Bodybuilding with 'Light' Weights?

[quote]chillain wrote:
yogaroots wrote:
My point is simple. If they didn’t work nobody would use them. yes you still have to work hard. If you take 2 people that lift with the same intensity and have similar genetics, and diet. The person with gear is going to make better gains. I am wrong?!

Not wrong, but it would be more correct to say the person on gear will experience faster recovery (which will allow them to train more frequently) and increased protein synthesis (which will lead to more rapid strength and muscle gains).

Of course, they will still have to do [u]ALL[/u] the eating and lifting that those gains would normally require. But because of that enhanced recovery factor, it’s much more appropriate to think of AAS as an ‘accelerator’ as opposed to a ‘shortcut.’

[/quote]

Well put.

[quote]ZeusNathan wrote:
its not about the weight in BB, its all volume.[/quote]

careful with absolutes.

so, you’re saying lifting a pink 2 lb DB 100 times is all it takes?

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
ZeusNathan wrote:
its not about the weight in BB, its all volume.

careful with absolutes.

so, you’re saying lifting a pink 2 lb DB 100 times is all it takes? [/quote]

If it worked for Richard Simmons, it will work for YOU.

^^

[quote]yogaroots wrote:
shizen wrote:
JoeG254 wrote:
yogaroots wrote:
JJ wrote:
Yeah… those juiceheads can just look at a DB and they’ll grow…

Perhaps you should go see Bigger Faster Stronger and you’ll leave the theater Smarter, Wiser and Knowledgeable.

If gear didn’t make this easier- NOBODY would bother doing it. It’s a short cut. I thought that was common knowledge. Go see the movie PLEASE.

Steroids aren’t magic, sure they aid in recovery and can increase muscle growth themselves, but hard work is still needed to make significant progress on them.
,

true but they do make a huge difference. I hate a lot of steroid users who are like, ‘look at this its all me’ no its not. Most users are older though and its just allows them to continue to train when there body starts to slow down.

My point is simple. If they didn’t work nobody would use them. yes you still have to work hard. If you take 2 people that lift with the same intensity and have similar genetics, and diet. The person with gear is going to make better gains. I am wrong?![/quote]

Funny you say that now - That someone using will make better gains, which is obviously correct. Earlier you said steroids make it easier, as a shortcut.

This isnt the case, with steroids you can go above what you could have got to naturally, that isnt a shortcut, by definition a shortcut is an easy way to get the same result. Steroids are a way that is just as hard (possbly harder) to get results that are not possible without using those drugs.
Someone drug-free will not get the same results by training twice as long with twice the intensity… someone on gear will. That IS NOT a shortcut. No-where near!

OBVIOUSLY if they didnt work no-one would use them, i am not sure why you keep repeating that - no-one said they didnt work!

I dont have a problem with you disagreeing about their use, whatever floats your morality boat - i have issue with you TRYING to claim that all they are is a way to get better results with less work.
Even if i didnt use, i would STILL argue this point!

JJ

[quote]chillain wrote:
yogaroots wrote:
My point is simple. If they didn’t work nobody would use them. yes you still have to work hard. If you take 2 people that lift with the same intensity and have similar genetics, and diet. The person with gear is going to make better gains. I am wrong?!

Not wrong, but it would be more correct to say the person on gear will experience faster recovery (which will allow them to train more frequently) and increased protein synthesis (which will lead to more rapid strength and muscle gains).

Of course, they will still have to do [u]ALL[/u] the eating and lifting that those gains would normally require. But because of that enhanced recovery factor, it’s much more appropriate to think of AAS as an ‘accelerator’ as opposed to a ‘shortcut.’

[/quote]

well put, yes.

Well doing lighter and doing 20 rep squats will definitely help with the quads. LOL.

Edit:

Well I think the point about steroids here is clear. Simply, if you don’t fancy them, don’t do them. But do bear in mind, juxtaposing being natural(whatever that means nowadays) against being on steroids means that you are measured against different yardsticks. For example if you’re a 5"5’ Bantamweight(in the NPC) who juices, you ought to rework your training and nutrition. If you’re a 5"5’ natural in the same weight class and you’re competitive, good for you.

It plain and simple, regardless of whether you juice or not, work has to be done. For every example that touts steroids being the governing factor for physique development, there’s a plethora of flops who do a myriad of stupid things on juice and hardly look like they even juice.

In sum, it’s about what kind of game do you want to play. You want to be put with the competitive juicers, recreational juicers, competitive naturals(not so much in the NPC atleast, not saying they’re non existant) or a recreational natural. It is unfair and unjust to impose our perceptions and will on others by deciding right/wrong, yes/no for someone else.

