For the record I dont think going to the gym 5x or more a week is a necessity in order to see great progress
I do think, however, that this would help the OP, for now.
If I had to guess, OP strengh numbers increases mostly because the tempo and form went to the shitter more and more as he was trying to increasing the weights
There are some 3x/week routines that work really well…
If I was in OP shoes, I would probably add some volume, have a bbing oriented program, and do some cardio.
I rarely agree with PX, but his diet is most likely NOT the problem
[quote]dapunisher1 wrote:
I’ve been d*cking around for the past 14 months. I got injured twice and had to stop, but I’ve been doing SS consistently for the past 3 months now. [/quote]
^What I read as your training history^
And as for the stomach issue, just think up a bunch of clever one liners like, “I love my tool so much I built a roof for it.”
That way you will be covered when you continue ignoring the advice on here.
[quote]zraw wrote:
For the record I dont think going to the gym 5x or more a week is a necessity in order to see great progress
I do think, however, that this would help the OP, for now.
If I had to guess, OP strengh numbers increases mostly because the tempo and form went to the shitter more and more as he was trying to increasing the weights
There are some 3x/week routines that work really well… [/quote]
I agree that working out 5x per week isn’t necessary to see gains, and that there are good 3x per week routines. However, I don’t think that those routines are necessarily ideal on a bulk (especially one that doesn’t drop cals to account for off days).
Taking an all-out bulking every day mindset to a 2-3x per week program that doesn’t require that amount of nutrient intake for recovery is just a recipe for getting fat. Sounds like that’s what OP did. He mentioned keeping nutrients clean, but I didn’t see any talk of dropping caloric intake on off days.
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
Starting strength is trash, IMO.[/quote]
x2
Most of Waterbury’s programs are shit too, but at least they are not recommended here that often.[/quote]
I agree the OP should get off this program and focus on fixing his diet and training as everyone else is suggesting, but to slander a perfectly acceptable program that’s been wrongly utilised is just pathetic. Since Starting Strength is written for younger people, with no strength training experience, and who are also still growing, we cant blame the program but how it was used and who was using it. This is totally user error. The program doesnt do the work for you!
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
Starting strength is trash, IMO.[/quote]
x2
Most of Waterbury’s programs are shit too, but at least they are not recommended here that often.[/quote]
I agree the OP should get off this program and focus on fixing his diet and training as everyone else is suggesting, but to slander a perfectly acceptable program that’s been wrongly utilised is just pathetic. Since Starting Strength is written for younger people, with no strength training experience, and who are also still growing, we cant blame the program but how it was used and who was using it. This is totally user error. The program doesnt do the work for you![/quote]
How is not training bodyparts acceptable, lol. I started training with a bodypart split and as a result ended up not having any glaring imbalances. Same goes for all the teenagers/beginners that I’ve trained/designed splits for over the past few years. Everytime a thread comes up about fixing imbalances, a large majority of the time it was someone doing starting strength, stronglifts, or some other minimalistic program.
I stand by my statement. Starting strength is a horrible program, especially if a persons goals include proportion/aesthetics.
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
Starting strength is trash, IMO.[/quote]
x2
Most of Waterbury’s programs are shit too, but at least they are not recommended here that often.[/quote]
I agree the OP should get off this program and focus on fixing his diet and training as everyone else is suggesting, but to slander a perfectly acceptable program that’s been wrongly utilised is just pathetic. Since Starting Strength is written for younger people, with no strength training experience, and who are also still growing, we cant blame the program but how it was used and who was using it. This is totally user error. The program doesnt do the work for you![/quote]
How is not training bodyparts acceptable, lol. I started training with a bodypart split and as a result ended up not having any glaring imbalances. Same goes for all the teenagers/beginners that I’ve trained/designed splits for over the past few years. Everytime a thread comes up about fixing imbalances, a large majority of the time it was someone doing starting strength, stronglifts, or some other minimalistic program.
I stand by my statement. Starting strength is a horrible program, especially if a persons goals include proportion/aesthetics.[/quote]
Bingo, SS calls for doing Squats 3 times a week. How the fuck are you gonna be proportional doing that?
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
How is not training bodyparts acceptable, lol. I started training with a bodypart split and as a result ended up not having any glaring imbalances. Same goes for all the teenagers/beginners that I’ve trained/designed splits for over the past few years. Everytime a thread comes up about fixing imbalances, a large majority of the time it was someone doing starting strength, stronglifts, or some other minimalistic program.
I stand by my statement. Starting strength is a horrible program, especially if a persons goals include proportion/aesthetics.[/quote]
+1 I’d say all starting strength is above average for is building a so-called base squat (since I believe squatting at higher frequency works well). It’s taken me over 3 years for my arms/delts to not completely suck after I gained a lot of my initial weight while training with starting strength. I then switched to waterburys anti-bodybuilding hypertrophy. LOL talk about a rough start for someone trying to build an aesthetic physique…
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
How is not training bodyparts acceptable, lol. I started training with a bodypart split and as a result ended up not having any glaring imbalances. Same goes for all the teenagers/beginners that I’ve trained/designed splits for over the past few years. Everytime a thread comes up about fixing imbalances, a large majority of the time it was someone doing starting strength, stronglifts, or some other minimalistic program.
