By the say, I think a blog is an excellent idea Brick. I’d love to hear what you would have to say on nutrition.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
No, science tends to focus on WHY instead of HOW. Most scientists know that you cannot apply HOW to everyone equality, but if you understand the WHY you can apply it to anyone.
True, science is also blinded by self-interest and bias, just like the gym-lore. Yet, with gym-lore most of the big guys really have no idea to the WHY they were able to get big, just the HOW. And for most the HOW is not enough.
Yet, most people want hero’s and charismatic leaders, not the facts. People will ignore the facts of many studies in favor of anything, no matter how crazy, that comes from someone they admire. And presto - thousands of gyms with millions of people training and maybe 20 who actually get big from that advice.
You do the math!
I disagree. I think that how is enough for anyone. People don’t fail because there is a lack of information on how to build big muscles (in fact it’s probably the other extreme). You could tell 200 people exactly how to get big (I don’t care if you used anecdotal evidence, or scientific evidence to base that on) and most of them will still fail.
Most people fail because they simply aren’t willing to put in the consistency and effort to see results, not because they don’t understand on a cellular level the processes of protein synthesis, lypolysis, or exactly what amino acid triggers growth. Those things can all help, but they’re far less important in terms of success than actually doing what they need to do.
Science is indeed useful. The problem comes when scientists start telling successful BB’ers that what they did (successfully mind you) to reach their goals was wrong, especially when they are basing what they say on 12 week studies performed on previously untrained subjects, or lab rats.
Like you said, science can tell us why what works works. But the people in the trenches (the actual coaches and successful BB’ers around the world) will always be ahead of the scientific community, and will likely be credited with actually discovering what works.
The sport of BB’ing (from Sandow on, and quite possibly even before that) is the single largest, most extensive, most comprehensive and unforgiving scientific study of what builds muscles that will ever be conducted.
[/quote]
I don’t think the issue is that science is telling successful BB’s how to train. Those that are successful at what they are doing should keep doing what they have been until it doesn’t work anymore.
What science can do is help those who have been following what the big guys do, but despite committed effort, are not getting anywhere.
Just like some guys can eat all kinds of crap and not get fat, but most can’t. So taking advice from this kind of person would do no good for most people. This is where science helps distinguish between what works for most vs. what works for only a few.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
No, science tends to focus on WHY instead of HOW. Most scientists know that you cannot apply HOW to everyone equality, but if you understand the WHY you can apply it to anyone.
True, science is also blinded by self-interest and bias, just like the gym-lore. Yet, with gym-lore most of the big guys really have no idea to the WHY they were able to get big, just the HOW. And for most the HOW is not enough.
Yet, most people want hero’s and charismatic leaders, not the facts. People will ignore the facts of many studies in favor of anything, no matter how crazy, that comes from someone they admire. And presto - thousands of gyms with millions of people training and maybe 20 who actually get big from that advice.
You do the math!
I disagree. I think that how is enough for anyone. People don’t fail because there is a lack of information on how to build big muscles (in fact it’s probably the other extreme). You could tell 200 people exactly how to get big (I don’t care if you used anecdotal evidence, or scientific evidence to base that on) and most of them will still fail.
Most people fail because they simply aren’t willing to put in the consistency and effort to see results, not because they don’t understand on a cellular level the processes of protein synthesis, lypolysis, or exactly what amino acid triggers growth. Those things can all help, but they’re far less important in terms of success than actually doing what they need to do.
Science is indeed useful. The problem comes when scientists start telling successful BB’ers that what they did (successfully mind you) to reach their goals was wrong, especially when they are basing what they say on 12 week studies performed on previously untrained subjects, or lab rats.
Like you said, science can tell us why what works works. But the people in the trenches (the actual coaches and successful BB’ers around the world) will always be ahead of the scientific community, and will likely be credited with actually discovering what works.
The sport of BB’ing (from Sandow on, and quite possibly even before that) is the single largest, most extensive, most comprehensive and unforgiving scientific study of what builds muscles that will ever be conducted.
I don’t think the issue is that science is telling successful BB’s how to train. Those that are successful at what they are doing should keep doing what they have been until it doesn’t work anymore.
What science can do is help those who have been following what the big guys do, but despite committed effort, are not getting anywhere.
Just like some guys can eat all kinds of crap and not get fat, but most can’t. So taking advice from this kind of person would do no good for most people. This is where science helps distinguish between what works for most vs. what works for only a few.
[/quote]
I agree and disagree with you.
I agree that if what you have been doing isn’t working, then you need to change something.
But, you seem to be making it out to sound like the way that the majority of big, strong, BB’ers around the world (and not just the IFBB guys) train won’t work for the majority of people. I disagree with this.
Now, training like someone like Paul Dillet probably won’t work for the majority of people, because admittedly that guy is a genetic freak. But, training like someone like Dorian Yates will work for just about anyone who isn’t genetically predisposed to suck at BB’ing. And even then, someone would still see some results with that type of training, maybe not outstanding, but they aren’t going to see outstanding results with any kind of training.
The basic, core principles that are present in 99% of all big guys training will work for anyone who doesn’t have a muscle wasting disease, or some other freak genetic disorder that prevents protein synthesis, or something along those lines.
All someone needs to see results is to adhere to these principles, be consistent (with training, diet, and rest), and put their effort into BB’ing. They don’t need to know why what they are doing is working. Can it be useful to understand the why’s? Yes, especially if you are going to train/coach others. But it isn’t absolutely necessary.
