Being a Newb

Training
41

Less is more can be understood to not waste 2 hours each gym session talking and socializing and really working for maybe 40-50 min.( i think X and a well known coach here said that at 6 days about 45 min. is plenty). I even like to spilt my 50 min. in early gym and later home the same day. It might give me 12 sessions in a week doing upper/lower or pull/push/legs.

I find it very easy to squeeze those short session so i rarely miss 1 and even if i miss 1 it still leaves me WO time.
Also Waterbury style no curls needed if it is not your focus.

42

DC 4 LYFE.

43

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Some beginners have such a low work capacity that they can’t endure a highly intensive 60 to 90 minute workout, let alone five of them in one week.

And I believe there are different types of beginners. There are beginners who are naturally muscular and/or athletic and coordinated, who can build up their fitness and strength levels and learn exercise form very quickly and soon more onto an intermediate upper-lower or bodypart split. Then there are beginners who have little fitness experience of any sort and/or are uncoordinated and nebbishy and will likely have to spend more time on a noob program.

I’ve always been of the school of thought that progresses from a full body program with little volume per lift and/or bodyparts at each workout and progressing to an upper-lower split while adding more volume per lift and bodypart, and then finally after a great deal of strength and muscle are built to polish off the physique and make further progress. This is for bodybuilding that is. Most powerlifting programs are a variations of an upper-lower split and many gym rats who aren’t concerned with “capped delts”, “thigh sweep”, and “teardrops” and other details and just want to be big and strong can stay on a full body or upper-lower split indefinitely.

A noob can start out on full body program with a handful of exercises with a relatively high amount of sets per exercise, a la Bill Starr or Starting Strength or one of Chad Waterbury’s or Casey Butt’s beginner programs, or use some program that has a lot of exercises (7 to 10) with a small amount of sets per exercise (1 to 3), like a HIT or HST or ACSM guidelines workout.

We also have to take into account what exactly some skinny, inexperienced noob is gonna do with a 5 day regimen. Usually such regimens have a low frequency, when a beginner will do better with size and strength with a high frequency. They can’t even make much of an inroad into their recovery or the compensation curve that they will need a low to moderate frequency. [/quote]

this is my belief aswell.

a newbie with no prior weight training experience does not need to be doing a 5 day split designed for intermediate-advanced bodybuilders. they need a basic routine consisting on 1-2 movements per bodypart focusing on linear progression and learning how to perform movements efficiently. they cant even dig a big enough hole in their recovery to warrant an entire weeks rest.

also this whole the biggest people train 5 days a week is bull shit. there are tons of big strong men who train 3-4 times a week… all of the guys who train dc and westside come to mind. alpha who is a fucking beast trains fullbody and he isnt exactly small.

44

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I never got the whole “less is more” thing either considering there are times when to progress someone will need… uh… MORE than what they were doing before! With that said, I don’t see a need for anyone but the most advanced or those who compete in bodybuilding to weight train 5 to 6 times a week. Four times a week is enough for most, I believe.

I’ve heard some of John Meadows’ programs have seven days of lifting per week, and although I love the gym and exercising (I lift or do something else 6 days a week), I can’t see myself only lifting seven days in a row without snapping mentally or physically. [/quote]

Frequency can also change when you are enhanced with lots of chemicals.[/quote]

I can’t see myself being in the gym less than 7.

45

I’m the same way. I’ve tried a bunch of different intensity/frequency variations, and I always come back to the 6-7 day/week split. DC was fun, but 3 days/week made me feel like a slacker. I just love training too much to take too many days off, probably to my detriment at times. That being said, I also think that you can “train” your body’s ability to recover. If you start at 3 days/week and jump to 6 days/week, you’re gonna feel it for a while, but you’ll adapt. Just stuff some food in your face hole.

46

[quote]tworkinhard wrote:

I’m the same way. I’ve tried a bunch of different intensity/frequency variations, and I always come back to the 6-7 day/week split. DC was fun, but 3 days/week made me feel like a slacker. I just love training too much to take too many days off, probably to my detriment at times. That being said, I also think that you can “train” your body’s ability to recover. If you start at 3 days/week and jump to 6 days/week, you’re gonna feel it for a while, but you’ll adapt. Just stuff some food in your face hole.
[/quote]

You can certianly train your recovery. My body is used to hours a day from sports training. Honestly I see no reason why people think 2hrs of training 6-7 days a week is too much when they spend most likely 20-22 hrs sitting or laying around. That seems like lots of recovery to me

47

It’s always going to come down to a balance of variables.

