[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast…[/quote]
Just for the maiden quote, I think you’re my new favourite poster.[/quote]
Up The Irons!
What if I told you I actually read The Adventures of Lord Iffy Boatrace in my teens?
[quote]Yogi wrote:
kinda relevant seeing as it’s in the advert:
I have actually done that thing where you step on a rake and it whips up and smacks you in the face. It hurt like a bitch but the worst of it was knowing that my life is pretty much a cartoon.[/quote]
HAHA
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast…[/quote]
Just for the maiden quote, I think you’re my new favourite poster.[/quote]
Up The Irons!
What if I told you I actually read The Adventures of Lord Iffy Boatrace in my teens?[/quote]
I think you and Bruce might be the only 2 people on the planet to have read it. You weren’t his proof reader were you?
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast…[/quote]
Just for the maiden quote, I think you’re my new favourite poster.[/quote]
Up The Irons!
What if I told you I actually read The Adventures of Lord Iffy Boatrace in my teens?[/quote]
I think you and Bruce might be the only 2 people on the planet to have read it. You weren’t his proof reader were you?[/quote]
Haha I recall there was a short review by Steve Harris in it so that makes 3 of us.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast…[/quote]
Just for the maiden quote, I think you’re my new favourite poster.[/quote]
Up The Irons!
What if I told you I actually read The Adventures of Lord Iffy Boatrace in my teens?[/quote]
I think you and Bruce might be the only 2 people on the planet to have read it. You weren’t his proof reader were you?[/quote]
Haha I recall there was a short review by Steve Harris in it so that makes 3 of us.[/quote]
And you know Nicko’s read it.
Does that make you officially part of the band? Or at least more so than Blaze bloody Bayley?
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]dagill2 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast…[/quote]
Just for the maiden quote, I think you’re my new favourite poster.[/quote]
Up The Irons!
What if I told you I actually read The Adventures of Lord Iffy Boatrace in my teens?[/quote]
I think you and Bruce might be the only 2 people on the planet to have read it. You weren’t his proof reader were you?[/quote]
Haha I recall there was a short review by Steve Harris in it so that makes 3 of us.[/quote]
And you know Nicko’s read it.
Does that make you officially part of the band? Or at least more so than Blaze bloody Bayley?[/quote]
Blaze who?
Years later and people are still arguing this shit, lol. If your goal is the biggest most proportional/symmetrical physique possible, train all your bodyparts directly on a 4+ day bodypart split. 5x5 is garbage.
Also, lol @ the guy with the small back giving advice on back training and bashing my splits. lolwut?
This thread just became amazing.
A KoB siting!
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
Years later and people are still arguing this shit, lol. If your goal is the biggest most proportional/symmetrical physique possible, train all your bodyparts directly on a 4+ day bodypart split. 5x5 is garbage.
Also, lol @ the guy with the small back giving advice on back training and bashing my splits. lolwut?[/quote]
holy shit!
dude, do you have any idea how often people still recommend your templates/threads?
well holy shit!
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
Years later and people are still arguing this shit, lol. If your goal is the biggest most proportional/symmetrical physique possible, train all your bodyparts directly on a 4+ day bodypart split. 5x5 is garbage.
Also, lol @ the guy with the small back giving advice on back training and bashing my splits. lolwut?[/quote]
holy shit!
dude, do you have any idea how often people still recommend your templates/threads?[/quote]
I’m noticing. I just happened to be lurking the site on a whim and this thread annoyed me enough for me to post, lol. Seems a lot of people here have had a lot of success using my advice over the years. Cool to see.
Quite deplorable, however, that there’s still underdeveloped individuals preaching the whole “just stick to heavy compounds” dogma. Oh well, enjoy having imbalanced physiques in a few years and then posting about how to correct that shit I guess.
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
Years later and people are still arguing this shit, lol. If your goal is the biggest most proportional/symmetrical physique possible, train all your bodyparts directly on a 4+ day bodypart split. 5x5 is garbage.
Also, lol @ the guy with the small back giving advice on back training and bashing my splits. lolwut?[/quote]
holy shit!
dude, do you have any idea how often people still recommend your templates/threads?[/quote]
I’m noticing. I just happened to be lurking the site on a whim and this thread annoyed me enough for me to post, lol. Seems a lot of people here have had a lot of success using my advice over the years. Cool to see.
