alternate hitting a muscle group twice one week, once the next. Keeps you recovered and fresh. The body of course doesn't run on 7 day clocks but the world seems to. So this is a good fit.
I currently just do twice a week whole body but change up exercises each workout (like flat bench Monday/incline Thursday, etc). This keeps it always interesting and I never get bored or overly fatigued lifting.
Yes, I did the same thing on a 3x/wk program and felt that was the best. But I just would rather do other things than go to the gym so I cut it back to two days/wk.
-
Have you tried additional volume?
I was never a good responder no matter what protocol I used. ..........I wasn't going to looked jacked no matter what I did so why bother?
Not true. You managed to put size on your calves. Should work other muscles. Try training only arms for a month.
-
Perhaps mentally unstable people like the masochism of low volume training. As we can see, the ones throughout the years doing low volume tend to unduly bitch and moan with TL-DR posts. Danta has started in again on IG, there was Trevor Smith, Mike Mentzer, Arthur Jones, and now that guy Paul CArter is ranting and raving. A common theme amongst them is a grievance against other gymgoers at large and sanctimonious attitude. Just real jerk-type people (Danta seems nice though delusional).
-
Perhaps mentally unstable people like the masochism of low volume training. As we can see, the ones throughout the years doing low volume tend to unduly bitch and moan with TL-DR posts. Danta has started in again on IG, there was Trevor Smith, Mike Mentzer, Arthur Jones, and now that guy Paul CArter is ranting and raving. A common theme amongst them is a grievance against other gymgoers at large and sanctimonious attitude. Just real jerk-type people (Danta seems nice though delusional).
It is clear to me that science has neglected or avoided doing research on very large muscles. I believe Arthur Jones was mistaken about intensity. It is a factor in hypertrophy but not a sufficient one. There are thresholds re intensity that are sufficient to make gains. Arthur was also mistaken about how muscles contract. The sliding filament theory is more accurate than box cars on a track.
The missing factor in hypertrophy is volume. If we reduce the factors to the minimum we find that one must stimulate a muscle with a certain amount of mechanical tension for a certain amount of time. In practice this is best achieved, and safely, by doing many, many sets with a significant resistance. Large muscles are capable of repetitive efforts of medium reps with significant resistance. That is what we find in practice if we look at how the pros train. You don't have to go to the absolute limit in each set because more sets will get the job done....namely, more mechanical tension of a sufficient amount.
-
It is clear to me that science has neglected or avoided doing research on very large muscles. I believe Arthur Jones was mistaken about intensity. It is a factor in hypertrophy but not a sufficient one. There are thresholds re intensity that are sufficient to make gains. Arthur was also mistaken about how muscles contract. The sliding filament theory is more accurate than box cars on a track.
The missing factor in hypertrophy is volume. If we reduce the factors to the minimum we find that one must stimulate a muscle with a certain amount of mechanical tension for a certain amount of time. In practice this is best achieved, and safely, by doing many, many sets with a significant resistance. Large muscles are capable of repetitive efforts of medium reps with significant resistance. That is what we find in practice if we look at how the pros train. You don't have to go to the absolute limit in each set because more sets will get the job done....namely, more mechanical tension of a sufficient amount.
Yeah...but like... I’m talking about their mental dispositions.
-
Yeah...but like... I’m talking about their mental dispositions.
Good luck!
-
Mike Mentzer conceded that 100% intensity may not be required to stimulate muscle hypertrophy. Maybe 85%, 90%... is sufficient. But how do you measure it? How do you know you are at 85% or 95% intensity? One can only reasonably and somewhat accurately (motivation, force of will, being driven, cognitive effort, are also variables that affect performance) measure only two states of intensity: 0% intensity and 100% intensity.
-
Both dead, 3 days later
-
Both dead, 3 days later
And they looked like shit for decades before their deaths.
-
Training 1x a year for big gainz. You See the secret is plenty of recovery
-
Training 1x a year for big gainz. You See the secret is plenty of recovery
Peter Sisco and John Little created Static Contraction Training in the 90's where they had you just doing isometric holds for 60 seconds per exercise. They advocated taking more and more time off as you got stronger. Eventually you were taking months off between workouts ::)
BTW, Sisco and Little both looked like total shit while promoting this scam and the "science" behind it. They even had Tony Robbins promoting this to his customers as the maximum strength training program.
-
Peter Sisco and John Little created Static Contraction Training in the 90's where they had you just doing isometric holds for 60 seconds per exercise. They advocated taking more and more time off as you got stronger. Eventually you were taking months off between workouts ::)
BTW, Sisco and Little both looked like total shit while promoting this scam and the "science" behind it. They even had Tony Robbins promoting this to his customers as the maximum strength training program.
People will believe any shit.
-
People will believe any shit.
I did for a couple months. :-[
-
I did for a couple months. :-[
It's like routines of the Champs how many Kids believe their shit?
-
It's like routines of the Champs how many Kids believe their shit?
Not as many as before the internet. The internet with the ability to reach anyone has crushed so many industries like bodybuilding, religion, etc.
-
I did for a couple months. :-[
I kind of miss the innocent days when I used to fall for these overhyped training programmes and supplements.
