Being a Newb

Training
141

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I am actually glad I did not have access to all this web-info when I started out.

With an old dingy musky gym with leaky pipes, and plenty of views of the Rocky movies, I was initiated into the old school the right way. [/quote]

It really seems to be holding a lot of people back rather than pushing them forward.

You make yourself push…when you walk into a gym and see some gym girl lifting more than you and every other guy bench pressing an amount of weight you can’t even imagine picking up at all.

You can’t feel that over the internet.

You can’t find the advice of the people who have made the most progress…because some guy just released a video on youtube who says don’t listen to them even though he looks like he just started as well.

I think most are at risk now of there being just way too many points of view and too many voices.

They can’t find their way because they are getting pummeled by a thousand voices all saying they know the one and only way if they can show it or not.[/quote]

I really agree with this. I don’t think the problem is the Internet so much, but all the conflicting views flooded around. A newb needs to pick one very knowledgable person who is or was where they want to be and follow strictly their advice. Because no one trainer is going to agree exactly with another even though both are proven and capable coaches.

142

Maybe some new to resistance training are using their brain.
Some are extreme but the pendulum is also extreme with
add 60 pounds of muscle in 12 months,
no, fallow my program you will do it in in 6 months,
forget that my SUPER SYSTEM will get you there in only 3 months.

143

There is a drastic difference in coaching a newb in person as opposed to helping them over the internet. An experienced coach with a good eye for these things + young newbie can equal some staggering results. Most of the time though, people don’t come close to realizing the growth potential in those first couple of years. A lot of this is due to the apparent plethora of expert advice available on sites just like these. Well meaning and better than nothing, for sure, but always vastly inferior to actually being under real life tutelage from an experienced coach.

There is a good reason why a guy like your Professor X doesn’t get involved in threads about very specific exercises and splits, but keeps talking about getting the right attitude/mindset, and training with people much more advanced than you. In short, if you’re not willing to take the newbie under your wing and train him as well you can over the internet for the next year or two, he may be better served with you NOT answering some specific question he posted about training in a forum.

144

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think most are at risk now of there being just way too many points of view and too many voices.

They can’t find their way because they are getting pummeled by a thousand voices all saying they know the one and only way if they can show it or not.[/quote]
I really agree with this. I don’t think the problem is the Internet so much, but all the conflicting views flooded around. A newb needs to pick one very knowledgable person who is or was where they want to be and follow strictly their advice. Because no one trainer is going to agree exactly with another even though both are proven and capable coaches. [/quote]
Yep. Easy access to information is good, information overload is bad, contradicting information overload is probably worst of all.

There’s a kid with a thread over in the Beginners forum right now. He’s 14 and asking about a plan to gain size, strength, and speed for baseball. In the last few days, a half-dozen different people have told him: Do I,Bodybuilder; Do the layer system routine; Do DeFranco’s program; Do one of Cressey’s programs; Make sure you’re doing speed work against bands with 50%1RM.

I mean, are you shitting me? I feel legitimately sorry for this kid now having to sort out what to do, especially when we all know that he should follow the advice I threw down and that’s that. (Um, kidding. Mostly. Sort of. A little.)

On one hand, everyone does have their own viewpoint and opinions to contribute, but on the other hand, there are certainly some situations where you need to take an objective look, realize that you’re out of your element on a given topic even if you feel like saying something (especially if some non-absurd/likely useful advice has already been given), and zip your lip.

But then again, if that happened the majority of the time, there’d be crickets on every training forum and site. So, what’s the solution other than encouraging newbs to develop their BS detector as soon as possible?

145

It’s funny how people think it’s the internet. Ever seen a Charles Atlas add from the '50? Information has always been everywhere, you just have to look. Then magazines came along, now the internet. “Do this and gain 50lbs, I did…”. Hell, snake oil merchants of the 1800…

Now, the QUALITY of the info is another matter. Taking the example above. Yes, 6 different people will give you 6 different answers. But it is a free website, free access and free advice. There is another thread where someone says that excellent people have just chimed in, so follow there advice. The OP says, “how am I suppose to know?” So really, who can a newb trust?

Welcome to life.

I personally wished that anybody that says “Do this, I did and it works” or “Show me someone with big (insert name of muscle) that doesn’t (insert name of basic exercise)” should be deleted. Personal and un provable opinions are just that.

Eat like a human being
Get on a proven program
Get enough rest

Apart from that, interesting topic on basic human psychology.

Cheers

146

[quote]Purple wrote:
There is a drastic difference in coaching a newb in person as opposed to helping them over the internet. An experienced coach with a good eye for these things + young newbie can equal some staggering results. Most of the time though, people don’t come close to realizing the growth potential in those first couple of years. A lot of this is due to the apparent plethora of expert advice available on sites just like these. Well meaning and better than nothing, for sure, but always vastly inferior to actually being under real life tutelage from an experienced coach.

