Let’s just keep this simple, do you feel people grow from progressive overload using safe rep schemes(let’s say 5-12 for normalcy) or increasing volume but not necessarily getting stronger?
[quote]ZeusNathan wrote:
so ronnie can’t produce his own hormones now…
[/quote]
You do know what taking AAS does to your bodies ability to produce test right? Maybe now after the fact he can produce naturally but when he was “on”, well… no.
Once again proving that your certification isnt worth the paper that it was printed on and that you dont have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.
Prisoner was a big proponent of light weight training. I don’t know if he still is, as I have not read many of his posts in a while.
But 2-3 years ago he was really gung-ho about using really light (comparatively)weight, and using the time under tension principle, i.e. long agonizing reps. He said it prevented injury, and promoted growth.
I never have trained like that, nor will I ever consider it. Just sayin’ that a contest winner has implemented light-weight training at one point in his career.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Prisoner was a big proponent of light weight training. I don’t know if he still is, as I have not read many of his posts in a while.
But 2-3 years ago he was really gung-ho about using really light (comparatively)weight, and using the time under tension principle, i.e. long agonizing reps. He said it prevented injury, and promoted growth.
I never have trained like that, nor will I ever consider it. Just sayin’ that a contest winner has implemented light-weight training at one point in his career. [/quote]
Sounds similar to Trevor Smith’s ZMR/BFT protocol. Obviously it worked for Trevor (though clearly he still understood the need for progressive overload) and I’ve read quite a few testimonials of others who have also had success with it.
But no matter what method you use, no matter what set/rep schemes, split or other details, you still have to get stronger if you want to get bigger. Which I’m pretty sure is Scott’s point.
Volume can also be used as a method of overload, but, at least from a practical standpoint, it’s much more limited than actual weight on the bar.
Sure, you can increase your sets and reps, but you can only do this so much. Otherwise you’ll wind up being in the gym for 4,6,12 hours at a time, which past a certain point still isn’t going to cause you to build muscle, and would pretty much make it impossible to maintain any kind of intensity.
That’s one of the primary reasons for resistance training in the first place. If volume was truly the most important factor, then you could just do endless push-ups and BW squats and you’d build huge legs and a big chest.
It just doesn’t work that way (at least past a relatively beginning stage it doesn’t). You NEED to expose the muscles to higher levels of resistance if you want them to respond.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Prisoner was a big proponent of light weight training. I don’t know if he still is, as I have not read many of his posts in a while.
But 2-3 years ago he was really gung-ho about using really light (comparatively)weight, and using the time under tension principle, i.e. long agonizing reps. He said it prevented injury, and promoted growth.
I never have trained like that, nor will I ever consider it. Just sayin’ that a contest winner has implemented light-weight training at one point in his career.
Sounds similar to Trevor Smith’s ZMR/BFT protocol. Obviously it worked for Trevor (though clearly he still understood the need for progressive overload) and I’ve read quite a few testimonials of others who have also had success with it.
But no matter what method you use, no matter what set/rep schemes, split or other details, you still have to get stronger if you want to get bigger. Which I’m pretty sure is Scott’s point.
Volume can also be used as a method of overload, but, at least from a practical standpoint, it’s much more limited than actual weight on the bar. Sure, you can increase your sets and reps, but you can only do this so much. Otherwise you’ll wind up being in the gym for 4,6,12 hours at a time, which past a certain point still isn’t going to cause you to build muscle, and would pretty much make it impossible to maintain any kind of intensity.
That’s one of the primary reasons for resistance training in the first place. If volume was truly the most important factor, then you could just do endless push-ups and BW squats and you’d build huge legs and a big chest. It just doesn’t work that way (at least past a relatively beginning stage it doesn’t). You NEED to expose the muscles to higher levels of resistance if you want them to respond.
[/quote]
Oh - I’m not saying anything against Scott’s point. I think I said at the end of my post that I have no desire to try the lightweight stuff.
I was merely throwing it out there, as it came to mind as soon as I read the thread.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Prisoner was a big proponent of light weight training. I don’t know if he still is, as I have not read many of his posts in a while.
