I frequently come across various anecdotes from authoritative sources which confirm my own beliefs, observations and assumptions.
Earlier in this thread, I quoted Dave Tate giving his opinion on the best methods for hypertrophy.
His advice largely mirrored my own, despite the fact that we both reached our conclusions independently.
Well, here’s another example of that phenomenon in action.
On the last page, I made the claim that heavy weight training shifts stress off the muscular system and onto the structural system (bones and connective tissues).
You were giving me shit for it. Either you guys are all pretty dumb or I must be pretty smart. Take your pick, because Mike Boyle agrees with it.
In commenting on the dangers associated with long-term heavy squats and deadlifts, he writes the following:
[quote]
Both squats and deadlifts tend to fail at a connective tissue point versus a muscular point. This is the inherent failure off these lifts. Most trainees will fail technically before they fail muscularly and will expose the connective tissue to undue stress.[/quote]
Poliquin, Tate, and now, Boyle, all endorse ideas very similar to my own, in one way or another.
It is abundantly obvious that I’m one of the few people on this forum who knows what the hell they’re talking about. Don’t be incredibly suprised if I become an official contributor to this site at some point in the future.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
detazathoth wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Well, judging by the fact that I actually have visible definition and separation between all my leg muscles, you’re right - I’m pretty well acquainted with the leg extension and the leg press sled. I never had this definition when I did squats on a regular basis.
Speaking of legs, I have found 70 lbs. on the sled to be far more effective than 225 lbs. on the squat for hypertrophy.
I think my legs are completely proportional to my upper body. In fact, my entire physique is proportional - a hallmark of bodybuilder-style training.[/quote]
What happened to symmetry on your arms? Your fists look like candy apples sitting on top of those toothpicks. Your diet didn’t seem to do much for you either, judging by the barely visible uni-ab you’re sporting in that picture.
But gosh, look at those lateral delts.
You should be the poster boy for machine based training.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I frequently come across various anecdotes from authoritative sources which confirm my own beliefs, observations and assumptions.
Earlier in this thread, I quoted Dave Tate giving his opinion on the best methods for hypertrophy.
His advice largely mirrored my own, despite the fact that we both reached our conclusions independently.
Well, here’s another example of that phenomenon in action.
On the last page, I made the claim that heavy weight training shifts stress off the muscular system and onto the structural system (bones and connective tissues).
You were giving me shit for it. Either you guys are all pretty dumb or I must be pretty smart. Take your pick, because Mike Boyle agrees with it.
In commenting on the dangers associated with long-term heavy squats and deadlifts, he writes the following:
Both squats and deadlifts tend to fail at a connective tissue point versus a muscular point. This is the inherent failure off these lifts. Most trainees will fail technically before they fail muscularly and will expose the connective tissue to undue stress.
Poliquin, Tate, and now, Boyle, all endorse ideas very similar to my own, in one way or another.
It is abundantly obvious that I’m one of the few people on this forum who knows what the hell they’re talking about. Don’t be incredibly suprised if I become an official contributor to this site at some point in the future.
Just sayin’
Flame on.[/quote]
Good post. You obviously silenced all criticism with your physique photos.
Also, you are the ONLY one who has correctly interpreted Tate, Poliquin, and Boyle’s writings, and EVERYONE else in this entire forum is wrong. Even those authors misinterpret their own articles when they disagree with you.
You fucking rock. I look forward to your first article.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I frequently come across various anecdotes from authoritative sources which confirm my own beliefs, observations and assumptions.
Earlier in this thread, I quoted Dave Tate giving his opinion on the best methods for hypertrophy.
His advice largely mirrored my own, despite the fact that we both reached our conclusions independently.
Well, here’s another example of that phenomenon in action.
On the last page, I made the claim that heavy weight training shifts stress off the muscular system and onto the structural system (bones and connective tissues).
You were giving me shit for it. Either you guys are all pretty dumb or I must be pretty smart. Take your pick, because Mike Boyle agrees with it.
In commenting on the dangers associated with long-term heavy squats and deadlifts, he writes the following:
Both squats and deadlifts tend to fail at a connective tissue point versus a muscular point. This is the inherent failure off these lifts. Most trainees will fail technically before they fail muscularly and will expose the connective tissue to undue stress.
Poliquin, Tate, and now, Boyle, all endorse ideas very similar to my own, in one way or another.
