Anyone Believe in Cross-Training?

Training Powerlifting
161

There is nothing magic about it - you either break down the muscles or you don’t.

There is no need to “guess” - at the end of the workout, your muscles should be completely exhausted and fully pumped. If they are, this means that hypertrophy will occur.

It is as simple as isolating the muscle and exhausting it. That is ALL it takes. Absolutely everything beyond that is superfluous.

You people act like there are some complicated factors involved which you have no control over. Bullshit. You have control over absolutely everything. I used to think the way that you do before I understood what the hell I was doing.

I used to think that if I did a heavy compound lift, my muscles would grow as a result of some undetermined, “special” quality of that lift. Call it HGH or whatnot, it’s simply mystical bullshit. You might as well dance around a pole and ask some raven deity for bigger muscles.

For your muscles to grow, you need to put stress on them DIRECTLY and then exhaust the hell out of them. There is no better method for accomplishing this than isolation machine training.

I’ll say it one more time:
Hypertrophy MUST occur if the muscle is isolated and taken to exhaustion.

It is a law of physiology. It is not open to debate. It is not a grey area. There are no “maybe’s” involved.

Do not tell me that you did a set of curls with perfect form, taken to complete exhaustion, and your arm did not grow at all. That is a lie. Your arm will grow immediately from the pump, and then it will retain a portion of that fluid for hours and days after the lifting session. Bodybuilders see this ALL the time. I have been doing it every day for the past year. It is a process which you can directly trigger, directly influence, and directly witness. There is absolutely no guesswork or assumption to it at all. You see it happening with your own eyes and it is directly within your power to modify it as you wish.

This is what bodybuilding is all about. If you haven’t “broken through”, you’ll never get it.

162

Even Dave Tate readily admits that you need the pump for hypertrophy.

Anybody who denies this is either a liar or a confused idiot.

Hypertrophy really is dirt simple. You either isolate the muscle and break it down…or you don’t. Period.

There is nothing “magical” about the big three. Heavy compound lifts shift tension off the muscles and put a lot of stress on the skeletal structure. Mike Boyle recognizes this. I recognize it. Do not be a fucking dipshit and try to dispute something so blatantly obvious.

This is the end of the discussion.

163

So all that stuff about squats and deadlifts as the king of mass builders is BS eh?

Dude, most of us here aren’t lingerie models for gay mags who go to the gym to lift just to get a ‘pump’ for a ‘few hours’ or ‘days’ enough to make the latest photoshoot. We’re after long term sustainable gains in mass, not a bit of fluid.

164

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Defekt wrote:
Have fun not looking like you train,

LOL. Most idiotic comment so far. You have got to be kidding me. Who the fuck has a V-taper, teardrop quads, and rounded deltoids without doing any specialized training? Flex Wheeler, maybe. Not me.

If I don’t look like I train, then how come several people on this thread took one look at my pic and accurately guessed that I do both leg extensions and machine lateral raises? Was it just a lucky guess? I don’t fuckin’ think so. They knew it because I look like I train.[/quote]

Pretty much anyone who has trained with a basic level of intensity looks better than you. Were not talking flex wheeler condition, i’m talking looks like youve ever lifted anything heavy in your life condition.

It is a common opinion on this site that leg extensions and lateral raises are exercises that are for pussies, an exercise which is fairly useless compared to others. The comments were made because you look like well… a pussy, or atleast someone who trains like one.

165

You know I said leg extensions because leg extensions don’t build mass like Squats do…

166

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Even Dave Tate readily admits that you need the pump for hypertrophy.

Anybody who denies this is either a liar or a confused idiot.

Hypertrophy really is dirt simple. You either isolate the muscle and break it down…or you don’t. Period.

There is nothing “magical” about the big three. Heavy compound lifts shift tension off the muscles and put a lot of stress on the skeletal structure. Mike Boyle recognizes this. I recognize it. Do not be a fucking dipshit and try to dispute something so blatantly obvious.

This is the end of the discussion.[/quote]

You’re hoping all over the place on this NP.

A few pages back I asked you “what causes the fail in technique - connective tissue or muscle?” and now I read that heavy lifting shifts the stress off of the muscles and onto the skeletal system.

Your failure to address my question, when pair with the above statement leads me to believe that you haven’t spend a lot of time trying to figureout why so many of us think you are wrong. It is as though you aren’t listening with the intent to understand what we are saying so you can then address our knowledge void to help us move past our ignorance. In short, I don’t think you are trying to help us.

A few other things that are worth mentioning:

Open chain movements stress connective tissues more than closed chain movements. Leg extension hurt my knees more than the pain free squatting or deadlifting I do.

Isolation movements recruit significantly less motor units than compound movements; you are working less when you do isolation movements. There is a positive correlation between the amount of work that is done and hormonal release - heavy compound movements seems to cause a greater release of GH and testosterone. These hormones, when paired with heavy lifting, increase mass.

