Age Old Question: Size First or Cut First?

Training Bodybuilding
181

I started lifting in March of 2006 at 155 lbs. I did nothing but TBT for the first year and a half or so and got up to about 180. From there I went to WS4SB and got up to about 190-192. I stalled in gaining weight for a while. Then over the past couple of months I switched to the old school body part split of chest/back,legs, shoulders/arms and got up to about 195. There’s a couple of pics in my profile from when I was about 190.

Overall though I think that TBT is good for gaining overall mass but I’ve definitely got a lot of work to do now with bringing up my arms and chest because my legs and back grow super fast comparatively. Obviously I didn’t do only compound exercises. I always did 3 big lifts and 3 isolations with TBT. Even with the split I’m doing now I do two compounds and one isolation for each muscle group. The main thing is just changing your routine when things start to stall and finding a good balance between compound and isolation.

Anyways, It’s pretty lame that people advocate only doing one or the other. Even Chad Waterbury starting adding 5 minutes at the end of his workouts for isolation movements.

182

[quote]jstreet0204 wrote:

Point being, there are different ways to get big, but taking options off the table because of some arbitrary guildlines may mean taking off the options that work best for you.[/quote]

Good post. That right there needs to be repeated. It is like they don’t get that they may be holding back their own progress. They have accepted the mentality that people don’t know what they are talking about, no matter how big they are, unless they are quoting training articles.

In fact, if you are under the age of 20 and you think you have shit all figured out already, you may just be the dumbest (or at least the most ignorant) person in the gym.

183

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Professor X wrote:
They also rarely go into how much they currently weigh, what stage of training they are at or give specifics about their measurements.

Fine. I’ll go into detail about my measurements. I’m not posting a picture because, as you’ll be able to tell from my measurements,
it’s probably not worth doing so.

Bodyweight: 185
Height: 5’10’
Chest: 45’
Legs: 25’
Neck: 17’
Arms: 15.5’
Calves: 16’
Waist: 32’ at belly-button
Hips: 38’ (trying to be specific)

While I don’t have a decade of experience, and I admit I’m not the most qualified person to talk about getting jacked, I have gained 30 pounds since last summer while retaining my six-pack.
I didn’t do more than 3 sets of curls twice a week in order to gain that weight.

It took me longer to get from 135 to 155 than it did for me to get from 155 to 185. I’m pretty sure that’s because I was doing a lot of Lateral Raises, Curls, and Leg Presses while I was going from 135 to 145. But once I went after Push-Jerks, Squats, Deadlifts, and Chins I was able to get bigger and stronger much faster. My training wasn’t completely devoid of compound movements when I just began training, but I was doing a lot of isolation exercises. Yeah, I made progress doing nearly 50% compound 50% isolation but I didn’t make it very fast and I suspect the only reason I did make progress was “newbie gains” and the fact that I hadn’t every lifted weights before.

Is it possible for someone to gain more than 30 pounds of mostly lean mass in 9 months without drugs? Of course. I’m not going to pretend that my training was perfect. While I feel like I am one of the more motivated people I know, I’m not going to pretend that other people out there have a better capacity for going batshit crazy in the weight room more often than I can every week. But I feel like I have enough evidence to say that novice lifters will make the best progress if their training includes very little isolation work. [/quote]

No one is gong to degrade any progress you have made. However, you weighed 135lbs at 5’10"?

I want you to understand that this means you were UNDERWEIGHT for your height (even for a sedentary person). That makes that 30lbs a little less imposing.

It also isn’t just you. There seem to be quite a few guys who were basically starving themselves before. Your body shouldn’t have had a hard time AT ALL moving from 135lbs to 150 unless there was a HUGE disconnect in how you were eating and training.

You have now reached some conclusion that has you thinking the isolation exercises were holding you back previously.

That is why you don’t form unaltering conclusions at that age.

184

[quote]Professor X wrote:
forbes wrote:
what do you guys think bout soy lecithin granules as a source of phospholipid?

I think the fact that you asked this question (as if it were really a priority at all) means you need to be slapped with a 45lbs plate.[/quote]

ROFLMAO!!!

I can’t take it. I’ve been reading through this whole thread and then came this. Clearly you have not grasped how indispensable a sound source of phospholipids is at his stage of the game and to imply that he should not pursue soy lecithin granules at the earliest possible opportunity is entirely unforgivable.