[quote]chillain wrote:
yogaroots wrote:
My point is simple. If they didn’t work nobody would use them. yes you still have to work hard. If you take 2 people that lift with the same intensity and have similar genetics, and diet. The person with gear is going to make better gains. I am wrong?!

Not wrong, but it would be more correct to say the person on gear will experience faster recovery (which will allow them to train more frequently) and increased protein synthesis (which will lead to more rapid strength and muscle gains).

Of course, they will still have to do [u]ALL[/u] the eating and lifting that those gains would normally require. But because of that enhanced recovery factor, it’s much more appropriate to think of AAS as an ‘accelerator’ as opposed to a ‘shortcut.’
[/quote]

This analogy is flawed, since not only does steroid use accelerate your progress, but you also get a new ‘top speed’ that is to say development that could never be achieved naturally.

The reason most people take steriods is that they are simply not prepared to put in the time and hard work in and out of the gym to create the physique they want, it’s a quick fix a shortcut.

Their is a certain minimum intensity(load as a percentage of one rep maximum) needed to stimulate the fast twitch type 2a and 2b muscle fibers that have the greatest capacity for growth.

This varies to some degree among each individuals genetics and muscle fiber make up but it is still absolute that if your intensity is too low you will only stimulate slow twitch fibers and they have very little capacity for hypertrophy.

There is debate about the best way to stimulate these fibers and elicit growth.

Many have done so effectively by using lower loads higher reps and working on increasing repetitions and volume as well as shortening rest periods. This type of training also can increase the size of other size contributors such as mitochondria, blood vessels, and capillaries.

Others are die hard speed and power lifters that focus on low reps and maximum strength and longer rest periods. Size and strength are correlative although neural effeciency is also a large factor in maximum strength. Once your technique, relative strength, and neural capacity has reached its upper limits getting stronger can only come as a result of increasing size.

Most of us will have a preference and affinity for one style over the other but over our training lives realize that both are important and can and should be integrated together in the pursuit of both maximum strength as well as muscular development.

[quote]Scott M wrote:
Out of habit I simply skimmed right past your post the first time around but you have got to be kidding me here.

ZeusNathan wrote:
its not about the weight in BB, its all volume.

Is it not getting through your head that the biggest guys in the gym are usually the strongest for reps in movements? The largest mutants to walk the planet in the last decade(Ronnie, various strongmen, whoever) are all significantly stronger than you. You really think it’s the fact that they do more(if they even do lol) volume? [/quote]

let me re-phrase. volume is more important than heavy lifting (maxing out) in hypertrophy training. and before you even blah blah blah, heavy lifting and maxing out def has it’s place in bodybuilding also.

“the biggest guys in the gym are usually the strongest for reps in movements”

yes, exactly. you move decent weight at high volume and you will grow. when ronnie lifts hes in the 12 - 25 rep range, im sure your ass has seen all of ronnie’s youtube videos… and of course at the 12th rep, hes struggling. not only ronnie, but look at RUHL, jay cutler, or even ahhhnold. they are not cranking out 95% of their PR for 3 reps on every exercise. its 3 - 5 sets of 12 to 25 reps. meaning, 36 to 125 reps per exercise. of course that’s purely an estimate, but im betting sometimes they do more. and yes, i can deadlift more than ronnie and magnus using my left fuckin pinky…

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
ZeusNathan wrote:
its not about the weight in BB, its all volume.

careful with absolutes.

so, you’re saying lifting a pink 2 lb DB 100 times is all it takes? [/quote]

why would i lift a pink db for 100 reps or even a thousand reps when i can just squat 200lbs for 10. better yet, 275 for 8. time management at its finest.

[quote]jstreet0204 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I warm up now more than I have in the past. That means anyone watching me train for the majority of my early reps in a movement would assume I wasn’t lifting all that much.

I’m the same way. My bench workout always starts with the bar for 30, 135 for 20, and 225 for 15. I never count those as working sets, but anybody watching me for the first 5 minutes is not going to be very impressed. I get the occasional smart ass asking me if I need a spot when I’m benching the bar :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Just for the record, the place I gym at is not that huge. So I’m able to pretty much see the guys entire routine. Also I’ve seen him train on numerous occasions over a period of a few months. So I know he always uses lighter weights.

The thought of just maintaining has crossed my mind, coz his body fat % is always very low. But until I get a chance to discuss training/diet with this dude. I will never know.

