Bodybuilding Bible Continued

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
…
Bodybuilding squats don’t need to worry about going below parallel…which is pretty difficult to do with an decent load for the average trainee anyway (due to pretty standard flexibility/structure issues).[/quote]

…

Not going past parallel actually causes more knee and back problems than going past paralell. And if someone has structural and flexibility issues, they need to take care of that before they squat and deadlift - perhaps focus more on flexibility and single leg exercises and leg presses. [/quote]

Hey Brick and Its, you guys are great!

This makes things interesting because I have a bit of a back problem. I have no fucking clue when it will heal up, but amazingly going ATG is much kinder to my back than parallel ever is. My back usually hurts a lot in the morning and I don’t know why (anyone have an idea?). Seeing as how I am trying to build mass I guess going ATG is better than no squat at all. It by any means isn’t a massive weight im dealing with either.

62

Hey brick am I correct in assuming that by saying straight sets you mean doing sets at pretty much exact same reps with exact same weights?

Eg: For bench
8x100
8x100
8x100

63

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

DO NOT lift the chest out of the movement first (from the bottom) - you should feel the weight in your heels, and drive up with you hips/bum.

In my opinion, back squat is more of a hip exercise (stimulates abs/bum more than thighs)…so alternatives like front squat are probably better long term for bodybuilding goals. But front squats are good to start with.

Bodybuilding squats don’t need to worry about going below parallel…which is pretty difficult to do with an decent load for the average trainee anyway (due to pretty standard flexibility/structure issues).[/quote]

Depends on the person. Someone who has equal development in the quads, glutes, and hams or is quad dominant usually benefits from regular squats.

Someone who’s glute dominant or has weak quads usually benefits more from front squats.

What’s “decent” is relative. If someone reaches failure or near failure with 135, that’s good for them.

Not going past parallel actually causes more knee and back problems than going past paralell. And if someone has structural and flexibility issues, they need to take care of that before they squat and deadlift - perhaps focus more on flexibility and single leg exercises and leg presses. [/quote]

x2 Brick… My knees kill me if I stop at or above parallel. Going slightly below parallel makes all the difference in the world.

64

Is it cool if i post a video of my squat to see if its anywhat near normal? It’s nothing impressive. Brick and others I want your input.

65

Holy crap! I did it, read the WHOLE fricken thing. Wow what a roller coaster it would be VERY cool if the original Bible could be edited as it is excruciating reading some of it.

I have been doing a push/pull style of routine for the last 8 months with IMO good progress in size and strength, however as my body has many aches from it I think it’s time to focus a little more on the size part of the equation before I really hurt myself.

What originally attracted me to this site was the I, Bodybuilder program but after reading the beginning of the original bible there were some truths that spoke to me. I might well give this “pure” style a shot again for the first time since I first started working out.

The question I am left with is what are your opinions on Mike Mentzers philosophies on recovery? I can’t get on youtube at the moment or I would post a video of him speaking of it. The reason I bring up Mentzer is becasue he of course was a Bodybuilder himself and did train bodybuilders and believed in the low rep high intensity and CNS recovery that this bible seems to go against.

66

here it is

67

I’ll watch the video… but knowing Mentzer I will say that he started off with the right idea but went off the freaking deep end as the years went on(and the drug use rose).

Recovery=good and should be considered
Waiting 14-28 days before training a body part again=foolish OCD thinking

A smart bodybuilder like Yates took Jones and Mentzer’s thoughts and applied the good and threw out the ridiculous… and his routines look a LOT like what Brick outlined in that thread originally.

My thought on recovery vs volume is they are inversely proportional and this will be common sense to most. If you do low volume you can likely stimulate a muscle group more often… if you are a higher volume advocate you will require more recovery time. I’m not going to quantify that with a number of sets or number of days because like most things here, it depends.

Some guys can go in the gym and train like Ronnie Coleman and hit every 2x weekly with moderate/high volume of work and flourish while others would be steam rolled by that. So you are faced with a few choices and that means you either chase the frequency of body parts hit but reduce the amount of work each time until YOU can recover, or your reduce the frequency and keep the same volume of work. Or you try both… there will be an individual sweet spot where you are stimulating the muscle enough and then coming back in and hitting it again(hopefully in progressive fashion) right at the correct day to be able to do it again effectively.

68

The problem with Mike Mentzers philosophy’s is that they are a bit outdated now IMO.

Sure, recovery is important and at the time his philosophy’s were developing, people were doing stupid amounts of volume…ESPECIALLY those taking gear.

There are some loopholes I think in his theories though;

One is the assumption that volume is the “bad guy”. It is not. Too much yes, and especially at high intensity/failure training, but not when regulated. Like Scott M said, although some people can cope with more volume than others, volume is inversely proportional to intensity (the higher the volume, the lessor the intensity should be, and vice versa).

The next assumption is that everyone should go to “mind blowing” failure every time they train. This is obviously THE reason why people need longer recovery…NOT the volume alone. Ask any powerlifter why they can’t train every day like many bodybuilder can do and do often do? The reason is intensity (by means of high load, frying the nervous system more etc), NOT volume alone.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and use an example:

Someone who trains using their 70-80% Rep Max most of the time (for a lot of trainees, this will usually fall somewhere between 8 and 12 reps), they will be able to do MORE volume than someone using loads at or close to his 90% RM…AND…they will still recover faster.

