I agree with Prof X on this.
If someone wants to post their viewpoints in a civil manner I’m very open to listening. My point of contention is that I don’t see “natty routines” being different from “enhanced routines.” I definitely agree that the dieting and end results aspects are much different, but I don’t see a difference in lifting routines and splits.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I agree with Prof X on this.
If someone wants to post their viewpoints in a civil manner I’m very open to listening. My point of contention is that I don’t see “natty routines” being different from “enhanced routines.” I definitely agree that the dieting and end results aspects are much different, but I don’t see a difference in lifting routines and splits.[/quote]
I’m under the impression that assisted lifters can use a lot more volume and still recover better.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I agree with Prof X on this.
If someone wants to post their viewpoints in a civil manner I’m very open to listening. My point of contention is that I don’t see “natty routines” being different from “enhanced routines.” I definitely agree that the dieting and end results aspects are much different, but I don’t see a difference in lifting routines and splits.[/quote]
Is there a difference? Yes, is the difference like night and day? IMO, no.
An assisted user will be able to handle more volume and recover much more quickly so based on those two factors alone you can see how an assisted lifter can/will train differently than someone who cannot do those two things
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I agree with Prof X on this.
If someone wants to post their viewpoints in a civil manner I’m very open to listening. My point of contention is that I don’t see “natty routines” being different from “enhanced routines.” I definitely agree that the dieting and end results aspects are much different, but I don’t see a difference in lifting routines and splits.[/quote]
Is there a difference? Yes, is the difference like night and day? IMO, no.
An assisted user will be able to handle more volume and recover much more quickly so based on those two factors alone you can see how an assisted lifter can/will train differently than someone who cannot do those two things[/quote]
What I find funny/interesting is that while this seems to be true, the pro BBers don’t appear to be training significantly harder+more frequently than motivated natty BBers. Why? My guess is that experience has shown them that it is simply not necessary. More doesn’t seem to be better in terms of training for size, even with all the pharma assistance in the world (or because of it).
This definitely doesn’t seem to apply to strength sports. There, more+harder training is better, hence the training of professional assisted lifters (e.g., oly wlers) will typically crush the natty strength athlete.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I agree with Prof X on this.
If someone wants to post their viewpoints in a civil manner I’m very open to listening. My point of contention is that I don’t see “natty routines” being different from “enhanced routines.” I definitely agree that the dieting and end results aspects are much different, but I don’t see a difference in lifting routines and splits.[/quote]
Is there a difference? Yes, is the difference like night and day? IMO, no.
An assisted user will be able to handle more volume and recover much more quickly so based on those two factors alone you can see how an assisted lifter can/will train differently than someone who cannot do those two things[/quote]
What I find funny/interesting is that while this seems to be true, the pro BBers don’t appear to be training significantly harder+more frequently than motivated natty BBers. Why? My guess is that experience has shown them that it is simply not necessary. More doesn’t seem to be better in terms of training for size, even with all the pharma assistance in the world (or because of it).
This definitely doesn’t seem to apply to strength sports. There, more+harder training is better, hence the training of professional assisted lifters (e.g., oly wlers) will typically crush the natty strength athlete.[/quote]
I agree with you for the most part but you never really know how guys are actually training (assisted or not) What they say/do in a magazine/training video might not be what they do on a regular basis so you never know.
The main principals would be the same but the execution could be different between the two groups because of the increased recovery and all that.
Hold on guy, let me fix that for you:
There ya go.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I agree with Prof X on this.
If someone wants to post their viewpoints in a civil manner I’m very open to listening. My point of contention is that I don’t see “natty routines” being different from “enhanced routines.” I definitely agree that the dieting and end results aspects are much different, but I don’t see a difference in lifting routines and splits.[/quote]
Is there a difference? Yes, is the difference like night and day? IMO, no.
An assisted user will be able to handle more volume and recover much more quickly so based on those two factors alone you can see how an assisted lifter can/will train differently than someone who cannot do those two things[/quote]
What I find funny/interesting is that while this seems to be true, the pro BBers don’t appear to be training significantly harder+more frequently than motivated natty BBers. Why? My guess is that experience has shown them that it is simply not necessary. More doesn’t seem to be better in terms of training for size, even with all the pharma assistance in the world (or because of it).
