B/S! What I Learned the Hard Way

Training Bodybuilding
21

[quote]Redbones27 wrote:
My point is that different exercises, which according to most recieved ideas should have identical effects on hypertrophy, actually are extremely different. It’s not a matter of technique: I can back squat just fine, and I’m flexible enough to squat with heels on the ground and hamstrings resting on the calfs.[/quote]

That’s not true, people know that different exercises or different techniques on exercises will make groups of muscles grow differently. What some people(probably extremely few on T-Nation) fail to realize is that extremely high reps don’t have an effect on the “tone” of your muscle.

22

[quote]Redbones27 wrote:
<<< I’m making the same point here that Scott Abel did a couple weeks ago and got torn to shreds for: if some exercise is not living up to its reputation for you (bench press, back squat, chinup, whatever), stop investing so much of your best energy in trying to master it, and move on to something that does work. [/quote]

I’m actually with you on this general point, however I don’t believe it translates very well into what you’re saying about the VM and back squats. If you’re not hitting the VM with the squat then you’re not going deep enough. That isn’t the same thing as saying that impressive legs cannot be built without them.

I believe they can. However it is a “money” movement for anybody without a medical or genuine physiological reason to avoid them. Some other movements don’t share that nearly a universal effectiveness.

23

[quote]Redbones27 wrote:
Feel free to add to this list or argue (I know you all will anyway).

1.) I keep reading in articles that muscles either shrink, grow or stay the same; you can’t “shape” them or “tone” them. Bullshit. Once, I religiously and progressively back squatted for about six months.

My legs blew up, but they looked like shit: mostly the inner thigh muscle got bigger and nothing whatsoever happened for the vastus medialis. I quit back squatting. Later, I took a capoeira class (a Brazilian martial art where you basically lunge and kick for an hour straight) three times a week.

At the end of three months, my thighs were more cut (not bigger: more cut) than they’ve ever been, and the vastus medialis more developed. The truth: different exercises develop muscles differently; it’s not all just “bigger” or “smaller.”

Nowadays I do front squats: after two years of progressively heavier weights, my legs still aren’t as cut as they were when I was doing capoeira, but they look a hell of a lot better than they did when I was back squatting. (As a sidenote, I think back squats work well for ectomorphs and mesomorphs: I’ve trained friends who were both, and their musculature developed very differently from mine, though I had them doing back squats).

2.) Getting a six pack involves a complicated program, is impossible to maintain year round, and requires crazy amounts–or intensities-- of cardio. Bullshit. I am extremely endomorphic and I keep my six pack year round (though, admittedly, I keep things tighter in summer). The secret?

Three tough fullbody workouts a week lasting one hour, no cardio whatsoever. It’s the food, dudes. If you drink juice and/or soda, no abs. If you love bread, pastries and dessert, no abs. If you don’t consider it a real meal unless there’s some starch on the plate, you got it, no abs. You must learn how to eat, if you want a six pack.

Conquering your lust for sugar/potatoes/rice/bread and learning to love fish/green vegetables/cooking-not-microwaving is the deciding factor for whether you’ll ever have a six pack.

3.) Related to the two points above: If you think you can follow the training or nutritional advice of just any author, you better think again. Back squat! Bench press! Barbell rows! Hold on partner: I pointed out how back squatting doesn’t create aesthetic muscle for endomorphs.

Extremely long arms? Think twice (think three times) about bench pressing. Got a bad lordotic curve? Think again about barbell rows. You’ve got to bring a lot awareness of who you are–your weaknesses and body type–before you accept someone’s advice or think that it applies to you.

I don’t have to eat a lot to stay 200 very solid lbs at 6’–it doesn’t take 6 meals a day or tons of calories; my metabolism is VERY slow. When an extremely ectomorphic author like Berardi gives nutritional advice, I have to take it with a grain of salt. You should too.

I could go on, but I’d like to hear some of what you all have learned that contradicts the messages we receive.[/quote]

In response to:

#1) You are an idiot.

#2) I agree 100%. Some of the best and simplest nutritional advise I’ve seen on this site.