Also, someone who doesn’t go to failure with their training (or at least only goes to failure some of the time), they will recover much faster than someone who does (thus have more growth periods)…another “contradiction” to HIT. Obviously, the same applies to volume (if you lower it you can recover quicker), but not as much as it applies to intensity.

69

Another really important issue I think is worth mentioning is Mentzers view of diet:

Mentzer felt that “overeating” was over-rated. I can’t remember what intake he used to take, but it was ridiculously low. He reasoned that scientifically, the body could only add _____ muscle per year…and to build that amount only required _____ over maintenance every day.

Most bodybuilders understand that if you don’t eat enough, you will not recover as quick and can not cope with much volume. Is this maybe the reason why Mentzer was almost obsessed with recovery and low volume?

I’m not talking about bulking massive style, but a certain amount over maintenance is definitely required. As far as I remember, Mentzers daily intake wasn’t even enough for most natural bodybuilders to maintain muscle.

70

I could be wrong but i do seem to remember reading heavy duty years ago and that Mentzer said you only need one apple a day extra to gain.

71

[quote]Mikeee wrote:
Hey brick am I correct in assuming that by saying straight sets you mean doing sets at pretty much exact same reps with exact same weights?

Eg: For bench
8x100
8x100
8x100
[/quote]

Those are straight sets. Fine for a rank beginner, but pretty bad for an intermediate or advanced person.

72

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

DO NOT lift the chest out of the movement first (from the bottom) - you should feel the weight in your heels, and drive up with you hips/bum.

In my opinion, back squat is more of a hip exercise (stimulates abs/bum more than thighs)…so alternatives like front squat are probably better long term for bodybuilding goals. But front squats are good to start with.

Bodybuilding squats don’t need to worry about going below parallel…which is pretty difficult to do with an decent load for the average trainee anyway (due to pretty standard flexibility/structure issues).[/quote]

Depends on the person. Someone who has equal development in the quads, glutes, and hams or is quad dominant usually benefits from regular squats.

Someone who’s glute dominant or has weak quads usually benefits more from front squats.

What’s “decent” is relative. If someone reaches failure or near failure with 135, that’s good for them.

Not going past parallel actually causes more knee and back problems than going past paralell. And if someone has structural and flexibility issues, they need to take care of that before they squat and deadlift - perhaps focus more on flexibility and single leg exercises and leg presses. [/quote]

Right. Same goes for the back.

x2 Brick… My knees kill me if I stop at or above parallel. Going slightly below parallel makes all the difference in the world.[/quote]

73

[quote]Scott M wrote:

A smart bodybuilder like Yates took Jones and Mentzer’s thoughts and applied the good and threw out the ridiculous… and his routines look a LOT like what Brick outlined in that thread originally.

[/quote]

He basically did the same layout as everyone else, but wasn’t into straight or useless sets, and added in high intensity (or highly intensive, whatever the heck the term is) techniques like forced reps, drop sets, and negatives. That’s really all that was novel about his program.

He was also MUCH more methodical than any bodybuilder EVER.

74

[quote]kickingking wrote:
I could be wrong but i do seem to remember reading heavy duty years ago and that Mentzer said you only need one apple a day extra to gain.
[/quote]

Yeah, a measly 60 calories over maintenance. My grandmother wouldn’t get bigger off that.

75

[quote]Safety Dyck wrote:
Holy crap! I did it, read the WHOLE fricken thing. Wow what a roller coaster it would be VERY cool if the original Bible could be edited as it is excruciating reading some of it.

[/quote]

Although that thread I made offers NOTHING NEW, someone told me I should package it and sell it as an e-book some day.

76

Quake: Post the videos if you like.

77

HIIT vs LI

Layne Norton has addressed this a few times, here’s 1 of the quotes:

Quote:
High-intensity cardio seems to be more muscle sparing. Several studies have shown that high-intensity interval training (aka HIT) burns less calories when compared to continuous lower intensity cardio. However, the skinfold losses were greater with the HIT group than in the continuous intensity group. This means not only did the HIT group lose more fat, they also spared more muscle tissue by burning less overall calories .

Some relevant studies:

Two studies done by the same researchers, were published in Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Mar;25(3):332-9. The first study was done on two groups of 352 total men, those who did High intensity activities regularly and those who did not. The study showed that men who were more likely to be in high intensity activities not only had lower bodyfat and subcutaneous fat, but even when they ate more than the sedentary group.

The 2nd study was more direct, measuring the effects after a high intensity excercise. They found that oxygen consumption and fat oxidation increased afterwards. They also found that the oxygen consumption effect was much greater in the high intensity group compared to low intensity. In other words, the high intensity group not only had increased metabolism and fat loss abilities for hours post excercise, but the metabolism increasing effect was much higher over the low intensity group.

Interesting part is they found these effects to stop with the addition of propranolol, researchers concluded that beta adrenergic stimulation, may be the major role in the after effects from high intensity excercise.