There is a good reason why a guy like your Professor X doesn’t get involved in threads about very specific exercises and splits, but keeps talking about getting the right attitude/mindset, and training with people much more advanced than you. In short, if you’re not willing to take the newbie under your wing and train him as well you can over the internet for the next year or two, he may be better served with you NOT answering some specific question he posted about training in a forum. [/quote]
This is a solid analysis I think

147

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think most are at risk now of there being just way too many points of view and too many voices.

They can’t find their way because they are getting pummeled by a thousand voices all saying they know the one and only way if they can show it or not.[/quote]
I really agree with this. I don’t think the problem is the Internet so much, but all the conflicting views flooded around. A newb needs to pick one very knowledgable person who is or was where they want to be and follow strictly their advice. Because no one trainer is going to agree exactly with another even though both are proven and capable coaches. [/quote]
Yep. Easy access to information is good, information overload is bad, contradicting information overload is probably worst of all.

There’s a kid with a thread over in the Beginners forum right now. He’s 14 and asking about a plan to gain size, strength, and speed for baseball. In the last few days, a half-dozen different people have told him: Do I,Bodybuilder; Do the layer system routine; Do DeFranco’s program; Do one of Cressey’s programs; Make sure you’re doing speed work against bands with 50%1RM.

I mean, are you shitting me? I feel legitimately sorry for this kid now having to sort out what to do, especially when we all know that he should follow the advice I threw down and that’s that. (Um, kidding. Mostly. Sort of. A little.)

On one hand, everyone does have their own viewpoint and opinions to contribute, but on the other hand, there are certainly some situations where you need to take an objective look, realize that you’re out of your element on a given topic even if you feel like saying something (especially if some non-absurd/likely useful advice has already been given), and zip your lip.

But then again, if that happened the majority of the time, there’d be crickets on every training forum and site. So, what’s the solution other than encouraging newbs to develop their BS detector as soon as possible?[/quote]

i will say one thing, the person i have learnt the most from is IronAddict R.I.P. hes simple and no bullshit attitude are perfect for a newb, THEY NEED A FIRM HAND.

best info i could ever give a beginner… find ONE very well respected and experienced trainer/coach and read through everything they have ever written. even better would be if you had the funds to hire them yourself, you would learn more in 3 months under the guidance of a great coach then you would spending 12 months reading around the internet.

148

[quote]Purple wrote:
There is a drastic difference in coaching a newb in person as opposed to helping them over the internet. An experienced coach with a good eye for these things + young newbie can equal some staggering results. Most of the time though, people don’t come close to realizing the growth potential in those first couple of years. A lot of this is due to the apparent plethora of expert advice available on sites just like these. Well meaning and better than nothing, for sure, but always vastly inferior to actually being under real life tutelage from an experienced coach.

There is a good reason why a guy like your Professor X doesn’t get involved in threads about very specific exercises and splits, but keeps talking about getting the right attitude/mindset, and training with people much more advanced than you. In short, if you’re not willing to take the newbie under your wing and train him as well you can over the internet for the next year or two, he may be better served with you NOT answering some specific question he posted about training in a forum. [/quote]

Good post.

One thing I wanted to discuss was the tendency for people to act as if the responses are being graded on “knowledge of trends”. You see statements like, “I track my MACROS”…then followed by a statement that lets you know the person has no clue what “macros” really are…they are just using the term because that is what they see written ion most forums lately.

Lately, it seems advice is being geared to what you might find on sites like PM where most of the posters are competing advanced bodybuilders some with a long history of competition and anabolics use.

That advice is great…for someone who already knows their own body, has a deep understanding of physiology and nutrition, and has spent years finding out what works and what doesn’t.

That advice can hold back the trainer who does not have that background.

149

I think there’s a line between getting too focused on tiny details and from holding yourself back from actually learning the things that will be helpful in making continual progress in the long run.

In my opinion you cant reach the point where you truly understand how your own body works if you can’t accurately look t what you’re doing in terms of training and nutritional variables and objectively assess your reaction to said approaches.

You’ll find the more advanced trainers discussing the manipulation of variables because they understand the roles they play in the big picture. Newbs on the other hand can either be regurgitating terms to sound knowledgeable or they could be spot on but simply need to give their bodies the time it needs to acquire the size needed for their physique goals.

The idea of holding back progress is like overtraining. Yes it can occur and it does, but not as often as some might like to think and usually because other variables aren’t being adequately addressed for their roles in the overall equation.

S

150

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

The idea of holding back progress is like overtraining. Yes it can occur and it does, but not as often as some might like to think and usually because other variables aren’t being adequately addressed for their roles in the overall equation.

S[/quote]

I would disagree here completely.

Overtraining rarely occurs if the most basic variables are taken care of.

