Eastern USA SHW Champ Max Charles = WTF?

[quote]hypnotoad wrote:

edit: and lets not forget, max charles progress was not overnight. he’s 28, and said he has trained for ten years (i think, right?). people who think its just his genetics are mistaken. he has worked hard for it, even if all of his methods may not be the nrom.

[/quote]

Agreed, but people are quick to overlook things like that. Most people aren’t even serious enough about this to train all out for a decade or more. If after ten years of eating a lot and lifting heavy you don’t look like a bodybuilder or at least impressive enough for someone to take notice, you simply don’t have the best genetics for this.

He may not be able to put into words everything he does down to the grams of protein he eats, but he clearly got a hell of a lot more right for his own body than most of the people calling him out will ever achieve.

I think it’s awesome that someone took the time to build themselves up like that instead of worrying more about competing than they do how much muscle they are carrying.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dirty Gerdy wrote:
I was hoping somebody else watched this as well.

I was watching yesterday trying to decide if he was lying his ass off or serious lol.
DG

I don’t think he is lying at all. I just think he isn’t used to thinking like a “bodybuilder”. He just likes lifting weights and eats when he’s hungry. I am betting if you asked him a year or two from now what he eats after being around that aspect of the sport, you would get a different response.

Guys with crazy genetics aren’t used to counting calories. They grow by simply making sure they aren’t hungry. If you ask one how much that is, they won’t be able to tell you. They simply don’t think about it.

Considering his workload, that doesn’t make him stupid. It makes him someone who is used to simply doing what it takes instead of mapping out every detail on a graph like some on this website do.

That was probably the first time anyone even interviewed him so he wasn’t ready to answer in detail.[/quote]

I settled on that he isn’t lying either…but I will admit the first few chats about food and the weights he lift had me skeptical. lol

I agree with you tho, and often times a person who simplifies things will make better results than somebody breaking down the exact science of it.

Really its all about busting ass in the gym and giving your body what it needs to grow.

at 6’ 300lbs, in somewhat contest shape, I’d say he has that down reguardless if it’s against ‘standard protocol’ lol

DG

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Guys with crazy genetics aren’t used to counting calories. They grow by simply making sure they aren’t hungry. If you ask one how much that is, they won’t be able to tell you. They simply don’t think about it.[/quote]

I remember an old interview with Shawn Ray and that’s what he said. He didn’t know how much protein, carbs or fat he was ingesting during his diet and didn’t have a specific plan. He adjusted his food intake instinctively according to how he was progressing.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Considering his workload, that doesn’t make him stupid. It makes him someone who is used to simply doing what it takes instead of mapping out every detail on a graph like some on this website do.

[/quote]

I always said that the more you train without exceeding your body’s capacity to recovery, the more you’ll progress.

Guys who are ‘‘genetically gifted’’ are built to tolerate heavy lifting better than the average Joe and thus can handle more volume without exceeding his recovery capacity.

Isn’t it funny that one of the common denominator to most ‘‘genetically gifted’’ individuals is that they do a lot more volume than most. Lee Priest, Arnold, Vic Richards, Lee Haney, Serge Nubret, Sergio Oliva (yes he had a HIT phase, but most of his career he was a VERY high volume guy), Chris Cormier, Kevin Levrone, etc.

And this applies to athletes as well. Elite Olympic lifters training 2-3x per day; Micheal Phelps training 8 hours per day, most Olympic athletes putting in at least 30 hours of training per week, etc.

I’ve come to change my definition of ‘‘genetically gifted’’ from:

‘‘someone who progress easily from doing nothing’’

to:

‘‘someone who can tolerate more work and because he can do more work he progresses more’’

[quote]That is actually the best position to be in rather than someone who competes constantly but clearly has another 40lbs to gain before they actually do any damage.
[/quote]

I definitely agree here. I competed 2 times as a teen and then 2 times in the mens class and I’m glad I did it because I got my face out there.

But I know for me to truly be competitive where I’m fighting at the national level I will need 40-50lbs on my frame.

