For the 'Just Eat' Crowd

[Professor_X]

[quote]Protoculture wrote:
andersons wrote:
Stuff

Well, that’s all fine and dandy and makes for great pointless online debates, but I’ll introduce one last point before permanently existing this thread.

Time is a limited resource.

Listen, almost every person has an opinion or theory on every subject. That being the case, if you value your time, you have to find a way or system of sifting through all the ‘opinions and theories’ to find what YOU can use to help you achieve your goals.

I suppose if bodybuilding / weight training was the only thing going in your life you could take the time to listen to every single person’s opinion and weigh the pros and cons of them. Or if you value your time slightly more you can filter all this noise by only listening to those who have had work published (etc…)

Again, it really depends on how much you value your time and what you want to accomplish in life.

Personally I have way more that bodybuilding/weight training going on - so imagine for each goal I had set for myself I had to listen to everyone, or every published author on those subject.

I WOULD BE OVERWHELMED and I would never get anything done.

So for myself, and others, my “filter” has to be more refined. How can I refine it more? Well, instead of listening to every joe or well spoken author - I look for those who have achieved what I want!

In the case of bodybuilding I chose to listen to those who have first had success in the “sport” or at least those who have successfully coached others to that level (assuming they haven’t reached it themselves). Basically I’m looking for anything that would indicate a proven track record.

Many authors on this site are well read, have thought provoking articles, but fall flat in the results category. I’m sorry, but hearing how an author is great at turning fat 40 year old house wives into “normal” looking women while working out only 2 days per week doesn’t pass my “filter”.

And the fact that they consistently achieve the above results doesn’t mean they know how to train bodybuilders (or whatever other sport you are into).

They may argue they can and do so convincingly, but where are the results? How do you know you can do something until you’ve done it? You can’t. That’s like some loud mouthed know it all a**holes who always think they could do everything better than anyone else, yet never step up to prove it.

To reiterate - “Time” is a limited resource - chose wisely who you spend it on because you’ll never get it back. And if you’re careless with it you won’t have it to spend on other important aspects of your life.[/quote]

This post was perfect. I really can’t believe anyone is approaching this as if they have to sift through EVERYONE’S knowledge before they find what works. If I want to get big, I look to the guys who either got big or are well known to help others get to the level I want to get to. I would under no circumstances approach someone who had not achieved what I wanted or had not trained MANY people to reach that goal. I am amazed anyone at all is arguing against this.

[IQ1]

[quote]andersons wrote:
That’s exactly what I did.

Superior results in a shorter time for BOTH myself and others.

It’s the only way to truly evaluate the effectiveness of a teaching/training strategy.

It’s not some “theory” that made me choose one strategy over the other; it was data. Data are RESULTS that I observed and measured.

The equivalent in lifting would be measuring the biceps before, during, and after a training program intended to grow them.

[/quote]

Just to clarify my earlier statement, when I say “same results in a shorter time” I meant producing pianists equal to the best that don’t use your techniques but in a shorter time. If you have achieved this then you have applied your theory and I would class your information as valuable.

You do realise that you’re saying exactly the same thing as I am right? Unless someone has applied (you can use the word “tested” if it makes you feel better) a theory it is of no value YET (if ever).

We both care about results. Who has had the best results in respect to building a significant amount of muscle? Those that have done it themselves or have helped others to do it. How many of the people arguing otherwise in this thread do you think have done either?

My guess would be none.

Knowing the best ways to practice IS useful to ME because I’m a TEACHER.

A TEACHER just needs knowledge. He doesn’t need to apply it HIMSELF to be a successful teacher.

It is OK for me to choose to teach piano technique rather than work towards a concert career myself. I am not massively inferior in some way as a human being because of that choice. There’s a market for teaching so it’s a valid thing to do. Way less stressful too.

Good instruction is not only useful but necessary to both teachers and students. Students need to apply it in training, but teachers don’t.

If I did a study on piano technique (as someone who hasn’t even tried to play the piano) and came to the conclusion that I had discovered an even more effective training technique (complete with the science to back it up), would you accept it without question or would you wait to see if it actually works in the real world?

The science that validly backs up a training technique is evidence-based. Meaning that the study would show a difference between two techniques in actual piano players learning to play actual real-world stuff. (Which is what I did, by the way.)

If you or any other non-piano-playing person did such a study, of course I would accept the results. Results are results.

If you just suggested something like, since motor neurons work this way and the cerebellum works that way, pianists SHOULD get better results if they practice in this different way, that’s NOT valid scientific evidence for your technique. In science, that’s at best a hypothesis that needs to be tested.

I don’t know why this is so hard to believe. All over the place, there are are professionals who can teach you or treat you without having “done it themselves.” The whole field of athletic coaching is full of great coaches and teachers who are rarely as accomplished as the athletes they are coaching. If accomplishment were the only way to become a superior coach, then all the coaches in pro sports would be the very best of the former stars. That’s not the case.

Since teaching is also a real world application of theory (as I and others have stated on many occasions) we both agree don’t we?