Once again, most people (there are exceptions, but they’re pretty much fucked no matter what they do) will see results by following the basic principles that the pros adhere to (get progressively stronger, eat enough to facilitate growth, rest enough to recover). If someone isn’t seeing results, then chances are they are slacking in one of the above areas. Finding out where is of course an individual matter, and this is where the art aspect of training comes into play. But I’d honestly say that in most cases it’s diet related.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
No, science tends to focus on WHY instead of HOW. Most scientists know that you cannot apply HOW to everyone equality, but if you understand the WHY you can apply it to anyone.
True, science is also blinded by self-interest and bias, just like the gym-lore. Yet, with gym-lore most of the big guys really have no idea to the WHY they were able to get big, just the HOW. And for most the HOW is not enough.
Yet, most people want hero’s and charismatic leaders, not the facts. People will ignore the facts of many studies in favor of anything, no matter how crazy, that comes from someone they admire. And presto - thousands of gyms with millions of people training and maybe 20 who actually get big from that advice.
You do the math!
I disagree. I think that how is enough for anyone. People don’t fail because there is a lack of information on how to build big muscles (in fact it’s probably the other extreme). You could tell 200 people exactly how to get big (I don’t care if you used anecdotal evidence, or scientific evidence to base that on) and most of them will still fail.
Most people fail because they simply aren’t willing to put in the consistency and effort to see results, not because they don’t understand on a cellular level the processes of protein synthesis, lypolysis, or exactly what amino acid triggers growth. Those things can all help, but they’re far less important in terms of success than actually doing what they need to do.
Science is indeed useful. The problem comes when scientists start telling successful BB’ers that what they did (successfully mind you) to reach their goals was wrong, especially when they are basing what they say on 12 week studies performed on previously untrained subjects, or lab rats.
Like you said, science can tell us why what works works. But the people in the trenches (the actual coaches and successful BB’ers around the world) will always be ahead of the scientific community, and will likely be credited with actually discovering what works.
The sport of BB’ing (from Sandow on, and quite possibly even before that) is the single largest, most extensive, most comprehensive and unforgiving scientific study of what builds muscles that will ever be conducted.
I don’t think the issue is that science is telling successful BB’s how to train. Those that are successful at what they are doing should keep doing what they have been until it doesn’t work anymore.
What science can do is help those who have been following what the big guys do, but despite committed effort, are not getting anywhere.
Just like some guys can eat all kinds of crap and not get fat, but most can’t. So taking advice from this kind of person would do no good for most people. This is where science helps distinguish between what works for most vs. what works for only a few.
I agree and disagree with you.
I agree that if what you have been doing isn’t working, then you need to change something.
But, you seem to be making it out to sound like the way that the majority of big, strong, BB’ers around the world (and not just the IFBB guys) train won’t work for the majority of people. I disagree with this.
Now, training like someone like Paul Dillet probably won’t work for the majority of people, because admittedly that guy is a genetic freak. But, training like someone like Dorian Yates will work for just about anyone who isn’t genetically predisposed to suck at BB’ing. And even then, someone would still see some results with that type of training, maybe not outstanding, but they aren’t going to see outstanding results with any kind of training.
The basic, core principles that are present in 99% of all big guys training will work for anyone who doesn’t have a muscle wasting disease, or some other freak genetic disorder that prevents protein synthesis, or something along those lines.
All someone needs to see results is to adhere to these principles, be consistent (with training, diet, and rest), and put their effort into BB’ing. They don’t need to know why what they are doing is working. Can it be useful to understand the why’s? Yes, especially if you are going to train/coach others. But it isn’t absolutely necessary.
Once again, most people (there are exceptions, but they’re pretty much fucked no matter what they do) will see results by following the basic principles that the pros adhere to (get progressively stronger, eat enough to facilitate growth, rest enough to recover). If someone isn’t seeing results, then chances are they are slacking in one of the above areas. Finding out where is of course an individual matter, and this is where the art aspect of training comes into play. But I’d honestly say that in most cases it’s diet related.[/quote]
I’d like to add that I do not see too many people “follow what the big guys do”.
Most instead:
-Keep their bf as low as they can, at all times.
-Avoid lifting heavier and intensely like the plague and look for any possible way out (which certain internet gurus conveniently provide).
-Do some multiple-sets-at-same-weight approach (which works only for very few people, and strength increases take much longer than on the traditional ramping system, at least in the hypertrophy zone).
-Think that “strength” means being able to lift something heavy ONCE.
-Just don’t get that lifting a whole damn lot for 6-12 (or whatever rep range you respond best to) times is what makes you big.
-Have never really tried standard BB training (while eating enough and busting ass) yet know exactly (from reading articles by people who have nothing to do with bbing) that standard bb methods don’t work for “the majority”.
-Remain fairly small due to their ridiculous training philosophy and diet. They now blame genetics or consider their insignificant progress normal.
Or, even better, they simply say that they never wanted to get big anyway.
-Think that every single huge guy is a genetic freak.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I agree and disagree with you.
I agree that if what you have been doing isn’t working, then you need to change something.
But, you seem to be making it out to sound like the way that the majority of big, strong, BB’ers around the world (and not just the IFBB guys) train won’t work for the majority of people. I disagree with this.