I’ve had periods where I was training with crazy intensities and weights but very infrequent gym sessions, and I’ve had periods where I was just doing about 85-90% intensity, but with greater volume and higher frequencies. With both approaches I’ve made gains. They were at different points in my development though, and I have no doubt that it did make a big difference.

What made each approach work was how experienced my body was at the time (Tworkinhard mentioned training your recovery ability), as well as how sufficiently my dietary approach was meeting the needs of the demands placed on it. The longer I stayed in the game, the more volume and frequency I could handle (Bill Pearl wrote about this many decades ago!). Obviously, I also became much more in tune with my body and the finer points of nutrition and training as well.

Could a newer trainer benefit from a 7x/week program? It’s possible, but it’s going to depend on the individual. Former high school athlete, or middle age desk jockey? Would I personally give any new client such a program? Definitely not. It’s something that can be worked up to, possibly quicker with some than others, but never right off the bat.

S

48

Nutrition:

This is where the masses butt heads in some effort to attain current “trend” status. Nutrition is one of the most debated areas surrounding this activity…and there will ALWAYS be the next “greatest best diet strategy”…because people need to pay bills and the general public is literally foaming at the mouth for the “secret”.

The one truth is…there is no “secret”.

Your body may share attributes with other people but it is its own entity with its own individual responses to food and training based on GENETIC METABOLISM (which basically means the blueprint for how your body runs).

Because of your genetic metabolism…an aspect of yourself that changes gradually with age, training, diet and general activity…you can not expect to to see the exact same results as someone else by eating the exact same foods in the same amounts…even if you share similar body weights and heights.

General basic guidelines as far as calories can be used to see where you stand, but at the base of it all is still TRIAL AND ERROR…the only real way to see if what you are doing works the best.

49

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Nutrition:

This is where the masses butt heads in some effort to attain current “trend” status. Nutrition is one of the most debated areas surrounding this activity…and there will ALWAYS be the next “greatest best diet strategy”…because people need to pay bills and the general public is literally foaming at the mouth for the “secret”.

The one truth is…there is no “secret”.

Your body may share attributes with other people but it is its own entity with its own individual responses to food and training based on GENETIC METABOLISM (which basically means the blueprint for how your body runs).

Because of your genetic metabolism…an aspect of yourself that changes gradually with age, training, diet and general activity…you can not expect to to see the exact same results as someone else by eating the exact same foods in the same amounts…even if you share similar body weights and heights.

General basic guidelines as far as calories can be used to see where you stand, but at the base of it all is still TRIAL AND ERROR…the only real way to see if what you are doing works the best.[/quote]

Good post. I think it illustrates the importance of tracking or at the very least having a very close idea of what your food intake/macro breakdown is, and adjusting accordingly based on your goals. Even for many of us who like to consider ourselves pretty dedicated to the swole lifestyle, it’s easy to grossly under or overestimate just how much we’re eating.

Imagine a newb with no concept of macros “winging it,” as so many do. The see food eat food approach will definitely lead to more fat gain than necessary for most, which is ok depending on goals.

Don’t mean to turn this into another “bulking vs. lean gains” debate, I guess what I’m getting at is that I think for a new trainee to most efficiently add LBM, tracking macros is the way to go.

50

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I never got the whole “less is more” thing either considering there are times when to progress someone will need… uh… MORE than what they were doing before! With that said, I don’t see a need for anyone but the most advanced or those who compete in bodybuilding to weight train 5 to 6 times a week. Four times a week is enough for most, I believe.

I’ve heard some of John Meadows’ programs have seven days of lifting per week, and although I love the gym and exercising (I lift or do something else 6 days a week), I can’t see myself only lifting seven days in a row without snapping mentally or physically. [/quote]

Frequency can also change when you are enhanced with lots of chemicals.[/quote]

I can’t see myself being in the gym less than 7. [/quote]

I was going for you should be training more when on lots of chemicals… lol. As long as you are eating enough and sleeping every night, you shouldn’t have to ever worry about over training.

That said I like to train 6 days a week with a day off in the middle of the 6 days.

51

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Nutrition:

This is where the masses butt heads in some effort to attain current “trend” status. Nutrition is one of the most debated areas surrounding this activity…and there will ALWAYS be the next “greatest best diet strategy”…because people need to pay bills and the general public is literally foaming at the mouth for the “secret”.

The one truth is…there is no “secret”.

