1000 Reps to Bigger Muscles

[quote]louisluthor wrote:
My question is: ? aren?t drop sets supposed to be the solution for this, the middle point or sum of parts for such ideologies?

[/quote]

Not a stupid question Lou, because I think you are right and this is my point. An all-out 1 rep set of a powerlifter is more intense than any body builders typical set because they use maximum intensity for extremely heavy loads usually for a rep or 3. Bodybuilders tend to stay in the 6-12 rep range. I agree, to get that same intensity, you have to include the drops and stripper type sets. Otherwise you are just doing a less intense set. I’m trying to find the equasion or factors that will state what forces intensity.

Again, my take is it has to do with 3 things. 1- maximumtype loads lifted… these use the biggest muscle fibers and produce tremendous strain and damage. 2- The total time under it… has it been determined that more or less time is more intense… lifting is slow or lifting it fast? There are factors here that I know are going to throw people, but I would like to see them solved. 3- the total time of the workout and rest periods involved. There could be a 4th factor but i will leave it out as this point and just consider it in there… periodization and consistant lifting to adapt change.

[quote]louisluthor wrote:

I await your input eagerly, and will continue to train as I am, which is actually Mr. Go Heavy?s 1-10 method, for 4-6 sets followed by Mr. Vandals Maximal output sets, which is like mixing up Westside?s Maximal Effort day with the Repetitions day in one session. Feels great but I am looking for ward to the next best thing.

I wanted to ask. Isn?t it possible to keep using the same 2 or 3 programs in rotation forever? I have heard some people say that bodybuilding is like going from A to C, you may go through or skip B, but if you only need to work between A and C, you don?t need D, E, and F or whatever other programs are out there… .This comes from an author of this website who told me that most people only need to rotate between two programs, or three, sometimes four if they are really stubborn hard-gainers, to get big and strong.

[/quote]
Lou, the 1-10 method is not mine… I didn’t invent it or patent it, its always been around. I just use it. I did however use it before I ever knew what it was. The method I cam up with was purgatory, which is just 1-10-1 for 100 total reps of one exercise, and that is all that is needed for complete muscle breakdown. I am under the impression that the best way to workout for hypertrophy purposes with alot of strength beneift, not a maximum strength benefit… is to use the 1-10 type method. this method forces every type of muscle fiber to fire in one set and producing maximum fatigue 10 consecutive times. It uses the maximum load on every set. I simply cannot find a more effect way to train than maximially.

You lift the most weight you can for a s long as you can and then you are done. Every set is maximum reps, and you hit every rep range to induce all kind of different muscle recruitment. Pretty much all of them.

I simply have never lifted a better routine than the progressive loading and deloading of maximal reps with minimal rest. I have never seen or done a better routine than the 1-10 or 1-10-1. you could even do a 1-5 or a 1-5-1. The concept is the same. They are all maximum effort lifts, and continuous. this is combining the combo of strength and size at its best. I cannot find a more intense or tougher workout than this. The only problem with it, it is so intense and so hard, you can’t use it constantly because you will send the CNS out of an active state.

As for the programs Lou, thats what I think and had suggested. Find a few effective routines and rotate them. Probably 2 or 3, no need for the “end all be all”… it won’t last, and no need for 25 routines a month… you’ll never adapt as well.

You’re coming close to an epiphany Lou, you’re almost there. And, i’m going to prove it to you with math… because I’m a math nerd. I always felt that by just making your workouts more intense was the answer.

I would use the heaviest loads= more intensity, less rest= more intensity, more consecutive lifting such as (drops, strippers, then the infamous 1-10; which I consider the epiphany by the way)= more intensity, motivational factors such as music,concentration, anger, fear, determination, imagination, focus, mind-muscle connection= more intensity, & experience and cooridination of proper technique= more intensity. Putting this all together in one workout and constantly brings on the best results

Vandal… are you any good with math? If so, help me out here. I’m using Total Voulme or V1, load volume or average load volume considering its not constant(I may have to use another variable there) as V2, T2 or TUT/speed lifted, T1 as total time of rest and workout. I’m trying to figure out a value for intensity (I). Or at least come up with realtionship between load and time under it, or the intensity of the the load to be give a value with respect to overall volume.