It is abundantly obvious that I’m one of the few people on this forum who knows what the hell they’re talking about. Don’t be incredibly suprised if I become an official contributor to this site at some point in the future.
Just sayin’
Flame on.[/quote]
You are kidding right? Mike Boyle endorses leg extensions. So your squat and deadlift is at a point where your muscles are stronger than your conective tissue?
You should go to one of those anorexic sites where they tell eachother how to starve.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I frequently come across various anecdotes from authoritative sources which confirm my own beliefs, observations and assumptions.
Earlier in this thread, I quoted Dave Tate giving his opinion on the best methods for hypertrophy.
His advice largely mirrored my own, despite the fact that we both reached our conclusions independently.
Well, here’s another example of that phenomenon in action.
On the last page, I made the claim that heavy weight training shifts stress off the muscular system and onto the structural system (bones and connective tissues).
You were giving me shit for it. Either you guys are all pretty dumb or I must be pretty smart. Take your pick, because Mike Boyle agrees with it.
In commenting on the dangers associated with long-term heavy squats and deadlifts, he writes the following:
Both squats and deadlifts tend to fail at a connective tissue point versus a muscular point. This is the inherent failure off these lifts. Most trainees will fail technically before they fail muscularly and will expose the connective tissue to undue stress.
Poliquin, Tate, and now, Boyle, all endorse ideas very similar to my own, in one way or another.
It is abundantly obvious that I’m one of the few people on this forum who knows what the hell they’re talking about. Don’t be incredibly suprised if I become an official contributor to this site at some point in the future.
Just sayin’
Flame on.[/quote]
Obviously when these authors talk about using big exercises and putting weight on the bar they must mean that strength isn’t necessary and the fastest way to get big is through machines.
I can’t stop laughing at this. You sir would make a very good contributor as your articles would bring sheer entertainment.
Does anyone find it odd that this guy is hating on squats, but when he talks about squatting he always mention 225# on the bar. I’m thinking he’s a weenie who can’t put weight on the damm bar.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
In commenting on the dangers associated with long-term heavy squats and deadlifts, he writes the following:
Both squats and deadlifts tend to fail at a connective tissue point versus a muscular point. This is the inherent failure off these lifts. Most trainees will fail technically before they fail muscularly and will expose the connective tissue to undue stress.
[quote]JoeG254 wrote:Obviously when these authors talk about using big exercises and putting weight on the bar they must mean that strength isn’t necessary and the fastest way to get big is through machines.
I can’t stop laughing at this. You sir would make a very good contributor as your articles would bring sheer entertainment.
Does anyone find it odd that this guy is hating on squats, but when he talks about squatting he always mention 225# on the bar. I’m thinking he’s a weenie who can’t put weight on the damm bar. [/quote]
Are you kidding? He obviously has it figured out, and you’re just jealous that he has a better physique.
[quote]Flying Dutchman wrote:
What happened to symmetry on your arms? Your fists look like candy apples sitting on top of those toothpicks. Your diet didn’t seem to do much for you either, judging by the barely visible uni-ab you’re sporting in that picture.
But gosh, look at those lateral delts.
You should be the poster boy for machine based training. [/quote]
Way to join in on the gang rape. Great first post. Can’t wait to see what you add to our community.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You need to get off the internet put some real weight on the bar and start to eat.
On a calorie-per-lb. basis, I eat as much or more than most 250 lb. athletes.
24kcals/lb. Do the math. You do not need to know how much I weigh.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Nominal you have to be a lawyer looking for a debate.
I’m not going to say your body is horrible, you looked to be thin but somewhat developed a la Brad Pitt.
I will say that the average person would attain your physique faster using crossfit then bodybuilding routines, and I’m not a fan of crossfit.[/quote]
I think that an X-Frame, complete with striations and quad separation is a tad more than “somewhat developed”. No, I don’t have much thickness. But I’m still more muscular and defined than most people will ever dream of.
I look very much the way that most natural bodybuilders do on stage.
That I’m in better shape than most people on this forum is a given. That I would more readily get identified as a “weight trained individual” on the street is also pretty apparent (provided I was wearing form fitting clothes).
I’m not just a “fat guy with large forearms”, like most of you. I have small forearms, but I have the unmistakable appearance of a bodybuilder.
That picture was taken completely cold, hours after training. When I workout, I gain at least an inch everywhere and fill out my frame. If I could look like that all the time, I’d be very happy.