Your body may share attributes with other people but it is its own entity with its own individual responses to food and training based on GENETIC METABOLISM (which basically means the blueprint for how your body runs).

Because of your genetic metabolism…an aspect of yourself that changes gradually with age, training, diet and general activity…you can not expect to to see the exact same results as someone else by eating the exact same foods in the same amounts…even if you share similar body weights and heights.

General basic guidelines as far as calories can be used to see where you stand, but at the base of it all is still TRIAL AND ERROR…the only real way to see if what you are doing works the best.[/quote]

Which really enforces the idea of tracking ones food intake, be it to a T or estimates based on some criteria for measurement. Adjustments cannot be made from assumptions, but they can be made from statistics or estimates from tracking.

I notice this alot, usually when at a gym and you see a pair of training partners who always workout together. Right now there is one pair at my gym, they are always training together, doing the exact same workouts. One has put on close to 20 lbs(and noticible fat which leads to me beleive vitamin S isnt involved) in the past 6 months or so, and the other made no noticeable change.

Now I do not know, but I am willing to bet one is eating more than he was when he started, and more than he was a few months back while they other is just eating.

52

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I never got the whole “less is more” thing either considering there are times when to progress someone will need… uh… MORE than what they were doing before! With that said, I don’t see a need for anyone but the most advanced or those who compete in bodybuilding to weight train 5 to 6 times a week. Four times a week is enough for most, I believe.

I’ve heard some of John Meadows’ programs have seven days of lifting per week, and although I love the gym and exercising (I lift or do something else 6 days a week), I can’t see myself only lifting seven days in a row without snapping mentally or physically. [/quote]

Frequency can also change when you are enhanced with lots of chemicals.[/quote]

I can’t see myself being in the gym less than 7. [/quote]

I was going for you should be training more when on lots of chemicals… lol. As long as you are eating enough and sleeping every night, you shouldn’t have to ever worry about over training.

That said I like to train 6 days a week with a day off in the middle of the 6 days.
[/quote]

I still train like that.

To grow optimally, you need constant stimulus. You may be able to “maintain” a certain condition only training three times a week, but I wouldn’t expect someone to really shock others with their muscle growth over time using that approach alone.

53

[quote]pwolves17 wrote:

Good post. I think it illustrates the importance of tracking or at the very least having a very close idea of what your food intake/macro breakdown is, and adjusting accordingly based on your goals. Even for many of us who like to consider ourselves pretty dedicated to the swole lifestyle, it’s easy to grossly under or overestimate just how much we’re eating.

Imagine a newb with no concept of macros “winging it,” as so many do. The see food eat food approach will definitely lead to more fat gain than necessary for most, which is ok depending on goals.

Don’t mean to turn this into another “bulking vs. lean gains” debate, I guess what I’m getting at is that I think for a new trainee to most efficiently add LBM, tracking macros is the way to go.
[/quote]

Simply put, I think having a general idea is great for a newb.

I think telling them with extreme “exactness” what they should be eating in what amounts is a huge mistake. Being too critical as a newb without fully understanding food in general can cause more harm than good.

This is why you hear some newbs acting like a hamburger will kill them…you know, the evils of meat, bread and lettuce…may Superman save us all.

Understanding general guidelines is GOOD.

Telling newbs they need to track every calorie can be bad if taken too far.

Why? Mostly because of the false idea that all you should be doing is losing fat and gaining muscle at the same time. It leads to more people running in circles than there could ever be “swole fuckers filling up gym equipment”.

Tell them how to judge general caloric intake. Teach them macronutrients and how those function in the body.

AVOID dogma based on bias or “trendy” diets.

Tracking calories can be a good thing if it is kept in perspective.

It can fuck up the whole world of someone who allows their analytical nature to ignore the simple fact that BIOLOGY IS NOT CALCULUS.

Your body changes…all day long…every 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes and 9.7676 seconds…and that flux has to be understood if you have any plans of moving that organism into an entirely different physical state than where it began.

54

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BIOLOGY IS NOT CALCULUS.
[/quote]
No shit…it’s way easier than biology, lol.

