8x8, Any Comments?

Josh_Rider · November 14, 2008, 5:53pm

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

How about you don’t waste your time on that shit and do something which allows for better progression?

I hope you people at least have fun on those programs and all the while gaining a measly 10-15 pounds a year.

#Edit: If even.[/quote]

I don’t directly promote the 10x10 or 8x8 programs but I belief that its one of many options that exist. They just happen both to be options that aren’t necessary for 90%+ of the weight training population and for those 10% that I think could do it, only a few of them will get much better progress than on a less demanding program.

In no way do I think beginners should even imagine doing this type of work; a 140 pound teen at 5’11" shouldn’t be doing 8 sets of 8 reps on the bench press. He should be doing something more along the lines of 5x5, 3-4x8-10, or anything reasonable such as that along with lots of eating and rest.

Its when you take that 140 pound kid who after 4 years is now 210 pounds, has been lifting heavy for several months and has reached a plateau, so has changed things around only to reach another plateau within two weeks. This could be a good situation to introduce an 8x8 program or 10x10 program to completely shock the trainees body- along with increasing said person’s caloric intake and prescribing him necessary supplements.

Sentoguy · November 14, 2008, 6:09pm

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

How about you don’t waste your time on that shit and do something which allows for better progression?

I hope you people at least have fun on those programs and all the while gaining a measly 10-15 pounds a year.

#Edit: If even.

I know i might just as well open a can of worms, but as far as im concerned 80% of ANYTHING to do with body tranformation is connected to nutrition.

As i said in 7 years i have 4 programs, some people it seems use 4 in 4 weeks if not days !

So as far as programs are concerned, i believe that ANY program that allows you to do more reps, more weight, more sets more … will do.

If a program doesn’t work for you, dont fucking use it but saying its shit is pretty silly … people use a program for 1 week then declare its shit… i mean for fucks sake at LEAST stay on it for 6 months if not a year and see if your continually progressing.

People saying it took 7 years to see what works… how hard is it…

Lift heavy weight… continually progress in any fashioon you can… and eat alot… and dont forget sleep…

Why i am getting so ratty is that VInce Gironda has been there done that, got more people there but some fucking armchair experts are saying NO ITS SHIT DONT DO IT.

SO Sento, your into bodybuilding as far as i can tell… are you saying if Vince Gironda said it works, you would STILL argue with him NO ITS SHIT ???

When Vince was training Mohammed Makkawy for the Olympia, he had Mohammed conditioned to the point of doing 8 sets in as little as 5 minutes or less.

Look up his pictures some fing time and come back and repeat “NO IT DOESNT WORK”

AH i give up[/quote]

Have you read through the responses on this thread? No one is saying that 8x8 isn’t going to produce any results, and yeah it might be decent for conditioning purposes. But any time you’re going to try to do 8 sets with the same weight, and have to wait until you can perform all 8 sets with that weight, it’s going to result in much, much slower progress than if you were to do 1-2 sets and increase the weight every workout.

As far as Giordano goes, I have respect for what the old time great coaches said, Giordano, Jones, etc… but training methodologies have improved beyond what they were having guys do during the 1960’s when Giordano was heavily into training professional BB’ers.

Don’t get me wrong, the guy had some good ideas, and I like some of his exercises.

As far as Makkawy, he certainly had good conditioning, but are we really to believe that doing an 8x8 program is what got him to that level of muscularity? No, I doubt that was how he trained the majority of the time, or how he got to that level of muscularity.

In fact, here’s a little blurb from Giordano’s site briefly outlining one of his training approaches:

"Vince’s approach on this program is predicated on utilizing percentages of 6 rep maxes, perfect form (as always), one exercise per bodypart, three upper body workouts per week and two lower body workouts per week. It is also the only routine I am aware of for which Vince recommended longer rest periods – up to 60 seconds.