If your the neighborhood bodybuilder who doesn’t aspire to do anything outside of regional NPC shows then by all means rack up the shows if you want…but if you plan on going far in the sport, going pro in the sport…then it’s best to take time off and not compete until you are of that calibur imo.

DG

Good post CT.

I think Ronnie Coleman was somewhat like this as well. I think he trained each muscle group 2x per week for a while…while everybody was adapting to one bodypart a day.

DG

[quote]Dirty Gerdy wrote:
Good post CT.

I think Ronnie Coleman was somewhat like this as well. I think he trained each muscle group 2x per week for a while…while everybody was adapting to one bodypart a day.

DG[/quote]

Back in the 70s everybody was training each body part twice a week. Sometimes 3x per week.

Sure some of these guys were genetically gifted, but I do think that a lot of it had to do with GRADUALLY building up their work capacity.

When your body can handle more training stress you can grow more… period.

A big problem with modern trainees is that they are so afraid of overtraining that they never train enough to build-up their work capacity. A lot of them are so convinced that only drug-using bodybuilders can grow on a lot of volume also short-change themselves by never pushing themselves enough.

Your body is a fantastic machine… it can adapt to the most strenuous milieu. If you do it very progressively, it is possible to build-up your work capacity enough to be able to tolerate a lot of frequency and volume.

And as I mentioned, the more you can train without exceeding your capacity to recover, the more you’ll grow.

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Dirty Gerdy wrote:
Good post CT.

I think Ronnie Coleman was somewhat like this as well. I think he trained each muscle group 2x per week for a while…while everybody was adapting to one bodypart a day.

DG

Back in the 70s everybody was training each body part twice a week. Sometimes 3x per week.

Sure some of these guys were genetically gifted, but I do think that a lot of it had to do with GRADUALLY building up their work capacity.[/quote]

I always wondered why this happened. Never did learn a good reason for this.

[quote]When your body can handle more training stress you can grow more… period.

A big problem with modern trainees is that they are so afraid of overtraining that they never train enough to build-up their work capacity. A lot of them are so convinced that only drug-using bodybuilders can grow on a lot of volume also short-change themselves by never pushing themselves enough.

Your body is a fantastic machine… it can adapt to the most strenuous milieu. If you do it very progressively, it is possible to build-up your work capacity enough to be able to tolerate a lot of frequency and volume.

And as I mentioned, the more you can train without exceeding your capacity to recover, the more you’ll grow.[/quote]

Problem is that no one wants to find out what that capacity is.

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Dirty Gerdy wrote:
Good post CT.

I think Ronnie Coleman was somewhat like this as well. I think he trained each muscle group 2x per week for a while…while everybody was adapting to one bodypart a day.

DG

Back in the 70s everybody was training each body part twice a week. Sometimes 3x per week.

Sure some of these guys were genetically gifted, but I do think that a lot of it had to do with GRADUALLY building up their work capacity.

When your body can handle more training stress you can grow more… period.

A big problem with modern trainees is that they are so afraid of overtraining that they never train enough to build-up their work capacity. A ot lof them are so convinced that only drug-using bodybuilders can grow on a lot of volume also short-change themselves byt never pushing themselves enough.

Your body is a fantastic machine… it can adapt to the most strenuous milieu. If you do it very progressively, it is possible to build-up your work capacity enough to be able to tolerate a lot of frequency and volume.

And as I mentionned, the more you can train without exceeding your capacity to recover, the more you’ll grow.[/quote]

I’ve said this before only to have some act as if I didn’t know what I was talking about. You have guys worried about overtraining their “CNS” when they are newbies. Many of those same guys seem to believe some of the authors here are telling them to approach their training that way.

If you train your body from the beginning as if it is weak and recovers slowly, it will always be weak and recover slowly whether that is your potential or not.

