The only type of training that can legitimately transform someone’s appearance is bodybuilding (hypertrophy) style training.[/quote]
This is wrong. Bodybuilding training would make him look better/larger, but lifting increasing loads, will make one hypertrophy. He’s geared for preformance, his physique is a second. I lift firstly for strength, looking better comes with the stregth training.
I may not look AS good as if I were training specifically for looks, but I’ll still look good, while accomplishing other things.
^^^Exactly. In the winter, I did an isolation routine (one body part each day) and made okay strength gains, my muscles still remained small however.
But this spring/summer, I’ve done more compound work and hardly any isolation work… my strength has skyrockted, and with the added muscle that came from using compounds with extreme poundages, I’ve looked better after one month of compound lifting, then after the 3 months of winter iso training. And the ladies agree as well (not to brag… just to prove a point.)
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
It’s impossible not to get stronger in whatever rep range you use simply by training regularly. Whether you train in the 5 or 20 rep range, you’ll get stronger (be able to use more weight) in each respective case with continued training.[/quote]
Just read Dave Tate’s article (on the front page, today), and thought of you.
Particularly apt, as under the picture of a ripped Tate (who obviously wasted so many years by not following your training guidelines), there’s the following:
“The reason for this is simple: 90% of everyone you meet are negative pricks who will go out of their way to tell you why you can’tdo something.”
Oh, and by the way, pseudo-scientific talk doesn’t fool everybody. A small hint. The “law of specificity”, which you keep quoting, is just a truism, ie: a general principle based on empirical evidence. Its not written in stone, nor is it applicable in every situation. Just because someone called it a “law”, doesn’t make it equal in stature to Newton’s laws of gravity.
Here’s another “law” for you. Train hard, eat right, rest and recover properly. Do this long enough (years), and there’s no restriction on where you can go. I’ll let you think of a name for this “law”.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I just wonder where all these “average people” are who are training “like athletes.” Most of the people I see in the gym train like bodybuilders, with their Muscle and Fitness routines, and they look like shit. Seems to me more people would do better to train like athletes, because your method obviously isn’t working for them.[/quote]
true. every fat shit in the gym is knocking out 4 sets of 10. not saying that it doesn’t work, but if your curling the 25’s good luck. check out thibs Beast Building article.
Funny, I was very thankful that I train a hybrid of strength/crossfit last weekend when I was out on the levee sandbagging to try to save my girlfriend’s farm. Put the national guard to shame.
I was very grateful that I haven’t wasted my time “isolating” or using machines for the past several years. KB swings, thrusters, deadlifts, sprints, squats…there didn’t appear to be any useful application of the cable crossover machine or the preacher curl bench out there on the levee.
I am also grateful that I do not care only about aesthetics. Now, its cool if you are into bodybuilding, but to dogmatically assert that any other training is worthless is pretty short sighted. Hope the OP never has to sandbag to save his property, or deadlift a heavy object off his son, or sprint after a purse snatcher, or experience any of the other millions of reasons why it pays to be crossfit.
Also, I intend to be lifting when I am 80 years old. Isolation is not the key to achieving this goal.
This shit is painful. Obviously I can improve my flexibility, stamina and strength all at the same time. Do some stretching and cardio in addition to your weightlifting and eat more food and get more rest. Wow, doesn’t sound very hard.
And who really cares if X type of training is the best for bodybuilding when it’s been said by so many experts that lifting huge weights near your max with low reps and lifting lighter weights for 6-10 reps both can get you huge and strong?
Training involving weights and clean eating will help your physique. Whether it be bodybuilding, powerlifting, performance training, if you eat clean and train your style right, your physique will improve.
Now guys, remember when your with your girl tonight to use short two inch thrusts focusing on squeezing just your glutes. You want isolation and exhaustion. Getting any extra english from your hips and legs will not do. When it starts to feel really good do not grab the headboard and go for 4 or 5 power thrusts because this would put you into the strength/power rep range.
And no matter what you do, no matter how much she is saying don’t stop, do not go past 25 short brisk thrusts. This would put you into an endurance state and would do nothing to enhance your aesthetic goals.