As with most of Vince’s approaches, the ego has no place. One calculates a 6 rep max in a given exercise and this becomes “100%”. The 10 rep set is performed with 50% of that number, rest of “up to” 60 seconds is allowed then the 8 rep set is performed with 75% of the 6 rep max, rest up to 60 seconds and go with the 100% for 6 reps, finishing off with 15 reps at 35% of 6 rep max. For a bench 6 rep max of 200#, this would mean 10x100 8x150 6x200 15x70."

Sounds like your usual “ramping” style workout to me.

And even if Giordano did regularly advocate straight set workouts, the fact that people who utilize ramping format programs regularly exceed the physiques (at least in terms of size/muscularity) of many of his most well known trainees should again speak to the notion that there are better ways to go about doing things than an 8x8 program.

Sentoguy · November 14, 2008, 6:15pm

[quote]300andabove wrote:
And before any other other armchair expert asks for PROOF !
During his heyday, Vince was credited with turning out more Mr. America and Mr. Universe champions than any trainer in history. Two of Vince’s most famous pupils were Larry Scott, the first Mr. Olympia, and Mohammed Makkawy, twice runner-up in the Olympia (behind Samir Bannout in 1983 and Lee Haney in 1984).

While he himself was one of the 1st people to come in perfectly ripped, some say TOO ripped.

And all this with NO STEROIDS, but im just waiting for the its all GENETICS DUDE or some other tripe.
[/quote]

LOL. So you’re saying that Larry Scott and Mohammed Makkawy never used steroids? How are we to know this is the case? Steroids were around long before Larry Scott won the first Mr. Olympia title.

And again Giordano was a pioneer, no one can argue that. But things have improved training/diet wise since 1984, or 1965-66 when Larry Scott won the Olympia. Scott’s conditioning wasn’t even close to what today’s guys showcase either (including today’s natural competitors).

300andabove · November 15, 2008, 12:33pm

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
300andabove wrote:
And before any other other armchair expert asks for PROOF !
During his heyday, Vince was credited with turning out more Mr. America and Mr. Universe champions than any trainer in history. Two of Vince’s most famous pupils were Larry Scott, the first Mr. Olympia, and Mohammed Makkawy, twice runner-up in the Olympia (behind Samir Bannout in 1983 and Lee Haney in 1984).

While he himself was one of the 1st people to come in perfectly ripped, some say TOO ripped.

And all this with NO STEROIDS, but im just waiting for the its all GENETICS DUDE or some other tripe.

LOL. So you’re saying that Larry Scott and Mohammed Makkawy never used steroids? How are we to know this is the case? Steroids were around long before Larry Scott won the first Mr. Olympia title.

And again Giordano was a pioneer, no one can argue that. But things have improved training/diet wise since 1984, or 1965-66 when Larry Scott won the Olympia. Scott’s conditioning wasn’t even close to what today’s guys showcase either (including today’s natural competitors).[/quote]

In Vinces gym there were several rules, i forget them off hand… but you could be summerarily kicked out for talking about bench presses, squats, cardio OR taking steroids.

And even and this is a pretty BIG if they were 10mg of Dianabol was a HUGE dose those days, take it now and you would be laughed at the low dose.

So yes i think along with other routines that it was responsible for their conditions, i didn’t figure you for the “its all the roidz” crowd. From your posts i gathered that hard work, eating properly and sleep got you 99% of the way.

Furthermore, have you seen Vince’s contest condition ?? He was nearly as ripped as the dehydrated Mr. O’s and he is/was COMPLETELY anti steroids… and somehow you think nutrition/training has gotten better ?

Maybe the supplements have gotten better, the raw natural food is getting WORSE and the training these days from the looks of some articles is completely nuts.

In short, all Vince and et. al had at their disposal were:

HCL (bad version)
Kelp
Magnesium
Liver Tablets
SERIOUSLY bad amino acids

But still turned out those physiques… and again you still say nutrition is BETTER… i would argue its worse !

COmparing what the Mr. O’s have at their disposal nowadays (nutrition,steroids etc etc) and weighing all of 10-20lbs heavier maybe…with bigger guts and less asthetically pleasing figures and as far as im concerned go back to the old days.