Now, training like someone like Paul Dillet probably won’t work for the majority of people, because admittedly that guy is a genetic freak. But, training like someone like Dorian Yates will work for just about anyone who isn’t genetically predisposed to suck at BB’ing. And even then, someone would still see some results with that type of training, maybe not outstanding, but they aren’t going to see outstanding results with any kind of training.
[/quote]
It is difficult to discuss training using chemically enhanced BB’s as examples. I think that the rules of training on the juice are different than natural BB’s. So using Dorian Yates and others as examples is not an apples to apples comparison.
As for the training principles, it depends on what you mean. Science has established certain principles that apply to all training:
�?� Stimulus Leads to Adaptation (cause and effect)
�?� Specific Adaptation to Implied Demands (SAID)
�?� Progressive Resistance
�?� Some relationship between Time and Tension
�?� Diminishing Returns
So if you are talking about these, then I agree. However, my issue is not that a Dorian Yates workout will not work for people. My issue is that it will not work for ever or for very long without change (meaning years). You can see all sorts of examples of this on this thread and site. They say: I made great gains on this workout…and then I stopped growing.
So my issue is that there really isn’t a magic program that works best for everyone. Your body is designed to adapt and that is why any program will need to be changed eventually for continued growth.
And due to the limited amount of CNS resources most people have (off the juice), the most intense programs need to be changed more often than the less intense program. So IMO, multiple set less intense programs, by design, can give gains for longer than a high intensity low volume program.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
It is difficult to discuss training using chemically enhanced BB’s as examples. I think that the rules of training on the juice are different than natural BB’s. So using Dorian Yates and others as examples is not an apples to apples comparison.
[/quote]
Ok, fair enough. I used Dorian because he is a fairly well know pro, who did not have outstanding genetics. They obviously weren’t crap either, but not outstanding. Yes, he used gear, so that does change things (some).
The problem is that if I used a natural BB’er (first, are they lifetime natural, or just natural during the competition?), most people probably would have no idea who I was talking about. I used Dorian for his notoriety.
Most of the time when someone stops growing it’s because they need to change something, this I agree with. But, what that thing is might have nothing to do with their training. In fact, in the majority of cases that I see (both on this forum and in real life) all the person would need to do would be to eat more, and viola they would start growing again, no change in program required.
The majority people who I know personally, and who I see on the web who put on substantial amounts of muscle do not change their programs frequently. Sure they might switch out an exercise here or there when they plateau on it, but their general program design remains the same for extended periods of time (years in many cases) and continues working.
You know, I hear things like this all the time, but I don’t really think that they’re true. I’m not arguing that you will never need to change your program, but I am arguing as to the reason why you may need to change your program.
When you first start out you are lifting relatively light weights, and probably don’t have the mental fortitude or physical strength to really push yourself to the point where you’re going to run into overtraining or injury. So, you can train each muscle group fairly frequently and still continue to grow.
As you enter the intermediate stage, now you are lifting some decent weights and are capable of taxing your recovery systems more. So, your program must change to allow for more recovery. This could mean less volume, less frequency, less muscle groups worked per session, etc…
Finally you enter the advanced stage and are now lifting some serious iron. At this point overtraining is a very real concern, so again your program must change to allow for yet even more recovery than you needed in the intermediate stage. You may even need to start employing things like regular deloading periods, active recovery methods, etc… to ensure that you don’t burn yourself out too much.
None of these have to do with “adapting” as it’s commonly used. Building muscle is an adaptation, you want adaptation. As long as the resistance continues to increase (and you give your body enough nutrients to allow it to adapt) your body will never “adapt” to a program to the point where it stops working.
It’s true that the more CNS intensive a program, the more frequently breaks will be required. That doesn’t mean that you need to change programs frequently though. It simply means that you’ll probably need to take back off periods more frequently.
Multiple set, less intense programs may indeed be able to be used for long durations. But in my experience, they suck when it comes to load progression (especially when looked at over a long term), and do not produce anywhere near the gains that more traditional programs do (ramping up to a top set per exercise, anywhere from 1-4 exercises per body part is average).
Again, show me the pictures (or videos) of all of the huge people who built their muscle mass using multiple less intense set programs. I’m willing to bet that I could provide substantially more examples of people who have used traditional methods.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
You know, I hear things like this all the time, but I don’t really think that they’re true. I’m not arguing that you will never need to change your program, but I am arguing as to the reason why you may need to change your program.
When you first start out you are lifting relatively light weights, and probably don’t have the mental fortitude or physical strength to really push yourself to the point where you’re going to run into overtraining or injury. So, you can train each muscle group fairly frequently and still continue to grow.
As you enter the intermediate stage, now you are lifting some decent weights and are capable of taxing your recovery systems more. So, your program must change to allow for more recovery. This could mean less volume, less frequency, less muscle groups worked per session, etc…
Finally you enter the advanced stage and are now lifting some serious iron. At this point overtraining is a very real concern, so again your program must change to allow for yet even more recovery than you needed in the intermediate stage.
You may even need to start employing things like regular deloading periods, active recovery methods, etc… to ensure that you don’t burn yourself out too much.
None of these have to do with “adapting” as it’s commonly used. Building muscle is an adaptation, you want adaptation. As long as the resistance continues to increase (and you give your body enough nutrients to allow it to adapt) your body will never “adapt” to a program to the point where it stops working.