But 2-3 years ago he was really gung-ho about using really light (comparatively)weight, and using the time under tension principle, i.e. long agonizing reps. He said it prevented injury, and promoted growth.
I never have trained like that, nor will I ever consider it. Just sayin’ that a contest winner has implemented light-weight training at one point in his career.
Sounds similar to Trevor Smith’s ZMR/BFT protocol. Obviously it worked for Trevor (though clearly he still understood the need for progressive overload) and I’ve read quite a few testimonials of others who have also had success with it.
But no matter what method you use, no matter what set/rep schemes, split or other details, you still have to get stronger if you want to get bigger. Which I’m pretty sure is Scott’s point.
Volume can also be used as a method of overload, but, at least from a practical standpoint, it’s much more limited than actual weight on the bar. Sure, you can increase your sets and reps, but you can only do this so much. Otherwise you’ll wind up being in the gym for 4,6,12 hours at a time, which past a certain point still isn’t going to cause you to build muscle, and would pretty much make it impossible to maintain any kind of intensity.
That’s one of the primary reasons for resistance training in the first place. If volume was truly the most important factor, then you could just do endless push-ups and BW squats and you’d build huge legs and a big chest. It just doesn’t work that way (at least past a relatively beginning stage it doesn’t). You NEED to expose the muscles to higher levels of resistance if you want them to respond.
Oh - I’m not saying anything against Scott’s point. I think I said at the end of my post that I have no desire to try the lightweight stuff.
I was merely throwing it out there, as it came to mind as soon as I read the thread.
[/quote]
Sorry, should have been more clear, I wasn’t talking to you when I mentioned Scott’s point. I was talking to Zeus. I know you understand the need for increasing your strength.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Prisoner was a big proponent of light weight training. I don’t know if he still is, as I have not read many of his posts in a while.
But 2-3 years ago he was really gung-ho about using really light (comparatively)weight, and using the time under tension principle, i.e. long agonizing reps. He said it prevented injury, and promoted growth.
I never have trained like that, nor will I ever consider it. Just sayin’ that a contest winner has implemented light-weight training at one point in his career.
Sounds similar to Trevor Smith’s ZMR/BFT protocol. Obviously it worked for Trevor (though clearly he still understood the need for progressive overload) and I’ve read quite a few testimonials of others who have also had success with it.
But no matter what method you use, no matter what set/rep schemes, split or other details, you still have to get stronger if you want to get bigger. Which I’m pretty sure is Scott’s point.
Volume can also be used as a method of overload, but, at least from a practical standpoint, it’s much more limited than actual weight on the bar. Sure, you can increase your sets and reps, but you can only do this so much. Otherwise you’ll wind up being in the gym for 4,6,12 hours at a time, which past a certain point still isn’t going to cause you to build muscle, and would pretty much make it impossible to maintain any kind of intensity.
That’s one of the primary reasons for resistance training in the first place. If volume was truly the most important factor, then you could just do endless push-ups and BW squats and you’d build huge legs and a big chest. It just doesn’t work that way (at least past a relatively beginning stage it doesn’t). You NEED to expose the muscles to higher levels of resistance if you want them to respond.
[/quote]
not to be a jerk, but i do know someone, personally, that got exceptionally big from ONLY doing push ups and pull ups. ill just say that he’s 5’5 and 215lbs… maybe around 12 - 15%bf (some visible abs) otherwise, i definitely agree with the notion that progressively increasing your resistance is necessary to increase strength and induce hypertrophy. as i mentioned in the previous post, i would rather pick up 200lbs once then to pick up a 2lbs db 100 times.
“But no matter what method you use, no matter what set/rep schemes, split or other details, you still have to get stronger if you want to get bigger. Which I’m pretty sure is Scott’s point.”
absolutely. once i conquer 12 pullups, ill add 20lbs resistence and go for another 12. once that is achieved ill slap on some more poundage and continue on. so there is ‘virtually’ no limit to how much weight i can use.
[quote]ZeusNathan wrote:
i definitely agree with the notion that progressively increasing your resistance is necessary to increase strength and induce hypertrophy.