Which hopefully with the stepping down of Jay/Ronnie will mean the end of the mass monsters. And maybe they will bring back proper underwear for those guys instead of the speedos, but i digress.

300andabove · November 15, 2008, 12:45pm

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Have you read through the responses on this thread? No one is saying that 8x8 isn’t going to produce any results, and yeah it might be decent for conditioning purposes. But any time you’re going to try to do 8 sets with the same weight, and have to wait until you can perform all 8 sets with that weight, it’s going to result in much, much slower progress than if you were to do 1-2 sets and increase the weight every workout.

As far as Giordano goes, I have respect for what the old time great coaches said, Giordano, Jones, etc… but training methodologies have improved beyond what they were having guys do during the 1960’s when Giordano was heavily into training professional BB’ers.

Don’t get me wrong, the guy had some good ideas, and I like some of his exercises.

As far as Makkawy, he certainly had good conditioning, but are we really to believe that doing an 8x8 program is what got him to that level of muscularity? No, I doubt that was how he trained the majority of the time, or how he got to that level of muscularity.

In fact, here’s a little blurb from Giordano’s site briefly outlining one of his training approaches:

"Vince’s approach on this program is predicated on utilizing percentages of 6 rep maxes, perfect form (as always), one exercise per bodypart, three upper body workouts per week and two lower body workouts per week. It is also the only routine I am aware of for which Vince recommended longer rest periods – up to 60 seconds.

As with most of Vince’s approaches, the ego has no place. One calculates a 6 rep max in a given exercise and this becomes “100%”. The 10 rep set is performed with 50% of that number, rest of “up to” 60 seconds is allowed then the 8 rep set is performed with 75% of the 6 rep max, rest up to 60 seconds and go with the 100% for 6 reps, finishing off with 15 reps at 35% of 6 rep max. For a bench 6 rep max of 200#, this would mean 10x100 8x150 6x200 15x70."

Sounds like your usual “ramping” style workout to me.

And even if Giordano did regularly advocate straight set workouts, the fact that people who utilize ramping format programs regularly exceed the physiques (at least in terms of size/muscularity) of many of his most well known trainees should again speak to the notion that there are better ways to go about doing things than an 8x8 program. [/quote]

I did read it, and maybe you missed the snarky comments but i didn’t.

As for using 8*8 JUST for conditioning purposes… have you ever tried it ?? I mean i wont/dont comment on DC training as i have read about it but HAVEN’T tried it and i think alot of the “IT DOESN’T WORK” crowd would die a death if they had to TRY a program before the comments.

Furthermore, from the looks of it you think adding weight is the ONLY method of overloading/progressing ??? COme on man, i know you like DC but its becoming zealot like with the comments.
There are what 10-20 odd ways of progressing adding weight is NOT the only one. And i would think you know that.

And again i wont comment on the old times, my above post deals with it, but i really doubt TODAYS methods are better, when everything today was invented 10-100 years ago, we have just forgotton it.

And for the final part

Again we come back to adding weight is NOT the only way of progressing !

Also if we put say Phil Heath and Kai Greene on 2 programs both with the same access to all aids natural or otherwise…

Kai got the 8*8
Phil got the “ramping” and i presume you mean DC

I would argue that both would produce fantastic results… i think you have been brainwashed or something, you are so “caught in the moment” of your program, you have closed your mind to all others.

Indeed, should you take a break from DC… i would wager 8*8 would produce FANTASTIC results on you !

Protoculture · November 15, 2008, 12:57pm

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Where? Where is this credible evidence that 8x8 and 10x10 programs work brilliantly? Because Poliquin says so? Not good enough, let’s see some pictures of people who got huge off these programs. [/quote]

Wasn’t Larry Scott (and others) trained by Vince Gironda, who recommended the 8x8 system?

Seems to have worked for them, unless you’re the type of guy who thinks Larry had an unimpressive physique.

As for other known Gironda trainees, most weren’t “famous”, but his gym did have a good reputation at the time, so I’m guessing Larry wasn’t his only success story.