[quote] JJ wrote:
yogaroots wrote:
shizen wrote:
JoeG254 wrote:
yogaroots wrote:
JJ wrote:
Yeah… those juiceheads can just look at a DB and they’ll grow…

Perhaps you should go see Bigger Faster Stronger and you’ll leave the theater Smarter, Wiser and Knowledgeable.

If gear didn’t make this easier- NOBODY would bother doing it. It’s a short cut. I thought that was common knowledge. Go see the movie PLEASE.

Steroids aren’t magic, sure they aid in recovery and can increase muscle growth themselves, but hard work is still needed to make significant progress on them.
,

true but they do make a huge difference. I hate a lot of steroid users who are like, ‘look at this its all me’ no its not. Most users are older though and its just allows them to continue to train when there body starts to slow down.

My point is simple. If they didn’t work nobody would use them. yes you still have to work hard. If you take 2 people that lift with the same intensity and have similar genetics, and diet. The person with gear is going to make better gains. I am wrong?!

Funny you say that now - That someone using will make better gains, which is obviously correct. Earlier you said steroids make it easier, as a shortcut.

“…If gear didn’t make this easier- NOBODY would bother doing it. It’s a short cut. I thought that was common knowledge…”

This isnt the case, with steroids you can go above what you could have got to naturally, that isnt a shortcut, by definition a shortcut is an easy way to get the same result. Steroids are a way that is just as hard (possbly harder) to get results that are not possible without using those drugs.
Someone drug-free will not get the same results by training twice as long with twice the intensity… someone on gear will. That IS NOT a shortcut. No-where near!

OBVIOUSLY if they didnt work no-one would use them, i am not sure why you keep repeating that - no-one said they didnt work!

I dont have a problem with you disagreeing about their use, whatever floats your morality boat - i have issue with you TRYING to claim that all they are is a way to get better results with less work.
Even if i didnt use, i would STILL argue this point!

JJ[/quote]

Much respect.

I think we can “agree to disagree” eventhough I think we’re saying the same thing, but in a different way. I just remember football players in college going on gear and in six months their jacked. All other factors being equal- a natural trainer can’t make gains that fast.

Not being sarcastic but, are natural bodybuilders smaller than gear users because they don’t work as hard? I would say ‘no’…what do you think?

[quote]silverbullet wrote:
jstreet0204 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I warm up now more than I have in the past. That means anyone watching me train for the majority of my early reps in a movement would assume I wasn’t lifting all that much.

I’m the same way. My bench workout always starts with the bar for 30, 135 for 20, and 225 for 15. I never count those as working sets, but anybody watching me for the first 5 minutes is not going to be very impressed. I get the occasional smart ass asking me if I need a spot when I’m benching the bar :slight_smile:

Just for the record, the place I gym at is not that huge. So I’m able to pretty much see the guys entire routine. Also I’ve seen him train on numerous occasions over a period of a few months. So I know he always uses lighter weights.

The thought of just maintaining has crossed my mind, coz his body fat % is always very low. But until I get a chance to discuss training/diet with this dude. I will never know.

[/quote]

That’s the point, you don’t know. I am currently forced to avoid training for weeks. My strength will no doubt be less when I return. If someone sees me training during that period, they might just jump to some off the wall conclusion about why I train that way if that is all they base it on.

You don’t know what injuries that man has had or what his goals are. You are simply standing in the corner judging him and making gigantic leaps to conclusions based on it.

How about you stop doing that and focus more on yourself.

Most guys who truly are huge didn’t get that way from truly light weights.

[quote]yogaroots wrote:

I think we can “agree to disagree” eventhough I think we’re saying the same thing, but in a different way. I just remember football players in college going on gear and in six months their jacked. All other factors being equal- a natural trainer can’t make gains that fast.

Not being sarcastic but, are natural bodybuilders smaller than gear users because they don’t work as hard? I would say ‘no’…what do you think?
[/quote]

Most GOOD football players have better genetics than most of the population in the first place. Most of them can make tremendous progress by simply being pointed in the right direction as far as training and eating. You are now blaming all of their progress on drug use when I am betting the real truth is you don’t have a fucking clue when or IF they were even using anything outside of your own speculation.

I’ve seen way too many guys blow up in their first year training for football to jump to that conclusion. I was one of them and I have trained others and watched them literally inflate over the course of months simply because they had the genetic base to start with and began eating right and often.

Beyond that, the guys who can even get to the size of most competitors in national competitions are few and far between no matter what they do. Do you honestly think Ronnie Coleman is that size ONLY because of steroids? The man has better genetics than damn near everyone else on the planet aside from those standing right there next to him on stage.