Fatties think that every guy with low BF% looks the same, lol.
But there is a clear difference between the “model look” which is relatively low BF%, defined abs and no V-taper, and someone who trains like a bodybuilder.
This is the model look:
Notice how he has no visible lats at all. He has more ab definition than I do even though I’m probably at a lower BF%, simply due to the fact that eating like a bodybuilder causes bloating and water retention (which I could cut overnight).
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Nominal you have to be a lawyer looking for a debate.
I’m not going to say your body is horrible, you looked to be thin but somewhat developed a la Brad Pitt.
I will say that the average person would attain your physique faster using crossfit then bodybuilding routines, and I’m not a fan of crossfit.
I think that an X-Frame, complete with striations and quad separation is a tad more than “somewhat developed”. No, I don’t have much thickness. But I’m still more muscular and defined than most people will ever dream of.
I look very much the way that most natural bodybuilders do on stage.
That I’m in better shape than most people on this forum is a given. That I would more readily get identified as a “weight trained individual” on the street is also pretty apparent (provided I was wearing form fitting clothes).
I’m not just a “fat guy with large forearms”, like most of you. I have small forearms, but I have the unmistakable appearance of a bodybuilder.
That picture was taken completely cold, hours after training. When I workout, I gain at least an inch everywhere and fill out my frame. If I could look like that all the time, I’d be very happy.
Fatties think that every guy with low BF% looks the same, lol.
But there is a clear difference between the “model look” which is relatively low BF%, defined abs and no V-taper, and someone who trains like a bodybuilder.
Notice how he has no visible lats at all. He has more ab definition than I do even though I’m probably at a lower BF%, simply due to the fact that eating like a bodybuilder causes bloating and water retention (which I could cut overnight).[/quote]
Wooow, your delusions are getting worse, eh?
Your legs look like they aren’t capable of moving your own bodyweight, I don’t understand why are you talking about striations and quad separation.
You are more muscular and defined than most people will ever dream of? I don’t know, I’m not as good at stupid generalisations as you, but I think you should change your gym. With one where the 45 lbs plates (20/25 kg if you are European) are more than the lycra-wearing douches.
You are in better shape than most people in this forum? WTF? Even if the fairies you’re surrounded with helped you to gather statistical data about the T-men, in what department you think you are better? It sure isn’t strength or any of its derivatives. If you think it’s looks, go to Rate My Physique and post your “quad separation” photo, you getting assraped will be fun.
Obviously, there’s no way for me to win a discussion like this. That’s why I’ll post pictures about once every 5 years. I knew the debate on this thread was effectively over once I put up that pic.
I’m still pretty sure I know what the hell I’m talking about. Every person I speak to in the real world is impressed by my knowledge. I trust real people more than anonymous net goons.
I can tell you that real people don’t squat more than 250 or bench more than 225. It just doesn’t happen, except on rare occasions. There are 6’3, 250 lb. guys at my gym, really solid types. They still don’t train that heavy. There is a 6’2 powerlifter guy who looks like a bear and the heaviest I’ve seen him do is 315 good mornings. Yeah, I know that on the net, “everybody” squats at least 450 and benches over 300. Keep dreaming.
You don’t need a 500 lb. squat for hypertrophy. For one thing, in the real world, men do not give a shit about leg mass and women do not give a shit about upper body mass. I’m well aware of this because I’m a trainer.
I have seen only two guys squat 4 plates a side in the 5 years I’ve been at my gym, which draws a fair share of serious lifters. The majority of the people I train around look waaay better than most of you on this site, judging by the pics I’ve seen in RMP.
In an effort to get this discussion back on track…
Tough question OP. While cross training is pretty much ridculous for Strength Athletes, it may be a different for other atheletes and regular joe blow doing curls in the squat rack.
Let`s start with joe blow. Chances are the guy wants big gunz and hawt abz and benches 50lbs under his claimed max. Crosstraining for this fellow is ridculous. Now if we correct his training, cross training would still be ridculous. A regular guy who wants to look good does not need balance ball work, or dynamic core work and fancy pants stuff. Just good old fashion weights and cardio when the need arises.
Now for extremely dynamic athletes who need to excel at all spectrums of fitness (hockey players, wrestlers, boxers, etc) I believe cross training is beneficial. These atheletes must excel at numerous dynamic movements that only certain types of cross training can train.