Sentoguy · November 15, 2008, 1:18pm

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:

Have you read through the responses on this thread? No one is saying that 8x8 isn’t going to produce any results, and yeah it might be decent for conditioning purposes. But any time you’re going to try to do 8 sets with the same weight, and have to wait until you can perform all 8 sets with that weight, it’s going to result in much, much slower progress than if you were to do 1-2 sets and increase the weight every workout.

As far as Giordano goes, I have respect for what the old time great coaches said, Giordano, Jones, etc… but training methodologies have improved beyond what they were having guys do during the 1960’s when Giordano was heavily into training professional BB’ers.

Don’t get me wrong, the guy had some good ideas, and I like some of his exercises.

As far as Makkawy, he certainly had good conditioning, but are we really to believe that doing an 8x8 program is what got him to that level of muscularity? No, I doubt that was how he trained the majority of the time, or how he got to that level of muscularity.

In fact, here’s a little blurb from Giordano’s site briefly outlining one of his training approaches:

"Vince’s approach on this program is predicated on utilizing percentages of 6 rep maxes, perfect form (as always), one exercise per bodypart, three upper body workouts per week and two lower body workouts per week. It is also the only routine I am aware of for which Vince recommended longer rest periods – up to 60 seconds.

As with most of Vince’s approaches, the ego has no place. One calculates a 6 rep max in a given exercise and this becomes “100%”. The 10 rep set is performed with 50% of that number, rest of “up to” 60 seconds is allowed then the 8 rep set is performed with 75% of the 6 rep max, rest up to 60 seconds and go with the 100% for 6 reps, finishing off with 15 reps at 35% of 6 rep max. For a bench 6 rep max of 200#, this would mean 10x100 8x150 6x200 15x70."

Sounds like your usual “ramping” style workout to me.

And even if Giordano did regularly advocate straight set workouts, the fact that people who utilize ramping format programs regularly exceed the physiques (at least in terms of size/muscularity) of many of his most well known trainees should again speak to the notion that there are better ways to go about doing things than an 8x8 program.

I did read it, and maybe you missed the snarky comments but i didn’t.

As for using 8*8 JUST for conditioning purposes… have you ever tried it ?? I mean i wont/dont comment on DC training as i have read about it but HAVEN’T tried it and i think alot of the “IT DOESN’T WORK” crowd would die a death if they had to TRY a program before the comments.
[/quote]

I have tried it. I’ve also tried 10x10, 10x3, 3x8-12, 5x5, if there’s a set/rep scheme out there, I’ve probably tried it. Also, an 8x8 workout might be a little metabolically challenging, but the results in terms of size/strength that I got (or anyone I ever had do the workout got) were pitiful compared to the results from focusing on progressively increasing the weight.

It’s not the only one, but it’s the most important one. You can’t ever reach your size potential without progressing via added weight, you can reach your size potential without using higher and higher amounts of volume, or decreased rest periods, or super slow reps, or many of the other progression methods.

Maybe in isolation that’s true. But in terms of putting them together into effective whole programs it’s not. Besides, you truly believe that in 30 years there have been no improvements in terms of training/nutrition methods? What other field would you possibly also say that for? Medical science? Engineering? Anything?

Tell that to the slew of BB’ers who were volume guys prior to training with Dante Trudell, only to wind up blowing away their previous size/strength levels by doing DC.

Besides, I’ve done high volume programs in the past, and I got crap for results. I’m not some newbie who’s just got into training and been brainwashed into believing that DC is the only way to train. I’m an experienced lifter who has tried lots of different approaches and eventually came to the conclusion that the core tenents that make up DC are the most basic, effective methods of building size/strength.

Magarhe · November 15, 2008, 1:47pm

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
300andabove wrote:
And before any other other armchair expert asks for PROOF !
During his heyday, Vince was credited with turning out more Mr. America and Mr. Universe champions than any trainer in history. Two of Vince’s most famous pupils were Larry Scott, the first Mr. Olympia, and Mohammed Makkawy, twice runner-up in the Olympia (behind Samir Bannout in 1983 and Lee Haney in 1984).

While he himself was one of the 1st people to come in perfectly ripped, some say TOO ripped.