You are making a case that people should train with weights that are only slightly larger than those they would need to work with. I agree with this. But body building isn’t about making work easier, it’s about making muscle. You have failed to address the key concerns that people raise about this. Worse is that you fail to be rational in the way you engage people.

167

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

How is it cross training when I do NO specialized training for any of those qualities? Did you not see what I wrote immediately below that comment?

In all of those areas, I have a basic level of proficiency.

I don’t give a shit about specialization in any of them. I want to be flexible - not to be able to turn myself into a pretzel. I want to be able to sprint when I have to - not win a formal race. I want to be able to lift the loads that I routinely encounter in my life - which is never more than 100 lbs.

I train STRICTLY for bodybuilding and I’m still flexible, I can still move my own bodyweight, I’m agile, fast, and have decent endurance.

Re-read what I wrote on the first page. I said that Cross Training is a gimmick because beginners will see gains across the spectrum no matter what type of routine they do. There is no need to ever do specialization work that isn’t directly related to your goals. And if something is related to your goals, then it counts as specialization work, by definition.[/quote]

So you don’t care about specialization in anything. You do no specialized training except your amorphous “bodybuilding specialized training,” which involves a bunch of different machines, some cardio, posing trunks, tanning, etc.

See the problem is that you, or your troll character, have absolutely no idea what “cross-training” or “specialization” are.

Cross-training is doing different, but usually directly related activities. Some examples would include: a powerlifter dragging a sled to get his work capacity up, a boxer doing road work, basketball players running intervals, just about every athlete in the world doing suicides, etc.

Specialization is doing your sport, over and over again. The problem with pure specialization is that you get burned out and injured. A boxer could build up his endurance by boxing all the time, but he’s going to get injured if he does that. So you cross-train to prevent burnout and injuries.

Now bodybuilding, isn’t your typical sport. While other sports are an activity, Bodybuilding is a goal. A bodybuilder lifts weights, but not with the goal of lifting the most he possibly can. Most bodybuilders run, but not with the goal of being a better runner. Bodybuilders get a spray tan, but not with the goal of picking up trashy girls on the jersey shore. Bodybuilders wear small suits, but not with the goal of swimming faster or making tips at a bachelorette party. Bodybuilders use the sauna but not with the goal of…wait what is the goal of using the sauna?

So really, in a sense bodybuilding is cross-training, you do a wide variety of activities, all of which are related to you being on stage.

You would never train bodybuilding solely by specialization: putting on the trunks and hitting the stage.

Now for your clients, what are their goals when they come to you? Now pretty much every 19 year old guy who isn’t an athlete is going to want to “get swole.” Or as they sometimes put it GSGL (get swole: get laid). But what about the forty-five year old accountant? He might want to get up a flight of stairs without getting winded, beat the pants off his friend at racquetball, run a marathon faster than oprah, rule the office softball team, drive a golf ball over 270, dominate the net when he plays doubles, or maybe he wants to do all of these and not be afraid to take his shirt off on the beach.

As far as the people on this board…by and large we are freaks. We want to move ridiculous amounts of weight, just because gravity says we can’t.

168

[quote]detazathoth wrote:
small guy is small[/quote]

LOL, that goes right into icanhascheezburger.com, branded on NP’s picture :slight_smile:

But this guy’s persistence and zeal are really impressive. Only his ignorance surpasses them.

He really couldn’t grasp the idea that some people, who happen to constitute 90% of the Strength Sports forum community, train for goals other than looks.

For some, the physique change is nice addition to healthier/stronger/faster body. For others, the appearance doesn’t get taken into account, because their performance is their primary objective.

I respect both, just as I respect bodybuilders, for whom the appearance is the primary objective - and I believe that’s how all the other guys here think.

He couldn’t understand that after 7 pages of patient explanations, so he’s either trolling, or is really close-minded.

So let’s kill the thread, nothing valuable could be added here.

169

On a sidenote, just to put an end to the “cross-trainers don’t make progress” idea.

Stretching, weightlifting and cardio in the same workout?! This guy must be a fairy. It’s a pity no-one told him that squats are crap.

170

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
On a sidenote, just to put an end to the “cross-trainers don’t make progress” idea.

Stretching, weightlifting and cardio in the same workout?! This guy must be a fairy. It’s a pity no-one told him that squats are crap.[/quote]

He was born like that, remember?

171

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

There is nothing “magical” about the big three. Heavy compound lifts shift tension off the muscles and put a lot of stress on the skeletal structure. Mike Boyle recognizes this. [/quote]

I’m not sure that is the point Mike Boyle was trying to make. The point of structural or connective tissue failure is [usually] found under extraordinary loads, like >3x BW in a raw lift. Poor form can find that point much sooner, but I don’t think Mike Boyle is going to rally against heavy compounds any time soon.

