Bodybuilding Training, Can We Make This Clear?

Training
164

Good God… let this be the last time…

Yes, I have a sense of humor.

THIS whole thread has been about experience(plus “book” knowledge) vs “book” knowledge alone when it comes to bodybuilding. Experienced bodybuilders here have arrived at the same conclusions.

Why do you think the use of PEDs is any different?

There are a hundred studies on bodybuilding. There are less than 10 DIRECTLY pertaining to PED use.

Quote me one in context.

Of course I have, When I was ill-informed in the early 2000s, I used deca(npp for those who know what I’m talking about) alone for joint problems while not training. A low dose is enough to increase “lbm” while suppressing natural testosterone production. This disappears within a week after cessation of the drug. You are telling me that was actual muscle?

While Olympians were setting world records, science finally managed to produce ONE study in 1976:

In which they discovered:
" Strength and performance improved over each training period, but not significantly differently on drug and placebo."

Which is rubbish. We’re talking about 100mg of dbol a day. Hey, I’m on your side here.

and:

“Although the weight and body-composition changes may demonstrate an anabolic action of methandienone in man, they may alternatively have been caused by an increase in intracellular fluid, and the question of anabolic action therefore remains open.”

Later:

“The increases in body potassium (436 +/- SEM 41 mmol) and nitrogen (255 +/- 69 g) were too large in proportion to the weight gain (2.3 +/- 0.4 kg) for this to be attributed to gain of normal muscle or other lean tissue, and imply gain of nitrogen-rich, phosphate-poor substance. Although this action of methandienone might be described as anabolic, the weight gain produced is not normal muscle.”

Here’s @Yogi1 's favourite poster:

Before:

After(different account):

^Week 1-12 Test-Sust 40mg/day (280mg/wk)
Week 1-2 Winstrol 50mg/day (350mg/wk)
Week 1-2 TrenAce 50mg/day (350mg/wk)
Week 5-12 TrenAce 60mg/day (420mg/wk)

According to “science”, trenbolone is up to 5 times stronger than testosterone. That makes what he was taking equivalent to almost 2.5g of testosterone a week.

*Despite his alleged change in stats, look at his before/after pics and decide for yourself. Ask yourself if that change in his before/after pics could have been easily done naturally at that level.

I am a rather private person and I have not broadcasted anything about my personal details in the past unless I deemed it necessary to help someone out. There is nothing to undermine.

NOW, when uninformed people bring up the subject of PEDs(you guys can go argue all you want about TRT, I have no interest in that) and spread misinformation, surely you must be smart enough to realize that with every 10 kids screaming, “Roids!!!”, there is always 1 who will rely on the same misinformation to make a decision to use them. I see this all the time on the steroid forum and in real life.

Having said all that, I use less volume than @robstein (natty) when I’m on gear. He’s doing it wrong!

Regardless, like in our previous exchange, I doubt anything’s going through so I’ll just leave you with a pic of someone who will tell you exactly what you want to hear.

2 Likes
165

I think I like you more and more with each of your posts. No homo! :muscle:t2::grinning::+1:

2 Likes
166

Haha thanks Brick. I’ve always liked you too(if by any chance you thought otherwise due to our previous exchanges, it’s probably because I sometimes don’t express myself very well in writing).

2 Likes
167

It’s OK. I used to have a bad habit of posting too quickly or not paying attention to how my posts would come across. So, many of them came across as a bit obtuse. It usually occurred because I was posting at moments in which I didn’t have much time to post.

I actually don’t want to come across abrasive to anyone here, but I can’t believe a great thread about bodybuilding training that has posters coming out of the wood work has been thoroughly derailed, all because some guy, moi, is on TRT, medicine for a medical condition and someone had to “call me out” on it. :slight_smile: As if that’s even “calling out” considering I’ve always been honest and open about my medical condition and the medicines I use. Hence, why I wrote to the organizer of the INBF… to be honest… and NOT waste people’s time! Again, thankfully there’s the ANBF, for which I would love to place in… or… in a PIPE DREAM… earn an ANBF pro card (highly unlikely). The NPC show in Boston will be to have some more fun while Im in shape, although I’ll go against TRULY ASSISTED men who use AAS for non-medical reasons. Cutler will be making a guest appearance and I am a huge fan of his. Plus my wife, Stu,his wife, and I will be making a bit of a road trip out of Boston.

1 Like
168

I have a bit of a question regarding traditional bb splits. I train for strongman so at the moment this is pure curiosity. On paper, it seems legs are neglected in “traditional” splits, but that doesn’t seem to be the result in practice.

Take the classic bro split:
Chest, back, legs, shoulders, arms

It would seem that the upper body is being hit directly or indirectly 2-3 times, while the legs only get one go (give our take a deadlift on back day).

I’ve never trained like a bodybuilder for any appreciable time. Do you make up by just crushing your legs on one day? How are the results? For a poison with naturally hard-to-grow legs, how dies this traditional split fare?