Yet another in a long parade of noobs that make me glad there was no ubiquitous internet when I first started training.

185

[quote]Professor X wrote:

No one is gong to degrade any progress you have made. However, you weighed 135lbs at 5’10"?

[/quote]

I was very aware of that. That’s why I started lifting weights.

186

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Your body shouldn’t have had a hard time AT ALL moving from 135lbs to 150 unless there was a HUGE disconnect in how you were eating and training.
[/quote]

I surely wasn’t eating like I am now, but I wasn’t on the typical teenage American diet (Pop-Tart Breakfast, Crap Lunch, Crap Dinner). I was swimming 2 hours a day most days in addition to lifting.

There are a ton of ways I could have made faster progress from the beginning. One of them would have been to focus more one compound exercises. While I think I would have benefited more from a compound-only routine than the routine I used, I probably would have benefited the most from a mostly-compound routine with some shrugs and curls at the end.

Scratch whatever I’ve said or what you think I’ve said before.
I just want to send the message that a beginner should be doing more compound exercises than isolation exercises. There, that’s not too radical. He should still do isolation exercises so that total development is possible. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

The body won’t allow muscles to grow radically larger than other muscles. If you want strong triceps for a big bench, you’ll eventually need to get your biceps and forearms growing just so that your triceps continue to grow.

So direct arm isolation exercises are almost essential for growth since the arms won’t grow to their full potential without it, and if they don’t grow the entire body’s growth will be slowed. But for beginners there’s not much of a need to isolate the quads, pecs, hamstrings, and lats since these muscles are , unlike arms, getting a lot of stimulus from the compound movmements they should be doing. The Pecs are getting enough from Presses. The Hams are getting enough from Good-Mornings and other posterior chain exercises (really any exercise besides the leg curl for the hamstrings is usually a compound exercise), and the lats are getting plenty of stimulus from pulling stuff.

When i saw the OP was doing 2 isolation exercises for every 1 compound exercise I flipped. Yeah, you can do what works for you, but for what this guys weighs and how long he’s lifted, whatever he’s doing isn’t working.

187

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I want you to understand that this means you were UNDERWEIGHT for your height (even for a sedentary person). That makes that 30lbs a little less imposing.

It also isn’t just you. There seem to be quite a few guys who were basically starving themselves before. Your body shouldn’t have had a hard time AT ALL moving from 135lbs to 150 unless there was a HUGE disconnect in how you were eating and training.
[/quote]

I think being underweight makes my move from 135 to 155 less imposing since I was just moving to my natural size (my dad’s only 145 - we’re naturally small people). But I don’t see how it effects the 30 pound move. My body didn’t have much trouble moving from 135 to 150. I didn’t make any effort to gain weight. But moving from 160ish to 185 required me eating 5 eggs, 5 chicken breasts, a pound of roast beef, and several protein shakes throughout the day in addition to other foods.

Genetically, my natural weight is probably around 150 pounds or below. I’m better suited genetically to triathlons than barbells. Some might say I’m a hardgainer. Matt Kroc and Dante didn’t have the best genetics for getting jacked, and look at them.

Yeah, they’re a lot of variables to my conclusion. But I don’t have an unfaltering opinion that isolation exercises should never be used. I just think beginners spend too much time doing isolation exercises and 99% of the time they’re better off doing less of them.

188

I’ts crazy how some people follow “plans” like a priest follows religion. To make progress you must experiment with YOUR own body. It really is much easier to just do it than to think about all the possibilities and things which could go wrong.

“will I gain to much fat if I eat too many carbs”, no one can answer that but your self. Eat and experiment with different food or you’ll always be following someone elses “diet plan”. Same thing goes for excercise.

189

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
Scratch whatever I’ve said or what you think I’ve said before.

I just want to send the message that a beginner should be doing more compound exercises than isolation exercises. There, that’s not too radical. He should still do isolation exercises so that total development is possible. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

The body won’t allow muscles to grow radically larger than other muscles. If you want strong triceps for a big bench, you’ll eventually need to get your biceps and forearms growing just so that your triceps continue to grow.