This definitely doesn’t seem to apply to strength sports. There, more+harder training is better, hence the training of professional assisted lifters (e.g., oly wlers) will typically crush the natty strength athlete.[/quote]
I agree with you for the most part but you never really know how guys are actually training (assisted or not) What they say/do in a magazine/training video might not be what they do on a regular basis so you never know.
The main principals would be the same but the execution could be different between the two groups because of the increased recovery and all that.[/quote]
This is actually an interesting point RE: how reliable what we “know” of even people we seem to trust.
Best example, imo, is the training logs Shelby and Kroc keep at EliteFTS. On the one hand, what they do seems relatively straightforward. On the other, the low amount of total volume just doesn’t gel for me with the claim that Shelby makes as a general matter that training sessions usually last 2 hours for him. I’ve been wondering about that for a while.
Just wondered if anybody else saw that in the first post. And, if that’s him in the pic, then I think we differ in our definition of naturally big arms, especially arms so big that any direct training is unnecessary.
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
Best example, imo, is the training logs Shelby and Kroc keep at EliteFTS. On the one hand, what they do seems relatively straightforward. On the other, the low amount of total volume just doesn’t gel for me with the claim that Shelby makes as a general matter that training sessions usually last 2 hours for him. I’ve been wondering about that for a while.
[/quote]
if you do a lot of warmup sets its not that hard to believe
[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
Best example, imo, is the training logs Shelby and Kroc keep at EliteFTS. On the one hand, what they do seems relatively straightforward. On the other, the low amount of total volume just doesn’t gel for me with the claim that Shelby makes as a general matter that training sessions usually last 2 hours for him. I’ve been wondering about that for a while.
[/quote]
if you do a lot of warmup sets its not that hard to believe
[/quote]
It takes me at least an hour most days. If I didn’t have a job, I could definitely see most days lasting 1.5 for me at least.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]fr0gger666 wrote:
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
Best example, imo, is the training logs Shelby and Kroc keep at EliteFTS. On the one hand, what they do seems relatively straightforward. On the other, the low amount of total volume just doesn’t gel for me with the claim that Shelby makes as a general matter that training sessions usually last 2 hours for him. I’ve been wondering about that for a while.
[/quote]
if you do a lot of warmup sets its not that hard to believe
[/quote]
It takes me at least an hour most days. If I didn’t have a job, I could definitely see most days lasting 1.5 for me at least.[/quote]
think mine are usually 2 hours but i probably sit around excessively
only 5-6 exercises / 5 warmup sets / 3 working sets / couple RP sets
This thread could have ended at
Eat More
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I agree with Prof X on this.
If someone wants to post their viewpoints in a civil manner I’m very open to listening. My point of contention is that I don’t see “natty routines” being different from “enhanced routines.” I definitely agree that the dieting and end results aspects are much different, but I don’t see a difference in lifting routines and splits.[/quote]
Is there a difference? Yes, is the difference like night and day? IMO, no.
An assisted user will be able to handle more volume and recover much more quickly so based on those two factors alone you can see how an assisted lifter can/will train differently than someone who cannot do those two things[/quote]
What I find funny/interesting is that while this seems to be true, the pro BBers don’t appear to be training significantly harder+more frequently than motivated natty BBers. Why? My guess is that experience has shown them that it is simply not necessary. More doesn’t seem to be better in terms of training for size, even with all the pharma assistance in the world (or because of it).
This definitely doesn’t seem to apply to strength sports. There, more+harder training is better, hence the training of professional assisted lifters (e.g., oly wlers) will typically crush the natty strength athlete.[/quote]
I agree with you for the most part but you never really know how guys are actually training (assisted or not) What they say/do in a magazine/training video might not be what they do on a regular basis so you never know.
The main principals would be the same but the execution could be different between the two groups because of the increased recovery and all that.[/quote]
This is actually an interesting point RE: how reliable what we “know” of even people we seem to trust.