169

Just because a traditional split involves hitting a body part once every five days, it does not mean there can’t be alterations to hit a certain part more often, as it’s been done by many. John Meadows has done this successfully with his clients, and Stu had one guy I know significantly bring up his legs with more frequent training within a split.

Just because the upper body is getting direct and indirect stimulation it doesn’t mean the body parts are growing so dramatically faster anyway. It’s not as simple as that, despite the notion that some have that this is all about protein synthesis being sparked numbers times per week. Yeah, there might be protein synthesis going on with more increased frequency but this does not mean there is twice or thrice the rate of ACTUAL GROWTH! Again, although there are signs of protein synthesis in a study–there obviously is because the muscle is broken down, stimulated–it doesn’t mean there’s subsequent growth with every damn session, considering muscular gain is slow as shit!

I don’t know if there is something about “making up by just crushing legs” because I and others hit legs in the same way they do other body parts: two or three exercises for quads and two or three exercises for hamstrings for three or four work sets for whatever rep range works. I stick mostly to 8 to 12 reps per sets now.

What do you mean by how are the results? People have had a wide variety of results, with some not putting much effort forth and having great legs and those struggling to add size to their legs no matter what.

Do you really have hard-to-grow legs or do you have legs that don’t resemble a bodybuilders’ because, as you’ve stated, you train like a strongman, and “never trained like a bodybuilder for an appreciable amount of time”.

I appreciate and thank you for the post considering it shows people that the whole notion of “train for performance and the size will follow” is myopic and doesn’t pan out for many who follow it.

Your exact split has been used by many, so I guess it might work for you.

1 Like
170

Brick,
I’ve been mostly lurking at this site for years and the one thing I’ve seen here consistently is your posting. A vast majority of those posts have been you trying to help others with the knowledge you’ve gained through study and experience. More recently, I’ve lurked in your contest prep thread to see your progress and approach.
I have very little interest in pure bodybuilding, but I do have an interest in continuing to gain muscle. Even though bodybuilding is not my primary goal, I feel that the insight of those who focus on building muscle and avoiding imbalances is invaluable.
In my personal quest to get stronger and add muscle, I hampered my progress at times by blindly adhering to certain principles whether they actually worked well for me or not. Had I kept a more open mind I would have a better physique to show for my efforts.
I find it unfortunate that what started as a very informative thread was derailed by those that seemingly have to prove their dogma is correct at the exclusion of other methods. I also find it troubling that anyone would attempt to minimize the immense dedication and effort you have put into your prep just because you are receiving medical treatments that may or may not “give you an edge.”
I apologize for the novel, but I just wanted to say keep up the good work, both in offering insight in the forums and in your contest prep. You have made awesome progress and I wish you the best of luck in your competitive endeavors.

God bless.

3 Likes
171

Bro, thank you SO MUCH for this meaningful, heart-felt post! I am sure you can see why someone, who, although he might be a nice guy, “called me out” for posting about a medical condition and medicine that I’ve been honest about for years, that I actually wish I didn’t have to deal with in the first place, and hampered me from competing in a federation that I think is the best!

You should be open minded, and even though you are not into bodybuilding as the next guy, it doesn’t mean you can’t use bodybuilding methods to get an aesthetic body. And it can be balanced aesthetically as well as functionally. Well, functional as one can make the body using BB methods because BB methods actually do cause some dysfunction from overdeveloped muscles. I try to counter this with foam rolling, static and dynamic stretching, activation drills for the glutes and shoulder girdle, sports massage, stretching, and always making sure the volume for my upper back and posterior chain is up to snuff.

1 Like
172

How is this thread not exactly that? There were no arguments until someone brought in a different point of view.[quote=“ryno76, post:170, topic:221756”]
I also find it troubling that anyone would attempt to minimize the immense dedication and effort you have put into your prep just because you are receiving medical treatments that may or may not “give you an edge.”
[/quote]

NO ONE DID THAT. In a discussion about volume/frequency and how it pertains to the natural lifter HE brought himself up as an example so as to prove it was not an issue for him. Leaving out that he is on TRT and does have an edge as the links and studies have shown. Not onlt in terms of muscle growth but, especially in a contest prep where levels on true naturals have dropped by up to 75%.

This does not take away from any hard work though as even, olympia competitors most commit to their endeavors.

173

You’re somehow missing the point that naturals (in your definition of naturals) IN THIS VERY FORUM are training in the same fashion, with the same volume, WITH SUCCESS, as some highly aided bodybuilders!

I know you didn’t discredit my passion or work.

174

You are quite welcome.