Quite deplorable, however, that there’s still underdeveloped individuals preaching the whole “just stick to heavy compounds” dogma. Oh well, enjoy having imbalanced physiques in a few years and then posting about how to correct that shit I guess.
[/quote]
you mean you don’t look like you do because you did Madcow 5x5???
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
Years later and people are still arguing this shit, lol. If your goal is the biggest most proportional/symmetrical physique possible, train all your bodyparts directly on a 4+ day bodypart split. 5x5 is garbage.
Also, lol @ the guy with the small back giving advice on back training and bashing my splits. lolwut?[/quote]
holy shit!
dude, do you have any idea how often people still recommend your templates/threads?[/quote]
I’m noticing. I just happened to be lurking the site on a whim and this thread annoyed me enough for me to post, lol. Seems a lot of people here have had a lot of success using my advice over the years. Cool to see.
Quite deplorable, however, that there’s still underdeveloped individuals preaching the whole “just stick to heavy compounds” dogma. Oh well, enjoy having imbalanced physiques in a few years and then posting about how to correct that shit I guess.
[/quote]
Good to see you posting again, your templates are a great resource for this site, have recommended them many times. Maybe do an update in your thread on life in/out the gym, how your training has evolved etc?
You’ll also be pleased to find that most of the really negative posters have left and there’s minimal drama last year or so. Hope you stick around.
“Small back” and “underdeveloped physique preaching heavy compounds” seems to be addressed to me, so I’ll respond. I feel like I already stated my position pretty clearly in multiple posts so I’ll try to be brief.
My central point was that that thread is old, and contains advice that is suboptimal for most beginner / intermediate lifters. This opinion is not based on my own personal success or particular expertise, but on the fact that the thread recommends approaches that most “experts” – people who have not only built good physiques themselves but have trained hundreds or thousands of other people across the genetic spectrum and seen what works best – do NOT recommend.
In the very first page of the thread you recommend 2g of protein / lb of bodyweight. This is excessive, according to virtually all authorities on the subject.
You also include mostly splits that feature 1x week frequency, and a lot of isolation work. I don’t think this is optimal for natural lifters in their first few years of lifting. I’m not going to debate this because it’s a waste of time, but here’s a quote from Shadow Pro:
“For a natural athlete, I don’t think that a regular bodybuilding split of training 1 body part each week is enough. Only after years and years of training will bring an athlete a point to be able to have enough intensity in their workout(weights and intensity) for this to be enough.”
I could find many more quotes to a similar effect from T-Nation contributors or competitive physique athletes and post them, or post their routines and show how they compare to many of the splits.
I’m not saying those splits won’t work at all. For a beginner especially, anything will work provided other factors are in place. And maybe dt79 is right and the split really doesn’t matter very much overall. That other factors – intensity, nutrition, consistency, etc – are far more important. Still, that doesn’t make my point above wrong.
The thread title refers to “dumb routines”, and maybe there was a time when this site was full of dumb routines, but no longer. I’d say virtually any routine published on T-Nation in the past year is just as good if not a better choice than the splits in that thread, for most lifters.
On a personal note, I’ve been lifting for 11 years and while my own muscular development may not be particularly impressive, I have learned a thing or two in that time. The idea that the smallness of my back disqualifies me from a valid opinion is 5th grade locker room stuff. You’re saying if only I had followed the Kingbeef splits my back would be much bigger? It’s silly.
[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
Years later and people are still arguing this shit, lol. If your goal is the biggest most proportional/symmetrical physique possible, train all your bodyparts directly on a 4+ day bodypart split. 5x5 is garbage.
Also, lol @ the guy with the small back giving advice on back training and bashing my splits. lolwut?[/quote]
holy shit!
dude, do you have any idea how often people still recommend your templates/threads?[/quote]
I’m noticing. I just happened to be lurking the site on a whim and this thread annoyed me enough for me to post, lol. Seems a lot of people here have had a lot of success using my advice over the years. Cool to see.
Quite deplorable, however, that there’s still underdeveloped individuals preaching the whole “just stick to heavy compounds” dogma. Oh well, enjoy having imbalanced physiques in a few years and then posting about how to correct that shit I guess.
[/quote]
Good to see you posting again, your templates are a great resource for this site, have recommended them many times. Maybe do an update in your thread on life in/out the gym, how your training has evolved etc?
You’ll also be pleased to find that most of the really negative posters have left and there’s minimal drama last year or so. Hope you stick around.