How can you call something a “short cut” when many of these guys were, for the most part, already bigger than most before they ever used anything?

There are far too many people on anabolics who DON’T make much progress at all to make that assumption.

What people are responding to is how you are trying to make it seem like those who do go that route simply have to work less hard. That’s retarded. Most of the guys who truly are on that level work harder than any of the people judging them out of the corner of their eye in the gym.

If some bodybuilder is eating 8,000cals every single day without fail and making it to the gym like it’s his job 5 and 6 days a week, you can bet his level of dedication is like you have never seen in and out of the gym.

[quote]ZeusNathan wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
ZeusNathan wrote:
its not about the weight in BB, its all volume.

careful with absolutes.

so, you’re saying lifting a pink 2 lb DB 100 times is all it takes?

why would i lift a pink db for 100 reps or even a thousand reps when i can just squat 200lbs for 10. better yet, 275 for 8. time management at its finest. [/quote]

b/c you said it’s not about weight, it’s ALL volume

[quote]ZeusNathan wrote:

let me re-phrase.
[/quote]

That better explains what you meant, but you still aren’t getting the point that whether Ronnie lifts for 12 reps or 2 reps he’s stronger on just about every movement than other bodybuilders.

He’s also one of the biggest. He’s incredibly gifted, but so is every pro or else they wouldn’t be there. He gained some 60 lbs on his stage weight AFTER turning pro, things like that make you stand up and take notice.

If he’s training with incredible weights(and at no more volume than anyone else) and eats a ton of food and makes the best progress, things like that click in my head as something I might want to look into for my own training.

What’s the difference between Ronnie(or insert any person here) from the time they start training and time they reach their greatest size? To me it’s only the amount of strength they increased(in a bodybuilding context, nothing to do with singles) and the amount of food they put down.

I don’t care what rep range someone is using, if they are using the same weights roughly they used two years ago they probably aren’t any bigger.

Take a guy who does the 20 rep squat program for 2 years and goes from 1x20 at 185 to 1x20 at 385 and you will see some huge leg increases. Has nothing to do with the fact that he lifted low volume, or high volume, it’s his progress within that system he used that matters.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
ZeusNathan wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
ZeusNathan wrote:
its not about the weight in BB, its all volume.

careful with absolutes.

so, you’re saying lifting a pink 2 lb DB 100 times is all it takes?

why would i lift a pink db for 100 reps or even a thousand reps when i can just squat 200lbs for 10. better yet, 275 for 8. time management at its finest.

b/c you said it’s not about weight, it’s ALL volume[/quote]

mostly it is, but it’ll take you forever to get to high volume with a 2lbs db.

2lbs x 100reps = 200lbs total volume
200lbs x 1 rep = 200lbs total volume

see where im going? not only is going for the 200lbs quicker, but the bigger load will trigger an endocrine response and recruit more muscle fibers. so weight is very important…

Its important in the notion that you should pick a weight that is good enough for decent reps, and that it feels like death towards the end. if doing 12 reps, 1 - 4 should be doable, 5 - 10 should be challenging, 11 and 12 should make you wince and shake and feel like a life or death situation. this will vary depening on your muscle make up (type I dominant or type IIb dominant).

ronnie’s bench press volume

135lbs x 15 = 2025
225lbs x 15 = 3375
315lbs x 12 = 3780
405lbs x 10 = 4050
495lbs x 5 = 2475

15705lbs total volume

so why would ronnie go for 495lbs for 5 reps at the end when he gets more volume at 405lbs? because first, he already moved more weight then 6 weekend warriors combined. second, he’s using progressive overload. and lastly, studies show that 5 - 6 reps induces the most testosterone. excuse this last paragraph, its just a filler.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
yogaroots wrote:

I think we can “agree to disagree” eventhough I think we’re saying the same thing, but in a different way. I just remember football players in college going on gear and in six months their jacked. All other factors being equal- a natural trainer can’t make gains that fast.

Not being sarcastic but, are natural bodybuilders smaller than gear users because they don’t work as hard? I would say ‘no’…what do you think?

Most GOOD football players have better genetics than most of the population in the first place. Most of them can make tremendous progress by simply being pointed in the right direction as far as training and eating.

You are now blaming all of their progress on drug use when I am betting the real truth is you don’t have a fucking clue when or IF they were even using anything outside of your own speculation.