I remember as a kid believing this shit like "secret routine/supplement of the bulgarian powerlifting team", "soviet secret finally discovered" ;D
-
I kind of miss the innocent days when I used to fall for these overhyped training programmes and supplements.
I remember as a kid believing this shit like "secret routine/supplement of the bulgarian powerlifting team", "soviet secret finally discovered" ;D
Me too. I think I bought them all. Some had some decent info but most were trash. They all left out the real secret ingredient (steroids).
-
Both dead, 3 days later
Only watch if you want to die.
I remember watching it with a buddy of mine years ago and we couldn't stop laughing at how Ray Mentzer came across... tragic.
-
Mike thought he was better than Arnold.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/RyBhhzFBCfF9C/giphy.gif)
-
did any of the late 1990s 2000s guys use these principles?
we know Mentzer and we know Dorian did... but any 1990s guys?
-
did any of the late 1990s 2000s guys use these principles?
we know Mentzer and we know Dorian did... but any 1990s guys?
Aaron Baker and David Dearth did for a while in the 90's. It was all the rage for a short while after Dorian hit the scene. It gave Mentzer a big boost to his business I'm sure.
-
Aaron Baker and David Dearth did for a while in the 90's. It was all the rage for a short while after Dorian hit the scene. It gave Mentzer a big boost to his business I'm sure.
It'd be interesting to know how much they were making from their HIT advices, as they seemed to be living shitty quality lives at the end.
-
It'd be interesting to know how much they were making from their HIT advices, as they seemed to be living shitty quality lives at the end.
I don't know if they ever trained others I just saw them advocating HIT in some magazine articles. I doubt they kept up with it long. They fell apart anyway regardless.
-
bad self esteem and meth did the Mentzers in
-
bad self esteem and meth did the Mentzers in
And alcohol and cigarettes and bad diet and..........
-
Haha, any pictures of this Nobel prize beast who tell men of muscle how to train because I bet you he a pencil neck pumpkin head who look like he never pick a weight or see the inside of a gymnasium in his life.
Am I right?
Don't be stupid. Attack the idea, not the man.
-
I will say... a low volume Giant set feels amazing when you are done. so pumped up and fired up.
-
Mike Mentzer conceded that 100% intensity may not be required to stimulate muscle hypertrophy. Maybe 85%, 90%... is sufficient. But how do you measure it? How do you know you are at 85% or 95% intensity? One can only reasonably and somewhat accurately (motivation, force of will, being driven, cognitive effort, are also variables that affect performance) measure only two states of intensity: 0% intensity and 100% intensity.
Intensity can be measured as a percentage of 1RM load. From memory, somewhere between 70% and 90% is optimal intensity for hypertrophy focused training.
-
Intensity can be measured as a percentage of 1RM load. From memory, somewhere between 70% and 90% is optimal intensity for hypertrophy focused training.
x2
-
I did for a couple months. :-[
I
I remember that, though I think they initially promoted partial rep training...Power Factor Training, I believe it was called?
I was a dumb teenager at the time and I briefly fell for that. The sudden transition to much heavier weights actually did work for a couple of months and I definitely grew, but there was almost zero carryover to full-range strength, contrary to the bullshit those guys suggested in their book.
-
Me too. I think I bought them all. Some had some decent info but most were trash. They all left out the real secret ingredient (steroids).
Amen.
-
I
I remember that, though I think they initially promoted partial rep training...Power Factor Training, I believe it was called?
I was a dumb teenager at the time and I briefly fell for that. The sudden transition to much heavier weights actually did work for a couple of months and I definitely grew, but there was almost zero carryover to full-range strength, contrary to the bullshit those guys suggested in their book.
Yes, they had both programs. Power Factor Training morphed into Static Contraction Training. They had charts and graphs "proving" more strength and muscle was created using their systems. It was "scientific." It was also bullshit and who knows how many injuries occurred and muscle lost following them.
-
Peter Sisco and John Little created Static Contraction Training in the 90's where they had you just doing isometric holds for 60 seconds per exercise. They advocated taking more and more time off as you got stronger. Eventually you were taking months off between workouts ::)
BTW, Sisco and Little both looked like total shit while promoting this scam and the "science" behind it. They even had Tony Robbins promoting this to his customers as the maximum strength training program.
John Little. One of the biggest liars in the industry. Never liked the guy because he is simply full of (s)hit. See what I did there?
Anyhow I had a debate with the Little man and he falsely claimed that Steve Reeves did the one set to failure guff in his later years and gained an additional 30 pounds of muscle. I called him out on his lying BS claims since Reeves had never stated anywhere he did the one set to failure scheme and gained more muscle than ever.
-
One of the best low volume advocate. One of the few who did HIT. Classic line, mass and no injuries.
Actually he did high volume. Not hit.
-
John Little. One of the biggest liars in the industry. Never liked the guy because he is simply full of (s)hit. See what I did there.
Anyhow I had a debate with the Little man and he falsely claimed that Steve Reeves did the one set to failure guff in his later years and gained an additional 30 pounds of muscle. I called him out on his lying BS claims since Reeves had never said anywhere he did the one set to failure scheme and gained more muscle than ever.
Sisco and Little probably made millions off their bullshit while one was skinny and the other a fat fuck. No one seemed to ask why they looked like shit when they could have worked out once a month and had great physiques according to their "research."