DC Overhyped?

[Protoculture]

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I’m surprised someone dug this thread back up that I made. There’s no doubt that DC works. I’ve just been puzzled as to why there needs to be thousands of pages written in threads all over the internet for the interpretation of a routine whose workouts look like this:

[/quote]

For what it’s worth I think those endless threads with “senior” doggcrappers constantly reminding newbs to stick to the program as written and to eat enough are why the program is so successful. Most fail because they don’t stick with anything long enough.

I think many other online programs could deliver similar results if a small army of disciples, like DC seems to have, insisted you eat enough protein/calories and push yourself hard every session.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]Protoculture wrote:
Another term I find people have been incorrectly using is “straight sets”. Apparently it now means using the same weight for all your sets.

I don’t know… but I’m pretty sure to common gym rats “straight sets” means that you do not alternate an exercise with any others.
[/quote]

Straight set = set to (positive) failure with no “intensity” techniques (yes, yes, I know Bill, I know added. Or so I thought. You have a point though.

So I guess straight sets are basically just regular sets done one after the other with rest in-between, no extra techniques, no supersets, etc…

I’ve used “straight sets” to describe doing all (work) sets at the same weight before mainly because so many others do it… I have no idea what the actual name for that would be.
It’s kind of tedious to type “all work sets at the same weight”. Maybe I’ll just type “AWSATSW” in the future.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I rest a long time between sets. I don’t count it or time it, but I know I generally do one set per song (at the most two) on my mp3 player. Since most songs last about 3min, I am guessing that is about how long I rest.

I tend to think the length of rest depends on how heavy you are going. I would not be ready to go again in 30seconds without it seriously decreasing the weight I could lift.

Everyone isn’t made the same.[/quote]

I agree, but see here… We actually do the same thing:

Your hypothetical HS flat bench workout (I dunno where you’re at now, strength-wise, sorry):

-2 pps for reps
rest as long as you feel you need
-3 pps for reps
rest
-4 pps for reps
rest
-5 (or 6 now?) pps for reps ← your top set, right? You rep out to failure or close to (yes bill roberts, I meant concentric/positive failure, sorry there) it and then you rest and do your next exercise.

You do 2 or however many (multiple) main exercises per bodypart.

Ok now in DC, we usually do fewer exercises per bodypart but with slightly higher overall frequency… (except on the “advanced” dc variant and some others, but I digress)
Due to that, when we reach our top set, and the exercise allows it, we will use rest-pause to “extend” (yes, bill, yes, I know) that set (sort of like drop-sets, except that RP actually gets me stronger fairly fast while drops do jackshit for me). We still take as long as we want between the actual “sets”:

So my hypothetical HS flatbench workout (I don’t have a flat hs machine, I’ll just use the same weights as above here):

-2 pps for reps
rest as long as I want
-3 pps for reps
rest
-4 pps for reps
rest
-5(or 6?) pps for a rest-paused set (go to “failure”, take a breather and rack weight… Go to failure, breather and rack weight… go to failure again… Reps will be decreasing drastically, but you get a few more reps with your best weight in a short amount of time… That’s all there is to it, really)

So there, not really much of a difference except that we make up for the lower amount of exercises per bodypart by doing a rest-pause set (not always, either).

Ultimately it’s all about progressively getting stronger and eating a ton.

[Protoculture]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
It’s kind of tedious to type “all work sets at the same weight”. Maybe I’ll just type “AWSATSW” in the future.

[/quote]

haha OK, that would be weird.

Yeah, I don’t know what to call them either… Someone really needs to introduce new and unique terms for different concepts. Even “intensity” confuses some because powerlifters use it to mean “% of 1RM”, but HITers use it to mean “perceived effort”.

Aren’t there enough words in the English language to have a different term for different concepts? haha

[Protoculture]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
So I guess straight sets are basically just regular sets done one after the other with rest in-between, no extra techniques, no supersets, etc…
[/quote]

So, how about calling them “sets” or “regular sets”?

“Ramping sets”, I assume, would mean to increase load with each set while keeping a narrow rep range.

“Pyramid sets” = increase load with each set while decreasing number of reps per set.

“Identical sets” or “Repetitive sets” for multiple sets using the same load and same rep range.

