Also, it’s done twice a week, on Monday and Friday. That just means there’s pretty much no point during the week where you’re not miserable. This, of course, is where nutrition comes in.
His maintenance, non-weight gain diet:
Meal #1
10 oz steak
2 cups oatmeal
3 egg whites
1 whole egg
1 glass watermelon juice
Meal #2
2 servings chicken
2 bell peppers
3 cups mushrooms
3 cups broccoli
1 protein shake
10 oz steak
3 baked potatoes
8 asparagus tips
1 glass orange juice
Meal #5
20 grams casein protein
10 egg whites
His diet for the Hercules movie:
Meal #1
10 oz cod
2 whole eggs
2 cups of oatmeal
Meal #2
8 oz cod
12 oz sweet potato
1 cup veggies
Meal #3
8 oz chicken
2 cups white rice
1 cup veggies
Meal #4
8 oz cod
2 cups rice
1 cup veggies
1 tbsp fish oil—122
Meal #5
8 oz steak
12 oz baked potato
spinach salad
Meal #6
10 oz cod
2 cups rice
salad
Meal #7
30 grams casein protein
10 egg-white omelet
1 cup veggies (onions, peppers, mushrooms)
1 tbsp omega-3 fish oil
Find me a big guy who’s not training hard and eating big. You can look aesthetically pleasing (lean) with average effort and clean but moderate eating, for sure. But you aren’t looking impressive (BIG and lean and strong) without gunning the engine and guzzling fuel.
Woke up at 224.0 by the way, so the weight is still creeping up. From what I can see, I haven’t gained any impressive amount of muscle in my upper body, but my thighs have grown to the point that previously loose-ish pants now feel skintight putting them on.
That’s why I feel like the neurotyping thing is absurd. I’m sure one thing is more optimal or whatever you want to call it, but I’ve seen dudes be insanely strong maxing out everyday, doing nothing but high reps, never running a program, running the same program for years, etc.
That’s why I love Wendlers work because it’s just a “get to work” type of mentality. Same for Andersen, Ross Enemait and Josh Bryant. Hell, how many people said Alpha’s shit wouldn’t work and was dumb? Now look at him and the amount of programs he’s written, training he’s influenced, etc. While everyone else ran their mouth about his “giant sets”, he was working getting strong and disgustingly conditioned simultaneously.
Also, if you look at all the really strong guys here, they all do something different. Obviously experience comes into play, but it’s also preference. Whether or not a program would be more optimal, it doesn’t matter if it’s not attacked 100%.
I’ll preface my reply by remarking that as far as this matter is concerned
I rarely, if ever, engage or read that particular type of thread. However, I want to acknowledge that I understand and respect that this is what undermines the system/model for you. Furthermore, since I lack that same background, and having not read those defenses my response may lack a certain colour, luster, or nuance Still, feels important to highlight the disrepancy with which I’m coming into this with.
With regards to reconciling these remarks,
others have somewhat already done that for me
But there is one salient point missing from the discourse. And it’s a point unrelated to the 2As need for training variation.
CT has, at least once, remarked that the 2A is the most likely to imprint onto something or someone they believe in, almost to the point of dogmatism. That can be a coach, or a program. This could explain your adherance “despite” your neurotype. I’d prefer to quote it, but there are four possiblities to where I might have read that,
These forums,
T-nation article,
Thibarmy article,
Get Jacked-bootcamp which I participated in.
It’s too much to search through for it to be worth the effort. Hopefully, you can take my word for it.
As an aside, on the topic of training variation, it is my understanding that the need for it does not instrinsically mean that an individual with such needs would have an impossible time adhering to something but rather is meant to convey that this is the type of individual that’ll reach boredom the earliest.
I’d like to just pause briefly to recall earlier discussions we’ve had on this board on the merits of discipline over motivation and mention that depending on what goals a person has there may be more merit to preservering despite their boredom but if their goals are more diffuse introducing some variation without causing regression would be the better option.
It’s quite easy to switch things up, but retain staple exercises/movements and continue to overload them over time even if one changes a lot of the training modalities.
To return to your adherence being a counter-example to the type I’d further argue that according to The Material™ the 2A is the most extrinsically motivated. Thus, when you as a self-proclaimed 2A stakes a claim “publically” that “I’ll do X” having done so would feed into completing your goal.
However, I fear that by making such an observation it might seem as if I’m taking away from your accomplishment which I assure you that I’m not trying to do. I like how @dagill2 phrased it,
And if I haven’t already said it already, kudos to you for delivering on your words.
Finally, a weaker argument, but now I’m in “chronic debator”-mode, but just browsing through BTM it seems as if there is some room for impromptu variation? Obviously, you ran it and so I’ll defer to your better knowledge. My point being: there are a lot of ways to do a 100 reps of exercise X. Similarily, the 10K challenge varies rep-ranges, but I only mention this not because I’m trying to say “you are wrong” but to offer an alternate perspective that could maybe allude to the “variation”-itch being marginally scratched (albeit just enough).