[/quote]
I guess you view program changes differently than I do as all these changes you have outlined above I view as actual changes in your training program. I agree with this approach, but view it as program change.
[quote]
It’s true that the more CNS intensive a program, the more frequently breaks will be required. That doesn’t mean that you need to change programs frequently though. It simply means that you’ll probably need to take back off periods more frequently.
Multiple set, less intense programs may indeed be able to be used for long durations. But in my experience, they suck when it comes to load progression (especially when looked at over a long term), and do not produce anywhere near the gains that more traditional programs do (ramping up to a top set per exercise, anywhere from 1-4 exercises per body part is average).
Again, show me the pictures (or videos) of all of the huge people who built their muscle mass using multiple less intense set programs. I’m willing to bet that I could provide substantially more examples of people who have used traditional methods.[/quote]
It is interesting to me that you view low volume programs as -traditional- when the fact is that most all modern day top BB’s used multiple set programs from the early 50’s on. It seems strange that you think there is a good comparison with low volume BB’s as well.
The fact is that almost 80% of Mr Olympia winners since 1965 have used multiple sets: Arnold, Franco Columbu, Larry Scott, Sergio Oliva, Frank Zane, Chris Dickerson, Samir Bannout, and Lee Haney.
Also very prominent BB’s like Vince Gironda, Dave Draper, and Lou Ferrigno used multiple sets.
I don’t usually use top BB’s as examples because I don’t feel it reflects the average person’s ability and genetics. But clearly there are more top BB’s using multiple sets than low volume and clearly multiple sets is the -traditional- approach from as far back as the 1960’s.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
You know, I hear things like this all the time, but I don’t really think that they’re true. I’m not arguing that you will never need to change your program, but I am arguing as to the reason why you may need to change your program.
When you first start out you are lifting relatively light weights, and probably don’t have the mental fortitude or physical strength to really push yourself to the point where you’re going to run into overtraining or injury. So, you can train each muscle group fairly frequently and still continue to grow.
As you enter the intermediate stage, now you are lifting some decent weights and are capable of taxing your recovery systems more. So, your program must change to allow for more recovery. This could mean less volume, less frequency, less muscle groups worked per session, etc…
Finally you enter the advanced stage and are now lifting some serious iron. At this point overtraining is a very real concern, so again your program must change to allow for yet even more recovery than you needed in the intermediate stage. You may even need to start employing things like regular deloading periods, active recovery methods, etc… to ensure that you don’t burn yourself out too much.
None of these have to do with “adapting” as it’s commonly used. Building muscle is an adaptation, you want adaptation. As long as the resistance continues to increase (and you give your body enough nutrients to allow it to adapt) your body will never “adapt” to a program to the point where it stops working.
I guess you view program changes differently than I do as all these changes you have outlined above I view as actual changes in your training program. I agree with this approach, but view it as program change.
[/quote]
I didn’t mean to say that those weren’t program changes, they are. My point was that your body doesn’t “adapt” to a program (making it no longer productive), but instead your program must change (adapt if you want) as your body becomes stronger and more capable of taxing it’s recovery systems.
By low volume I mean low volume of “work sets” (this topic has already been beaten to death, but by “work set” I mean pyramiding up to a final top PR set), not total sets (which would include warm-up/ramping sets). I do not mean HIT (or 1 set period per muscle group).
And even then, Oliva has gone on record as saying that he felt that he was in his best condition ever after training with Jones. Franco also apparently very much enjoyed training with Jones and his HIT programs.
Also, are you suggesting that any of the people you mentioned were for multiple set/sub failure training? I’ve never seen any footage of Arnold, Franco, or anyone else you mentioned doing multiple sets at the same weight and stopping before they had to.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
By low volume I mean low volume of “work sets” (this topic has already been beaten to death, but by “work set” I mean pyramiding up to a final top PR set), not total sets (which would include warm-up/ramping sets). I do not mean HIT (or 1 set period per muscle group).
And even then, Oliva has gone on record as saying that he felt that he was in his best condition ever after training with Jones. Franco also apparently very much enjoyed training with Jones and his HIT programs.
Also, are you suggesting that any of the people you mentioned were for multiple set/sub failure training? I’ve never seen any footage of Arnold, Franco, or anyone else you mentioned doing multiple sets at the same weight and stopping before they had to.[/quote]
I think my overall point would be that most of these champions used multiple sets of the same load for most of their training. The fact that some did use lower volume intense routines like HIT just shows that they varied their training approach, which I totally agree with.
So how many total sets do you perform including warm up, ramping, work sets?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
By low volume I mean low volume of “work sets” (this topic has already been beaten to death, but by “work set” I mean pyramiding up to a final top PR set), not total sets (which would include warm-up/ramping sets). I do not mean HIT (or 1 set period per muscle group).
And even then, Oliva has gone on record as saying that he felt that he was in his best condition ever after training with Jones. Franco also apparently very much enjoyed training with Jones and his HIT programs.
Also, are you suggesting that any of the people you mentioned were for multiple set/sub failure training? I’ve never seen any footage of Arnold, Franco, or anyone else you mentioned doing multiple sets at the same weight and stopping before they had to.
I think my overall point would be that most of these champions used multiple sets of the same load for most of their training. The fact that some did use lower volume intense routines like HIT just shows that they varied their training approach, which I totally agree with.
So how many total sets do you perform including warm up, ramping, work sets?