Obviously I’m just saying anything, but having universally accepted terms would help people communicate more efficiently, both in articles and forums.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I rest a long time between sets. I don’t count it or time it, but I know I generally do one set per song (at the most two) on my mp3 player. Since most songs last about 3min, I am guessing that is about how long I rest.

I tend to think the length of rest depends on how heavy you are going. I would not be ready to go again in 30seconds without it seriously decreasing the weight I could lift.

Everyone isn’t made the same.

I agree, but see here… We actually do the same thing:

Your hypothetical HS flat bench workout (I dunno where you’re at now, strength-wise, sorry):

-2 pps for reps
rest as long as you feel you need
-3 pps for reps
rest
-4 pps for reps
rest
-5 (or 6 now?) pps for reps ← your top set, right? You rep out to failure or close to (yes bill roberts, I meant concentric/positive failure, sorry there) it and then you rest and do your next exercise.

You do 2 or however many (multiple) main exercises per bodypart.

Ok now in DC, we usually do fewer exercises per bodypart but with slightly higher overall frequency… (except on the “advanced” dc variant and some others, but I digress)
Due to that, when we reach our top set, and the exercise allows it, we will use rest-pause to “extend” (yes, bill, yes, I know) that set (sort of like drop-sets, except that RP actually gets me stronger fairly fast while drops do jackshit for me). We still take as long as we want between the actual “sets”:

So my hypothetical HS flatbench workout (I don’t have a flat hs machine, I’ll just use the same weights as above here):

-2 pps for reps
rest as long as I want
-3 pps for reps
rest
-4 pps for reps
rest
-5(or 6?) pps for a rest-paused set (go to “failure”, take a breather and rack weight… Go to failure, breather and rack weight… go to failure again… Reps will be decreasing drastically, but you get a few more reps with your best weight in a short amount of time… That’s all there is to it, really)

So there, not really much of a difference except that we make up for the lower amount of exercises per bodypart by doing a rest-pause set (not always, either).

Ultimately it’s all about progressively getting stronger and eating a ton.
[/quote]

The only problem I have with fewer exercises is that for working a body part like the chest is best done from different angles. My upper chest is the size it is ONLY because I have been pounding out those HS inclines for the last few years after going the first few years of lifting thinking the flat bench and decline were enough.

Other than that, no, the concept isn’t much different than what I am already doing…and what most people who have some serious size on them are already doing.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Protoculture wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
So I guess straight sets are basically just regular sets done one after the other with rest in-between, no extra techniques, no supersets, etc…

So, how about calling them “sets” or “regular sets”?

“Ramping sets”, I assume, would mean to increase load with each set while keeping a narrow rep range.

“Pyramid sets” = increase load with each set while decreasing number of reps per set.

“Identical sets” or “Repetitive sets” for multiple sets using the same load and same rep range.

Obviously I’m just saying anything, but having universally accepted terms would help people communicate more efficiently, both in articles and forums.
[/quote]

Having people who spent more time in the gym than they spend reading about going to the gym would help in communication as well.

I swear, most of these debates only happen because people are inexperienced as far as actually being under a weight that SCARES them.

[Mr_Purple]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I rest a long time between sets. I don’t count it or time it, but I know I generally do one set per song (at the most two) on my mp3 player. Since most songs last about 3min, I am guessing that is about how long I rest.

I tend to think the length of rest depends on how heavy you are going. I would not be ready to go again in 30seconds without it seriously decreasing the weight I could lift.

Everyone isn’t made the same.

I agree, but see here… We actually do the same thing:

Your hypothetical HS flat bench workout (I dunno where you’re at now, strength-wise, sorry):

-2 pps for reps
rest as long as you feel you need
-3 pps for reps
rest
-4 pps for reps
rest
-5 (or 6 now?) pps for reps ← your top set, right? You rep out to failure or close to (yes bill roberts, I meant concentric/positive failure, sorry there) it and then you rest and do your next exercise.

You do 2 or however many (multiple) main exercises per bodypart.