[quote]Tallguyy76 wrote:
Now guys, remember when your with your girl tonight to use short two inch thrusts focusing on squeezing just your glutes. You want isolation and exhaustion. Getting any extra english from your hips and legs will not do. When it starts to feel really good do not grab the headboard and go for 4 or 5 power thrusts because this would put you into the strength/power rep range.
And no matter what you do, no matter how much she is saying don’t stop, do not go past 25 short brisk thrusts. This would put you into an endurance state and would do nothing to enhance your aesthetic goals. [/quote]
[quote]gainera2582 wrote:
Not everyone wants to be a bodybuilder, and having a strength to weight ratio at a lighter mass is a desirable goal for some.[/quote]
You don’t have to want to become a competitive bodybuilder in order to train like one. Bodybuilding training is simply the fastest way to get from point A to point B, where appearance is concerned.
If you want to maintain a decent strength to weight ratio, then don’t take in a caloric surplus. Problem solved.
The problem is that people want everything, and you simply can’t be good at everything.
[quote]daraz wrote:
I really don’t understand what your beef is… First you’re against crossfit and the general crowd, then you’re against strength athletes (and strength altogether), and now you’re against anything that doesn’t isolate and exhaust (whatever that means…)??[/quote]
I’ll explain it to you.
I am against Crossfit because Cross Training doesn’t work. The concept is deeply flawed at a fundamental level and it is being used to sell fitness to the ignorant masses. I see this happening at my own gym and, as a results-oriented trainer, I don’t like it.
I am not against Strength Training at all. My own goals are entirely appearance-oriented, but I have nothing against people who train for performance. I just happen to think that the average person is much better off training for appearance.
If a competitive athlete asked me to train them for performance only, I would do it and have no qualms at all. I would use precisely the opposite approach that I’d give to someone looking to improve their physique. I would not even think about putting them on a bodybuilding style training split. I CLEARLY understand the differences between bodybuilders and athletes - far better than most coaches and trainers, I dare say. That is why I take such a hard stand against the bullshit trainers who tell their clients that they can get strong and improve their appearance at the same time. No, you CAN’T. Not unless we are talking about a really basic level of strength and fitness. Training for strength and training for hypertrophy exist at opposite ends of the spectrum. They are as far apart as you can possibly get.
[quote]Affliction wrote:
You guys are all arguing the same thing, too. A trainee with a low-level of preparation can rapidly advance all qualities simultaneously.
As an athlete’s level of preparation rises, so too does the need for specificity.
Conjugate vs. Block systems. When athletes stopped advancing with the conjugate system, they began to do blocks of training with the focus on a single quality.
[/quote]
This is precisely what I wrote earlier. It’s the point of my entire thread. And if you extend that statement to its logical conclusion, then you will see that cross training is a very mediocre training system which only works for beginners, as a rule. It is literally impossible to get good at anything if you train this way. 90% of the gym-going population does cross-training.
Progression is too nebulous a concept to define. Progression is not limited to load. There are almost an infinite number of ways to make an exercise more difficult to perform. I’m telling you, isolation and exhaustion are all you need for hypertrophy. It really is that straightforward. Everything else is secondary.
I don’t care if you use 5 lb. pink weights. If you both isolate and exhaust, hypertrophy WILL occur. There is no reason why fluid hypertrophy cannot be stimulated by very light loads. The pump IS fluid hypertrophy. 75% of all hypertrophy is fluid hypertrophy. Gains in contractile hypertrophy come MUCH slower than fluid hypertrophy (no more than a few lbs. per year). Training for contractile hypertrophy guarantees that you will look the same for a long time.
With fluid hypertrophy, you can literally put half an inch on your arm in a single workout. No bullshit. That would take a year for someone on an isocaloric diet training like a powerlifter. That is why bodybuilding is the most effective training system for hypertrophy and nothing else comes remotely close. Pro BB’ers are real athletes and they know what they are doing.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
This is wrong. Bodybuilding training would make him look better/larger, but lifting increasing loads, will make one hypertrophy. He’s geared for preformance, his physique is a second. I lift firstly for strength, looking better comes with the stregth training.