[/quote]
As many as I need. If it’s a particularly cold day, I’ll do more warm-up/ramping sets. If it’s really hot, I’ll usually do less. If it’s early morning I’ll do more, evening, less. If I’m tired I’ll do more; wide awake, less.
Also, why do you say that they did multiple set/same weight routines? Do you have video evidence that they did so? Because I haven’t ever seen any. If you do please post it, it’s always great to see the champs (past or present) training.
I’ve read lots of ghost written articles that say that such and such BB’er trains doing multiple sets of an exercise. And if you listened to the majority of trainers out there (or articles) you’d think that means that they do multiple sets at the same weight. But, when you actually watch them train, they ramp their sets up to a top weight.
Evidence time. Here are just a few vids of big, strong guys training, ramping up to a top set. These are just a few who do this. If you have video proof of others doing multiple set submaximal sets who are equally big (if not bigger) please post them.
Branch Warren and Johnnie Jackson
Ronnie Coleman
Flex Wheeler
Justin Harris
Steve Kuclo
Jason Wojo
David Henry
Here are some pics of some more:
http://www.intensemuscle.com/9478-dc-trainee-gallery.html
No offense to the OP, but does anyone else here hate “blogs”? I really don’t get the point, nor find them helpful. They just seem like random postings that are not easy to navigate.
Obviously blogs are proven effective, I’ve just never gotten the point of them.
BTW, sorry about the hijack Brick.
Have you made any solid decision as to whether or not you are going to start your blog?
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Also, why do you say that they did multiple set/same weight routines? Do you have video evidence that they did so? Because I haven’t ever seen any. If you do please post it, it’s always great to see the champs (past or present) training.
I’ve read lots of ghost written articles that say that such and such BB’er trains doing multiple sets of an exercise. And if you listened to the majority of trainers out there (or articles) you’d think that means that they do multiple sets at the same weight. But, when you actually watch them train, they ramp their sets up to a top weight.
[/quote]
I can’t get to any vids right now, but I do have books written by most of these guys and they all list multiple sets of the same load. And in fact, Franco’s book actually states to not do more (meaning go to failure) in any workout even if you feel like it because he feels it will hurt your future progress.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Also, why do you say that they did multiple set/same weight routines? Do you have video evidence that they did so? Because I haven’t ever seen any. If you do please post it, it’s always great to see the champs (past or present) training.
I’ve read lots of ghost written articles that say that such and such BB’er trains doing multiple sets of an exercise. And if you listened to the majority of trainers out there (or articles) you’d think that means that they do multiple sets at the same weight. But, when you actually watch them train, they ramp their sets up to a top weight.
I can’t get to any vids right now, but I do have books written by most of these guys and they all list multiple sets of the same load. And in fact, Franco’s book actually states to not do more (meaning go to failure) in any workout even if you feel like it because he feels it will hurt your future progress.
[/quote]
Even Arnold wrote something like that (if I remember correctly), something like: “select a weight that let’s you fail at the desired rep-range for each set…”
Look at his vids. What does he do? Not what he wrote in that book/article/whatever.
Same for using good form/textbook form/what-have-you.
They ALL write that, yet all of them use loose form, half reps, etc.
(Of course they cheat properly and also do their half reps in the part of the ROM (usually the bottom half) that hit’s the targeted muscle the hardest. A lot of people don’t know that and thus misinterpret all of it.)
I certainly believe that you’ve read such things, I have as well. Unfortunately, it’s not what people do in reality.
Sento,
Thank you for the interest.
I don’t think this thread was hijacked as long as it dealt with important bodybuilding matters (ie: not "how awesome is my new program?; “how do I get big?”; or “I want so-and-so to write his routine”).
Here is the thing. I have been doing some homework as I said, because I am not so internet savvy. I never developed a website or ran one or worked on one. From what I am reading it would be better to develop an internet marketing website and have a blog linked to that main site.
I ordered Bob Bly’s Internet Marketing Retirement Plan and it goes through EVERY facet of developing an internet marketing website. In case everyone doesn’t know, Bob Bly is regarded as one of THE best copywriter in this country and has done work for IBM, McGraw Hill, Cosmopolitan, and a whole slew of others, including some top financial services firms. I live in Queens. I have not met one person from the marketing and advertising industries who has not heard of Bly (www.bly.com). So, his product ain’t shit, despite its catchy name. It should have been correctly titled “Here is How to Make Money On the Net If You Have a High IQ
!”
He said on his blog once that it is far more labor useful to develop a site selling information products and then have a blog to develop that site. Here is the kicker though. I know quite more on nutrition and exercisee than many people. Not a CT, but working towards it, or perhaps working to a PORTION of his success over the long term. I REALLY would like to come up with an information product. However, I do not know of one idea that has not been done already!
I’d like to come up with an exercise demonstration video. Milos Sarcev already has one through BB.com and obviously, I ain’t Milos Sarcev! Plus, what I am going to do differently?
I can write an e-book on bodybuilding or nutrition. Again, what is new to say? I know I am being pessimistic which may be a tad useful when trying to come up with worthwhile ideas. I am not questioning my competency or potential competency.
Other e-books that I CAN write about which are NOT sexy or glamorous or BB related would be health and nutriton related:
-Obesity
-Dieting for DM
-Gastroparesis
-Dieting for Kidney Disorders
-Eating Disorders
-Body Image Disorders
The thing that would make these health, nutrition related, and bodybuilding related topics is my own style.