Ok now in DC, we usually do fewer exercises per bodypart but with slightly higher overall frequency… (except on the “advanced” dc variant and some others, but I digress)
Due to that, when we reach our top set, and the exercise allows it, we will use rest-pause to “extend” (yes, bill, yes, I know) that set (sort of like drop-sets, except that RP actually gets me stronger fairly fast while drops do jackshit for me). We still take as long as we want between the actual “sets”:

So my hypothetical HS flatbench workout (I don’t have a flat hs machine, I’ll just use the same weights as above here):

-2 pps for reps
rest as long as I want
-3 pps for reps
rest
-4 pps for reps
rest
-5(or 6?) pps for a rest-paused set (go to “failure”, take a breather and rack weight… Go to failure, breather and rack weight… go to failure again… Reps will be decreasing drastically, but you get a few more reps with your best weight in a short amount of time… That’s all there is to it, really)

So there, not really much of a difference except that we make up for the lower amount of exercises per bodypart by doing a rest-pause set (not always, either).

Ultimately it’s all about progressively getting stronger and eating a ton.

The only problem I have with fewer exercises is that for working a body part like the chest is best done from different angles. My upper chest is the size it is ONLY because I have been pounding out those HS inclines for the last few years after going the first few years of lifting thinking the flat bench and decline were enough.

Other than that, no, the concept isn’t much different than what I am already doing…and what most people who have some serious size on them are already doing.[/quote]

Ho-hum? DC uses a triple rotation of exercises, shouldn’t be a problem to get incline, flats and declines in there. Not in the same workout though, obviously.

[Sentoguy]

[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I rest a long time between sets. I don’t count it or time it, but I know I generally do one set per song (at the most two) on my mp3 player. Since most songs last about 3min, I am guessing that is about how long I rest.

I tend to think the length of rest depends on how heavy you are going. I would not be ready to go again in 30seconds without it seriously decreasing the weight I could lift.

Everyone isn’t made the same.

I agree, but see here… We actually do the same thing:

Your hypothetical HS flat bench workout (I dunno where you’re at now, strength-wise, sorry):

-2 pps for reps
rest as long as you feel you need
-3 pps for reps
rest
-4 pps for reps
rest
-5 (or 6 now?) pps for reps ← your top set, right? You rep out to failure or close to (yes bill roberts, I meant concentric/positive failure, sorry there) it and then you rest and do your next exercise.

You do 2 or however many (multiple) main exercises per bodypart.

Ok now in DC, we usually do fewer exercises per bodypart but with slightly higher overall frequency… (except on the “advanced” dc variant and some others, but I digress)
Due to that, when we reach our top set, and the exercise allows it, we will use rest-pause to “extend” (yes, bill, yes, I know) that set (sort of like drop-sets, except that RP actually gets me stronger fairly fast while drops do jackshit for me). We still take as long as we want between the actual “sets”:

So my hypothetical HS flatbench workout (I don’t have a flat hs machine, I’ll just use the same weights as above here):

-2 pps for reps
rest as long as I want
-3 pps for reps
rest
-4 pps for reps
rest
-5(or 6?) pps for a rest-paused set (go to “failure”, take a breather and rack weight… Go to failure, breather and rack weight… go to failure again… Reps will be decreasing drastically, but you get a few more reps with your best weight in a short amount of time… That’s all there is to it, really)

So there, not really much of a difference except that we make up for the lower amount of exercises per bodypart by doing a rest-pause set (not always, either).

Ultimately it’s all about progressively getting stronger and eating a ton.

The only problem I have with fewer exercises is that for working a body part like the chest is best done from different angles. My upper chest is the size it is ONLY because I have been pounding out those HS inclines for the last few years after going the first few years of lifting thinking the flat bench and decline were enough.

Other than that, no, the concept isn’t much different than what I am already doing…and what most people who have some serious size on them are already doing.

DC uses a triple rotation of exercises, shouldn’t be a problem to get incline, flats and declines in there. Not in the same workout though, obviously. [/quote]

True, I think it’s fairly safe to say that anyone who has been at this for a while recognizes the importance of hitting muscles from different angles.

So, Dante set up his program in a way that you can indeed do just that, and make strength progress (pretty much) every single time you do each exercise. You’re also free to choose which exercises/angles you want to use/focus on.

So, let’s say that someone wanted to bring up their upper chest as you did earlier on in your training. Your 3 chest exercises might be:

1. Incline BB
2. Flat DB
3. HS incline

Each body part is hit every 4-5 days and the same exercise is repeated every 2 weeks.
So, something like:
Mon- Incline BB
Fri- Flat DB
Wed- HS incline
repeat

When you repeat the same exercise you have to either add weight, or do more reps with the same weight. If you fail to do so on 2 attempts, then you’ve got to switch out that exercise for another comparable one (say Incline DB in place of Incline BB).

