Also there’s the aspect that such lifts as OLY ones carry a higher risk for injury compared to your “normal” lifts for BBing
[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
and, not that this makes me an expert by any stretch, but i believe that a bachelor’s degree in exercise science, at the very least, qualifies me to have an opinion on the matter.
[/quote]
Anyone can have an opinion, but maybe you should actually learn your field before you start spouting off about it.
Anyway, olympic lifts still aren’t appropriate for bodybuilders wanting to gain mass. No-one has really addressed the contrary.
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
Actually my training partner is one of these guys, who has single digit body fat (8%) and weighs 260lbs.
[/quote]
That’s NOTHING!
My training partner is 320 lbs at 6% body fat and is only 6 feet tall!
[quote]Protoculture wrote:
That’s NOTHING!
My training partner is 320 lbs at 6% body fat and is only 6 feet tall![/quote]
Cool.
The guy I train with is like 6’3, so he’s quite nicely proportioned. Your buddy must be a monster!!
[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
i respectfully disagree about exercise science moving forward considerably over the past 50 or so years… i’ve done alot of research on the topic…
[/quote]
Joe, it seems to me that you are going to a fair bit of trouble that, unfortunately enough, isn’t doing anything for you in trying to advance your line of argument.
Really the whole general endeavor seems fruitless. Like believing the Aegean stables dirty but having no river to divert.
Given your conclusions, why not just stick with reading books and magazines from 1950 and before, and leave it at that? Why waste your time on a 2009 bodybuilding forum? You will find nothing new here, or anything new surely isn’t any better, so what (if granting your conclusions) is to be gained? Nothing really.
Mr. Roberts, i don’t feel as if i’m really going through any trouble here at all… i simply responded with my two cents when the thread’s title caught my eye… and i’ve basically been bobbing and weaving, sticking and moving, ever since. many of the responses directed my way have been disrespectful, ignorant, or both. and, i guess i really shouldn’t be that surprised… because there are alot of disrespectful and/or ignorant people in the world. but, when the most recent reads like this: “anyway, olympic lifts still aren’t appropriate for bodybuilders wanting to gain mass”, i am legitimately and totally at a loss with how to proceed.
to answer your obviously rhetorical question: i come here to T-Nation primarily for the authors and their always informative and entertaining articles (Dan John, Christian Thibaudeau, and Chad Waterbury being among my very favorite.) there’s alot of variation in the work of these three authors, mind you, but one characteristic they all have in common is a respect and understanding of where this whole “bodybuilding thing” came from… apparently, these origins are more or less lost on many here… and that’s fine. if people really want to believe that all coleman, cutler, or jackson do to achieve those physiques is say their prayers, take their “vitamins”, and do 4 sets of bench followed by 4 sets of flies on “chest” day, well then i don’t think it’s me that really looks foolish here… does it?
and, in all honesty, if people are getting their bodybuilding advice from modern publications such as flex, musclemag, etc., it’s really no wonder i see so many threads reading “i do 4 sets for biceps once a week… why won’t my arms grow?” or “deadlifts hit my back pretty well, but why aren’t my lats growing?” everyone here would be doing themselves a huge favor if they read a book about bodybuilding that was written before the drugs became more important than the training… why, you ask? BECAUSE WHAT WORKS FOR BUILDING UP SOMEONE WHO’S NOT ON DRUGS WILL WORK EVEN BETTER TO BUILD UP SOMEONE WHO IS. that’s why.
and if people wanna disagree with me on this, insult me, or what have you… go ahead. this is america, after all… and it’s your right.
but, my friends, realize that this would make you, at the very least, plain and simply wrong.
lates.
[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
to answer your obviously rhetorical question: i come here to T-Nation primarily for the authors and their always informative and entertaining articles (Dan John, Christian Thibaudeau, and Chad Waterbury being among my very favorite.)
before the drugs became more important than the training… why, you ask? BECAUSE WHAT WORKS FOR BUILDING UP SOMEONE WHO’S NOT ON DRUGS WILL WORK EVEN BETTER TO BUILD UP SOMEONE WHO IS. that’s why.
and if people wanna disagree with me on this, insult me, or what have you… go ahead. this is america, after all… and it’s your right.
but, my friends, realize that this would make you, at the very least, plain and simply wrong.
lates.
[/quote]
ROFLMAO
By the power of greyskull you’re awesome!
Can I hire you for events?
You’ve been plain and simply wrong more than enough throughout this thread, and can’t even answer or provide a cohesive argument about the OP’s original post.
Go back to your undergraduate exercise science degree. Obviously you did quite a bit of sociology and history in it, pity you slept through all the important bits (you did say it was ok to insult you).