Overtraining is more overused here than “hardgainer”.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Overtraining is more overused here than “hardgainer”.[/quote]

Misunderstanding “Overtraining”

If you ask me, “overtraining” is the most abused and misunderstood concept in the entire strength training community! Perform more than twelve sets for a muscle during a workout and you’ll undoubtedly be accused of overtraining. Train a muscle group more often than two times per week? Overtraining! Relying on set extending methods such as drop sets, pre or post-fatigue, or rest-pause? What are you doing? Don’t you know that’s overtraining and you’ll shrink faster than your masculine pride on a snowy Canadian winter night?!

Yes, overtraining can eventually become a problem when it comes to your training performance, injury risks, and growth. However, it’s far from being as common as most people would have you believe.

The problem stems from the term itself, which is composed of “over” and “training.” Because of that term, individuals are quick to equate it to “training too much.” So every time someone thinks that a routine has too much volume, frequency, or advanced methods, they’re quick to pull the “overtraining” trigger. When someone is tired and has a few bad workouts he’ll also automatically assume that he’s “overtraining.” In both cases this shows a misunderstanding of what overtraining really is.

Overtraining is a physiological state caused by an excess accumulation of physiological, psychological, emotional, environmental, and chemical stress that leads to a sustained decrease in physical and mental performance, and that requires a relatively long recovery period. There are four important elements in that scientific definition:

“Physiological state:” Overtraining isn’t an action (i.e. training too much) but a state in which your body can be put through. In that regard, it’s similar to a burnout, a medical depression, or an illness.

“Caused by an excess accumulation of physiological, psychological, emotional, environmental, and chemical stress:” Stress has both a localized and a systemic effect. Every type of stress has a systemic impact on the body; this impact isn’t limited to the structures involved directly in the “stressful event.” This systemic impact is caused by the release of stress hormones (glucocorticoids like cortisol for example) and an overexertion of the adrenal glands.

So every single type of stressor out there can contribute to the onset of an overtraining state. Job troubles, tension in a relationship, death in the family, pollutants and chemicals in the air we breathe, the food we eat or the water we drink, etc. can all contribute to overtraining. Training too much is obviously another stress factor that can facilitate the onset of the overtraining state, but it’s far from being the sole murder suspect.

“Leads to a sustained decrease in physical and mental performance:” The key term here is sustained. Some people will have a few sub par workouts and will automatically assume they’re overtraining. Not the case. It could simply be acute or accumulated fatigue due to poor recovery management or a deficient dietary approach.

A real overtraining state/syndrome takes months of excessive stress to build up. And when someone reaches that state, it’ll take several weeks (even several months) of rest and recovery measures to get back to a “normal” physiological state. If a few days of rest or active rest can get your performance back up to par, you weren’t overtraining. You probably suffered from some fatigue accumulation, that’s all.

Worst case scenario, you might enter an overreaching state (a transient form of overtraining). Reaching that point will normally take 10-14 days of rest and active rest to get back up to normal. Overreaching can actually be used as a training tool since the body normally surcompensates (with rest) following overreaching. Elite athletes often include periods of drastic training stress increases followed by a 10-14 day taper to reach a peak performance level on a certain date.

“That requires a relatively long recovery period:” As we already mentioned, reaching a true overtraining state takes a long period of excessive stress and requires a long period of recovery. The following graphic illustrates the various steps toward the onset of an overtraining state as well as the recovery period needed to get out of these different levels.

The spectrum goes from acute fatigue, which is the normal fatigue caused by a very intense/demanding workout, right up to a true overtraining state. In all my life, I’ve seen two cases of real overtraining. In both cases this happened to two high level athletes right after the Olympic Games (accumulation of the super intense training, the stress of qualifying for the Olympics, and the stress of the Olympics themselves).

Understand that most international level athletes will train close to 30-40 hours per week. Obviously not all of that is spent in the gym; they also have their sport practice, speed and agility work, conditioning work, etc., but these still represent a physiological stress. Yet rarely will these athletes reach a true overtraining state.

How could training for a total of five or six hours per week cause overtraining? Fatigue, yes, mostly due to improper recovery management, a very low level of general physical preparation (conditioning level), or a mediocre work capacity.