If you then wanted even more chest stimulus (let’s say that chest was a weak point for you), you could choose exercises for other body parts which also gave a secondary stimulus to the pecs (like dips and close grip bench for tri’s).

[Josh_Rider]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

On the subjective side, which does count, I can feel it deeper, I don’t know how to explain it exactly, but I can feel the tension right down to the bone.
[/quote]

I call that heavy lifting past failure.

[Protoculture]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Having people who spent more time in the gym than they spend reading about going to the gym would help in communication as well.[/quote]

Sure. You know what also be helpful? If no one ever posted on a bodybuilding forum and only interacted with people in person. But let’s face it - we’re here, we use the internet, so basic terminology helps when we cannot shadow posters we respect.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I swear, most of these debates only happen because people are inexperienced as far as actually being under a weight that SCARES them.
[/quote]

Dude, there are pro-bodybuilders who when performing multiple sets “ramp” the weight and there are also many who use the same load for multiple sets. Seeing how both ways are successfully used I think it’s fair for inexperienced guys to ask for clarification when they try to follow the advice of more experienced posters.

That or we can channel all our energy to figure a way to take out the interweb so people can only communicate with local bodybuilders…

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The only problem I have with fewer exercises is that for working a body part like the chest is best done from different angles. My upper chest is the size it is ONLY because I have been pounding out those HS inclines for the last few years after going the first few years of lifting thinking the flat bench and decline were enough.

Other than that, no, the concept isn’t much different than what I am already doing…and what most people who have some serious size on them are already doing.[/quote] ← Exactly. It’s just organized a bit differently, but that’s it.

We do use different exercises, just not in the same session (in the 2-way split variant at least).
We just rotate through our 3 favorite movements per muscle-group (chest, delts, tris, backwidth, backthickness, bis, forearms/brachialis, calves, hams, quads, abs) instead of doing them all in the same workout.

That usually meant 2 low-incline and 1 flat or decline movement for me for chest, but people can chose whatever the hell they want… As long as they can progress well on the movement and actually manage to hit their chest with it. Same for all other muscle-groups.

Really just a slightly different spin on the standard method, necessary in order to keep the overall frequency a bit higher than average (you train 1 bodypart or 2 twice a week and the rest once, we train everything one and a half-times per week on the 2-way, so to speak, with a few more off-days due to the demands of the rest-pause technique).

The 6-way(contest prep or for super-strong/advanced/older guys who really don’t want to beat themselves into the ground anymore with higher frequency) and 3-way(advanced, used by Dave Henry and most of the other DC vets) variants have more than one exercise per muscle-group usually (due to widowmakers/weak-part training).

[zraw]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The only problem I have with fewer exercises is that for working a body part like the chest is best done from different angles. My upper chest is the size it is ONLY because I have been pounding out those HS inclines for the last few years after going the first few years of lifting thinking the flat bench and decline were enough.

Other than that, no, the concept isn’t much different than what I am already doing…and what most people who have some serious size on them are already doing.[/quote]

Ever considered giving DC a go? If not, any particular reason?

(This is not a “you should stfu and try it” type of question)

[Professor_X]

[quote]zraw wrote:
Professor X wrote:

The only problem I have with fewer exercises is that for working a body part like the chest is best done from different angles. My upper chest is the size it is ONLY because I have been pounding out those HS inclines for the last few years after going the first few years of lifting thinking the flat bench and decline were enough.

Other than that, no, the concept isn’t much different than what I am already doing…and what most people who have some serious size on them are already doing.

Ever considered giving DC a go? If not, any particular reason?

(This is not a “you should stfu and try it” type of question)
[/quote]

Why would I stop doing what is working for me just to try something different?

Is that what you guys are doing?

[zraw]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
zraw wrote:
Professor X wrote:

The only problem I have with fewer exercises is that for working a body part like the chest is best done from different angles. My upper chest is the size it is ONLY because I have been pounding out those HS inclines for the last few years after going the first few years of lifting thinking the flat bench and decline were enough.

Other than that, no, the concept isn’t much different than what I am already doing…and what most people who have some serious size on them are already doing.

