I seriously can’t tell whether the OP is serious or a masterful troll. I haven’t had this much fun out of a thread since ‘Fat T-Man’
[quote]forbes wrote:
i need another option if im to increase the weight on the bar often.
[/quote]
If you can’t make the mental leap from “I’m out of weights so I can’t increase the load on the bar” to “I should buy more weights”, I don’t think anyone here can really help you. Seriously, buy some more iron, buy some heavy chain, join a gym with a more weights.
[quote]forbes wrote:
ok, back to seriousness now. i wasnt TRYING to piss anyone off, i guess it just happened. my apologies, plaease let all this pass by.
now, i have another serious Q. since i can load up my barbell all the way and do that for reps on the deadlift, do you guys have a good deadlift alternative that i can do thats a bit harder than the traditional one. if i get stronger in the deadlift, i cant increase the weight any more. my only other modes of progression are reps, decreasing rest, etc. so i need another option if im to increase the weight on the bar often.
[/quote]
I suggest putting on make-up and a dress, then dancing in front of a mirror and camera with your balls tucked behind your legs. Then mutter, “I’d fuck me…I’d fuck me hard.”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Scott M wrote:
I read that as having a decent mind muscle connection being important and not a don’t do isolation movements rant. And the funny thing to me you will gain more connection by… isolating the muscle lol.
Ask a guy who only ever does rows and chins for his biceps to flex it without bending his elbow. Good luck. Ask a guy who does barbell/dumbbell curls for his biceps the same thing. One of them will be far more likely to be able to control that muscle in my opinion.
Which is why the avoidance of it makes no sense regardless of who they quote.
I could see if you are working with some guy who is always picked last for dodgeball and who can’t even squat with no weight without falling over…but unless you have the muscle coordination of a blind nerd, avoiding all isolation exercises is retarded.[/quote]
Why is it retarded? Some people actually gain muscle and strength off of programs where compound lifts are the mainstay, believe it or not. A lot of beginner programs out there have no isolation exercises other than some arm work. Why is chest flies necessary for a beginner? To flex his ribcage? I am not trying to start something here, I honestly want to know why you think it is retarded to believe that pounding your chest 3x a week on the bench is ‘retarded’. I guess Bill Starr is a ‘retard’.
I know you are against fullbody workouts (and for all that is holy I am not turning this into a splits vs fullbody debate), and splitting up muscle groups worked for you, but it’s not the only way to train.
Or are you along the line of thought that the more micro-trauma is caused, the better?
[quote]rsg wrote:
FightingScott wrote:
forbes wrote:
i have another serious Q. since i can load up my barbell all the way and do that for reps on the deadlift, do you guys have a good deadlift alternative that i can do thats a bit harder than the traditional one.
I’m thinking about murdering you.
If you can Load your entire Barbell with plates for the deadlift, stop using 5kg plates.
I seriosly doubt he means all 45’s - probably all the weights he has which is 200lbs.[/quote]
Then he can do Clean Pulls with it until he can Clean it. Then he can do Cleans and Front Squats until he can Clean and Jerk it. Then he can Clean and Jerk it until he can Push-Press it. Then He can do that till he can Snatch the weight. Then he can work on Clean Pulls with one arm, then Cleans with one arm, then Snatch Pulls with 1 arm, then Snatches with 1 arm. Then, when he can Snatch a 200lb Barbell with 1 arm he can go out into the world and wrestle large animals and do seated olympic lift variants.
[quote]Der Candy wrote:
Why is it retarded? [/quote]
Because this is bodybuilding and the goal is full development of all muscle groups.
[quote]
Some people actually gain muscle and strength off of programs where compound lifts are the mainstay, believe it or not. [/quote]
Who wrote that someone could not gain any strength or gain any muscle at all? I could probably gain muscle by taking a job as a grave digger. That doesn’t make it optimal for muscle growth.
[quote]
A lot of beginner programs out there have no isolation exercises other than some arm work. Why is chest flies necessary for a beginner? To flex his ribcage?[/quote]
I’m sorry, but where did I write that chest flies were necessary for a beginner? I think chest flies are basically worthless and have written this SEVERAL times.
How about you actually quote what was written and attack each point directly.
[quote]
I am not trying to start something here, I honestly want to know why you think it is retarded to believe that pounding your chest 3x a week on the bench is ‘retarded’. I guess Bill Starr is a ‘retard’.[/quote]
Why would a beginner need to pound his chest three times a week with a bench press? Maybe if they added more exercises in order to hit it from more angles, they wouldn’t NEED to work their chest 3 times a week.
[quote]
I know you are against fullbody workouts (and for all that is holy I am not turning this into a splits vs fullbody debate), and splitting up muscle groups worked for you, but it’s not the only way to train.