Perhaps I am being a bit too cynical. I do think there is a group out there that would related to a guy doing what they do: not setting the BB world on fire per se, but still going to the gym and being serious about things. MOST of the gurus out there, do not compete themselves and MANY do not even look remotely like a bodybuilder. Dan Duchaine and Will Brink certainly don’t hold as examples of jackedness and this is not t insult them.
Plus, I would like articles and contest coverage and interviews on my website which would make people go to the site and perhaps buy things.
I like a lot of you guys on here and love speaking to you guys. With that said…
“Am I being too pessimistic or hard on myself?”
“What kind of products would yoyu think others would like or you would like?”
Bly states that if this were done part time to a regular job, it will take 1.5 to 3 years until you can have a full time income from it. I’d like to start with baby steps as he said. Come up with one product, develop some main site, add a blog and take it from there each week until its something nice.
I like this stuff but I am also an expressive and creative person. I would love nothing better than to have my own creation expressing what I do and my thoughts on my hobby and profession. I do not intend to be the next BB.com or T-Mag.com. I just want to earn a decent living with a home business of something I truly love and can do well.
Thanks to all. And I really mean this.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Also, why do you say that they did multiple set/same weight routines? Do you have video evidence that they did so? Because I haven’t ever seen any. If you do please post it, it’s always great to see the champs (past or present) training.
I’ve read lots of ghost written articles that say that such and such BB’er trains doing multiple sets of an exercise. And if you listened to the majority of trainers out there (or articles) you’d think that means that they do multiple sets at the same weight. But, when you actually watch them train, they ramp their sets up to a top weight.
I can’t get to any vids right now, but I do have books written by most of these guys and they all list multiple sets of the same load. And in fact, Franco’s book actually states to not do more (meaning go to failure) in any workout even if you feel like it because he feels it will hurt your future progress.
Even Arnold wrote something like that (if I remember correctly), something like: “select a weight that let’s you fail at the desired rep-range for each set…”
Look at his vids. What does he do? Not what he wrote in that book/article/whatever.
Same for using good form/textbook form/what-have-you.
They ALL write that, yet all of them use loose form, half reps, etc.
(Of course they cheat properly and also do their half reps in the part of the ROM (usually the bottom half) that hit’s the targeted muscle the hardest. A lot of people don’t know that and thus misinterpret all of it.)
I certainly believe that you’ve read such things, I have as well. Unfortunately, it’s not what people do in reality.
[/quote]
That’s very true. I think they all use juice and don’t state that in their books either.
As for half reps, I have to disagree with you. They do not target the muscle the hardest. They target the muscle fibers in that ROM the hardest. But also only strengthen that rep range, not the entire ROM. If anything, because of the joint angle, they allow more TUT, which would be beneficial to hypertrophy. But would not work well or the best for a strength only focus.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Also, why do you say that they did multiple set/same weight routines? Do you have video evidence that they did so? Because I haven’t ever seen any. If you do please post it, it’s always great to see the champs (past or present) training.
I’ve read lots of ghost written articles that say that such and such BB’er trains doing multiple sets of an exercise. And if you listened to the majority of trainers out there (or articles) you’d think that means that they do multiple sets at the same weight. But, when you actually watch them train, they ramp their sets up to a top weight.
I can’t get to any vids right now, but I do have books written by most of these guys and they all list multiple sets of the same load. And in fact, Franco’s book actually states to not do more (meaning go to failure) in any workout even if you feel like it because he feels it will hurt your future progress.
Even Arnold wrote something like that (if I remember correctly), something like: “select a weight that let’s you fail at the desired rep-range for each set…”
Look at his vids. What does he do? Not what he wrote in that book/article/whatever.
Same for using good form/textbook form/what-have-you.
They ALL write that, yet all of them use loose form, half reps, etc.
(Of course they cheat properly and also do their half reps in the part of the ROM (usually the bottom half) that hit’s the targeted muscle the hardest. A lot of people don’t know that and thus misinterpret all of it.)
I certainly believe that you’ve read such things, I have as well. Unfortunately, it’s not what people do in reality.
That’s very true. I think they all use juice and don’t state that in their books either.
As for half reps, I have to disagree with you. They do not target the muscle the hardest. They target the muscle fibers in that ROM the hardest. But also only strengthen that rep range, not the entire ROM. If anything, because of the joint angle, they allow more TUT, which would be beneficial to hypertrophy. But would not work well or the best for a strength only focus.
[/quote]
Ahhh…but aren’t we talking about BB’ing, not a strength only focus?
Also, you are aware that the fibers run lengthwise throughout the muscle right? So, there are no fibers that are recruited at the bottom ROM of a rep that aren’t recruited in the top ROM of a rep. You know that right?
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Sento,
Thank you for the interest.
I don’t think this thread was hijacked as long as it dealt with important bodybuilding matters (ie: not "how awesome is my new program?; “how do I get big?”; or “I want so-and-so to write his routine”).
Here is the thing. I have been doing some homework as I said, because I am not so internet savvy. I never developed a website or ran one or worked on one. From what I am reading it would be better to develop an internet marketing website and have a blog linked to that main site.