#3)So so point. No matter your bodytype, if you eat big you will get big, even if you train like a punk. If you train like a pro and eat small, you’ll stay small. It’s all about the calories bro.

24

[quote]Redbones27 wrote:

You’ve got to bring a lot awareness of who you are–your weaknesses and body type–before you accept someone’s advice or think that it applies to you.

[/quote]

True. You have to understand your body and what works for it and what doesn’t. Especially someone who has injuries or is prone to injuries from doing certain exercises.

25

[quote]Redbones27 wrote:
Feel free to add to this list or argue (I know you all will anyway).

1.) I keep reading in articles that muscles either shrink, grow or stay the same; you can’t “shape” them or “tone” them. Bullshit. Once, I religiously and progressively back squatted for about six months. My legs blew up, but they looked like shit: mostly the inner thigh muscle got bigger and nothing whatsoever happened for the vastus medialis. I quit back squatting. Later, I took a capoeira class (a Brazilian martial art where you basically lunge and kick for an hour straight) three times a week. At the end of three months, my thighs were more cut (not bigger: more cut) than they’ve ever been, and the vastus medialis more developed. The truth: different exercises develop muscles differently; it’s not all just “bigger” or “smaller.” Nowadays I do front squats: after two years of progressively heavier weights, my legs still aren’t as cut as they were when I was doing capoeira, but they look a hell of a lot better than they did when I was back squatting. (As a sidenote, I think back squats work well for ectomorphs and mesomorphs: I’ve trained friends who were both, and their musculature developed very differently from mine, though I had them doing back squats).

[/quote]

just fyi, your example here certainly did not show any proof that you can shape a muscle. all it showed was that certain movements will target different muscles differently, even within the same muscle group. and, not to burst your bubble, but youre not the first to discover this.

if you were in fact able to “shape” the muscle, that would mean you could specifically target a certain portion within a muscle. take the quads that you used as your example: we all know that the quads are made up of four seperate heads, hence the name “quads”. now, if you were able to specifically train for only a portion of your vastus medialis to grow, while the rest of that specific muscle did not grow, you would be shaping it. now, if you can successfully do that, id think youd have many olympia titles in your future.

heres an even more clear-cut example: abs. some people are structured such that they have very even abs. they have a vertical cut down the middle and then seemingly perfect horizontal cuts all the way down, looking very symetrical. others can be ripped to shreds and still have abs that look uneven, as if their seperate “ab blocks” down each side arent quite lined up with each other. they can certainly build these muscles larger, or allow them to shrink down a bit, but no amount of training is going to get them symetrical, or “shape” them.

i hope you can see what im saying here, nothing to take away from whatever progress you have made on your lifts, physique, whatever; but what you described was not shaping.

26

You’re right about that. I didn’t make my point very clearly. What I get frustrated with is hearing someone say, I want to get proportional and cut up, but I don’t want to get big. Everyone else, of course, responds: muscles just get bigger or smaller, period! It’s just a matter of body fat, whether you have cuts or not!

Thing is, that’s an oversimplification that finally just isn’t true. You can get a ton of definition without putting on much apparent size at all; and while a minimum body fat plays a role in having cuts, it’s not the whole story. Recieved wisdom also says that muscles get bigger by lifting progressively heavier weights; that’s the gospel.

But I’ve learned that they get bigger too–sometimes faster, easier, and more impressively–with tons of volume and frequency (e.g., 200 push-ups a day four or five days a week may do more for your chest than 3x10 or 5x5 of bench presses two or three days a week ever did; and see my example of capoiera vs backsquatting above).

I also get frustrated when everyone gets handed the same “big four”–back squats, conventional deadlifts, bench press, and chin ups–as if those exercises suit everyone’s body type, goals, or even biomechanical handicaps. Some people get fantastic results from some of them, but damage themselves permanently trying to master others.

Given long enough, most everyone in the course of time and experience learns to individualize their “big four,” but a lot of people hurt themselves or get frustratingly poor results before that happens.

I’m saying that if results are not happening for a trainee, or they’re constantly hurting themself, but still “following the rules” and have all the dogma down, may be the need to strike off the path of received wisdom and try some of the experiments I did.