Another study published in Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8 They compared a group (8 women 9 men) doing 20-week endurance-training compared to a group (5 men 5 women) doing HIIT. The decrease in subcutaneous skinfolds when adjusted for energy expedenture were 9 times greater than the endurance group! Researchers concluded that higher intensity, was not only superior for metabolism and fat burning effects, but also for skeletal muscle adaptions.

The study published in (J Appl Physiol (December 14, 2006). doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01098.2006) done on moderately active women for 2 weeks. Results showed increased capacity in fat burning in muscles and whole body, during HIIT cardio sessions.

78

[quote]Safety Dyck wrote:
HIIT vs LI

Layne Norton has addressed this a few times, here’s 1 of the quotes:

Quote:
High-intensity cardio seems to be more muscle sparing. Several studies have shown that high-intensity interval training (aka HIT) burns less calories when compared to continuous lower intensity cardio. However, the skinfold losses were greater with the HIT group than in the continuous intensity group. This means not only did the HIT group lose more fat, they also spared more muscle tissue by burning less overall calories .

Some relevant studies:

Two studies done by the same researchers, were published in Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Mar;25(3):332-9. The first study was done on two groups of 352 total men, those who did High intensity activities regularly and those who did not. The study showed that men who were more likely to be in high intensity activities not only had lower bodyfat and subcutaneous fat, but even when they ate more than the sedentary group.

The 2nd study was more direct, measuring the effects after a high intensity excercise. They found that oxygen consumption and fat oxidation increased afterwards. They also found that the oxygen consumption effect was much greater in the high intensity group compared to low intensity. In other words, the high intensity group not only had increased metabolism and fat loss abilities for hours post excercise, but the metabolism increasing effect was much higher over the low intensity group.

Interesting part is they found these effects to stop with the addition of propranolol, researchers concluded that beta adrenergic stimulation, may be the major role in the after effects from high intensity excercise.

Another study published in Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8 They compared a group (8 women 9 men) doing 20-week endurance-training compared to a group (5 men 5 women) doing HIIT. The decrease in subcutaneous skinfolds when adjusted for energy expedenture were 9 times greater than the endurance group! Researchers concluded that higher intensity, was not only superior for metabolism and fat burning effects, but also for skeletal muscle adaptions.

The study published in (J Appl Physiol (December 14, 2006). doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01098.2006) done on moderately active women for 2 weeks. Results showed increased capacity in fat burning in muscles and whole body, during HIIT cardio sessions.
[/quote]

True, but steady state cardio can be done more often without affecting weight workouts. Case in point: do both! However the approach that one favors will be the one that works. I prefer steady state cardio as HIIT drains me of energy, so i do that most of the time.

79

[quote]Safety Dyck wrote:
HIIT vs LI

Layne Norton has addressed this a few times, here’s 1 of the quotes:

Quote:
High-intensity cardio seems to be more muscle sparing. Several studies have shown that high-intensity interval training (aka HIT) burns less calories when compared to continuous lower intensity cardio. However, the skinfold losses were greater with the HIT group than in the continuous intensity group. This means not only did the HIT group lose more fat, they also spared more muscle tissue by burning less overall calories .

Some relevant studies:

Two studies done by the same researchers, were published in Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Mar;25(3):332-9. The first study was done on two groups of 352 total men, those who did High intensity activities regularly and those who did not. The study showed that men who were more likely to be in high intensity activities not only had lower bodyfat and subcutaneous fat, but even when they ate more than the sedentary group.

The 2nd study was more direct, measuring the effects after a high intensity excercise. They found that oxygen consumption and fat oxidation increased afterwards. They also found that the oxygen consumption effect was much greater in the high intensity group compared to low intensity. In other words, the high intensity group not only had increased metabolism and fat loss abilities for hours post excercise, but the metabolism increasing effect was much higher over the low intensity group.

Interesting part is they found these effects to stop with the addition of propranolol, researchers concluded that beta adrenergic stimulation, may be the major role in the after effects from high intensity excercise.

Another study published in Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8 They compared a group (8 women 9 men) doing 20-week endurance-training compared to a group (5 men 5 women) doing HIIT. The decrease in subcutaneous skinfolds when adjusted for energy expedenture were 9 times greater than the endurance group! Researchers concluded that higher intensity, was not only superior for metabolism and fat burning effects, but also for skeletal muscle adaptions.

The study published in (J Appl Physiol (December 14, 2006). doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01098.2006) done on moderately active women for 2 weeks. Results showed increased capacity in fat burning in muscles and whole body, during HIIT cardio sessions.
[/quote]

This is a good article, and Layne is an amazing bodybuilder - probably much better than I ever could be.

However, the non-weight lifting activities you do to burn fat also depend on what you’re doing in weight training. Lonnie Lowery once wrote that he only does steady-state cardio because he’s constantly bordering on overtraining with the weights because he destroys himself in the gym - a la Dorian Yates.

The type of activity also depends on weight. 250+ pound bodybuilders aren’t running sprints and it would be injury-prone for them to do so. Not to mention their form and endurance for sprint workouts would be abysmal.

80

Thanks Brick.