Hypertrophy is an adaptive response. If you lift light weights to failure using isolation movements, that will do it. If you lift heavy weights without going to failure using compounds, that will do it too. Your body will adapt the imposed demands you place upon it.

If you want a specific aesthetic, then isolations can chisel away at certain parts of your body more effectively than compounds, but you argument against heavy compounds for hypertrophy lacks substance.

172

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
gi2eg wrote:
you care nothing about performance or strength, thats cool with me if its cool with you.

Wrong, I care about having a basic level of proficiency in all areas of fitness. In strength terms, I define that as being able to move my own bodyweight. In performance terms, I define that as moving athletically and being able to execute relatively difficult actions (like deceleration and lateral movement).
…[/quote]

My children move their own bodyweight. You have some pretty low goals.

173

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
… Who the fuck has a V-taper, teardrop quads, and rounded deltoids. Not me.

[/quote]

Finally got something right.

174

377×603 41.1 KB

I think this will do:

175

NP - when you have a chance please let me know what gym you train people at in the city. That is all I want to know. I do not even need the address. Just the name.

176

[quote]Defekt wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
On a sidenote, just to put an end to the “cross-trainers don’t make progress” idea.

Stretching, weightlifting and cardio in the same workout?! This guy must be a fairy. It’s a pity no-one told him that squats are crap.

He was born like that, remember? [/quote]

What a terrifying thought.

177

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
I’m not sure that is the point Mike Boyle was trying to make. The point of structural or connective tissue failure is [usually] found under extraordinary loads, like >3x BW in a raw lift.

Poor form can find that point much sooner, but I don’t think Mike Boyle is going to rally against heavy compounds any time soon.[/quote]

You don’t need to go to reach the point of failure. There will be a significant amount of stress shifted to the bone structure long before you max out. This is the principle which Mike Boyle recognizes and other coaches, like Chad Waterbury, don’t.

You can’t simply pretend that you can load up the bar as much as you want and the stimulus on the muscle is going to be the same. It isn’t. Heavy compounds stimulate the body in a completely different way than isolation movements.

A compound is not just “an isolation done with more weight”, which is the fallacious mentality being employed when people write things like:

“Compounds are better because they allow you to use more weight, thus stressing the muscle to a greater degree”.

In reality, you’re not stressing “the muscle” to a greater degree. You’re distributing that additional load over your entire body structure, including your skeletal frame.

Anybody who denies this effect or fails to factor it into their training is living in the stone age.

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
Hypertrophy is an adaptive response. If you lift light weights to failure using isolation movements, that will do it. If you lift heavy weights without going to failure using compounds, that will do it too. Your body will adapt the imposed demands you place upon it.

If you want a specific aesthetic, then isolations can chisel away at certain parts of your body more effectively than compounds, but you argument against heavy compounds for hypertrophy lacks substance.
[/quote]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
My children move their own bodyweight. You have some pretty low goals.[/quote]

Your children are fitter and more athletic than most adults. I’m sure you realize this.

178

[quote]RWElder0 wrote:
NP - when you have a chance please let me know what gym you train people at in the city. That is all I want to know. I do not even need the address. Just the name.[/quote]

Why would you want to know? To put me out of my job?

179

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

You don’t need to go to reach the point of failure. There will be a significant amount of stress shifted to the bone structure long before you max out. This is the principle which Mike Boyle recognizes and other coaches, like Chad Waterbury, don’t.[/quote]

The connective tissue or structural failure that you mentioned earlier and appear to be concerned about is not going to happen squatting 225 unless your form is atrocious.

Mike Boyle says that he thought his structural limit [when he was powerlifting] was around 500lb.

[quote]
In reality, you’re not stressing “the muscle” to a greater degree. You’re distributing that additional load over your entire body structure, including your skeletal frame.[/quote]

In reality, you most definitely ARE stressing “the muscle” to a greater degree! I’m not sure how you could possibly argue otherwise?

Look, as far as your lateral delts are concerned it probably won’t make much difference if you do a 200lb bench press compared to a 20lb lateral raise.

If your lat delts need bringing up RELATIVE to your front delts then doing more bench work isn’t going to help you.

But if your whole front top half needs more size, benching has got to be a better use of time than lateral raises and front raises, right?

Hypertrophy is one of the body’s responses to the imposed demand of lifting weights. It will grow lifting with compounds or isolation exercises (providing nutrition, recovery and progression are allowed).

Using good form, compounds are not going to cause structural or connective tissue failure until you’re hitting some much bigger weights than you have suggested.

Let’s not forget, skull-crushers are also known as “elbow fuckers”. They are a light weight isolation exercise and I do them very rarely because of this (yet I bench twice a week without hurting my elbows).

180

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
RWElder0 wrote:
NP - when you have a chance please let me know what gym you train people at in the city. That is all I want to know. I do not even need the address. Just the name.

Why would you want to know? To put me out of my job?[/quote]

I would never do something like that. It is really more for social research. But if you are not comfortable - I understand.