I should be careful, maybe you’re one of those scary, functional, combat/MMA people here to find us all and take us out…
[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
and, in all honesty, if people are getting their bodybuilding advice from modern publications such as flex, musclemag, etc., it’s really no wonder i see so many threads reading “i do 4 sets for biceps once a week… why won’t my arms grow?” or “deadlifts hit my back pretty well, but why aren’t my lats growing?” everyone here would be doing themselves a huge favor if they read a book about bodybuilding that was written before the drugs became more important than the training… why, you ask? BECAUSE WHAT WORKS FOR BUILDING UP SOMEONE WHO’S NOT ON DRUGS WILL WORK EVEN BETTER TO BUILD UP SOMEONE WHO IS. that’s why.
[/quote]
LOL. Many of the people you are talking to are more educated than you are. I doubt any of us who are serious read magazines for “bodybuilding advice”. We read them for inspiration. I do about 12 sets for biceps on biceps day. I have done at least 9 from day one. That may be why they hit 18" so quick…but apparently you know better.
I enjoy Oly lifting. But I have found that it doesn’t really pack on much mass, aside from Traps and the VM. Also, since they’re full-body lifts I can only fit them into a full-body type routine, which sucks for mass-gaining. So I mostly just do them when I’m cutting nowadays.
Powerlifting, however, has done wonders for my Triceps. Though I also did shitloads of volume for my triceps in order to up my bench, so hard to say whether it’s the powerlifting. But either way it’s way easier to pack on size when doing Westside + extra volume than it is doing Oly lifts with any kind of routine behind it.
The problem is that they take a while to do and just don’t put the muscles under long enough time-under-tension.
They’re still fun as hell, though
Even a noob has to call out Joe:
“… i.e. they find that in order to put on any considerable muscle, they have to add fat. and, conversely, when they want to remove appreciable amounts of fat, they can’t do it without also losing some muscle…”
Depends on what you deem “considerable”.
One of your favorite posters, CT, would say an average of about 2lbs a month. So, if we’re saying a “2 pound increase in muscle in a month’s time” is considerable then what would you say about someone who put on 2lbs of lean mass while also losing 2% body fat (from 12 to 10%). Do you think that’s possible? Don’t go to the research because I did just that not too long ago. I was also on a relatively low-moderate carb diet and had been for a month prior to that month. Around 150g (counting veggies).
What would you say about someone gaining muscle mass on the following:
Carbs: .5g per lb
Fat: .5g per lb
Protein: 2g per lb
That’s pretty low on the caloric side of things and would go against the conventional wisdom of “bulking”…but Dr. Eric Serrano, Charles Poliquin, and others would say you can gain muscle with “non conventional thinking”. Hormones govern muscle gain and fat loss. You can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.
[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
Mr. Roberts, i don’t feel as if i’m really going through any trouble here at all… i simply responded with my two cents when the thread’s title caught my eye… and i’ve basically been bobbing and weaving, sticking and moving, ever since. many of the responses directed my way have been disrespectful, ignorant, or both. and, i guess i really shouldn’t be that surprised… because there are alot of disrespectful and/or ignorant people in the world. but, when the most recent reads like this: “anyway, olympic lifts still aren’t appropriate for bodybuilders wanting to gain mass”, i am legitimately and totally at a loss with how to proceed.
to answer your obviously rhetorical question: i come here to T-Nation primarily for the authors and their always informative and entertaining articles (Dan John, Christian Thibaudeau, and Chad Waterbury being among my very favorite.) there’s alot of variation in the work of these three authors, mind you, but one characteristic they all have in common is a respect and understanding of where this whole “bodybuilding thing” came from… apparently, these origins are more or less lost on many here… and that’s fine. if people really want to believe that all coleman, cutler, or jackson do to achieve those physiques is say their prayers, take their “vitamins”, and do 4 sets of bench followed by 4 sets of flies on “chest” day, well then i don’t think it’s me that really looks foolish here… does it?
and, in all honesty, if people are getting their bodybuilding advice from modern publications such as flex, musclemag, etc., it’s really no wonder i see so many threads reading “i do 4 sets for biceps once a week… why won’t my arms grow?” or “deadlifts hit my back pretty well, but why aren’t my lats growing?” everyone here would be doing themselves a huge favor if they read a book about bodybuilding that was written before the drugs became more important than the training… why, you ask? BECAUSE WHAT WORKS FOR BUILDING UP SOMEONE WHO’S NOT ON DRUGS WILL WORK EVEN BETTER TO BUILD UP SOMEONE WHO IS. that’s why.
and if people wanna disagree with me on this, insult me, or what have you… go ahead. this is america, after all… and it’s your right.
but, my friends, realize that this would make you, at the very least, plain and simply wrong.
lates.
[/quote]
Stupidity of this magnitude blows my fucking mind.
You survived past the age of 20? Or do you still live in mom’s basement?
Bodybuilding is bodybuilding. IF you want size as you primary goal then stick with a split? If you want to be strong/ explosive as hell then go with Oly-Lifting.