I see what you did there…
3 Likes
What you’re saying works no doubt. But what’s the difference between someone who’s okay at their job and someone who’s amazing at it? The person who is amazing at it took the time to learn the intricacies and the specifics of said job to be able to understand it so they can better tailor their efforts and maximize their results.
I promise you zero proffesional bodybuilders think the way you do.
Which is fine because I’m sure you don’t want to compete you just want to go in the gym lift big weights and go on with your life right?
But I’m the opposite. I’m obsessed about this and want to squeeze every possible gains that I can.
1.5 years
I see… thank you for clearing that up.
2 Likes
@The_Mighty_Stu as professional card holding Natural Bodybuilder would you like to address this ? Or would you prefer to stay clear of this all together?
Not even Jon Andersen?
I think folks would do better to throw away the “this vs. that” outlook when gathering info and applying it.
Pretty sure Flipfollar mentioned it, but the body working together as a unit calls for a combination of both compound and iso movements.
I’ve noticed guys who are strong at iso movements, are also strong as compound movements. I don’t think they’re exclusive like that. Kind of like…if your hamstrings are lagging, bringing them up helps with iso movements if you’re struggling to bring them up with compound movements that most of know. But I’m a bit questionable of what I just said, because there’s many facets, even with general principles.
But to think iso movements trump compound movements would’nt be correct, backed by data, reviews, articles, or studies or not.
Of all the old training templates I’ve skimmed and done my best to understand, theres a bit of a medley of things that even the pros, amateurs, and individuals such as us, use. There may be more or less of a certain movement depending on the need of individuals, but it’s a thought out combination of both.
I am curious: what jobs have you been amazing at to confirm this theory? And how many amazing employees have you supervised?
2 Likes
This seems like it should be more about pre-fatigue than anything else.
The science is the science. The art is in the application.
2 Likes
I like to preface most things of this sort with a “everyone is different in how they’ll respond to training.” Ronnie Coleman was able to develop amazing pecs from the most basic, hard and heavy routine for years and years with very little deviation. Guys like me needed to realize that such an approach wasn’t going to work for them and had to get creative.
Now,… the topic of compounds or isiolations building more muscle,… well, If you simply operate under the premise that compounds target multiple muscle groups concurrently, well, there’s your answer. If on the other hand, you’re one of those “just do the big three and you’ll grow everywhere” guys,… well, I think we can safely agree that it doesn’t work that way for most people without a book that rhymes with “Farting French” to sell.
As to how professional bodybuilders think,… well, With my own competitive history, and the ever growing number of bodybuilders I coach (amateur, pro, national level, international… seriously, it amazes me sometimes -lol) I can tell you that while some are veritably in constant search of the latest science to support whatever’s on their mind on that given day, others have absolutely no clue what science supports to be true, or why that may or may not be, simply because of their own amazingly elite genetics and the extended duration invested in a bit of “anabolic-enhancement.”
The bottom line for me of topics of science vs experience usually comes to these points:
1- Guys have been building amazing phyiques for about 70 years now without PubMed or guys in labcoats having to tell them everything is ok.
2- The guys whose names you always see running around screaming about the latest science have never acheived impressive physiques themselves, NOR (and this is important to note!!!) do they seem to coach all, or even a decent number, of the top competitors in the sport. IN fact, most of the physiques you see them bragging about are pretty sub-par in my own opinion (which you can take or leave, I don’t mind)
3- Countless top competitors achieve amazing success doing things that the “lab coat experts” will tell you doesn’t work… huh? -lol
S
4 Likes
No one said science was needed to build a physique(atleast I didn’t). Science is created to improve effectiveness and to prove something.
Just because someone understands research doesn’t mean they put in work. Your statement is exaggerated.
Mike Zourdos -
Eric Helms -
Mike Israetel -
Greg Nuckols -
All coach. All are successful in their fields. And all are natural except Israetel. Want me to post more?
Another exxageration. I’ve never seen or heard an exercise scientist worth his salt say something doesn’t work. All they ever say is, " It looks like doing this one way proves it’s a little better but if you want to do it the otherway you’ll still make gains".