Being confused by biased and misinformation seems to be happening daily all over this forum.

151

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

The idea of holding back progress is like overtraining. Yes it can occur and it does, but not as often as some might like to think and usually because other variables aren’t being adequately addressed for their roles in the overall equation.

S[/quote]

I would disagree here completely.

Overtraining rarely occurs if the most basic variables are taken care of. [/quote]

Which they’re usually not among those who fail to make progress. look at how many newbs wann talk about supps but cant provide the most basic targets of their diets or even a roughly calculated amount of daily cals. [quote]

Being confused by biased and misinformation seems to be happening daily all over this forum.[/quote]

Tell me about it.

S

152

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

Which they’re usually not among those who fail to make progress. look at how many newbs wann talk about supps but cant provide the most basic targets of their diets or even a roughly calculated amount of daily cals.
[/quote]

While this may be true, adding to the air assault on newbs is the fact that many choose to present this info within the most narrow ranges as if all people share the same genetics.

I see information being given based completely on the fact that someone is natural or not…when “steroids” affect anabolism without changing the innate genetics of the individual.

If someone is getting told they need to vary calories within a “200 calorie window”, in my opinion, that person should be very well developed already…like to the tune of impressing most who see them to some degree.

While giving these narrow ranges may make one seem especially “knowledgeable”, it can hold back the progress of newbs who take info like that as gold.

153

I think it’s simply a starting point. If anything it makes a trainer become accountable for what goes in their pie hole and hopefully in the process they realize the importance of nutrition. Seeing anything as the one size fits all, ultimate answer is always a bad thing, no matter how experienced you are or what aspect of your training your discussing.

Sure overshooting #s is a great way to guarantee hitting them, but then you always come back to the “looking good now” reason most start training in the first place.

IMO you learn your own body much better by building up and finding your own #s. Unfortunately that means paying careful attention and trying to understand what’s going on.

S

154

A range of “200” calories can set a newbie on a path of “overanalyzation” and not a path of “gaining the most muscle possible”.

The human body doesn’t even work within ranges that small as a constant. You can vary more than 200 calories simply by running for the bus today as opposed to yesterday.

I wouldn’t even make changes that small now. It is too narrow to judge response unless my activity level is extremely constant.

155

200 cals of the right macros a day will come to half a pound each week. I know what I’m about to say might derail the thread, but a steady 1/2 lb of quality muscle a week is 2 lbs a month. A very optimistically yet realistic figure no matter your genetics (PEDs withstanding of course).

Also, while contest BBers are rightfully considered not the norm for sale of discussions, 200 cals is certainly enough to make a difference in terms of growth or fat loss. Saying the body doesn’t register that much is just ridiculous. Obviously if you’re carrying so much girth that you can’t really tell, that’s one thing, but even then it still doesn’t mean the nutrients weren’t used.

Yes, I realize this thread started off as advice for newbs, but putting myself in the mindset of just starting out, going from skinny to fat wouldn’t seem like progress to me. However actually learning how “it’s done” and seeing my body transform while still sporting visible musculature (not girth) would.

S

156

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
200 cals of the right macros a day will come to half a pound each week. I know what I’m about to say might derail the thread, but a steady 1/2 lb of quality muscle a week is 2 lbs a month. A very optimistically yet realistic figure no matter your genetics (PEDs withstanding of course).

Also, while contest BBers are rightfully considered not the norm for sale of discussions, 200 cals is certainly enough to make a difference in terms of growth or fat loss. Saying the body doesn’t register that much is just ridiculous. Obviously if you’re carrying so much girth that you can’t really tell, that’s one thing, but even then it still doesn’t mean the nutrients weren’t used.

Yes, I realize this thread started off as advice for newbs, but putting myself in the mindset of just starting out, going from skinny to fat wouldn’t seem like progress to me. However actually learning how “it’s done” and seeing my body transform while still sporting visible musculature (not girth) would.

S[/quote]

:smiley:

157

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
200 cals of the right macros a day will come to half a pound each week. I know what I’m about to say might derail the thread, but a steady 1/2 lb of quality muscle a week is 2 lbs a month. A very optimistically yet realistic figure no matter your genetics (PEDs withstanding of course). [/quote]

“The right macros” is a variable and isn’t constant from day to day unless all activity and metabolism is constant.

Since this does not happen in nature, it is best to look at results and not “200 cals” as if this will lead to a half pound of weight gain. That would only be if you were eating MORE THAN THE BODY NEEDED and no newb will know this off hand.

It took me years to work that iout and it still changes after more progress is made.

If a newb has the potential to gain a large amount of muscle right off, that “200calories” would be UNDERshooting the amount they could actually utilize over time greatly. Wasting months trying to work within a small range like that doesn’t seem prudent at all for anyone outside of the very advanced who would already know their general ranges.