I ordered Bob Bly’s Internet Marketing Retirement Plan and it goes through EVERY facet of developing an internet marketing website. In case everyone doesn’t know, Bob Bly is regarded as one of THE best copywriter in this country and has done work for IBM, McGraw Hill, Cosmopolitan, and a whole slew of others, including some top financial services firms. I live in Queens. I have not met one person from the marketing and advertising industries who has not heard of Bly (www.bly.com). So, his product ain’t shit, despite its catchy name. It should have been correctly titled “Here is How to Make Money On the Net If You Have a High IQ
!”
He said on his blog once that it is far more labor useful to develop a site selling information products and then have a blog to develop that site. Here is the kicker though. I know quite more on nutrition and exercisee than many people. Not a CT, but working towards it, or perhaps working to a PORTION of his success over the long term. I REALLY would like to come up with an information product. However, I do not know of one idea that has not been done already!
I’d like to come up with an exercise demonstration video. Milos Sarcev already has one through BB.com and obviously, I ain’t Milos Sarcev! Plus, what I am going to do differently?
I can write an e-book on bodybuilding or nutrition. Again, what is new to say? I know I am being pessimistic which may be a tad useful when trying to come up with worthwhile ideas. I am not questioning my competency or potential competency.
Other e-books that I CAN write about which are NOT sexy or glamorous or BB related would be health and nutriton related:
-Obesity
-Dieting for DM
-Gastroparesis
-Dieting for Kidney Disorders
-Eating Disorders
-Body Image Disorders
The thing that would make these health, nutrition related, and bodybuilding related topics is my own style.
Perhaps I am being a bit too cynical. I do think there is a group out there that would related to a guy doing what they do: not setting the BB world on fire per se, but still going to the gym and being serious about things. MOST of the gurus out there, do not compete themselves and MANY do not even look remotely like a bodybuilder. Dan Duchaine and Will Brink certainly don’t hold as examples of jackedness and this is not t insult them.
Plus, I would like articles and contest coverage and interviews on my website which would make people go to the site and perhaps buy things.
I like a lot of you guys on here and love speaking to you guys. With that said…
“Am I being too pessimistic or hard on myself?”
“What kind of products would yoyu think others would like or you would like?”
Bly states that if this were done part time to a regular job, it will take 1.5 to 3 years until you can have a full time income from it. I’d like to start with baby steps as he said. Come up with one product, develop some main site, add a blog and take it from there each week until its something nice.
I like this stuff but I am also an expressive and creative person. I would love nothing better than to have my own creation expressing what I do and my thoughts on my hobby and profession. I do not intend to be the next BB.com or T-Mag.com. I just want to earn a decent living with a home business of something I truly love and can do well.
Thanks to all. And I really mean this. [/quote]
Hey Brick.
I don’t think you are being too hard on yourself. It’s pretty easy to see that you are truly passionate about this subject and really want to do it right (along with being successful at it). So it’s only natural that you would put a lot of thought into it before actually taking the plunge.
I personally don’t have any experience with writing an e-book, or running a website/blog, so I can’t give you too much advice as far as that goes.
I will say though that personally I am always interested in reading about what other successful people do, especially when it comes to diet. Being that you are an RD I’m sure that you could provide some very useful information as far as diet goes.
I would like to see a book that explained your dietary methodology, included some of your favorite recipes, tips on how to eat big without spending a fortune on food (fairly cheap yet tasty foods and recipes), tips on food preparation, your opinions/results on things like nutrient timing, macronutrient ratios, eating for different body types, and fairly easy ways to adjust your diet to reach your goals.
Also, maybe things like your thoughts on force feeding, or ways to allow you to eat more calories while gaining, or ways to maximize fat loss or get beyond a plateau when dieting.
As far as the possible e-books that you mentioned, I’d suspect that a book on obesity would probably sell the most (or at least one on losing fat). Obesity is a growing epidemic in the states, so it’s not like you would have any shortage of potential target group customers in that area. Would the book include just diet? Or would it include everything from diet to weight training to cardio?
Finally, as far as not having lots of new things to say in a book…personally when I read a book on nutrition, or weight training, or anything that I’ve done a substantial amount of research on and spent a good amount of time experimenting with, I’m not looking to read something that is full of things I didn’t already know.
The more you learn about things, the less you are going to tend to learn from any one source. But, even if I get one maybe two really useful little tips, tricks, concepts or anything new and applicable I consider that source to be worthwhile.
Now, someone who has spent less time researching and practicing than myself is only going to come away with more from that source than I did. So I’d write with the intention that you are trying to tell someone how to go about doing things (whether it be diet or training) the best way that you know how from scratch.
Things like how to set up your kitchen to best allow you to cook, store, and access your foods; what tools you feel are necessities (i.e. food scale, tupperwares, etc…); how to order healthy BB’er food if you go out to a restaurant; things like that. Things that most books don’t address but can be very helpful.
If it was about training than things like; how to choose a gym; how to spot; why they shouldn’t be afraid of approaching the more experienced people at their gym and asking them questions; maybe some tips on motivation, intensity, or consistency; your thoughts on training splits/exercise selection; things that are not only going to make them successful BB’ers, but are also going to make them successful members of gym culture and allow them to enjoy the experience much more.
That’s all I can think of right now. If I think of more I’ll let you know. Hope this helps.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Also, why do you say that they did multiple set/same weight routines? Do you have video evidence that they did so? Because I haven’t ever seen any. If you do please post it, it’s always great to see the champs (past or present) training.