So feel free to point out when a scientist has said something flat out doesn’t work.
RK
Oh boy. We got a live one!
6 Likes
While I’ll admit I know far less about building a competition-level physique than others who have chimed in, I can with some authority say you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and scientists.
2 Likes
"noun: science
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
I was simply pointing out what is part of the actual dictionary definition,… “through observation.” The root being that plenty of guys without labcoats (obviously I’m making a very broad generalization here) observed what worked and what doesn’t,… and here we are, in 2018, with the last 5 or so years filled with “experts” who quote studies but can’t produce a championship physique for themselves or their clients. Now, I’m not one to discredit science,… I was premed myself, took all the classes for my CSCS, Training cert, sat through god knows how many science-y training and nutrition seminars etc etc just so I could improve my own bodybuilding efforts. Was it all worthless? HOnestly, the majority of it was, and I can say that realizing how much $ spent in my pursuit of every iota of info that could give me the slightest advantage over everyone else.
Exactly! It also doesn’t mean that they understand HOW to apply said research. Hence my feelings about the current state of people propping themselves as experts and coaches.
Helms? I respect the hell out of the guy, but I will point out to you (assuming you don’t actually know a lot of what you’re talking about) that he freely admits that he turned pro when the field wasn’t very competitive or deep. So how did all that knowledge put him ahead of guys who didn’t go to college but only understood how to apply the most basic training principles correctly?
Mike Israetel? I don’t know the guy personally, but he writes a lot (which doesn’t mean anything), some people love his articles, but he can’t seem to actually bring himself in any impressive form to a contest… conditioning is soooo bad, and his size, for an assisted competitor with a shorter structure (a plus in the sport) isn’t much. I don’t know you or your background, but when you’re around half as many top level pros (IFBB and WNBF) as I am on a regular basis, perhaps you can give me a more objective opinion of whats truly impressive, or what’s just impressive to a relative newcomer to the sport.
Zourdos? No clue who he is, and a google search brought up nothing, so all I’ve got is the one contest pic you posted, which doesn’t really tell me much about his physique, or his knowledge base and background.
I certainly don’t care to debate anyone,… I’ve got my opinions, formed from years of being in the sport as a competitor (2x Natural Pro and plenty of 1st place wins), coach, judge, as well as more than enough actual formal education in training science and nutrition to not be bothered if anyone else’s opinions differ than my own. I do however find it odd that with your relative beginner status, you’re clinging so adamantly to your own, when others with much more experience are simply pointing out why they disagree.
Carry on though, I’ve got plenty of other threads to peruse while I eat my lunch 
S
4 Likes
“CONCLUSION:
Our findings indicate that, in physically active men, ST supersets do not influence total EE during and 60 minutes after a single session.”
All those bodybuilders from the 1950s up to present who trained with more supersets when cutting to maintain an elevated heart rate and increase fat loss… turns out it didn’t actually work. Bummer.
2 Likes
I think that even if this study existed, I wouldn’t give a flying fuck what it said.
Both are useful. Use them both however you see fit. Eat enough, sleep enough, and work your ass off. For years.
4 Likes
I don’t know. I’ve always been a huge science guy and I think studies rock and are super useful. Maybe when it comes to fitness, those studies are flawed.
It’s not that they are completely flawed, it’s simply that they are not the be-all end-all. Very often, they are not applicable to this seriously Gym crowd and little things like how the studies were done, who these test subjects where, and what constitutes a Serious workload all factor into their being pretty useless to the committed gym goers.
S
3 Likes
Have to post this…
OP… im not anti science. My son is a exercise science major.
Stu,
Do you have a particular training split you reccomend for bb purposes?
I tried that.
Turns out, leg extensions are much harder on the knee joint for me than squats are. I developed some severe knee tendinitis from just a few sessions of adding leg extensions into my routine.
I’m not saying isolation exercises don’t have value. Of course they do. They can work very well as a compliment to compound exercises. But you’re not going to build a great physique with ONLY isolation movements. You won’t hit all the muscles that way, it’s just not a reasonable approach.
1 Like