Best example, imo, is the training logs Shelby and Kroc keep at EliteFTS. On the one hand, what they do seems relatively straightforward. On the other, the low amount of total volume just doesn’t gel for me with the claim that Shelby makes as a general matter that training sessions usually last 2 hours for him. I’ve been wondering about that for a while.
[/quote]
Doesn’t seem likely that they all can bullshit us. I remember talking to an ex pro BBer (think monster level) in our gym about this and he agreed with me that the training doesn’t have to be crazy/extra-ordinary at all to get to pro level. He said the most important thing is simply doing it consistently (not getting injured/sick, not abusing the pharma, etc.) for a long time and being able to pay for the whole thing.
ps: I have worked with Shelby for a long time in the past and cannot believe he is not telling the truth.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
ps: I have worked with Shelby for a long time in the past and cannot believe he is not telling the truth.[/quote]
Yeah, I wasn’t meaning to question his integrity: it was the low volume and the long workout period that got me interested in how it could be so.
Also, he doesn’t seem to employ workout minions like JM does, haha.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I agree with Prof X on this.
If someone wants to post their viewpoints in a civil manner I’m very open to listening. My point of contention is that I don’t see “natty routines” being different from “enhanced routines.” I definitely agree that the dieting and end results aspects are much different, but I don’t see a difference in lifting routines and splits.[/quote]
Is there a difference? Yes, is the difference like night and day? IMO, no.
An assisted user will be able to handle more volume and recover much more quickly so based on those two factors alone you can see how an assisted lifter can/will train differently than someone who cannot do those two things[/quote]
What I find funny/interesting is that while this seems to be true, the pro BBers don’t appear to be training significantly harder+more frequently than motivated natty BBers. Why? My guess is that experience has shown them that it is simply not necessary. More doesn’t seem to be better in terms of training for size, even with all the pharma assistance in the world (or because of it).
This definitely doesn’t seem to apply to strength sports. There, more+harder training is better, hence the training of professional assisted lifters (e.g., oly wlers) will typically crush the natty strength athlete.[/quote]
I agree with you for the most part but you never really know how guys are actually training (assisted or not) What they say/do in a magazine/training video might not be what they do on a regular basis so you never know.
The main principals would be the same but the execution could be different between the two groups because of the increased recovery and all that.[/quote]
This is actually an interesting point RE: how reliable what we “know” of even people we seem to trust.
Best example, imo, is the training logs Shelby and Kroc keep at EliteFTS. On the one hand, what they do seems relatively straightforward. On the other, the low amount of total volume just doesn’t gel for me with the claim that Shelby makes as a general matter that training sessions usually last 2 hours for him. I’ve been wondering about that for a while.
[/quote]
Doesn’t seem likely that they all can bullshit us. I remember talking to an ex pro BBer (think monster level) in our gym about this and he agreed with me that the training doesn’t have to be crazy/extra-ordinary at all to get to pro level. He said the most important thing is simply doing it consistently (not getting injured/sick, not abusing the pharma, etc.) for a long time and being able to pay for the whole thing.
ps: I have worked with Shelby for a long time in the past and cannot believe he is not telling the truth.[/quote]
I think some people really underestimate the ‘hidden’ volume in some of the pro routines(and other assisted lifters they follow, such as PLers and Strongman competitors). These dudes are using HEAVY weight, and they are using ‘added intensity’ techniques on like every exercise(sometimes every set of an exercise, or multiple exercises). They may warm up then hit the same 5x5 or 4x8 or ramp to a max or whatever that you or whoever does, but their volume(the way you actually calculate it, as in total weight moved in a workout) is probably ridiculous in comparison, even before you consider that they are typically doing only shit that is notoriously taxing on recovery both from a muscle soreness/fatigue standpoint, and from a CNS standpoint.
Maybe I’m just a bitch, but when I see someone like Kroc post a workout that includes Barbell rows, Meadows rows, Kroc rows, heavy pulldowns, pullovers, and shrugs, and then comment that he started his workout way late and thus left out his planned deadlifts with chains, I know I couldn’t do something like that as a typical day. For a period of overreaching that’s fine and dandy, but there are VERY FEW naturals who wouldn’t crush themselves trying to do shit like that regularly.