[/quote]
So this is what’s confusing me I guess then. Are you retracting your first statement?
[quote]JamFly wrote:
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.’
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.[/quote]
Yeah, I wasn’t considering users already at/near their genetic ceiling before AAS. I do assume they make up a small percentage of total users though.
No reason to really discuss this type of quick fix user, since they won’t even be holding onto their gains permanently. Of course one needs to already have the lifestyle and eating in place in order to actually accelerate/advance their development.
[quote]ZeusNathan wrote:
not to be a jerk, but i do know someone, personally, that got exceptionally big from ONLY doing push ups and pull ups. ill just say that he’s 5’5 and 215lbs… maybe around 12 - 15%bf (some visible abs) otherwise, i definitely agree with the notion that progressively increasing your resistance is necessary to increase strength and induce hypertrophy. as i mentioned in the previous post, i would rather pick up 200lbs once then to pick up a 2lbs db 100 times.
[/quote]
What did he start out at though? It is possible that the guy just has the genetics to be a very stocky individual and the push-ups and pull-ups merely helped him to develop some muscle.
I’m not saying that what you are saying isn’t true. There are individuals who can “break the rules” so to speak and still get results. But they are very genetically gifted for building muscle, and shouldn’t be used as examples for those less genetically gifted IMO.
I’m also glad that you agree with the progressive resistance model. But you must see by now that your original statement about volume was either really badly worded, or just plain wrong. As from a volume standpoint both the 200x1 and 2x100 workouts would have the same total volume. Yet one would most likely not build hypertrophy, while the other one might.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
ZeusNathan wrote:
not to be a jerk, but i do know someone, personally, that got exceptionally big from ONLY doing push ups and pull ups. ill just say that he’s 5’5 and 215lbs… maybe around 12 - 15%bf (some visible abs) otherwise, i definitely agree with the notion that progressively increasing your resistance is necessary to increase strength and induce hypertrophy. as i mentioned in the previous post, i would rather pick up 200lbs once then to pick up a 2lbs db 100 times.
What did he start out at though? It is possible that the guy just has the genetics to be a very stocky individual and the push-ups and pull-ups merely helped him to develop some muscle.
I’m not saying that what you are saying isn’t true. There are individuals who can “break the rules” so to speak and still get results. But they are very genetically gifted for building muscle, and shouldn’t be used as examples for those less genetically gifted IMO.
I’m also glad that you agree with the progressive resistance model. But you must see by now that your original statement about volume was either really badly worded, or just plain wrong. As from a volume standpoint both the 200x1 and 2x100 workouts would have the same total volume. Yet one would most likely not build hypertrophy, while the other one might.[/quote]
Everyone always knows someone who got really huge doing something that usually does not get people really huge.
Bullshit. I want to SEE the 5’5" 215lbs person with relatively low body fat who got that big from push ups ONLY. This guy would look like a slightly smaller Lee Priest if that were true.
This jackass is backpeddling better than an Olympic swimmer.
[quote]yogaroots wrote:
<<< Anyone that wants to get on stage next to anyone at the arnold classic has to be on gear. >>>
[/quote]
This what I love about T-Nation. What would I do without a place to go where these things can be pointed out to me.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
yogaroots wrote:
<<< Anyone that wants to get on stage next to anyone at the arnold classic has to be on gear. >>>
This what I love about T-Nation. What would I do without a place to go where these things can be pointed out to me.[/quote]
I also fail to see why that is an issue. It isn’t like people would be turning out in droves to see a 175lbs Mr. Olympia.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
yogaroots wrote:
<<< Anyone that wants to get on stage next to anyone at the arnold classic has to be on gear. >>>
This what I love about T-Nation. What would I do without a place to go where these things can be pointed out to me.
I also fail to see why that is an issue. It isn’t like people would be turning out in droves to see a 175lbs Mr. Olympia.[/quote]
I do understand TC,s view on this and even have SOME sympathy for it, but that cat is waaay outta the bag. It would be like banning superchargers and nitromethane in drag racing and expecting people to be thrilled with 10 second quarter miles.