This is where the value of a 500lb bench press would be given a higher value for the load as opposed to the lower load of a 10lb bench press with the higher overall volume.

Volume can’t be the determining factor… because I just showed with my example that the 500lb bench presser with 50 total reps and a lesser total volume of 25,000 lbs would have greater benefit than the 10 lb bench presser with 5,000 reps and the greater volume of 50,000 reps. I didn’t even take into account tempo or TUT because ,again I think they are useless when compared to the load value. You could spend and entire week under a 10lb load and no way in my mind will that give better results than the 500 lb load for roughly 100 seconds of TUT. I’m just trying to find the equasion that proves this.

Vandal, Lou, Pump… anybody. I’m not trying to agree or disagree with anyone here, or prove or disprove any of us right or wrong… that’s pointless. what I’m trying to do is bring all our heads together and figure this mess out with something tht can’t be written down with #'s and values that make sense. 3 or 4 heads have alot higher I.Q. than just one.

Vandal use that volume angle, I’m going to use the value of the load angle. I think there is a load value that people are overlooking.

Here’s another example. A guy does 1 rep with 500 lbs. The same guy does 100lbs 5 times. Were the workouts equal? I think not. The volume was the same. But the more stress was under the guy that lifted once. Also it was the same guy… he can bench 500lbs for his 1RM. 100 x 5 probably didnt even make him feel anything, but I bet 500lbs did.

Jump in here anytime guys… I’m leaving all these posts i made to be torn apart. Hopefully someone will prove the madman wrong. i am playing devil’s advocate for a reason… to draw a conclusion.

2 examples guys… of why specific loads with relation to total volume need to be given a value.

I am taking the stance to say “Fuck tempo”, “fuck TUT”, “fuck volume”, and am standing by my heavy load theory that IT, it actually the determining factor in mass and strength gains. Why is this load value being left out, when its the most important one?

I had one equasion for intensity, but its not working out for the strength factor, only the hypertrophy factor seems to make sense with it. Because maximum strength requires longer rest periods and throws the time factor off. Increasing the TUT or shortening the workout time does not increase strength.

I(Intensity), will be greater as the hypertrophy principles apply to it.

V1 = Total volume in LBS
V2 = Volume per load or average load for the set in lbs. Use a constant load for now.
T1 = Time Under Tension from the tempo speed in minutes
T2 = Total time of workout in minutes

I(Intensity)= V1/T2 * T1/V2

Here goes…

Example: I(Intensity)= V1/T2 * T1/V2

10 sets of 10 reps with 100lb load & ~ >2 sec TUT/ rep, with 1 minute rests totaling 9 total minutes.

10,000 lbs/~12 minutes X ~3 minutes/100 Lbs = 25 I

or a rating of 25 intensity.

Now change the variables…

(shorten the rest periods)
10,000 lbs/~9 minutes X ~3 minutes/100 Lbs = ~33 I

Now increase the TUT…

10,000 lbs/~12 minutes X ~6 minutes/100 Lbs = ~50 I

Now increase the load…
(This is what sends it the other way from the 25 median)

10,000 lbs/~30 minutes X ~1 minutes/500 Lbs = 2/3I

So what I’ve found is that by changing the variables, the furthur they drop from the typical hypertrophy norms tends to be more strength benefit, while they furthur they increase tends to be the endurance/cardiovascular benefit… with size being the median between endurance/cardio and strength.

Size was give a 25 value for a typical 10 sets of 10 whcih would fall in the hypertrophy range for reps and sets for a typical workout.

If this doesn’t make sense to you… that’s because trying to ite in where the strength and size and cardio benefit disect is almost impossible because they all work together.