Ever considered giving DC a go? If not, any particular reason?

(This is not a “you should stfu and try it” type of question)

Why would I stop doing what is working for me just to try something different?

Is that what you guys are doing?[/quote]

I did not meant stopping what you are currently doing but more if you had ever tought about trying it in the past, or in the future if what you are currently doing stops giving you some results

[DH1]

True. Its always the messengers that get in the way of the message.

DH

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DH wrote:
To be fair here, X, Dante doesn’t make that claim. He and Phil Hernon have very similar philosophies and he devised his early principles from Phil and others. Now, some of the advocates (usually the younger ones) may make it seem cultish, but Dante himself doesn’t make this mistake.

DH

Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

I’m not knocking the system (as I think you know I am not.) It is clearly effective.

I do think it has become somewhat cultic. This probably is not by any intent of Dante.

By his own account he put together things that he found in common among successful bodybuilders over time. One of these things is keeping the rest this short.

What is strange is that so many act as if there is something novel and totally different about using such rest periods. Certainly it might be novel and totally different to them, relative to their former methods, but it is a classic bodybuilding method. But they called it doing three sets with brief rest.

LOLz.

What is funny is arguing with people who think their “brand new state of the art program” is actually new.

I’ve known about Doggcrap since he was first posting randomly on a bodybuilding forum and was just forming the concept. I am aware that he himself doesn’t act that way…but fanboys in “fitness” and “bodybuilding” seem to be growing in both number and the ability to irritate.

Those who act as if it is a cult are dumbasses who likely are not making anywhere near the progress of those who simply see it as a tool to reach a goal among many others.[/quote]

[Professor_X]

[quote]zraw wrote:
Professor X wrote:
zraw wrote:
Professor X wrote:

The only problem I have with fewer exercises is that for working a body part like the chest is best done from different angles. My upper chest is the size it is ONLY because I have been pounding out those HS inclines for the last few years after going the first few years of lifting thinking the flat bench and decline were enough.

Other than that, no, the concept isn’t much different than what I am already doing…and what most people who have some serious size on them are already doing.

Ever considered giving DC a go? If not, any particular reason?

(This is not a “you should stfu and try it” type of question)

Why would I stop doing what is working for me just to try something different?

Is that what you guys are doing?

I did not meant stopping what you are currently doing but more if you had ever tought about trying it in the past, or in the future if what you are currently doing stops giving you some results[/quote]

Unless I am training under someone who has me on a program like that specifically for contest prep, the chances of me stopping what I enjoy doing and what works for me to try something like that are low.

[DH1]

There’s your niche, X. You’ve done it, man. PX training. Just don’t add 90 since that is a legal Trademark and all.

Rest according to the Ipod… friggin genius.

DH

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I rest a long time between sets. I don’t count it or time it, but I know I generally do one set per song (at the most two) on my mp3 player. Since most songs last about 3min, I am guessing that is about how long I rest.

I tend to think the length of rest depends on how heavy you are going. I would not be ready to go again in 30seconds without it seriously decreasing the weight I could lift.

Everyone isn’t made the same.[/quote]

[Mr_Purple]

Isn’t the DC two-way specifically for making 190-220lbs bodybuilders into 250-280lbs bodybuilders? Why would someone who has reached that already be interested in all the unpleasantness that is DC training? Doesn’t make sense to me.

[zraw]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
zraw wrote:
Professor X wrote:
zraw wrote:
Professor X wrote:

The only problem I have with fewer exercises is that for working a body part like the chest is best done from different angles. My upper chest is the size it is ONLY because I have been pounding out those HS inclines for the last few years after going the first few years of lifting thinking the flat bench and decline were enough.

Other than that, no, the concept isn’t much different than what I am already doing…and what most people who have some serious size on them are already doing.

Ever considered giving DC a go? If not, any particular reason?

(This is not a “you should stfu and try it” type of question)

Why would I stop doing what is working for me just to try something different?

Is that what you guys are doing?

I did not meant stopping what you are currently doing but more if you had ever tought about trying it in the past, or in the future if what you are currently doing stops giving you some results

Unless I am training under someone who has me on a program like that specifically for contest prep, the chances of me stopping what I enjoy doing and what works for me to try something like that are low.

[/quote]

Ok