And all this with NO STEROIDS, but im just waiting for the its all GENETICS DUDE or some other tripe.

LOL. So you’re saying that Larry Scott and Mohammed Makkawy never used steroids? How are we to know this is the case? Steroids were around long before Larry Scott won the first Mr. Olympia title.

And again Giordano was a pioneer, no one can argue that. But things have improved training/diet wise since 1984, or 1965-66 when Larry Scott won the Olympia. Scott’s conditioning wasn’t even close to what today’s guys showcase either (including today’s natural competitors).[/quote]

Gironda also loved his “glandulars” - freeze dried ground up animal testicles, amongst other organs like livers etc… and I severely doubt anyone posting here touting Gironda realises that.

Sentoguy, I find it amusing anyone would call you an “armchair expert” lol!

300andabove · November 15, 2008, 2:03pm

[quote]Magarhe wrote:

Gironda also loved his “glandulars” - freeze dried ground up animal testicles, amongst other organs like livers etc… and I severely doubt anyone posting here touting Gironda realises that.

Sentoguy, I find it amusing anyone would call you an “armchair expert” lol![/quote]

Yes i knew that

And if you read it carefully <<-- you will see i mentioned no names re the armchair experts.

300andabove · November 15, 2008, 2:17pm

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

1)I have tried it. I’ve also tried 10x10, 10x3, 3x8-12, 5x5, if there’s a set/rep scheme out there, I’ve probably tried it. Also, an 8x8 workout might be a little metabolically challenging, but the results in terms of size/strength that I got (or anyone I ever had do the workout got) were pitiful compared to the results from focusing on progressively increasing the weight.

2)It’s not the only one, but it’s the most important one. You can’t ever reach your size potential without progressing via added weight, you can reach your size potential without using higher and higher amounts of volume, or decreased rest periods, or super slow reps, or many of the other progression methods.

3)Maybe in isolation that’s true. But in terms of putting them together into effective whole programs it’s not. Besides, you truly believe that in 30 years there have been no improvements in terms of training/nutrition methods? What other field would you possibly also say that for? Medical science? Engineering? Anything?

4)Tell that to the slew of BB’ers who were volume guys prior to training with Dante Trudell, only to wind up blowing away their previous size/strength levels by doing DC.

Besides, I’ve done high volume programs in the past, and I got crap for results. I’m not some newbie who’s just got into training and been brainwashed into believing that DC is the only way to train. I’m an experienced lifter who has tried lots of different approaches and eventually came to the conclusion that the core tenents that make up DC are the most basic, effective methods of building size/strength.[/quote]

1)You did 103 but found the strngth gains bad ? That is ONE of the most strength oriented programs out there, short of the 1-6 and others. I would think should you 103 or some other str oriented program THEN did 8*8 you would notice a difference, BUT if you notice a difference every week on DC then im sold completely it takes me sometimes takes me ages to force more weight on myself.

Maybe you missed the bazillion bodybuilders then who focused on reps and high volume ? Only in the last 40 years ? have things come more and more into the strength focused area of progressing.

SIgh, i didn’t mean it in an absolutist way of saying NOTHING has advanced and i doubt you thought thats what i meant, new wheys, aminos etc etc have helped enormously so yes in the nutrition department… but training program wise i have stuck to the older programs and progressed really well, Hepburn, Poliquin and Gironda have been my 3 major influences only since joining here has Christian Thibeaudeau somewhat joined the other 3 in me utilizing their methods.

What you think works for you, is your opinion in short… and obviously volume guys who switch to low volume high intensity will blow up … thats been the way most bigger guys would do things.

In closing, i have not nor will i ever call you a “newbie” i have seen your posts/ argued with you on other stuff. ANd if DC gets you bigger and stronger more power to you, but i get a little narky when people dismiss the old way of doing things just because new programs are SOLD better and more often than not being WORSE than the older ones.

Thanks for the conversation, was enlightening.