Hmmm, well we know that Load (L) x Total reps (R) = Volume (V). But since time is also an important factor I guess we need to look at V/minute, or hour. This would be my equation, I am pulling this one out of my ass.

L x R = V

400 x 25(5x5) = 10000

250 x 40 (4x10) = 10000

Now here is where I pull #s out of my ass, let us say that our new equationfor intensity is I = V + [(.1)(L)]^2 / T

Ok let us assume that both workouts took 15 minutes, the intensity for each would be.

10000 + (.1 x 400)^2 / 15 = 773I

10000 + (.1 x 250)^2 / 15 = 708I

Like I said these numbers were pulled out of my ass, feel free to change them to something more suitable, or feel free to say my equation is retarded :slight_smile:

The reasoning behind my equation is to make load the most important factor in intensity, and to have increases in load effect Intensity exponentially instead of in a linear manner.

[quote]Phatshady912 wrote:
Hmmm, well we know that Load (L) x Total reps (R) = Volume (V). But since time is also an important factor I guess we need to look at V/minute, or hour. This would be my equation, I am pulling this one out of my ass.

L x R = V

400 x 25(5x5) = 10000

250 x 40 (4x10) = 10000

Now here is where I pull #s out of my ass, let us say that our new equationfor intensity is I = V + [(.1)(L)]^2 / T

Ok let us assume that both workouts took 15 minutes, the intensity for each would be.

10000 + (.1 x 400)^2 / 15 = 773I

10000 + (.1 x 250)^2 / 15 = 708I

Like I said these numbers were pulled out of my ass, feel free to change them to something more suitable, or feel free to say my equation is retarded :slight_smile:

The reasoning behind my equation is to make load the most important factor in intensity, and to have increases in load effect Intensity exponentially instead of in a linear manner.

[/quote]
Well. I like the idea… but you definitly pulled some numbers out of your ass because for one, they don’t add up and two… where did you get the .1 variable and is that supposed to represent the increases in load effect?

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
Phatshady912 wrote:
Hmmm, well we know that Load (L) x Total reps (R) = Volume (V). But since time is also an important factor I guess we need to look at V/minute, or hour. This would be my equation, I am pulling this one out of my ass.

L x R = V

400 x 25(5x5) = 10000

250 x 40 (4x10) = 10000

Now here is where I pull #s out of my ass, let us say that our new equationfor intensity is I = V + [(.1)(L)]^2 / T

Ok let us assume that both workouts took 15 minutes, the intensity for each would be.

10000 + (.1 x 400)^2 / 15 = 773I

10000 + (.1 x 250)^2 / 15 = 708I

Like I said these numbers were pulled out of my ass, feel free to change them to something more suitable, or feel free to say my equation is retarded :slight_smile:

The reasoning behind my equation is to make load the most important factor in intensity, and to have increases in load effect Intensity exponentially instead of in a linear manner.

Well. I like the idea… but you definitly pulled some numbers out of your ass because for one, they don’t add up and two… where did you get the .1 variable and is that supposed to represent the increases in load effect?
[/quote]

The .1 is there to keep the load from being too big of a factor in intensity. It can be changed to any # more suitable, somewhere between .1 and .2 seems good to me.

Oh yeah I scrwed it up lol, I meant to write the equation like this.

I = [V + [(.1)(L)]^2] / T

It is Volume + .1 x the load ^2 all of that divided by time.

In my other post I made it look like .1 x load ^2 divided by time THEN + volume.

My mistake.

I dunno… it looks like a crap shoot, i think we are just going to keep firing blanks because all the variables arn’t really accounted for exactly.

It’s hard to put an equasion on these concepts. Its like trying to tie pencils together… you keep twisting them and hope they don’t break, but everything you come up with just doesn’t look right.

Its almost to aplly bariables to unknows and use a formula like intensity relating to strength or hypertrophy. It was fun though, but well probably get more accomplished the old fashion way… isstead of sweat it out here, just sweat it out in the gym.