To paraphrase Louie Simmons, North American athletes are out of shape. Being out of shape (low level of general preparedness or conditioning) means you can’t recover well from a high volume of work. But the more work you can perform, without going beyond your capacity to recover, the more you’ll progress. So in that regard, poor work capacity can be the real problem behind lack of gains from a program.

By continually avoiding performing a high level of physical work, you’ll never increase your work capacity and will suffer from accumulated fatigue as soon as you increase your training stress ever so slightly. Obviously, the solution isn’t to jump into mega-volume training, but to gradually include more GPP work as well as periods of increased training stress that will increase in duration and frequency over time.

Ask any of my clients - they must all go through four-week phases of very high volume work interlaced between phases of “normal” volume training (or even phases of low volume). And as they progress through the system, the high volume phases will become more frequent (as their work capacity improves) or last longer.

I’m sorry, this guy is impressively built and undoubtedly strong, but he’s also completely full of shit. He changed his story about how much he eats AS HE WAS TELLING IT and claims repping 350lb preachers when he was getting 10’s with 285lbs less [I know it was the day after a show and he was weaker, but c’mon]. Anyone who believes this is an idiot. I feel the same about Lockett.

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I’m sorry, this guy is impressively built and undoubtedly strong, but he’s also completely full of shit. He changed his story about how much he eats AS HE WAS TELLING IT and claims repping 350lb preachers when he was getting 10’s with 285lbs less [I know it was the day after a show and he was weaker, but c’mon]. Anyone who believes this is an idiot. I feel the same about Lockett.[/quote]

You read this thread and came to the conclusion that the rest of us thought he looks like that from one meal a day?

As far as his strength goes, until we see him in his off season when he’s 30lbs heavier, calling him a liar on that may just be jumping the gun. 300lbs LEAN is nothing to play with.

I have to agree with CTs comments here,

Greater stimuli coupled with greater recovery can only lead to more gains. Interspersed periods of higher and lower volumes stimulate and allow for adaptation and supercompensation to occur.

If you look back at some of the better BBers, strength athlets and lifters over the years you will find a couple of recurring themes.

  1. Hard, nasty, work

  2. Self awareness and instinct.

In my opinion the latter is just as important as the former. Hard work and uncompromising desire in the gym will always outtrump the most sophisticated of training programs performed with half assed conviction.

Self awareness is just as crucial. Old time BBers and strength athletes did’nt have access to the resources and information we have today - they did what worked and they learnt what worked through trial and error. This applies both to diet and training.

Two examples, Jamie Reeves, former worlds strongest man. The guy trained hard, heavy and with absolute aggression. When he lifted big, he lifted big, long and with nasty intent. When he felt like shit he did jack shit! He didnt use elaborate and sophisticated periodized programs. He listened to his body, pushed when he wanted, backed off when he needed too and instinctively tapered when coming up to competition.

Second, Herol Graham, a successful former British Boxer and friend of mine. He realised that for him to make weight quickly and easily, taking all carbs out of his diet allowed him to lose and maintain his figthing weight and kept him mentally sharp. He didnt use a nutritionist or read books. He listened to his body and made note of how he handled certain foods instinctively.

So many more people would be closer to their goals if they too would stop trying to do everything perfectly and just train. Yes programs and templates are great - and should serve as a tool - but ultimately they are only as effective as the person performing them. Same too with diet.

Two training principles that people often forget it seems are progression and overload! By simply doing more you will improve. With diet, when it comes to simply gaining and losing weight energy balance is key. Yes there are many different ways to ensure this occurs, with greater or lesser relative ease, simply eating less or more will help you achieve your goals if nutrient quality is maintained.

[quote]Dave Rogerson wrote:
I have to agree with CTs comments here,

Greater stimuli coupled with greater recovery can only lead to more gains. Interspersed periods of higher and lower volumes stimulate and allow for adaptation and supercompensation to occur.

If you look back at some of the better BBers, strength athlets and lifters over the years you will find a couple of recurring themes.