Magarhe · November 15, 2008, 2:22pm

In my experience people defend routines because they have just started doing them, have had a bit of success, and want to justify the routine / effort / commitment / decision for that routine. Nothing wrong with that - building up belief in what you are doing, and belief that it will work - that is important to getting results.

However coming on a board like this you are going to get a tonne of conflicting beliefs from everyone, except from those old timers who know that EVERYTHING works, at some stage, for someone, for some time.

Magarhe · November 15, 2008, 2:30pm

[quote]Protoculture wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Where? Where is this credible evidence that 8x8 and 10x10 programs work brilliantly? Because Poliquin says so? Not good enough, let’s see some pictures of people who got huge off these programs.

Wasn’t Larry Scott (and others) trained by Vince Gironda, who recommended the 8x8 system?

Seems to have worked for them, unless you’re the type of guy who thinks Larry had an unimpressive physique.

As for other known Gironda trainees, most weren’t “famous”, but his gym did have a good reputation at the time, so I’m guessing Larry wasn’t his only success story.
[/quote]

Yeah, but Larry was exceptional and a bit of a freak. If born today would do a lot better, faster.

I would much rather learn from a trainer who has made thousands of ordinary people develop to a a really good stage - that won’t even be close to Larry - than focus on decades old methods that worked for the freaks of the time. I am not saying Gironda was wrong or his methods wrong - but even by Gironda’s admission, 8x8 was “advanced” - ie it was for the freaks at the time, genetically gifted, and chemically enhanced, and eating animal balls. And training and doing nothing much else. gironda never said “this is the best, EVERYONE should be doing this! All the time! And nothing else! And everything else is crap!”

300andabove · November 15, 2008, 2:58pm

AHEM by advanced he meant some idiot on his 1st day to the gym should not do it.

His version of advanced was at LEAST 2 years in the gym NOT a genetic freak (though that helps)

Cephalic_Carnage · November 15, 2008, 4:32pm

Leave it be Sento, its just a waste of time.

I was going to make one huge post commenting on all 300andabove said, but hey…
To each his own, whatever.

Sentoguy · November 15, 2008, 8:07pm

[quote]300andabove wrote:
1)You did 103 but found the strngth gains bad ? That is ONE of the most strength oriented programs out there, short of the 1-6 and others. I would think should you 103 or some other str oriented program THEN did 8*8 you would notice a difference, BUT if you notice a difference every week on DC then im sold completely it takes me sometimes takes me ages to force more weight on myself.
[/quote]

The strength gains were better on the 10x3 than they were on the 8x8, and I have done the 1-6 principle program as well (good strength gains, but a very short lived program).

The gains on DC are as good, if not better than any of the above mentioned programs though and I am continually able to blow away previous PR’s, while at the same time the scale keeps moving. Just look at Hanley’s progress on the “Discussing DoggCrapp” thread in the T-Cell for another example of just how effective that program is.

They have always been strength focused, it’s only in the ghost written articles published in M&F or Flex where these huge BB’ers supposedly use light weights with tons of work sets to get huge.

Which is fine, I could tell that you had been heavily influenced by Giordano and Poliquin by your writing, nothing wrong with that. I have respect for all of those guys (CT included) and what they write.

If what you’ve done has worked for you, more power to you.

It is, and it isn’t.

What works for me is what allows me to increase my muscle mass (including scale weight) and increase my poudages (strength) on a regular basis, and continue doing so on an ongoing basis for extended periods of time. I have no affiliations with any BB’ing programs, and don’t stand to make any money if I use program A over program B.

So, I’m only interested in what works, not my opinion of what works. If the scale says I’m getting heavier, my bf is not significantly increasing, and I am consistently getting stronger for the same number of reps, it means that I am building muscle. This isn’t opinion, this is evidence based on actual real world results.

[quote]
In closing, i have not nor will i ever call you a “newbie” i have seen your posts/ argued with you on other stuff. ANd if DC gets you bigger and stronger more power to you, but i get a little narky when people dismiss the old way of doing things just because new programs are SOLD better and more often than not being WORSE than the older ones.

Thanks for the conversation, was enlightening.[/quote]

Fair enough.