If i could use variables that were definite and exact then I could make some sense of it. but there’s no way in telling how much intensity is a direct result to muscla mass gain in strength or hypertrophy… not with an equasion anyway.

Maybe, but I doubt it. I would have to find better variables to use. And I just down’t have them right now. That’s what makes building muscle so fun and interesting to figure out exactly how the process takes place.

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:

Its almost to aplly bariables to unknows and use a formula like intensity relating to strength or hypertrophy. [/quote]

I have no clue what I typed, but it was in the dark. I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.

WOW, that’s like a new language. Too bad I can’t type well. Skip that sentense because I can’t make it out either.

[quote]louisluthor wrote:
Mr. Majin says that he prefers to lift heavy, to lift more weight per effort or repetition…[/quote]

I didn’t say that, I merely pointed out that a much more precise method of measuring the workload is the tonnage system as opposed by just volume.

Part of the reason I mentioned it was because this pertains to getting size increases from large volumes of calisthenics and/or just extremely high volumes in general.

Example. The pushup is said to be about 60% of bodyweight. But let’s make it 50% just in case. So for a 200lb person it would be 100lbs.

Pushups(250 pushups):
100x250=25’000lbs.

Bench press 250lbs for 10x3 or 3x10:
10x3x250lbs=7’500lbs.

Now this obviously isn’t the entire picture but even from this it is visible that there are definite benefits to that type of training. Especially considering that most can perform this number of pushups within 15-20min in sets of 25-10 repetitions(descending as they go.)

I prefer the both worlds approach since both work in different ways and compliment eachother nicely. There are seven days in a week, I think that’s plenty of time. People should realize that weight isn’t the only thing that matters, volume is every bit as important as far as big muscles are concerned.

Sorry for the long absence, guys, but I was doing some work in the Northern territories, where the law needs a helping hand every now and then so my office sent me there to check up and clean things up, keep things running smoothly, you know?

downside of the trip: there wasn?t a decent gym, just a bench, 4 pairs of dumbbells, none of which was more than 45 pounds heavy, one barbell and just a dozen plates which put all in the barbell don?t sum up to more than 250 pounds, but at least there were fixed bars and parallel bars and I had my weight belt to hook the plates to it and exercise.

The upside is that the jericoacoara beaches and other desolates areas are preferred for models to take sun baths?with no bikinis on, and I certainly enjoy the fact that I can walk up to them and get cozy. Thank God for that, for creatine, and protein shakes and exercise programs, drop setting and such.

Now let?s get to business as usual. First of all, this one?s for Lou:

I feel a tear of pride run down my cheek, Lou?.honest to God. You seem to have learned your lessons in what refers to bodybuilding, and yes, you are ready for the big leagues.

You are right with drop sets and pre-exhaustion, but conceptually. They are two different ways to work the muscle, but all in all, it is about adapting to the stress and compensate for the energy expenditure.

The best exercises in which 21?s can be used are triceps and biceps exercises, also partials. In the case of larger muscles, 1-and-1/2?s work fine, and also partials, but for the larger muscles, it is also good to do some extreme stretching under tension, like what DoggCrapp advises in his wacky routine. I think that one is responsible for 30% of the growth that some trainees get out of that program.

A surefire way to do a workout of pre-exhaustion and/or drop-setting is the following: load the bar heavy, try to shoot for a set of 8-10 reps, and don?t use more than 2 weight reductions.

Noiw, Lou’s private message to me before I left for my job trip was informative…it was an article on bodybuilding.com that spoke about “creative drop-setting” by a dude Tom Venuto. Here’s a condensation of the different ways to drop set, in case nobody wants to pop open a new window.

Here are the ways in which you can do drop sets:

An ascending rep drop set means that you decrease the weight substantially enough so you can increase the number of reps you perform with each weight reduction. For example, if you’re doing triceps pushdowns and 100 pounds is your six rep max, you would start with 100 pounds, then pull the pin and go to 75 pounds (twenty five percent reduction), which is a wide enough drop so you can hit ten to twelve reps on the next round.