Or are you along the line of thought that the more micro-trauma is caused, the better?[/quote]
I never wrote that it is the only way to train. However, if my goal is extreme development, why would I avoid following what most of the people who have achieved that level have done?
My position is that a muscle group needs to be hit from several angles with more than one exercise if the goal is optimal development. That means neither “compound” nor isolation exercises should be avoided JUST because someone is a beginner. Also, until I start seeing all of these impressive physiques built from full body workouts using little to no isolation movements that no one else can come close to, I will continue to consider it inferior in terms of BODYBUILDING simply due to sheer numbers.
In case anyone is wondering (which I doubt) why the OP isn’t saying anything, it’s due to the fact he told us all to “fuck off”, but his post was deleted for “trollish behavior”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Maybe if they added more exercises in order to hit it from more angles
[/quote]
Let’s not go there.
[quote]rsg wrote:
In case anyone is wondering (which I doubt) why the OP isn’t saying anything, it’s due to the fact he told us all to “fuck off”, but his post was deleted for “trollish behavior”.[/quote]
Did you see this post right before it was cut?
I don’t think anyone had asked this question for like a whole 6 months. We were going so strong!
[quote]FightingScott wrote:
rsg wrote:
In case anyone is wondering (which I doubt) why the OP isn’t saying anything, it’s due to the fact he told us all to “fuck off”, but his post was deleted for “trollish behavior”.
Did you see this post right before it was cut?
I don’t think anyone had asked this question for like a whole 6 months. We were going so strong![/quote]
Yes, I was PM’d by a MOD telling me it was removed.
“fuck you all you fucking dick heads” or something like that.
Oh well, I learnt a thing or 2 from this thread so not all is lost.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Because this is bodybuilding and the goal is full development of all muscle groups.[/quote]
But is it really necessary for a beginner to train for full development if he has hardly any muscle at all to develop? Does a beginner’s body really need all those exercises to achieve a growth response? How much will a lateral raise help a beginner if those dumbbells are the 15lb ones?
[quote]I’m sorry, but where did I write that chest flies were necessary for a beginner? I think chest flies are basically worthless and have written this SEVERAL times.
How about you actually quote what was written and attack each point directly.[/quote]
Oh I see. I just saw chest flyes being mentioned here by you at some point. First page I think.
The concept is that a beginner doesn’t need ‘more exercises to hit all the angles’ because his work capacity is not built up to that level yet. Heavy benching for a few sets will trash his chest. And if those sessions are spread out throughout the week, he can add weight at each of those workouts, and so progress faster.
[quote]I never wrote that it is the only way to train. However, if my goal is extreme development, why would I avoid following what most of the people who have achieved that level have done?
My position is that a muscle group needs to be hit from several angles with more than one exercise if the goal is optimal development. That means neither “compound” nor isolation exercises should be avoided JUST because someone is a beginner. Also, until I start seeing all of these impressive physiques built from full body workouts using little to no isolation movements that no one else can come close to, I will continue to consider it inferior in terms of BODYBUILDING simply due to sheer numbers.[/quote]
The reason that tbt programs are recommended for newer trainees is because of the progression that I already mentioned (Although I’m sure you know that). I guess if you didn’t start off weak (like you mentioned once I think) then splitting up body parts and hitting it from different angles is the best way to go.
It’s just that it’s so common to see kids doing these 3-4 exercises and 12 sets for a bodypart when they are using tiny weights and progressing so slowly and getting practically nowhere. But stick him on a program where he trains more frequently with less volume and he gains faster.
Look I’m not trying to force my views on you (that would be pretty laughable) I just want to understand why you don’t buy this concept. I guess it’s because you always trained with a split? I mean I tried splits for a while and I could never make much progress on them. I think I actually got weaker. And a lower volume program with higher frequency has me gaining much faster. But that’s what works for ME. And ultimately the most important thing is for people to find what works for them.
I am friends with some very large lifters in my gym, but I am hesitant to train with them because I fear that they will put me on a high volume split and I won’t gain an ounce. That might sound hilarious to you, but that is honestly how I feel. I don’t have anything against ‘hitting a muscle from many angles’ but I just think there’s a time and a place for that.
[quote]Der Candy wrote:
How much will a lateral raise help a beginner if those dumbbells are the 15lb ones?
[/quote]
I like what you’re saying here.
[quote]Der Candy wrote:
But is it really necessary for a beginner to train for full development if he has hardly any muscle at all to develop? [/quote]
Again, this makes no sense. YES, a beginner should train for full development and they are lifting weights BECAUSE that hardly have any muscle. I was a skinny kid. I lifted weights for years. Now, I’m not skinny any longer.
Why are you under the impression that a lack of muscle mass means you DON’T train everything?