I’m also not dismissing the old ways of doing things, I’m about figuring out the similarities between effective programs, not the differences. It’s these common links; these root principles which all effective programs grow out of, that I’m after. So far I haven’t found any program that better exemplifies them, or cuts out all the extraneous clutter, than DC training.

Perhaps you feel differently and if so I hope that what you’re doing continues to keep working for you.

Sentoguy · November 15, 2008, 8:10pm

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Leave it be Sento, its just a waste of time.

I was going to make one huge post commenting on all 300andabove said, but hey…
To each his own, whatever.

[/quote]

Yeah, I hear you Carnage (didn’t see this until after I wrote my response, oh well). I agree, to each his own.

Protoculture · November 16, 2008, 3:10am

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Protoculture wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Where? Where is this credible evidence that 8x8 and 10x10 programs work brilliantly? Because Poliquin says so? Not good enough, let’s see some pictures of people who got huge off these programs.

Wasn’t Larry Scott (and others) trained by Vince Gironda, who recommended the 8x8 system?

Seems to have worked for them, unless you’re the type of guy who thinks Larry had an unimpressive physique.

As for other known Gironda trainees, most weren’t “famous”, but his gym did have a good reputation at the time, so I’m guessing Larry wasn’t his only success story.

Yeah, but Larry was exceptional and a bit of a freak. If born today would do a lot better, faster.

I would much rather learn from a trainer who has made thousands of ordinary people develop to a a really good stage - that won’t even be close to Larry - than focus on decades old methods that worked for the freaks of the time. I am not saying Gironda was wrong or his methods wrong - but even by Gironda’s admission, 8x8 was “advanced” - ie it was for the freaks at the time, genetically gifted, and chemically enhanced, and eating animal balls. And training and doing nothing much else. gironda never said “this is the best, EVERYONE should be doing this! All the time! And nothing else! And everything else is crap!”
[/quote]

A trainer who has made “thousands of ordinary people develop to a a really good stage”? Please tell me which trainer has made “thousands” look good on stage?

As far as high"er" volume programs being a bust or just for freaks - give me a break. Why is it that every time someone makes progress on a system that differs their favorite guru (ie: Mentzer, CW, CrossFit etc…) they are exceptions to the rule or on juice?

The guys on this site who have the best builds DO NOT shy away from volume or putting time in the gym. At least not if I base myself on the guys who aren’t afraid of showing their pictures. The guys at my gym with the best builds do not train 3 days per week. And to avoid any ambiguity when I say “volume” I’m referring to the guys who train 4-6 times a week for an hour or so.

As far as those who consider themselves experience but have had poor results from higher volume routines - most have admitted (in the past, but who knows what they will say during a debate) that only recently have they realized the importance of sufficient calories for hypertrophy.

So really, who gives a shit what their experience with higher volume training was if they weren’t eating to support growth?

ds77 · November 16, 2008, 2:27pm

Any reason there are no deadlifts at all in this program; seems like there should be at least some sets of deadlifts though would think that 8 x 8 deadlifts would be to much…maybe more like 3 x 8 deads or 3 x 5.

In general, the 8 x 8 program does seem like a lot; but i also have never tried it so will not try to say whether it is more or less effective than lower volume programs.

For me, the most effective workouts are those that i can follow on a consistent basis; this means taking into account the time i can realistically spend in the gym. Whenever i have tried long hour plus programs i start missing workouts due to time constraints; but thats just me. If one has the time and wants to try an 8 x 8 program; then more power to them; however, some consideration should be given to whether performing “other” exercises after a certain number of sets might be better than doing 8 sets of one exercise.

I know Arnold had said he had thought that he should of been doing 8 sets of squats rather than just 5; so in some cases 8 x 8 might have merit; but not sure this is case for every exercise.

Magarhe · November 16, 2008, 2:48pm

[quote]Protoculture wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Protoculture wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Where? Where is this credible evidence that 8x8 and 10x10 programs work brilliantly? Because Poliquin says so? Not good enough, let’s see some pictures of people who got huge off these programs.