I stand by my statement. Starting strength is a horrible program, especially if a persons goals include proportion/aesthetics.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s really anything wrong with a minimalist split that prioritizes the big lifts and incorporates them at a high frequency. Minimalist programming isn’t necessarily bad for BBing goals, but it can be if it doesn’t allow for MMC development- the big lifts are fine muscle builders as long as the lifter is actually feeling the muscles work rather than just moving the weight from A to B.
I agree with you that something like Starting Strength is probably not going to be useful for aspiring BBers who are starting out because it lacks that isolation component.
CT’s style of programming appeals to me much more because it is pretty minimalist at its core and really focuses on the big lifts, but at the same time it allows for isolation work to build a solid MMC to maximize muscle gains from those lifts.
So yeah, I see where you’re coming from as far as why you don’t like programs like SS, but at the same time I don’t think a traditional muscle group or two per day split is the ONLY way to see good gains.
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
How is not training bodyparts acceptable, lol. I started training with a bodypart split and as a result ended up not having any glaring imbalances. Same goes for all the teenagers/beginners that I’ve trained/designed splits for over the past few years. Everytime a thread comes up about fixing imbalances, a large majority of the time it was someone doing starting strength, stronglifts, or some other minimalistic program.
I stand by my statement. Starting strength is a horrible program, especially if a persons goals include proportion/aesthetics.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s really anything wrong with a minimalist split that prioritizes the big lifts and incorporates them at a high frequency. Minimalist programming isn’t necessarily bad for BBing goals, but it can be if it doesn’t allow for MMC development- the big lifts are fine muscle builders as long as the lifter is actually feeling the muscles work rather than just moving the weight from A to B.
I agree with you that something like Starting Strength is probably not going to be useful for aspiring BBers who are starting out because it lacks that isolation component.
CT’s style of programming appeals to me much more because it is pretty minimalist at its core and really focuses on the big lifts, but at the same time it allows for isolation work to build a solid MMC to maximize muscle gains from those lifts.
So yeah, I see where you’re coming from as far as why you don’t like programs like SS, but at the same time I don’t think a traditional muscle group or two per day split is the ONLY way to see good gains.[/quote]
My point was that Starting Strength is a fine program, But not for what the OP wanted to accomplish. In this respect its user error for choosing the wrong program for the job. If however the OP was young, still growing, wanting to play college football and needing to get some basic strength then the program would be perfect. The give away is in the name “Starting Strength” so you start, then you progress to something else.
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
How is not training bodyparts acceptable, lol. I started training with a bodypart split and as a result ended up not having any glaring imbalances. Same goes for all the teenagers/beginners that I’ve trained/designed splits for over the past few years. Everytime a thread comes up about fixing imbalances, a large majority of the time it was someone doing starting strength, stronglifts, or some other minimalistic program.
I stand by my statement. Starting strength is a horrible program, especially if a persons goals include proportion/aesthetics.[/quote]
I don’t think there’s really anything wrong with a minimalist split that prioritizes the big lifts and incorporates them at a high frequency. Minimalist programming isn’t necessarily bad for BBing goals, but it can be if it doesn’t allow for MMC development- the big lifts are fine muscle builders as long as the lifter is actually feeling the muscles work rather than just moving the weight from A to B.
I agree with you that something like Starting Strength is probably not going to be useful for aspiring BBers who are starting out because it lacks that isolation component.
CT’s style of programming appeals to me much more because it is pretty minimalist at its core and really focuses on the big lifts, but at the same time it allows for isolation work to build a solid MMC to maximize muscle gains from those lifts.
So yeah, I see where you’re coming from as far as why you don’t like programs like SS, but at the same time I don’t think a traditional muscle group or two per day split is the ONLY way to see good gains.[/quote]
My point was that Starting Strength is a fine program, But not for what the OP wanted to accomplish. In this respect its user error for choosing the wrong program for the job. If however the OP was young, still growing, wanting to play college football and needing to get some basic strength then the program would be perfect. The give away is in the name “Starting Strength” so you start, then you progress to something else. [/quote]
Fair enough. We’re talking in the context of bodybuilding here though. I agree that the program is fine for some individuals. BUT I think that even in the context of building a foundation of strength for performance athletes, there are better programs out there.
Thanks for all of the good advice guys. I wanted to give an update on my progress. I cut back my calories a lot for a week or 2 and I wound up losing 8 pounds from 228 down to 220. Then I read the Rapid Fat loss book and I’ve been on the program for 2 weeks. I’ve gone down another 13 pounds down to 207 and the diet has been easy so far.
I just do a full body workout 2 days a week to maintain strength and muscle and have been eating green veggies with lean protein(about 200-250 a day for a total of under 1000 calories a day) with 2 cheat meals a week. I’m thinking about doing this program for another 4 weeks and want to really lean out down to about 190 or so, then go on a slow clean bulk to put on some serious size. I have some pictures of me flexing and relaxing. Can you give me some feedback on what I’m doing so far Thanks.