So direct arm isolation exercises are almost essential for growth since the arms won’t grow to their full potential without it, and if they don’t grow the entire body’s growth will be slowed. But for beginners there’s not much of a need to isolate the quads, pecs, hamstrings, and lats since these muscles are , unlike arms, getting a lot of stimulus from the compound movmements they should be doing.

The Pecs are getting enough from Presses. The Hams are getting enough from Good-Mornings and other posterior chain exercises (really any exercise besides the leg curl for the hamstrings is usually a compound exercise), and the lats are getting plenty of stimulus from pulling stuff.
[/quote]

You’re still contradicting yourself.

On the one hand you say that you merely recommend an emphasis on compound movements, then you go on to say that isolation movements are pretty much pointless for beginners with the exception of arm exercises.

For your “Pecs are getting enough from presses” etc. to be accurate you are assuming that the trainee already has a balanced physique and doesn’t have any dominant muscle groups that will simply dominate in a given movement.

I think the real question is:

Why would you knowingly want to increase the possibility of creating muscle imbalance and lagging body parts?

190

[quote]Professor X wrote:
wirewound wrote:
I don’t have photos, but I gained the most lean weight I’ve ever gained after switching to a mostly-compound lift schedule with a push/pull split. Presumably it’s because I hit each part of the split about twice a week.

I can’t even count the times that someone has written similar…yet they never show pictures either. They also rarely go into how much they currently weigh, what stage of training they are at or give specifics about their measurements.

It is great that you have made progress, however. [/quote]

I weigh 195lbs, down from 204 after a cut. I’ll look for recent measurements.

Neck: 15.25
Upper Arm: 15
Forearm: 12
Chest: 41.25
Waist: 35
Hips: 42.25
Thigh: 25
Calf: 16.25
(All in inches)

I know none of this is mightily impressive. I’m doing DC now, so we’ll see how that improves my numbers after a month or so.

191

[quote]IQ wrote:

Why would you knowingly want to increase the possibility of creating muscle imbalance and lagging body parts?[/quote]

Beginners need to worry more about imbalances between antagonist muscles. Making sure they develop strong hamstrings to compliment strong quads and a strong upper back to compliment strong delts and pecs is more important at this point.

And they can still combat these weak points by doing things like Dumbbell Bench Pres is they’re triceps dominant in the bench or Wide-Grip Pull-ups if they’re biceps dominant in the chin-up.

192

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
IQ wrote:

Why would you knowingly want to increase the possibility of creating muscle imbalance and lagging body parts?

Beginners need to worry more about imbalances between antagonist muscles. Making sure they develop strong hamstrings to compliment strong quads and a strong upper back to compliment strong delts and pecs is more important at this point.

And they can still combat these weak points by doing things like Dumbbell Bench Pres is they’re triceps dominant in the bench or Wide-Grip Pull-ups if they’re biceps dominant in the chin-up. [/quote]

You’re looking at this in extremes, why wouldn’t you want to begin by developing all of your muscles equally? This isn’t an either or decision.

To bring up a specific area you would need to target it directly, you would need to isolate it. Why try to turn a compound movement into an isolation exercise when there are already perfectly good isolation exercises for this very purpose?

Why needlessly complicate things with over simplification?

193

[quote]FightingScott wrote:
IQ wrote:

Why would you knowingly want to increase the possibility of creating muscle imbalance and lagging body parts?

Beginners need to worry more about imbalances between antagonist muscles. Making sure they develop strong hamstrings to compliment strong quads and a strong upper back to compliment strong delts and pecs is more important at this point.

And they can still combat these weak points by doing things like Dumbbell Bench Pres is they’re triceps dominant in the bench or Wide-Grip Pull-ups if they’re biceps dominant in the chin-up. [/quote]

OR, they could simply train EVERY FUCKING THING like bodybuilders have done for the last century.

194

I agree with x. if it don’t hurt all over or a decent portion in the muscle group you were training over the next couple of days, you didn’t train right. or you actually stretched before and after and have a high recovery rate.

195

The interesting thing for me (and I’ve been mostly observing and not really participating in this thread), is the notion that there is a set way to go about any goal (someone linkened this to following religion, I liked that -lol). Every successful BBer, whether competitive, or has just been banging away at the weights for a long time and has had ‘success’ is not doign the same regimen now that he did a few months ago, that he did a year ago, that he did when he started out.