I used to blindly adhere to certain training ideals like compounds and full body only without honestly evaluating my own progress in the gym. While these ideals have merit, especially when one is training for certain goals, I found it can be detrimental to refuse to acknowledge the validity of other methods. It took tendonitis, various injuries, and finally surgery to make me open up my perspective.
While I guess I would classify myself as a “power builder,” a term that can be ambiguous and seems to have fallen out of favor, and not a bodybuilder, I still admire the discipline and dedication it takes for one to compete in bodybuilding at any level. I personally focus on increasing my squat and narrow grip flat bench, but I have learned a lot from posters like you, Stu, and others whose focus is more aesthetics.
I found that making simple changes like adding in isolation exercises to strengthen individual muscle groups have helped increase my lifts and improve my physique. Increasing the volume for my upper back and rear delts while focusing on form and feeling the movement in the targeted muscles has improved my shoulder health. Switching out conventional deadlifts for Romanian with a focus on the stretch and feeling the hamstrings work has helped my squat.
Those changes were things I wouldn’t have considered in my earlier days and did only after the previously mentioned set backs.

175

Yup, tell me about it! I shit-canned regular deadlifts over a year ago! My body and mind and back thank me for it! Actually for six months I’ve only done dumbbell stiff-legged deadlifts and will stick to them. I was an upper-lower split guy myself, going back and forth with that and split routines, until I finally took the plunge and realized to look like a bodybuilder I need a split.

2 Likes
176

How low are you going on the dumbbell stiff legs?

I thought I was getting a “good workout” feeling a stretch, going deep. A couple days later I thought my hamstrings were gonna tear off my pelvis. Did I go to deep, or am I out of shape?

177

Was this the first time you’ve done them in a while? Typically I do 3 sets, 12-15, focusing more on a good stretch and strong contraction, not going super heavy. I go low enough to feel a good stretch, going by feel I don’t really have a set angle I try to reach. I hadn’t done them for a while, the first time I did them again I was INSANELY sore for like a week, shooting pains, so much so I had to take a couple days off work. After that I was fine though and had some soreness but nothing debilitating or close to what I experienced the first time.

1 Like
178

Same! Also same with barbell bench press. Recently I also stopped doing rack pulls because my lower back has some problems, I’ve been seeing the chiropractor and adjusted some exercises accordingly, but rack pulls were still just making me too sore and achy, not worth it. Now I do 4-5 sets of slow controlled hyperextensions twice a week, good stimulation without going overboard.

I still back squat once a week, and find since I stopped rack pulls the squats don’t give me any lower back problems like they used to.

1 Like
179

[quote=“xXSeraphimXx, post:28, topic:221756, full:true”]
That is why 2 times a week legs/push/pull is ideal.[/quote]

These were the posts I was referring to specifically, which obviously were not made by you. Speaking in absolutes about one of the most individualized endeavors a person can engage in gives the appearance he was trying to prove himself right without considering there may be other methods that work just as well.

The actual volume Brick was referring to at the beginning of this thread would hardly be considered excessive by most, so I don’t see why his being on TRT has any bearing on his recommendations. To me, at least, your post appears to be a personal attack even if that was not your intent.

180

Bingo. Although I wish not to belabor this point, I am astonished that one would put someone with eugonadal values in the same camp as men who use multiples of clinical doses, with multiples of normal blood values.

To put some dude with clinically normal values (eg, 500 to 1000) in the same league as those who measure with 5000 ng/dl (!) or MORE in their blood is laughable! I mean, I don’t want to be insulting but I find it disingenuous, illogical and just downright laughable!

181

JESUS CHRIST.

1)He did not say his way was OPTIMAL. He stated that because something produces results DOES NOT make it optimal. If a split gave 5 lbs of muscle while another method gave 7lbs it was not optimal.

2)He went back and stated that ideal was a poor choice of words and that he simply meant a split with higher frequency.

3)He was not speaking in absolutes he states himself that he gave his OPINION on what would be best not that it was.

As for myself, whether the doses are SUPRA is not the point. The multiple posts made which were backed by studies/research were to simply show that there was an advantage. I MEAN REALLY if a study shows that during a contest prep competitors test levels were falling by 75% how is having control/a steady supply of testosterone through out not an ADVANTAGE??

Other studies show that a person on TRT whose levels are 600 is NOT the same as a person with natural levels of 600 due to natural fluctuations, dips, etc. SO, the dose alone is not the issue. To keep bringing up doses taken by professionals is stupid.

182

Where would I get that idea other than his last post in this thread. Other than that, this obviously means a lot to you, so I will bow out at this point.

183

lol…I love how when I bring up anything related to these points.

"As for myself, whether the doses are SUPRA is not the point. The multiple posts made which were backed by studies/research were to simply show that there was an advantage. I MEAN REALLY if a study shows that during a contest prep competitors test levels were falling by 75% how is having control/a steady supply of testosterone through out not an ADVANTAGE??

Other studies show that a person on TRT whose levels are 600 is NOT the same as a person with natural levels of 600 due to natural fluctuations, dips, etc. SO, the dose alone is not the issue. To keep bringing up doses taken by professionals is stupid."

SUDDENLY, the argument is not worth it and it wants to be let go of.