Then you’d finish by pulling the pin and going to 50 (thirty three percent reduction), which is very light, allowing you to “rep out” and perform fifteen to twenty reps on the final drop.

Descending drop sets are when you perform a very tight drop set, so your reps actually decrease with each weight reduction. For example, if you’re doing bench presses with 225 pounds for twelve reps, you’d strip off a small amount of weight (five to ten percent), then continue for six to eight more reps. Then you’d pull off a little more weight and shoot for four to six reps. You’d then finish by dropping a small amount of weight again and doing two final reps.

Just remember the basics of drop setting: Usually, the time between weight drops ranges from zero to ten seconds. You can really go “crazy” with drop sets and reduce the weight as many times as you want. However, there seems to be a point of diminishing returns after two or three weight reductions. The most common drop set method is a triple drop, where you use three weights and two weight reductions.

The “halving method” is a wide drop set that allows you to use two totally opposite rep ranges, each of which will attack a different aspect of the muscle cell. This allows excellent muscle growth plus an incredible pump!

After warming up, begin by choosing the heaviest weight you can handle for six reps with strict form. Perform six reps, then without resting, reduce the weight by exactly fifty percent and continue for twenty repetitions with the lighter weight. Let’s use one arm dumbbell rows as an example.

If your six rep max is 110 pounds, start with six reps with the 110’s, then immediately grab the 55’s and bang out twenty good reps. You’ll be winded and you’ll feel something in your lats you’ve never felt before!

Now, you can drop the sets in 2 ways, wide or tight. A tight drop set would include any weight reduction between five and twenty percent. Tight drop sets are more often performed on small muscle groups and isolation exercises. For example, if you’re going down the rack on dumbbell curls, you might start with 50 pounders and drop to the 45’s, then the 40’s - a ten percent decrease per drop.

A wide drop set refers to a larger weight decrease between reps. Wide drops sets are easier than tight drop sets and they allow you do higher repetitions. Because of cardiovascular fatigue, wide drops are often used on large muscle group exercises like squats, bent over rows and leg presses. For example, in the squat you might begin with 315 lbs on the bar, then strip an entire 45 pound plate from each side and go on to 225 lbs, nearly a 30% drop in poundage.

Then you might strip another 45 pound plate off each side and go with 135 pounds (a 40% drop). Believe me, 135 pounds never felt so heavy!

If drop sets are the number one high intensity bodybuilding technique, then what’s the number two technique? In my opinion, it’s supersets. And what could possibly be better than combining the two most effective bodybuilding techniques in one; a “drop-superset.”
Here’s how it works:

First select the two exercises for your superset. If it’s shoulder day, it might be dumbbell lateral raises and dumbbell presses - a pre-exhaust superset. Start with lateral raises using you regular 8-12 rep max, let’s say 35 lbs for this example. Then go right into dumbbell presses with as little rest as possible and a little less weight as your usual 8-12 rep max - 65 lbs or so should do the trick.

Now, continue with no rest to a lighter set of dumbbells (25 lbs) for another set of side laterals. Then pick up the 55 lbs dumbbells and go into another set of shoulder presses. Finally, drop down to the 15 lbs dumbbells for the last set of lateral raises, then go straight into presses with 45 pounders. That’s ONE drop-superset. This is an extremely intense technique, so use these sparingly.

I did say that my idea was to do chest flyes and use 2 or 3 weight reductions and then moving on to bench press with wide drops, instead of alternating pairings, but it can work both ways, I guess there?s more ways than one to get there, al roads lead to Rome and such.

Let?s summarize:

1-) Tight drop sets are good for isolation exercises and small muscles, likes biceps or triceps. For the bigger muscles, they only work for strength, so don?t go nuts.

2-) Ascending drop sets are also cool for small muscles, it works like the halving method works for the bigger ones, which brings me to the next point?

3-) The halving method is great for large muscles done strictly as prescribed here, don?t get confused with the wide drop sets, which come next, you only get one reduction.