It’s not to say that compound movements are magic and will hit a specific muscle moreso than an isolation exercise would, but the real reason for it is that it will hit others as well. This will account for more OVERALL growth, a strengthening of an overall AREA (less chance of muscular imbalances), and as you develop a better sense of your muscles, will allow better overload (cheat a bit on the positive, and overload the muscle with the slow negative).

Is this magic? hell no, I just think it’s a little crazy to run around in circles here. THere has been some great adviice offered, and some really inane stuff as well. When I started lifting, my bicep workout was all standing BB curls. When I injured my bicep tendon last year, all I could do was non-support concentration curls (10 sets with a 20 lbs dumbell), which now that I think about it, maybe some young guy at my gym saw me with my arms (18") and thought “Whoah! that’s how you get big arms!”, totally not realizing that I was training around an injury and merely trying to maintain.

Just some of my thoughts here, I certainly don’t profess to have the ‘answer’ for anyone else.

S

196

You know what gets me? The question “should i train for size first or cut?”

As though the goal of either could be achieved easily… and especially in the case of “size” anything under 10 years, and for most mortals on this site anything under 20 years is insufficient time to put on the right amount of “size” before cutting, it really isnt a question that needs to be addressed.

just do it. Get to work.

Jesus.

197

first get strong and get some muscle power going on then bulk up once youve set the foundation of muscle then once youve bulked up 10lbs or more above your target goal, start cutting and carve yourself somes cuts from that rock…

198

[quote] JJ wrote:
You know what gets me? The question “should i train for size first or cut?”

As though the goal of either could be achieved easily… and especially in the case of “size” anything under 10 years, and for most mortals on this site anything under 20 years is insufficient time to put on the right amount of “size” before cutting, it really isnt a question that needs to be addressed.

just do it. Get to work.

Jesus.[/quote]

You may be overshooting by just a bit there chief. I don’t like to set numbers for anybody and there’s no doubt that huge quantities of misguided cutting is going on in this world, but 2 decades? Even one in a lot of cases.

Anybody who turns out to be good at this, by a few to several years in will know how to keep growing without losing control of bodyfat and the whole bulking/cutting deal will long ago have been tossed into the things I don’t worry about any more bin.

199

[quote]Professor X wrote:

OR, they could simply train EVERY FUCKING THING like bodybuilders have done for the last century.[/quote]

I know you didn’t say this outright, but is a 5-day split always the right thing to do for bodybuilding?

What have bodybuilders been doing for the last century? Competing in strongman demonstrations, weightlifting competitions, doing bent presses, back lifts, and a bunch of funky stuff.

I’m not saying to only do compound moves. But if you build a training regime with nothing but compound moves how would you not be training everything? What muscles are being totally neglected from compound moves?

Maybe you meant to say “like bodybuilders have done for the past 40 years.”

Are you just hellbent on making responses that say every one of my posts are wrong?

200

[quote]IQ wrote:
Why wouldn’t you want to begin by developing all of your muscles equally?

[/quote]

If you can’t do 5 chin-ups, doing curls isn’t going to help you develop equally.

In the very beginning of training, it’s more important to just gain some fucking muscle than it is to develop a proportional physique. Yeah, isolation exercises build muscle. Yeah, lifting weights builds muscle. But Squats are better at building muscle than Curls. This is especially true for a beginner.

Besides, you won’t develop a proportional one anyway if you don’t have a solid base. Look at the tiny kids doing a bunch of isolation exercises and look at the star athletes who’ve been diligently working on their power cleans. Who looks more balanced?

How is performing only a handful of exercises needlessly complicated? Beginners need a simple program. They don’t need a bunch of reverse-grip pushdowns and elbow-tucked preacher curls to develop proportional arms. They just need some Bench Press, some Chin-ups, and maybe some straight barbell curls.

Why wouldn’t you want to start off doing Dexter Jackson’s split when you can only Squat 155 and Bench 135? That’s a real easy question to answer: a more basic program will give you better results. The idea that beginners should do bodypart split programs is RETARDED because they can’t inflict enough damage on their muscles to warrant a weeks rest. If a beginner gains 1/64th of an inch of new muscle growth on their arm or whatever every time they train legs, and they can train their legs three times a week, then why would they settle for just training them once a week?

Sometimes people on this forum just go crazy whenever anyone analyzes training at all.