[/quote]
Nah I think you’ll find that everyone is gone except Stu.
The only discussion now is between people who believe that programs don’t matter. Rep ranges don’t matter . Sarcoplasmic is a myth.
Just lift the powerlits heavy. Deadlitfts build a big back and so on.
Once upon a time this kind of nonsense would have been pulled in line but I guess now there is no one left too.
After a while I guess you think why bother.
[quote]craze9 wrote:
You’re saying if only I had followed the Kingbeef splits my back would be much bigger? It’s silly. [/quote]
I think the argument was about the effectiveness of direct vs indirect work for building mass. Kingbeef’s routine contains a lot of direct work using a lot of volume. These are ingredients to building big muscles. It doesn’t mean that his splits are the best possible way to train, although it looks pretty effective for its purpose.
People are saying that if you followed his routine, you would likely have a bigger back than you have now. But it’s all just opinion I guess. I don’t think anyone said you’re opinion is invalid. It was just mentioned that people should look at the results behind the opinion.
I think you’re also mixing the topics of best general strength program and one example of a body building program. Both can build size and strength and it’s up to a trainee where they want to shift the focus to. Both are important to get to a high level in any type of barbell sports so I would never overlook one aspect.
General strength depends on the strength of individual muscles and the ability to use them all in sync for a given movement. Some people don’t require as much practice if they already have great body mechanics. With this in mind, it is possible for a person to be stronger using Kingbeef’s split vs another person doing a 5x5 program for a few years. It’s also important to remember that strength technique can be trained in any exercise, not just the squat, bench and deadlift.
Results depend on what you do and how you do it.
[quote]craze9 wrote:
You’re saying if only I had followed the Kingbeef splits my back would be much bigger? It’s silly. [/quote]
I’ve only been following this thread off and on, but I am curious about this statement. Do you know that it wouldn’t be? And if so, how do you know this? You said yourself that your back development is sub-par. Did you post a picture or anything? I couldn’t find one.
[quote]Angus1 wrote:
[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
Years later and people are still arguing this shit, lol. If your goal is the biggest most proportional/symmetrical physique possible, train all your bodyparts directly on a 4+ day bodypart split. 5x5 is garbage.
Also, lol @ the guy with the small back giving advice on back training and bashing my splits. lolwut?[/quote]
holy shit!
dude, do you have any idea how often people still recommend your templates/threads?[/quote]
I’m noticing. I just happened to be lurking the site on a whim and this thread annoyed me enough for me to post, lol. Seems a lot of people here have had a lot of success using my advice over the years. Cool to see.
Quite deplorable, however, that there’s still underdeveloped individuals preaching the whole “just stick to heavy compounds” dogma. Oh well, enjoy having imbalanced physiques in a few years and then posting about how to correct that shit I guess.
[/quote]
Good to see you posting again, your templates are a great resource for this site, have recommended them many times. Maybe do an update in your thread on life in/out the gym, how your training has evolved etc?
You’ll also be pleased to find that most of the really negative posters have left and there’s minimal drama last year or so. Hope you stick around.
[/quote]
Nah I think you’ll find that everyone is gone except Stu.
The only discussion now is between people who believe that programs don’t matter. Rep ranges don’t matter . Sarcoplasmic is a myth.
Just lift the powerlits heavy. Deadlitfts build a big back and so on.
Once upon a time this kind of nonsense would have been pulled in line but I guess now there is no one left too.
After a while I guess you think why bother.
[/quote]
You are free to discuss or dispute anything you don’t agree with and I’m sure whoever falls under the target of your little passive aggressive rant will be glad to entertain you as long as your justifications for your stance aren’t limited to, “but poliquin says this…”
That being said, there were good posters who tried to steer people onto the right path amidst the latest fads, faulty science and over reliance on questionable programs by putting things in the right context and placing emphasis on the HUMAN ELEMENT. This is what some of us are aiming to achieve.
If most beginners were really seeing exceptional quantifiable progress with the current accepted dogma, I would be the first to stop posting.
Are they?
Anyone that’s been around for a while knows this stuff comes and goes. We had “no pain no gain”, and then we had Westside is the best side and all the associated Russian stuff, and then we had the 5x5/abbreviated training resurgence, and now we’re back to no pain no gain.
You’re never going to “fix” it, all you can hope to do is steer the flow of the tide.