I may not look AS good as if I were training specifically for looks, but I’ll still look good, while accomplishing other things.[/quote]
Lifting increasingly heavy loads on one exercise means that you are improving your technique. It is not a function of hypertrophy and does not result in hypertrophy, more often than not.
Heavy weight training (<5RM) takes stress off the musculature and places it on the bone structure. Strength athletes also rely on momentum and leverage advantages, which further reduces stress on the muscles.
This GREATLY diminishes the extent of hypertrophy and increases the risk of injury by a corresponding factor. Can hypertrophy occur on a strength training routine? Sure - but only to the extent that isolation and exhaustion occur.
Furthermore, because reps are too low to stimulate fluid hypertrophy, the only type of hypertrophy which occurs is contractile hypertrophy. Contractile hypertrophy is an extremely slow process compared to fluid hypertrophy. To actually put a solid inch of muscle mass on your body (not water, fat, or glycogen) is a MASSIVE undertaking which can take several years of dedicated training. People don’t realize that 90% of all hypertrophy is fluid hypertrophy. Run an oral-only cycle and you’ll learn this the hard way.
The physique transformations that competitive bodybuilders undergo from off-season to contest shape are completely unrivaled in all of professional sports. They look like totally different people. There is simply no other training methodology that can even touch bodybuilding when it comes to changing one’s appearance in the shortest amount of time possible. I am tired of everyone bashing bodybuilders, especially the skinny martial arts guys.
The average joe isn’t an athlete and doesn’t need to squat 250 lbs or deadlift 300. The average joe needs a physique transformation the likes of off-season Lee Priest to in-season Lee Priest. Therefore, bodybuilder-style training is just what the doctor ordered.
Just read Dave Tate’s article (on the front page, today), and thought of you.
Particularly apt, as under the picture of a ripped Tate (who obviously wasted so many years by not following your training guidelines), there’s the following:
“The reason for this is simple: 90% of everyone you meet are negative pricks who will go out of their way to tell you why you can’tdo something.”
Oh, and by the way, pseudo-scientific talk doesn’t fool everybody. A small hint. The “law of specificity”, which you keep quoting, is just a truism, ie: a general principle based on empirical evidence. Its not written in stone, nor is it applicable in every situation. Just because someone called it a “law”, doesn’t make it equal in stature to Newton’s laws of gravity.
Here’s another “law” for you. Train hard, eat right, rest and recover properly. Do this long enough (years), and there’s no restriction on where you can go. I’ll let you think of a name for this “law”.[/quote]
As far as I’m concerned, the law of specificity is equal in stature to Newton’s law of gravity, as far as training is concerned. I already made the case for it on this thread and I’d be happy to defend it.
Apparently, you missed the other part of Dave Tate’s article where he actually backs up my argument.
Read: Extreme specialization is required to get to the top. Precisely what I am saying.
[quote]Let me say something here about programming. We all know there are different aspects to program development, ranging from (but not limited to) flexibility, strength, endurance, mobility, pre-habilitation, and all their subcomponents such as strength-speed, strength-endurance, dynamic flexibility and a host of others. The thing most people seem to miss is you can’t have it all.
Think of it as a stereo equalizer, with each aspect having its own control. It you were to slide all the controls to the right, all you would hear is distortion (overtraining, imbalances, injury, etc.). If you were to slide them all to the left you wouldn’t hear anything (no training: no results). [/quote]
Exactly what I am saying. Dave Tate and I think on the same wavelength.
[quote]I’m not totally convinced that a repetition range of dynamic squats of two to three reps is going to be optimal for someone who’s only trying to create hypertrophy.
For powerlifting, a lot of isolation work �?? concentration curls and shit like that �?? isn’t going to do a whole lot. For someone trying to build hypertrophy though, whose main function isn’t going to be strength, I think movements like that are extremely important.[/quote]
[quote]T-Nation: What about the “pump” and hypertrophy? Is the pump necessary?