4-) Wide drop sets are great for larger muscles too, but the idea isn?t to rep out on each load drop, you just drop 25% off the initial load on each reduction and then try to do your best, not try to maximize the yield of the load used, so increasing on 2-3 reps per load won?t be bad, as long as you do stay 3 or 2 reps under the point of failure, or maximum productivity per load, which is different from maxing out because the weight goes down, reps don?t go up necessarily, just become easier, but not that easy as to add more than 2 reps to the bracket you used in the previous attempt, and I wouldn?t even try to do that myself.

These are pretty much the best ways to use drop setting there are. Trust me, you?ll find that this information is vital, and by the way: one method of overload is to tighten the drops, so you may start with wide drop sets for a muscle group, and tighten up the drops as a way to create overload. It makes this method last longer and produce more results on a longer period of time.

After this, chance to supersets and pre-exhaustion for a couple weeks and then return to it, or try a high-volume or high-frequency program, or a strength program of low rep sets before going back at it?that way it won?t stop giving results.

Second, let’s address Go Heavy on his own words of wisdom

Go_Heavy_Fool wrote:

Finally! I get to disagree with you.

You can’t say that a lower volume of work is inferior to a higher volume of work simply based on that factor of “volume”. This is the point I’m trying to argue and I’m playing devil’s advocate here. Volume alone doesn’t say it all. It has to do with total time, and most importantly the “VALUE” of the heavy load lifted in the lower volume workout.

You can’t tell me that doing 5000 bench presses a week with 10 LBS on the bar is “Superior” to doing 50 bench presses with 500 LBS on the bar. The first workout has a total volume of 50,000 LBS. The second has a total volume of 25,000. I used extremes to illustrate my point.

Vandal use that volume angle, I’m going to use the value of the load angle. I think there is a load value that people are overlooking.

Here’s another example. A guy does 1 rep with 500 lbs. The same guy does 100lbs 5 times. Were the workouts equal? I think not. The volume was the same. But the more stress was under the guy that lifted once. Also it was the same guy… he can bench 500lbs for his 1RM. 100 x 5 probably didnt even make him feel anything, but I bet 500lbs did.

Boy, this is going to be fun?considering the way you defend CT?s training principles, perhaps you should read again his article ?Superman Sets? back in issue #284??the total accumulation of time under tension within some parameters of set timeframe produces growth just as well as lifting heavy.

Read the article, please you will find it supports my general theory, although I don?t stick to one program alone, I ain?t a one-trick pony when it comes to lifting, just do what works.

I think that volume is good for metabolic-end hypertrophy, and heavy loads for neural-end hypertrophy?I have also said that pretty much, it is all about swinging from one side to the other, keep the body guessing, and do what really Works. Now, what works for me doesn?t work for you and vice versa.

I am gonna accept the fact that when I was beginning, my best growth came from lifting with a program based on training 2 times a week, basic split of chest, triceps shoulders on days 1 and 4 and back, biceps forearms on days 2 and 5, doing legs on days 3 and 6. Lifting slow and lowering slow, something close to 2 seconds but above 1 second on either phase, no pauses, to keep tension constant, doing 10-12 sets of 8-15 reps (15, 12, 8 or 15, 12,10,8) for a grand total of 200 reps per week, give or take, per each muscle group, and I got big from it.

Some time after, I discovered that it stopped working, so I put more weight until I couldn?t feel good about it, I knew when it stopped feeling good for growth. I started lifting slow and then going faster up and down, to be able to get the desired reps per set, which ended up in being higher reps (something like 15-20) for less sets, 2-3 sets in 2-3 exercises, and now three times a week, since the session was more intense, I couldn?t do more work on it, but my recovery was better, so I worked more often, doing more sessions per week, so I hit each muscle three times, full-body type of routines.