  1. Hard, nasty, work

  2. Self awareness and instinct.

In my opinion the latter is just as important as the former. Hard work and uncompromising desire in the gym will always outtrump the most sophisticated of training programs performed with half assed conviction.

Self awareness is just as crucial. Old time BBers and strength athletes didnt have access to resources and information we have today, they did what worked. They learnt what worked through trial and error. This applies both to diet and training.

Two examples, Jamie Reeves, former worlds strongest man, trained hard, heavy and with absolute aggression. When he lifted big, he lifted big, long and with nasty intent. When he felt like shit, he did jack shit! He didnt use elaborate and sophisticated periodized programs. He listened to his body, pushed when he wanted, backed off when he needed too, and instinctively tapered when coming up to competition.

Second, Herol Graham, a successful former British Boxer and friend of mine, realised that for him to make weight, taking all carbs out of his diet allowed him to lose and maintain his weight easily and kept him mentally sharp. He didnt use a nutritionist or read books. He listened to his body and made note of how he hadled food instinctively.

So many more people would be closer to their goals if they too would stop trying to do everything perfectly and just train. Yes programs, templates are great, and should serve as a tool, but ultimately they are only as efficacious as the person performing them. Same too with diet.

Two training principles that people often forget it seems are progression and overload! By simply doing more you will improve. Same too with diet. When it comes to simply gaining and losing weight energy balance is key. Yes there are many different ways to ensure this occurs, with greater or lesser relative ease, simply eating less or more will help you achieve your goals if nutrient quality is maintained.

[/quote]

Very good post, especially about self awareness.

Just like some people are better inclined for certain activities or sports, some are also more in tuned with what their body needs to grow in and out of the gym. That is why some of the best built DON’T count calories and they DON’T have their workout schedule mapped out weeks in advance simply because they listen to their own bodies as far as what to train next and when to rest.

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Overtraining is more overused here than “hardgainer”.

Misunderstanding “Overtraining”

<<<>>>>
[/quote]

This is a really great post.

Tho only [quote]OVER[/quote] most guys are in danger of around here from what I’ve seen is thinking.

[quote]
Very good post, especially about self awareness.

Thanks. IMO this is something that seems to have been lost over the last few years. I think that the advent of the internet and the numerous resources we have access to is both a blessing and a curse.

Be completely objective and the body will let you a lot! And I actually think that this is one of the factors that seperated people who achieve and those that dont.

Take deloading for example. So many people assume that every 4 weeks they have to back off, as if this is a must. Yes reduced training stress is necessary to ensure that adaptation occurs, but only when it is required. The old time lifters did this intuitively.

Just like some people are better inclined for certain activities or sports, some are also more in tuned with what their body needs to grow in and out of the gym. That is why some of the best built DON’T count calories and they DON’T have their workout schedule mapped out weeks in advance simply because they listen to their own bodies as far as what to train next and when to rest.[/quote]

I could’nt agree with this statement more.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
I’m sorry, this guy is impressively built and undoubtedly strong, but he’s also completely full of shit. He changed his story about how much he eats AS HE WAS TELLING IT and claims repping 350lb preachers when he was getting 10’s with 285lbs less [I know it was the day after a show and he was weaker, but c’mon]. Anyone who believes this is an idiot. I feel the same about Lockett.

You read this thread and came to the conclusion that the rest of us thought he looks like that from one meal a day?

As far as his strength goes, until we see him in his off season when he’s 30lbs heavier, calling him a liar on that may just be jumping the gun. 300lbs LEAN is nothing to play with.[/quote]

I have no idea what ya’ll are thinking, and would never claim to. I do however have an idea that he’s outright lying. Dude is big and lean for sure, but with the form I saw and the weights he used I doubt he’s really benching 495 for 12 or preacher curling 350 for reps.

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Professor X wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
I’m sorry, this guy is impressively built and undoubtedly strong, but he’s also completely full of shit. He changed his story about how much he eats AS HE WAS TELLING IT and claims repping 350lb preachers when he was getting 10’s with 285lbs less [I know it was the day after a show and he was weaker, but c’mon]. Anyone who believes this is an idiot. I feel the same about Lockett.