Tate: I’m part of the old school on this. I think if you’re trying to build hypertrophy, you still at some point need to pump the shit out of the body. You need to get the fluid and blood in there. [/quote]
Dave Tate echoes my views 100% and has for years.
[quote]Let’s say a bodybuilder’s program says three sets of eight. He reaches eight and it feels good, so he racks it. What the fuck? He’s there to break the muscle down. Did he have two more in him? Then he should do them, no matter what the “program” says. I’m not saying you need to train to failure, but you left two reps on the table when the goal is to break the muscle down. In my mind, you just wasted a set.
Watch the old Westside tapes; watch Ronnie Coleman’s tape or Jay Cutler’s tape. Count the repetitions they do for their sets. Then explain to me why one set is thirteen, one set is eight, and one set is sixteen reps. That’s not because it’s programmed; it’s because they’re maximizing the set so they don’t waste their fucking time.
That’s what auto-regulation is all about. Only when a person breaks through will he understand what I’m talking about.[/quote]
[quote]Bosky wrote:
true. every fat shit in the gym is knocking out 4 sets of 10. not saying that it doesn’t work, but if your curling the 25’s good luck. check out thibs Beast Building article.[/quote]
They are not going anywhere near failure on those sets, and they are not sufficiently isolating their muscles. You call that training like a bodybuilder? I don’t.
Bodybuilders go to failure…all the time. That’s what they are KNOWN for.
What does Chad Waterbury, the poster boy of “performance training”, say about going to failure? He absolutely hates it and advises people never to do it. “Failure training is training to fail”, he says.
Therefore:
If you are avoiding failure on every set (which normal people do), you are training more like a powerlifter than a bodybuilder.
Very simple. It’s powerlifting routines that don’t work for average people, not bodybuilding ones. Hardly anyone does legitimate bodybuilding training because it is NOT for the weak and puny.
[quote]KingMike wrote:
performance training dosent get you a good physique?
One athlete: Vernon Gholston.
6’4 260lbs isn’t a midget either.[/quote]
One athlete, one genetic freak. His arm size probably increased in a 1:1 ratio with his age during his teens.
Do you know Phil Heath? Another black guy with incredible genetics for building muscle. He’s now a high profile bodybuilder but he started out playing other sports. And boy, did he ever grow once he got on that bodybuilding training regimen.
I’m sure the same thing would happen to your guy. He could be another Paul Dillet in the making. Someone should give him some tren, if they haven’t already.
Besides, how do you know how that guy trains? Football players (and most athletes, really) are notorious for “sloppy training”, in that they combine different training methodologies and basically just throw heavy shit around. He could very well be using bodybuilding principles. He’s so genetically gifted that it probably wouldn’t have a detrimental impact on his performance.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
KingMike wrote:
performance training dosent get you a good physique?
One athlete: Vernon Gholston.
6’4 260lbs isn’t a midget either.
One athlete, one genetic freak. His arm size probably increased in a 1:1 ratio with his age during his teens.
Do you know Phil Heath? Another black guy with incredible genetics for building muscle. He’s now a high profile bodybuilder but he started out playing other sports. And boy, did he ever grow once he got on that bodybuilding training regimen.
I’m sure the same thing would happen to your guy. He could be another Paul Dillet in the making. Someone should give him some tren, if they haven’t already.
Besides, how do you know how that guy trains? Football players (and most athletes, really) are notorious for “sloppy training”, in that they combine different training methodologies and basically just throw heavy shit around. He could very well be using bodybuilding principles. He’s so genetically gifted that it probably wouldn’t have a detrimental impact on his performance.[/quote]
Your excuse for everything is that its being a genetic freak. I doubt ohio state has a “sloppy” lifting program. Give it up. Vernon started playing football in college. He never even lifted in high school. A Clean diet and good training will get you a good physique. Not everyone who is big is a genetic freak.
My best gains have been made using specialization programs. I find it better to specialize in one exercise at a time than to get stronger in all simultaneously.
If you are training for a sport, you certainly need to do sports-specific training. But throwing in some additional cross-training workouts CAN help boost fitness and can certainly help stave off injury, especially in a high-impact sport like track and field.