Finally, Strength Athletes. Cross training seems to make no sense to me here. Strength Athletes need to be good at their lifts. Thats it. So to get better, they do their lifts. Alot. Or at least some facet of it (Rack jerks, snatch grip DL, front squats, etc.) So crosstraining should only enter this realm for very very specific reasons and at extremely elite levels.
So, like with alot of things, this issue is different for everyone. Can`t really condemn one or the other
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Defekt wrote:
So let me get this straight. The only way to get bigger is to do isolation exercises, and anyone who got big by doing anything else was a genetic freak, and its completly impossible to do it any other way then to hit each muscle individually.
Do you have pictures of yourself so we can see how well your methods work?
The only way to stimulate hypertrophy is through isolation and exhaustion. Machine training is, by far, the most effective way to accomplish this, but there is no reason why it can’t be done with any other training method. It will simply take much, much longer.
This is my physique.
Example: people develop really impressive, and I mean really impressive physiques, just training as olympic lifters. They may not even be good enough to get to the olympics, but they still have physiques which 99% of gym-goers would kill for.
What kind of strength sports orientated athletes did you have in mind, whose physiques looked weak?
Again, you have to separate relative standards from absolute standards. By absolute standards, anyone who lifts weights for 20 years is going to look a hell of a lot better than the average, non-training individual.
By relative standards, a person who does bodybuilding for 20 years is going to be a hell of a lot more muscular and defined than a person who did only weight lifting.
You obviously need some standard of comparison. You can’t just say, “these guys do oly lifting and they are muscular”. “Muscular”? Compared to what - or rather, who? Probably not so muscular compared to Kevin Levrone or Dennis Wolf.
You’re jumping trains here. If you want to become the best in the world, (or top 10, or top 100), at anything, then you need to specialise.
No, you need to specialize to improve, period. It makes no difference if the improvement is from average coach potato to slightly fit gym goer, or top-20 athlete to top 5 athlete. In both cases, you have a starting point and an end point, and the most direct path between them is always going to be a straight line. That line will ALWAYS be represented by specialization training.
People don’t have the genetics to become Ronnie Coleman, but that doesn’t mean they should specialize any less than he does if they want to reach their PERSONAL (i.e. relative) “best”.
Dyskee, I did things like that once upon a time. I did weighted dips, pullups, Back Squats, Zercher Squats, 20-rep DB Squats, and deads. The result was predictable: I got stronger in each of the lifts that I trained on a regular basis.
What DIDN’T happen was that I put on any muscle or changed my physique in any noticeable way. Indeed, I looked weaker than I do now, even though I lifted much heavier then. I also beat the hell out of my joints and connective tissues, despite using textbook form on everything.
I’ll never go back to that method of training. I don’t give a shit how much I bench or squat. I care about looking like an Olympian (greek god, not IFFB bodybuilder) when I walk around the gym during a workout.
He may be right about getting stronger and aesthetics being competing goals, though. I mean, getting significantly stronger requires building muscle, and looking good requires building musc…hold on.
First of all, strength is always going to be activity specific. There is absolutely no universal measure of strength, no way to measure it across the board. Therefore, getting stronger (being able to lift more weight) is going to be contigent on improving your lifting technique and leverage, first and foremost.
Those two factors probably account for 80% of strength gains. The remaining 20% is contractile hypertrophy, which comes at a turtle’s pace.
You can get equally strong by adding fat or adding muscle. Adding fat is a MUCH faster process than adding real, contractile muscle fiber. If you think I’m wrong, then how come PLers are always talking about “getting their bloat on” before a lift?
Because fat makes you strong. The majority of strength athletes add FAT, not MUSCLE, when they go up in weight.
JoeGood wrote:
Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig just enjoys it.
Not true, the pig gets mad. I just read this quote somewhere.
B3 wrote:
This is the STRENGTH SPORTS forum.
Why are you babbling on about about hypertrophy? Take your act to the bodybuilding boards.
Because this thread is about programming, not hypertrophy, and it belongs here in Strength Sports.
[/quote]
I was right, you look like you don’t lift. I sure as shit wouldn’t peg you for the bodybuilding expert youre claiming to be.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I’m still pretty sure I know what the hell I’m talking about. Every person I speak to in the real world is impressed by my knowledge. [/quote]