Since you were asking where are the bodybuilders that got big with CW?s routines, being full-body ones, I guess I can tell you that they are in the fitness mags mostly, because such training gives you size, but primarily, gets you cut and lean, ripped, and strong, so you end up in a fitness type of physique rather than a bodybuilding appearance.

I must remind you again, this is my way to train, my road to hypertrophy is not traveled by anyone else than me. As a song says here in Latin America ? wanderer, there are no roads, roads are made by your footsteps as you walk them?, meaning you are always venturing into unknown territory, so there are no steps to follow but yours, and you should always warn others of that.

Just like Bruce lee said ?accept what is useful, reject what is not??.you must get the most bang for you buck with everything you do, so experimenting is good. One thing though, is that you would discover that volume would get you bigger, Go Heavy, because it would be the opposite of what you are doing, and the body only grows as a response to new forms of stress. Try it on for size, and tell us.

[quote]Majin wrote:
louisluthor wrote:
Mr. Majin says that he prefers to lift heavy, to lift more weight per effort or repetition…

I didn’t say that, I merely pointed out that a much more precise method of measuring the workload is the tonnage system as opposed by just volume.

Part of the reason I mentioned it was because this pertains to getting size increases from large volumes of calisthenics and/or just extremely high volumes in general.

Example. The pushup is said to be about 60% of bodyweight. But let’s make it 50% just in case. So for a 200lb person it would be 100lbs.

Pushups(250 pushups):
100x250=25’000lbs.

Bench press 250lbs for 10x3 or 3x10:
10x3x250lbs=7’500lbs.

Now this obviously isn’t the entire picture but even from this it is visible that there are definite benefits to that type of training. Especially considering that most can perform this number of pushups within 15-20min in sets of 25-10 repetitions(descending as they go.)

I prefer the both worlds approach since both work in different ways and compliment eachother nicely. There are seven days in a week, I think that’s plenty of time. People should realize that weight isn’t the only thing that matters, volume is every bit as important as far as big muscles are concerned.
[/quote]

I like your idea a lot, Majin, it’s all about conjugating…I bet a guy doing bench press, seated rows, clean and jerk and squats in a 5 x 5 manner three day a week in the mornin combining it with a night time session of 3 x 10 on dips, chins and some isolation for shoulders and arms will get big in no time. if he alternates instead of combining, much better, because he keeps his body guessing.

I need to remind myself of that, bodybuilding is getting the body to grow as a response to new stress and stimulation, so when I start to like doing something in my workout, it means I am not gonna get shit from it in terms of growth…

A lot of these answers are quite exhaustive and rather boring to read. Here is what I have to say:

  1. Volume
  2. Variety

The 2 keys I have found to results…
other than getting your ass in the gym on a frequent and consistant basis.

Anything in between is fair game.

KCB.

[quote]KCB wrote:
A lot of these answers are quite exhaustive and rather boring to read. Here is what I have to say:

  1. Volume
  2. Variety

The 2 keys I have found to results…
other than getting your ass in the gym on a frequent and consistant basis.

Anything in between is fair game.

KCB.[/quote]

If it really was that simple, why do you even subscribed to this website in the first place?

I am man enough to admit I need info, just as well as anyone else. I guess you’ll have to let time grant you wisdom, at least experience to fianlly get why a long answer, hard to read as it might be, is better than a short fortune cookie like advice…

I just think that many of us don’t have the same expertise or the knowledge that the authors here at T-Nation have. That is why i signed up.

So when you get a bunch of guys describing their workouts all of which, by the way, are fine and apply to that individuals own needs. It’s easy to get lost in the details…I just tried to simplefy without having to tell you what I have been doing over the last 5 years.

Take what you want… even if it’s a fortune cookie type response.

cheers.

KCB.

Ok, may have gotten carried away there, KCB, sorry if I bashed on you too hard.

I respect T-Nation authors, in their philosophy and intention, but let’s face it…you know they are giving you their 2 cents worth, but why not even a nickel, dime or quarter worth of philosophy? why keep 98 cents on their pockets if the idea of the site is to teach and share?