[quote]

Also, while contest BBers are rightfully considered not the norm for sale of discussions, 200 cals is certainly enough to make a difference in terms of growth or fat loss. Saying the body doesn’t register that much is just ridiculous. Obviously if you’re carrying so much girth that you can’t really tell, that’s one thing, but even then it still doesn’t mean the nutrients weren’t used.[/quote]

I didn’t say the body doesn’t register that much. I said that it is too small a range to be able to view progress unless you literally account for all activity and already know the body well.

A newb does not know this and even in an advanced lifter, that 200 calories could be used by the body at any point that there is more activity that day…even stress.

I wrote that I personally still wouldn’t adjust calories in that small a range because of that variable.

Serious question…why does it seem as if you see different things than what I write? I didn’t write that the human body doesn’t “register” 200 calories. Nothing written even sounds like that.

[quote]

Yes, I realize this thread started off as advice for newbs, but putting myself in the mindset of just starting out, going from skinny to fat wouldn’t seem like progress to me. However actually learning how “it’s done” and seeing my body transform while still sporting visible musculature (not girth) would.

S[/quote]

I am not sure how any of what we are discussing would lead someone from ‘skinny to fat’.

This is about making changes that someone can actually follow and make adjustments to instead of starting a newb off in a habit of being this analytical that they ignore the bigger picture.

158

It appears Stu and Prof X are misinterpreting eachother over the caloric analog of what is known as expected return v. volatility in the financial realm. And both are quite correct.

Yes, the VARIANCE due to caloric expenditure most definitely exceeds 200 cals, so it is in vain to try and restrict yourself to a narrower window than this. I completely agree with Prof X there.

HOWEVER, the idea is for the AVERAGE to go up or down by 200 cals, and variance is the same pretty much no matter what. Consistently aim for a target caloric intake that’s 200 cals different than your current state, and you will definitely see a difference. This is not the same thing as saying “I have to eat EXACTLY 2734 cals today!”

An example. Let’s say caloric intake comes with a volatility of 200 cals, since Prof X likes that number.

Bodybuilder A: eats 2300 +/- 200 cals/day, so a range of 2100-2500
Bodybuilder B: eats 3300 +/- 200 cals/day, so a range of 3100-3500

All else equal B is makin da better gainz! On average he’s eating 1000 cals more.

159

JSK makes good points (I’m in Vegas this week, so completely on my IPhone I might gloss over minor details, if so I apologize). My own view when I deal with my clients isn’t based on daily progress, but weekly or monthly depending on goals and starting points. I think we can all agree that notices of daily changes are implausible for all but contest ready competitors. I think a lot of my own thinking simply comes down to understanding just how little new muscle can realistically be built in a short duration as well as the gross overestimations of just how many additional nutrients are needed to support the synthesis and daily maintenance of new tissue.

I do agree that fluctuations of daily #s can be a very useful tool, and the approach has been written about and discussed countless times just on this site, but again, that requires at least a basic understanding of the changing nutritional needs of the body on a day to day basis.

S

160

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
200 cals of the right macros a day will come to half a pound each week. I know what I’m about to say might derail the thread, but a steady 1/2 lb of quality muscle a week is 2 lbs a month. A very optimistically yet realistic figure no matter your genetics (PEDs withstanding of course). [/quote]

“The right macros” is a variable and isn’t constant from day to day unless all activity and metabolism is constant.

Since this does not happen in nature, it is best to look at results and not “200 cals” as if this will lead to a half pound of weight gain. That would only be if you were eating MORE THAN THE BODY NEEDED and no newb will know this off hand.

It took me years to work that iout and it still changes after more progress is made.

If a newb has the potential to gain a large amount of muscle right off, that “200calories” would be UNDERshooting the amount they could actually utilize over time greatly. Wasting months trying to work within a small range like that doesn’t seem prudent at all for anyone outside of the very advanced who would already know their general ranges.

[quote]

Also, while contest BBers are rightfully considered not the norm for sale of discussions, 200 cals is certainly enough to make a difference in terms of growth or fat loss. Saying the body doesn’t register that much is just ridiculous. Obviously if you’re carrying so much girth that you can’t really tell, that’s one thing, but even then it still doesn’t mean the nutrients weren’t used.[/quote]

I didn’t say the body doesn’t register that much. I said that it is too small a range to be able to view progress unless you literally account for all activity and already know the body well.

A newb does not know this and even in an advanced lifter, that 200 calories could be used by the body at any point that there is more activity that day…even stress.

I wrote that I personally still wouldn’t adjust calories in that small a range because of that variable.

Serious question…why does it seem as if you see different things than what I write? I didn’t write that the human body doesn’t “register” 200 calories. Nothing written even sounds like that.

So how do you figure out how much to eat each day in regards to variability?