[quote]
Does a beginner’s body really need all those exercises to achieve a growth response? How much will a lateral raise help a beginner if those dumbbells are the 15lb ones?[/quote]
Gee, a hell of a lot since it will eventually lead to 20, 30, 35lbs and higher. Why would a beginner want to end up with lagging lateral heads for his delts?
[quote]
The concept is that a beginner doesn’t need ‘more exercises to hit all the angles’ because his work capacity is not built up to that level yet. [/quote]
So, why would that same beginner avoid building up their work capacity?
How does it make sense to you for someone to hinder their own ability to build up their own work capacity…on purpose?
[quote]
Heavy benching for a few sets will trash his chest. And if those sessions are spread out throughout the week, he can add weight at each of those workouts, and so progress faster. [/quote]
Bullshit. Mind you, that is coming from someone who does recover fairly quickly. If someone can actually train their chest hard 3 fucking times a week, I truly question how hard they are training. Even as a beginner there is no way I would have been ready to train chest every other day. But then, I was actually training “heavy”.
[quote]
The reason that tbt programs are recommended for newer trainees is because of the progression that I already mentioned (Although I’m sure you know that). I guess if you didn’t start off weak (like you mentioned once I think) then splitting up body parts and hitting it from different angles is the best way to go.[/quote]
So, then why are so many beginners being told right off the bat that they are too weak to do a body part split?
Someone truly so uncoordinated and weak probably doesn’t have the ability to build much size anyway.
Why are we catering the discussion towards those with the least potential for progress? This is bodybuilding, not charity.
Personal trainers get paid to hold someone’s hand no matter how weak their genetic potential is. That doesn’t mean that we start convincing everyone hitting a gym for the first time that they all have the weakest ability.
[quote]
It’s just that it’s so common to see kids doing these 3-4 exercises and 12 sets for a bodypart when they are using tiny weights and progressing so slowly and getting practically nowhere. But stick him on a program where he trains more frequently with less volume and he gains faster.[/quote]
Oh, so this is about people in gyms who can’t grasp the concept of lifting heavy, eating enough and making progress? Why?
Why are we discussing people like this? Most of them won’t ever make that much progress because they lack the basic ability to even understand what their goal is and how to reach it.
These are often the same types who love to show off how much they’ve read even though everyone they consider “dumb” is passing them up in the weight room.
[quote]
Look I’m not trying to force my views on you (that would be pretty laughable) I just want to understand why you don’t buy this concept. I guess it’s because you always trained with a split? I mean I tried splits for a while and I could never make much progress on them. I think I actually got weaker. [/quote]
I would blame yourself before blaming the fact that you trained chest and triceps on their own day. That doesn’t even make sense. How could you get weaker if you were lifting weights that forced your body to adapt and ate enough to see a gain in muscular body weight?
[quote]
And a lower volume program with higher frequency has me gaining much faster. But that’s what works for ME. And ultimately the most important thing is for people to find what works for them.[/quote]
Who has recommended “low frequency”? I train about 6 days a week. How is that “low frequency” and why do you consider split routines to be such?
[quote]
I am friends with some very large lifters in my gym, but I am hesitant to train with them because I fear that they will put me on a high volume split and I won’t gain an ounce. That might sound hilarious to you, but that is honestly how I feel. I don’t have anything against ‘hitting a muscle from many angles’ but I just think there’s a time and a place for that.[/quote]
It sounds sad, not hilarious.
[quote]Der Candy wrote:
I am friends with some very large lifters in my gym, but I am hesitant to train with them because I fear that they will put me on a high volume split and I won’t gain an ounce. That might sound hilarious to you, but that is honestly how I feel. I don’t have anything against ‘hitting a muscle from many angles’ but I just think there’s a time and a place for that.[/quote]
You’re kidding, right?
You think that got that large doing only full bodys? How come the large guys aren’t doing full bodys like you are advocating?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Again, this makes no sense. YES, a beginner should train for full development and they are lifting weights BECAUSE that hardly have any muscle. I was a skinny kid. I lifted weights for years. Now, I’m not skinny any longer.
Why are you under the impression that a lack of muscle mass means you DON’T train everything?[/quote]
Because it is assumed that the beginner gets enough work from the big lifts. Something, however, tells me that you would see that as a wrong assumption.
[quote]Does a beginner’s body really need all those exercises to achieve a growth response? How much will a lateral raise help a beginner if those dumbbells are the 15lb ones?
Gee, a hell of a lot since it will eventually lead to 20, 30, 35lbs and higher. Why would a beginner want to end up with lagging lateral heads for his delts?[/quote]
Overhead presses will work his entire deltoid, which is one big lagging part.
[quote]So, why would that same beginner avoid building up their work capacity?
How does it make sense to you for someone to hinder their own ability to build up their own work capacity…on purpose?[/quote]
The work capacity gets built up as the lifter progresses. He’s no longer a newbie then. And he actually has a base of strength and muscle mass with which he can move onto detailing with more exercises.