55

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Your body changes…all day long…every 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes and 9.7676 seconds…and that flux has to be understood if you have any plans of moving that organism into an entirely different physical state than where it began.[/quote]
Definitely
When I see a newb post with diet detailed; 6 egg whites, cup of oats and all that I think they’re probably getting wrong
One day’s needs is not every day’s need
Even eating 4000 cals doesn’t mean you digest 4000 cals even day to day that can vary
It’s about the right foods, enough for growth, more than being exact about numbers
The body responds constantly within parameters and it takes time to learn that

56

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Your body changes…all day long…every 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes and 9.7676 seconds…and that flux has to be understood if you have any plans of moving that organism into an entirely different physical state than where it began.[/quote]
Definitely
When I see a newb post with diet detailed; 6 egg whites, cup of oats and all that I think they’re probably getting wrong
One day’s needs is not every day’s need
Even eating 4000 cals doesn’t mean you digest 4000 cals even day to day that can vary
It’s about the right foods, enough for growth, more than being exact about numbers
The body responds constantly within parameters and it takes time to learn that[/quote]

If you don’t track what you eat in some way shape your form you will not know what variable to change.there are so many variables when it comes to progress you should track am manipulate what you can. The best most accomplished physiques I have seen track their intake in some way. That’s a common denominator which leads to be believe there is benefit to it

57

The idea that a newb won’t know what variables to change…is an understatement…and why most should not be told strict guidelines when there is doubt to them fully understanding ALL variables…something most will not understand without an intense education in not only biology and phys but also how the body changes over time due to training.

Since it is doubtful most newbs will be at the level to understand all of this, the trial and error aspect of this becomes that much more important.

General tracking of intake can be a very good aid.

Extreme analysis without the real education to support it will lead most people to fall for any biased nutritional info that any “guru” dictates.

It s good to know generally that you ate “about 3,000cals today”.

It can be a huge mistake for a newb (someone growing the most and whose body will NOT follow the same guidelines for long anyway) to think in terms of “EXACTLY 3.2 KILOCALS” daily.

The human body is not that predictable and there has to be room for that margin of unknowns.

58

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I never got the whole “less is more” thing either considering there are times when to progress someone will need… uh… MORE than what they were doing before! With that said, I don’t see a need for anyone but the most advanced or those who compete in bodybuilding to weight train 5 to 6 times a week. Four times a week is enough for most, I believe.

I’ve heard some of John Meadows’ programs have seven days of lifting per week, and although I love the gym and exercising (I lift or do something else 6 days a week), I can’t see myself only lifting seven days in a row without snapping mentally or physically. [/quote]

Frequency can also change when you are enhanced with lots of chemicals.[/quote]

I can’t see myself being in the gym less than 7. [/quote]

I was going for you should be training more when on lots of chemicals… lol. As long as you are eating enough and sleeping every night, you shouldn’t have to ever worry about over training.

That said I like to train 6 days a week with a day off in the middle of the 6 days.
[/quote]

I still train like that.

To grow optimally, you need constant stimulus. You may be able to “maintain” a certain condition only training three times a week, but I wouldn’t expect someone to really shock others with their muscle growth over time using that approach alone.[/quote]

Shouldn’t how much progress someone makes be more important than how many times they’re in the gym? Doggcrapp for example has you in the gym only three days a week and it’s not like the people who use it are only able to “maintain.”

59

Doggcrap is NOT recommended for newb trainers.

60

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:
When I see a newb post with diet detailed; 6 egg whites, cup of oats and all that I think they’re probably getting wrong
One day’s needs is not every day’s need
Even eating 4000 cals doesn’t mean you digest 4000 cals even day to day that can vary
It’s about the right foods, enough for growth, more than being exact about numbers
The body responds constantly within parameters and it takes time to learn that[/quote]

If you don’t track what you eat in some way shape your form you will not know what variable to change.there are so many variables when it comes to progress you should track am manipulate what you can. The best most accomplished physiques I have seen track their intake in some way. That’s a common denominator which leads to be believe there is benefit to it [/quote]
x2 on what Ryan said.

I don’t understand the “don’t track macros” crowd.
If you say 4,000 calories may not be enough because your body might not digest 4,000 calories then what are you supposed to do?
You have no way of knowing how many calories your body is going to digest in a given day.
So are you saying the answer is don’t track cals and macros and just make sure to eat everything in site so you know you’re getting enough?

What if your body doesn’t digest 5,000 that day?
What if it doesn’t digest 6k?
What about 7k?
It’s an impossibly guessing game.
I guarantee most of the guys who “know roughly” how many calories they are eating are off by a decent amount.

I agree that the body doesn’t use or digest the same amount of calories every day (obviously) and that is the premis behind low/medium/high days.
Give your body more fuel on days where you do more work.

Again, like Ryan said:
Virtually every single successful and well developed physique was built by someone who was tracking calories and tracking macros.
That is not a coincidence.