On a more general note, some words on neurotyping in general. Prefaced, again, by echoing your sentiments,
so I’m not writing this to be disrespectful to him. But I too have my qualms with the system, which might appear as odd to anyone whou would be familiar with my writing on these boards overall. My explanation would be that the way I learn is primarily through wholesale adoption of any one thing, and then I use that until I’ve broken it enough times to divvy up the bits I like and can leverage and the ones I don’t like and cannot utilise.
Onwards to the model: Any model is only as good as its utility. Some are applicable at different resolutions, and are “good enough” for that purpose. To give an example, that I do not equate at all to the topic at hand would for instance be Newtonian mechanics which serves one pretty well; most of the time.
Another example: I’ve shared a link before, that while M/F gets you far as far as biological sex is concerned the rabbit hole ends in that every individual, of every species with a biological sex, is inherently unique and that to observe the topic in full resolution one would have to get that granular. I can share this again if anyone is interested.
And so the aspects that I’ve found to have the most value all relate to preferred training-style(s) and then the rest of the information is readily inferred from that. What do I mean?
We’ll use the Type 1A as an example, which would be someone who thrives on intensity. It’s intuitively evident that the type of energy systems work most suited for such an individual would be HIIT. It also makes it very easy to reason about what methods would be applicable (rest-pause, ramps, …). It also alludes to dietary needs: if you are “all-go” all the time, clearly you are going to benefit from some sugar (carbs).
What don’t I like? I do not adhere to a fixed personality model. I think it’s possible to be someone that likes to train intensively, but to have an upbringing that doesn’t make you very competitive. I’m reasonably familiar with what can go awry when a person isn’t in the right space mentally for them to not want to go into the gym and beat their body into smitherens regardless of their ordinary default gear. And so on.
Secondarily, I believe it may have been a design mistake to lay-out the types on a spectrum from left-to-right because I think there is an inherent bias in assuming that the more to the left you are the better it somehow is, because that is the direction in which most of us read
1A → 3
it also doesn’t leave “space” to redesign or introduce new types if that were ever necessary. Like designing a city with a snug-fit without leaving room for expansion. And maybe what you are observing in those threads you are mentioned are a symptom of that. This I suppose is something of a branding issue. Had the labels had distinct names that do not imply any relation between them it would perhaps have been more palatable.
Now I’m just hypothesising, but I’d postulate that CT is exposed to enough athletes and “normal” clientele that certain patterns have emerged and that there is use in using these labels to arrive at a reasonable starting-point quickly and fine-tune from there.
The reason I quote the word “normal” is because I cannot help but reflect that anyone serious enough to not only seek out a coach, but also one of genuine merit and pay that price is by definition not run-of-the-mill in some sense. Thus, there is some inherent selection bias.
To round off, I agree with you on this
and I hope that is just the dark side of commodification showing its ugly face.
And lastly, to summarise something very long very succinctly, the most I get out of neurotyping is leveraging it to arrive at this Nirvana with regards to training alone and nothing else,
Neurotyping reminds me of the Facebook quizzes I used to take after school - “What rock band/drug/state are you?”. They’re fun, but that’s really it. You can tell me I’m Grateful Dead all you want, but I know that I’m Zeppelin.
I like CT too - he was a big draw for me initially at TN.
I actively avoid people that present themselves with their Myer-Briggs result as I know we have fundamentally different views of what it means to be human (assuming they’re adults, the younger someone is the more leeway I extend on these things)
I’ve been actively avoiding doing this workout by playing with legos with my kids for 2 hours straight, including building a three-level cardboard lego-man house with ramps and an elevator attached to a shoestring.
But now they want to go out and eat freeze pops, and I have no more excuses. Bending down to tie help the little one put his shoes on made me realize that my hamstrings, high up near where they attach to the glutes, are easily just as painful as my quads. I sound like a bit of a wuss at the moment, but whatever, stuff hurts. Back in a bit, hopefully things hurt less as the blood gets flowing.
60 second plank and 20 sit-ups, 3 rounds, no rest.
The clean pulls weren’t THAT horrible until the last set. I was just gassed and out of breath. My 3 minutes after the clean pulls and before the ab circuit was spent just lying on the ground. Kept the rest times at 3 minutes and wasted no time transitioning between exercises. The BB rows are feeling pretty good - I could make them more cheaty and up the weight, but I’m getting a strong contraction pulling to my hip, a pause, and a 3-second eccentric, back feels strong, the pump is awesome, and with that form I’m hitting failure without straining my lower back.
DOMs I think- cramping if they’re really pissed. Occasionally, if paired with poor sleep the night before, coordination goes out the window. Hasn’t stopped me from getting my steps in yet, so take my complaints for what they’re worth