Well there you go. A lot of newbies don’t start off particularly strong.
A more abbreviated approach is what got me gaining, not higher volume with many exercises.
Lower frequency for each muscle group.
[quote]Someone truly so uncoordinated and weak probably doesn’t have the ability to build much size anyway.
Why are we catering the discussion towards those with the least potential for progress? This is bodybuilding, not charity.
Personal trainers get paid to hold someone’s hand no matter how weak their genetic potential is. That doesn’t mean that we start convincing everyone hitting a gym for the first time that they all have the weakest ability.
Oh, so this is about people in gyms who can’t grasp the concept of lifting heavy, eating enough and making progress? Why?
Why are we discussing people like this? Most of them won’t ever make that much progress because they lack the basic ability to even understand what their goal is and how to reach it.[/quote]
Oh forgive me, I didn’t know we were only discussing the genetic elite. How ignorant of me. I will now exit the conversation.
[quote]rsg wrote:
Der Candy wrote:
I am friends with some very large lifters in my gym, but I am hesitant to train with them because I fear that they will put me on a high volume split and I won’t gain an ounce. That might sound hilarious to you, but that is honestly how I feel. I don’t have anything against ‘hitting a muscle from many angles’ but I just think there’s a time and a place for that.
You’re kidding, right?
You think that got that large doing only full bodys? How come the large guys aren’t doing full bodys like you are advocating?[/quote]
That’s not what I think, nor did I even say that.
What I am saying, is that RIGHT NOW, I am making more progress training more frquently with less volume than I did on a split. IN THE FUTURE, when I get to a more advanced stage, splits will enter the picture.
What I DID say in my post, is that high volume splits are not something that my body likes. How is that difficult to understand? Is it so impossible to comprehend that splits aren’t what is optimal for me at the moment?
EDIT: Go and read my posts again. NOWHERE have I advocated tbt for advanced lifters.
[quote]Der Candy wrote:
Because it is assumed that the beginner gets enough work from the big lifts. Something, however, tells me that you would see that as a wrong assumption.[/quote]
Understatement.
[/thread]
Oh, wait, there’s more.
[quote]
Overhead presses will work his entire deltoid, which is one big lagging part. [/quote]
Wow. If you honestly believe that overhead presses are all you need for complete shoulder development, I have no doubt that your own are less than well developed.
[quote]
The work capacity gets built up as the lifter progresses. He’s no longer a newbie then. And he actually has a base of strength and muscle mass with which he can move onto detailing with more exercises.[/quote]
Wait, so if you can build work capacity, why would someone avoid doing so or simply starting with a body part split? Didn’t you make this one distinction early? That someone lacked the work capacity so they should avoid body part splits?
If they can build it up, then why would they avoid it in the first place?
[quote]
Bullshit. Mind you, that is coming from someone who does recover fairly quickly. … But then, I was actually training “heavy”.
Well there you go. A lot of newbies don’t start off particularly strong.[/quote]
What? I wrote HEAVY. HEAVY is relative to the individual so what does your comment have to do with it? The whole goal is to get stronger.
You honestly believe you have to already be “strong” to train using a body part split? Strong compared to whom?
[quote]
A more abbreviated approach is what got me gaining, not higher volume with many exercises.[/quote]
How much have you gained? How much do you weigh now?
You are aware that even though I may be training back one day that my biceps are being worked as well? You do understand that even though I train chest one day, my shoulders are working also?
I didn’t write “genetic elite”. However, I am also not worried about how some guy who can barely gain a pound wants to train.
I know what my goals are, and they don’t include lifting weights for years without looking like it when fully clothed.
Newbie lifters are not ending their bench workouts with their chest trashed. In fact one of the most common things is kids who “don’t feel it in their chest” because their triceps and shoulders do all the work, and they fail reps because they can’t lockout. Especially when you factor in the average person not bringing the bar all the way down(ya I know we aren’t catering discussion here to them, just pointing it out though.)
Hi. I cant be bothered to read all the posts, but i have picked up that prof x is arguing (as usual) about basics first training.
You seem to have so much spare time to sit on this site giving your ten pence worth.
Anyway, I believe if a person cant do sets parallel bar dips with weight, slowly and controlled, then there is no point 'hitting all the angles to ‘trash the chest’.
Cant push press 60 kilos? Dont even bother with front lateral machine super duper whatever.
Always concentrate on a few big movements for a long time first.
Slowly Slowly.
Good luck
prof x, you just made a point of saying that for example, when you train back, your also doing bi’s.
Agreed.
Hence why an average neophyte does not need to eat in to potential recovery ability by also traing bi’s from several exercises.
Average, beginners, ectomorphics etc do not need silly over split workouts for years if ever. Getting strenght first and building a good work capacity is better.