As has been said to death a million times, even Thibaudeau has mentioned this, nobody gets huge by taking steroids without all the sweat and dedication to go with it. Then we have guys like this telling us that they couldn’t be that big without drugs. HOLEE JUMPIN JEHOSAPHAT!!! NO SHIT? They wouldn’t do it if they could… DUH.
I appreciate the studs in all eras of the physique disciplines, I really do, but let’s not pretend that Eugene Sandow is still as impressive as Ronnie Coleman though in his time he surely elicited similar eye popping reactions from average people.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
yogaroots wrote:
<<< Anyone that wants to get on stage next to anyone at the arnold classic has to be on gear. >>>
This what I love about T-Nation. What would I do without a place to go where these things can be pointed out to me.
I also fail to see why that is an issue. It isn’t like people would be turning out in droves to see a 175lbs Mr. Olympia.
I do understand TC,s view on this and even have SOME sympathy for it, but that cat is waaay outta the bag. It would be like banning superchargers and nitromethane in drag racing and expecting people to be thrilled with 10 second quarter miles.
As has been said to death a million times, even Thibaudeau has mentioned this, nobody gets huge by taking steroids without all the sweat and dedication to go with it. Then we have guys like this telling us that they couldn’t be that big without drugs. HOLEE JUMPIN JEHOSAPHAT!!! NO SHIT? They wouldn’t do it if they could… DUH.
I appreciate the studs in all eras of the physique disciplines, I really do, but let’s not pretend that Eugene Sandow is still as impressive as Ronnie Coleman though in his time he surely elicited similar eye popping reactions from average people.[/quote]
Also, Sandow was a FREAK in his era. There was no doubt just as much negative talk behind his back as there is for pros today. The ONLY thing missing back then was the knowledge of steroids and the association of them with “cheating” like has been implied in all media.
It isn’t like there were several guys running around looking like Sandow in his prime. Women supposedly fainted at the sight of him back then.
That is why those who claim they want a return to that era don’t seem to understand this means accepting those considered FREAKS today.
It’s weird. It seems as if guys who train see gear in the same way as people who don’t train see a protein shake.
People who don’t know anything seem to think the reason you have muscle is because you drink protein shakes and take creatine. Not because you BUST your ass in the gym 4-5days a week
[quote]silverbullet wrote:
It’s weird. It seems as if guys who train see gear in the same way as people who don’t train see a protein shake.
People who don’t know anything seem to think the reason you have muscle is because you drink protein shakes and take creatine. Not because you BUST your ass in the gym 4-5days a week[/quote]
Not so. I have achieved pretty decent gains over the years and don’t even supplement. I just believe in calling it like it is. I do more in a 45 minute workout than most trainees I see that spend 2 hours in the gym. At the end of the day it’s about ‘work ethic’- I know this. I just don’t like people that sneeze at how much gear helps. Because it DOES.
[quote]silverbullet wrote:
It’s weird. It seems as if guys who train see gear in the same way as people who don’t train see a protein shake.
People who don’t know anything seem to think the reason you have muscle is because you drink protein shakes and take creatine. Not because you BUST your ass in the gym 4-5days a week[/quote]
That’s a pretty big generalization. Lots of guys who train and don’t use gear aren’t as delusional about it’s effects as you suggest. Also, I don’t really think you can intelligently argue with the notion that it’s possible to obtain results with gear that it’s physically impossible to achieve without it.
Also, there is a difference between protein shakes or creatine and gear. And that difference is that you can get protein and creatine from whole food sources, and the importance of food should certainly not be downplayed. On the other hand, you cannot get exogenous testosterone from any other source than anabolics.
You’ve got to bust your ass no matter what if you want to see gains though, so no argument there.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Also, there is a difference between protein shakes or creatine and gear. And that difference is that you can get protein and creatine from whole food sources, and the importance of food should certainly not be downplayed. On the other hand, you cannot get exogenous testosterone from any other source than anabolics.
[/quote]
Nicely put.
I think periodization is the way to explian this. You can lift light for say 1week then the next week lift heavy. Easy as pie.