You read this thread and came to the conclusion that the rest of us thought he looks like that from one meal a day?

As far as his strength goes, until we see him in his off season when he’s 30lbs heavier, calling him a liar on that may just be jumping the gun. 300lbs LEAN is nothing to play with.

I have no idea what ya’ll are thinking, and would never claim to. I do however have an idea that he’s outright lying. Dude is big and lean for sure, but with the form I saw and the weights he used I doubt he’s really benching 495 for 12 or preacher curling 350 for reps.[/quote]

I can do 450lbs for 8 and this dude is WAY bigger than me. Why would it be impossible for him to do 495? You haven’t even seen pics of this guy when he is 30lbs heavier. That’s almost as heavy as Ronnie Coleman.

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Professor X wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
I’m sorry, this guy is impressively built and undoubtedly strong, but he’s also completely full of shit. He changed his story about how much he eats AS HE WAS TELLING IT and claims repping 350lb preachers when he was getting 10’s with 285lbs less [I know it was the day after a show and he was weaker, but c’mon]. Anyone who believes this is an idiot. I feel the same about Lockett.

You read this thread and came to the conclusion that the rest of us thought he looks like that from one meal a day?

As far as his strength goes, until we see him in his off season when he’s 30lbs heavier, calling him a liar on that may just be jumping the gun. 300lbs LEAN is nothing to play with.

I have no idea what ya’ll are thinking, and would never claim to. I do however have an idea that he’s outright lying. Dude is big and lean for sure, but with the form I saw and the weights he used I doubt he’s really benching 495 for 12 or preacher curling 350 for reps.[/quote]

To clarify, he never said he did it for reps, he said 350 was the most he’s done.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Overtraining is more overused here than “hardgainer”.

Misunderstanding “Overtraining”

<<<>>>>

This is a really great post.

Tho only OVER most guys are in danger of around here from what I’ve seen is thinking.[/quote]

HEYO!!! hit the nail on the head there…lol

DG

[quote]Professor X wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
Professor X wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
I’m sorry, this guy is impressively built and undoubtedly strong, but he’s also completely full of shit. He changed his story about how much he eats AS HE WAS TELLING IT and claims repping 350lb preachers when he was getting 10’s with 285lbs less [I know it was the day after a show and he was weaker, but c’mon]. Anyone who believes this is an idiot. I feel the same about Lockett.

You read this thread and came to the conclusion that the rest of us thought he looks like that from one meal a day?

As far as his strength goes, until we see him in his off season when he’s 30lbs heavier, calling him a liar on that may just be jumping the gun. 300lbs LEAN is nothing to play with.

I have no idea what ya’ll are thinking, and would never claim to. I do however have an idea that he’s outright lying. Dude is big and lean for sure, but with the form I saw and the weights he used I doubt he’s really benching 495 for 12 or preacher curling 350 for reps.

I can do 450lbs for 8 and this dude is WAY bigger than me. Why would it be impossible for him to do 495? You haven’t even seen pics of this guy when he is 30lbs heavier. That’s almost as heavy as Ronnie Coleman.[/quote]

yea it seems to be getting lost a bit here how big a man this is. 6ft, near 300 pounds right after a show is truly massive. couple that size with what is most likely greater than normal strength levels (even for someone his size) and we can see where his numbers may come from.

another thing as well, he says he “uses” 350lbs. im assuming that he uses that in his style, which seems to be a mostly partial range of motion. so yes, he uses that weight, but its most likely not in a manner that many people are thinking.

weights are the means to the end in bodybuilding, how a person utilizes them to achieve their goal is kind of irrelevent. its not like ‘the iron bull’ going around claiming to be the worlds strongest bencher, meanwhile 3 guys are “spotting” him.

in the end, its how he looks on stage that will decide his placing in shows, not how much weight he moves, or his exercise form.