I’ve seen way too many guys blow up in their first year training for football to jump to that conclusion. I was one of them and I have trained others and watched them literally inflate over the course of months simply because they had the genetic base to start with and began eating right and often.

Beyond that, the guys who can even get to the size of most competitors in national competitions are few and far between no matter what they do. Do you honestly think Ronnie Coleman is that size ONLY because of steroids?

The man has better genetics than damn near everyone else on the planet aside from those standing right there next to him on stage.

How can you call something a “short cut” when many of these guys were, for the most part, already bigger than most before they ever used anything?

There are far too many people on anabolics who DON’T make much progress at all to make that assumption.

What people are responding to is how you are trying to make it seem like those who do go that route simply have to work less hard. That’s retarded. Most of the guys who truly are on that level work harder than any of the people judging them out of the corner of their eye in the gym.

If some bodybuilder is eating 8,000cals every single day without fail and making it to the gym like it’s his job 5 and 6 days a week, you can bet his level of dedication is like you have never seen in and out of the gym.[/quote]

No worries man. It’s not about me judging someones work ethic. It’s just my observation that hard work obviously isn’t enough, neither is genetics. If hard work was enough Mr. Coleman wouldn’t use.

The people that win in this sport work their butts off and have the best genes- I know that. That’s not enough. Anyone that wants to get on stage next to anyone at the arnold classic has to be on gear. Because genes and hard work will not be enough.

In regards to the football players. I was speaking of guys that I had personal convo with. The ones that were candid with me, none of my statements are made in a vacum. I get my info from folks that have been candid with me.

In regards to me ‘being focused on everyone else’, I’m not. I built a quality physique and flexibility from hard work and dedication. I don’t judge anyone, it’s a personal decision.

I just don’t believe marion jones would have won all those medals without using. Apparently she didn’t think she could have either. She put it on the line, and lost everything.

I’m sure her and Ben Johnson worked really hard and have the great genes. But that just wasn’t enough. Dexter Jackson (Arnold Classic winner) works VERY HARD and has great genetics. But that’s just not enough.

Like I said in the last post we don’t need to agree on this. We’re not the only two people that have conflicting ideas and opinions on the topic. Be well.

[quote]ZeusNathan wrote:

ronnie’s bench press volume

135lbs x 15 = 2025
225lbs x 15 = 3375
315lbs x 12 = 3780
405lbs x 10 = 4050
495lbs x 5 = 2475

15705lbs total volume

so why would ronnie go for 495lbs for 5 reps at the end when he gets more volume at 405lbs? because first, he already moved more weight then 6 weekend warriors combined. second, he’s using progressive overload. and lastly, studies show that 5 - 6 reps induces the most testosterone. excuse this last paragraph, its just a filler.
[/quote]

Why would Ronnie’s chest need to grow from 135-315? The muscle will only grow when it sees something it’s never seen before. They have seen it in warmups 1000s of times at this point and it’s old news. His growth inducing sets are that 405x10 and 495x5 which were a challenge for him.

Second-is my point lol, he didn’t start with a 495x5 bench and whether he had done 1 warmup set with very little volume or 10 warmup sets with sky high volume the fact that he got continuously stronger is why he got continuously bigger.

Lastly-he’s taking exogenous testosterone, who cares what a study says induces testosterone if the body isn’t producing any on it’s own. Sounds good on paper but not in the real world, sorry.

[quote]Scott M wrote:
ZeusNathan wrote:

ronnie’s bench press volume

135lbs x 15 = 2025
225lbs x 15 = 3375
315lbs x 12 = 3780
405lbs x 10 = 4050
495lbs x 5 = 2475

15705lbs total volume

So why would ronnie go for 495lbs for 5 reps at the end when he gets more volume at 405lbs? because first, he already moved more weight then 6 weekend warriors combined. second, he’s using progressive overload. and lastly, studies show that 5 - 6 reps induces the most testosterone. excuse this last paragraph, its just a filler.

Why would Ronnie’s chest need to grow from 135-315? The muscle will only grow when it sees something it’s never seen before. They have seen it in warmups 1000s of times at this point and it’s old news. His growth inducing sets are that 405x10 and 495x5 which were a challenge for him.[/quote]

its called a warm up. you should try it. and why dont you ask ronnie why he jus doesnt do 5 x 5 with 495lbs. or it might be better to check out some of his interviews where he religiously preaches of 12 reps and beyond for hypertrophy.

sorry im pretty slow and english isn’t my forte. i can’t understand what this means.

so ronnie can’t produce his own hormones now…
and it sounds good on paper but not the real world…

lol