I’ve read lots of ghost written articles that say that such and such BB’er trains doing multiple sets of an exercise. And if you listened to the majority of trainers out there (or articles) you’d think that means that they do multiple sets at the same weight. But, when you actually watch them train, they ramp their sets up to a top weight.
I can’t get to any vids right now, but I do have books written by most of these guys and they all list multiple sets of the same load. And in fact, Franco’s book actually states to not do more (meaning go to failure) in any workout even if you feel like it because he feels it will hurt your future progress.
Even Arnold wrote something like that (if I remember correctly), something like: “select a weight that let’s you fail at the desired rep-range for each set…”
Look at his vids. What does he do? Not what he wrote in that book/article/whatever.
Same for using good form/textbook form/what-have-you.
They ALL write that, yet all of them use loose form, half reps, etc.
(Of course they cheat properly and also do their half reps in the part of the ROM (usually the bottom half) that hit’s the targeted muscle the hardest. A lot of people don’t know that and thus misinterpret all of it.)
I certainly believe that you’ve read such things, I have as well. Unfortunately, it’s not what people do in reality.
That’s very true. I think they all use juice and don’t state that in their books either.
As for half reps, I have to disagree with you. They do not target the muscle the hardest. They target the muscle fibers in that ROM the hardest. But also only strengthen that rep range, not the entire ROM. If anything, because of the joint angle, they allow more TUT, which would be beneficial to hypertrophy. But would not work well or the best for a strength only focus.
Ahhh…but aren’t we talking about BB’ing, not a strength only focus?
[/quote]
Yes, that is why I mentioned TUT (time under tension), which is a main factor in hypertrophy, but not so much for strength only.
[quote]
Also, you are aware that the fibers run lengthwise throughout the muscle right? So, there are no fibers that are recruited at the bottom ROM of a rep that aren’t recruited in the top ROM of a rep. You know that right?[/quote]
You know it’s actually motor units that are recruited and not individual fibers, right?
You also know they don’t run lengthwise, right?
So the direction of the fibers is irrelevant as there are many motor units that activate differently all along the fiber. You know that, right?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
Also, why do you say that they did multiple set/same weight routines? Do you have video evidence that they did so? Because I haven’t ever seen any. If you do please post it, it’s always great to see the champs (past or present) training.
I’ve read lots of ghost written articles that say that such and such BB’er trains doing multiple sets of an exercise. And if you listened to the majority of trainers out there (or articles) you’d think that means that they do multiple sets at the same weight. But, when you actually watch them train, they ramp their sets up to a top weight.
I can’t get to any vids right now, but I do have books written by most of these guys and they all list multiple sets of the same load. And in fact, Franco’s book actually states to not do more (meaning go to failure) in any workout even if you feel like it because he feels it will hurt your future progress.
Even Arnold wrote something like that (if I remember correctly), something like: “select a weight that let’s you fail at the desired rep-range for each set…”
Look at his vids. What does he do? Not what he wrote in that book/article/whatever.
Same for using good form/textbook form/what-have-you.
They ALL write that, yet all of them use loose form, half reps, etc.
(Of course they cheat properly and also do their half reps in the part of the ROM (usually the bottom half) that hit’s the targeted muscle the hardest. A lot of people don’t know that and thus misinterpret all of it.)
I certainly believe that you’ve read such things, I have as well. Unfortunately, it’s not what people do in reality.
That’s very true. I think they all use juice and don’t state that in their books either.
As for half reps, I have to disagree with you. They do not target the muscle the hardest. They target the muscle fibers in that ROM the hardest. But also only strengthen that rep range, not the entire ROM. If anything, because of the joint angle, they allow more TUT, which would be beneficial to hypertrophy. But would not work well or the best for a strength only focus.
Ahhh…but aren’t we talking about BB’ing, not a strength only focus?
Yes, that is why I mentioned TUT (time under tension), which is a main factor in hypertrophy, but not so much for strength only.
Also, you are aware that the fibers run lengthwise throughout the muscle right? So, there are no fibers that are recruited at the bottom ROM of a rep that aren’t recruited in the top ROM of a rep. You know that right?
You know it’s actually motor units that are recruited and not individual fibers, right?
[/quote]
Yup, and you know that if a motor unit is recruited then all of the fibers it innervates is recruited. Right? That still doesn’t change anything.
By lengthwise I mean origin to insertion, not necessarily in an exactly straight line (depending on what shape the muscle is). So, yes, the do run lengthwise, see attached illustration.
If they didn’t run lengthwise and instead ran widthwise then muscular contraction either would not occur, or would have to be performed in a completely different form than huxley’s sliding fillament theory states that it does (which is the accepted theory on how muscular contraction occurs).
The direction of the fibers is not irrelevant. My point is that when muscular contraction occurs, the insertion is pulled to the origin. This is caused by the fibers shortening, by way of all of the sarcomeres along it’s length shortening, by way of the actin/myosin cross bridges pulling on each other. All of the sarcomeres along a fiber shorten as contraction occurs, not some at the beginning and some at the end. The ROM only determines how shortened the sarcomeres/fiber are. So you don’t have full contraction at the bottom ROM if that’s what you are referring to.
Now I will agree that there are numerous MU’s that activate different fibers, but this has more to do with things like the load being lifted, the speed of contraction, and the presence of fatigue than it does with ROM.