This post ended up being a little more bro-science than I wanted, but I have some personal experience from playing college ball of what it is like to attempt to do the same thing as people who are using when you aren’t. Anyone who thinks it doesn’t make a world of difference and fundamentally change what you are capable of(even if in the grand scheme of things you are doing ‘the same stuff’) is just flat out wrong.
Also as a quick note, there were studies done where dudes were given test and did NOTHING as part of the study, and gained lean mass. So yes, even that dude who does everything wrong and takes some(if his cycle isn’t fucking retarded) will actually gain from it(although it probably won’t be some crazy obvious amount of gains, it’s still humorous that they do).
[quote]red04 wrote:
I think some people really underestimate the ‘hidden’ volume in some of the pro routines(and other assisted lifters they follow, such as PLers and Strongman competitors). These dudes are using HEAVY weight, and they are using ‘added intensity’ techniques on like every exercise(sometimes every set of an exercise, or multiple exercises). They may warm up then hit the same 5x5 or 4x8 or ramp to a max or whatever that you or whoever does, but their volume(the way you actually calculate it, as in total weight moved in a workout) is probably ridiculous in comparison, even before you consider that they are typically doing only shit that is notoriously taxing on recovery both from a muscle soreness/fatigue standpoint, and from a CNS standpoint.
Maybe I’m just a bitch, but when I see someone like Kroc post a workout that includes Barbell rows, Meadows rows, Kroc rows, heavy pulldowns, pullovers, and shrugs, and then comment that he started his workout way late and thus left out his planned deadlifts with chains, I know I couldn’t do something like that as a typical day. For a period of overreaching that’s fine and dandy, but there are VERY FEW naturals who wouldn’t crush themselves trying to do shit like that regularly.[/quote]
I disagree.
“One armed barbell rows with Meadows Handle (or simply Meadows Rows) 45x10,95x8,145x8,200x8,8,8,8
Barbell rows on the smith machine 135x10,185x10,225x6,275x6,6,6,6
Dumbbell pullovers 80x10,10,10,10
Dumbbell shrugs with 3 sec pause at top 100x12,12,12”
This session doesn’t impress me. You underestimate what natties can do.
ps: You are a bitch. ha
^^you left out two complete exercises (Kroc Rows & Pull Downs) from a routine that was already cut down because of time restraints.
That is quite a bit of work.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
do you realise the difference between cutting natty and with gear. on gear you can maintain alot more muscle while dieting down, and in some casses even gain more muscle. [/quote]
Gee, you CAN…and MAY in SOME CASES. That doesn’t mean you WILL.
[quote]
“No, I saw your post as feeding into the concept that somehow you need to train in some specific way because you are natural. The approach is THE SAME.”
im not 100% sure what you mean by this but are you saying that a natural should train in the same way as someone on gear? because if so that is laughable. [/quote]
It is laughable that a person should train according the results seen and NOT whether they are natural or not?
What is so different about HOW someone should train based on steroid use alone?
To even make that statement means you somehow know exactly what someone should need to do based on ONE factor alone.
[quote]
anyone on a well planned cycle with their nutrition and training on point, will gain far more muscle than someone natty in the same amount of time. [/quote]
??? So genetics mean nothing now? There are TONS of people on steroids who gain LESS muscle than naturals with better genetics. What are you talking about?
Rants? Dude, you don’t have the education to debate this. All you do is show how much you don’t really know and that you gained most of your knowledge from websites.[/quote]
cutting with drugs is alot easier than cutting natural, how is that even a debate here?
yes genetics do matter to a degree but not as much as you make out. pump enough drugs into someone and they will get bigger than a natural with “better genetics”
training with steroids vs training natty, are you kidding me? your able to recover from huge amounts of volume and frequency, which people natty would not.
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
yes genetics do matter to a degree but not as much as you make out. pump enough drugs into someone and they will get bigger than a natural with “better genetics”
[/quote]
This is bullshit. Steroids do NOT make everyone respond like that. Genetics matter. You can NOT just pump enough drugs into everyone and get a certain result. You do not understand how ANY drug works if you think this.
Bottom line, kid, stop typing so much. You are showing how much you don’t know again.
More steak + eggs
/thread?