No, it does not logically indicate that at all. Not seeing something doesn’t prove it doesn’t exist. Especially if you stick your head in the sand.

It more likely indicates that I’m not in an environment where such people hang out.

The logical evidence required to show that “smart and diligent training and eating” doesn’t work would be to see a bunch of people training and eating smart and hard but NOT getting results.

In your environment that’s exactly what it indicates (for the record this isn’t my personal opinion).

Sounds like you start with a hypothesis and then find data that supports a predetermined conclusion. I didn’t know that was how studies were conducted, you learn something new every day.

As for your logical evidence to show that “smart and diligent training and eating” isn’t the best way to get huge (again not my personal opinion), do you practise “smart and diligent training and eating”?

Are you huge?

[quote]

I have no way of knowing exactly what worked for them. Even if they tell me what they do, they might be lying. For example, I used to read Muscle and Fitness. [/quote]

We’re just clutching at straws now aren’t we?

[andersons]

[quote]Protoculture wrote:
Many authors on this site are well read, have thought provoking articles, but fall flat in the results category. I’m sorry, but hearing how an author is great at turning fat 40 year old house wives into “normal” looking women while working out only 2 days per week doesn’t pass my “filter”.[/quote]

That sounds like an exaggeration, but I’m not saying that’s the kind of information you should seek if you have bodybuilding goals. I never did.

Don’t generalize my position into something it isn’t.

[andersons]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

This post was perfect. I really can’t believe anyone is approaching this as if they have to sift through EVERYONE’S knowledge before they find what works. [/quote]

No one is. I can’t believe that’s the way my opinion gets represented.

If I want to get big, I look to the guys who either got big or are well known to help others get to the level I want to get to.

Those are reasonable criteria, I agree; but the latter type (successful coach) might not have 22" arms. And the big guy might not tell you the right reasons why he got so big.

[Flow]

It’s an individual thing. I would get information from both the huge 250 lbs. 6% body fat bodybuilder and the BB trainer with the experience and credibility to speak volumes on hypertrophy training. This experience could be training BBers to success in competition. Knowing how to do something isn’t the same as teaching someone how to do something.

Why narrow yourself down to one source? The scholar and the practitioner are both sources of information with enough credibility to seek advice from. However, one must consider that both sources can be polluted with some ulterior motive or some factor which is impossible to apply to oneself (think exogenous factors like pharmaceuticals which one may not be willing to use, or endogenous factors like genetics).

*Yeah, look at my Avatar. That’s obviously not me, and I don’t pretend to even have the potential to achieve that sort of physique or the knowledge to advise someone on how to get there. I’m sure Dennis Wolf has gotten advice from smaller folks, and I’m sure he’s gotten advice from larger folks as well.

[andersons]

[quote]IQ wrote:

Sounds like you start with a hypothesis and then find data that supports a predetermined conclusion. I didn’t know that was how studies were conducted, you learn something new every day.[/quote]

No, you don’t FIND data that supports a predetermined conclusion. You look for it. You set up a situation where, if your hypothesis is true, you’ll see certain results. You can’t MAKE the results come out the way you think, unless you are dishonest or doing something wrong. You must start with a hypothesis to test (or apply, if you prefer); there’s no other way to find out the truth.

How would you suggest that studies be conducted instead?

When you try a training program, this is exactly what you are doing. You start with a belief that certain training parameters are going to cause a certain result. It’s not like you have no opinion either way. You measure your results. That is exactly the same as a scientific study, if you are systematic about it.

As for your logical evidence to show that “smart and diligent training and eating” isn’t the best way to get huge (again not my personal opinion), do you practise “smart and diligent training and eating”?

“Smart and diligent training isn’t the best way to get huge” ??? What in the world?

Are you huge?

Are you?

It doesn’t matter. Not about what I have said in this thread.

Is the logic now, Only huge people have knowledge? If you say you’re not huge, then ha! You’re wrong about everything!

I have not offered any advice to anyone how to get huge. Ever, as far as I remember.

If I offered advice, people would have every right to critique it.

Since I have not told you what to do to get huge, or claimed to be a bodybuilding coach, you have no right to ask me, and it’s not relevant to my opinion about sources of quality information at all.

I have increased my bodyweight by 30% over 16 weeks when that was the primary goal I was working toward.

[Scott_M]

HOLEEEEE SHIT this thread exploded since I last read it.

I’ve read about 10 posts about pianos and I could have sworn we were talking about getting big here and not about picking apart each others analogies. I just want to make one thing clear, everyone on this thread that’s arguing so hard is making progress in bodybuilding right?

[rainjack]

[quote]andersons wrote:
rainjack wrote:
So if I want to learn to play the piano, all I have to do is wish for it really hard, and I will wake up the next morning knowing how to play?

Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. I’ve been claiming all along, “There’s no point in asking successful performers. Just wish for it really hard!” Yeah, that’s my position.

If all you can do to argue a point is completely, 100% misrepresent an opposing view, you should stop and rethink your position. If it’s right, you shouldn’t need to set up a straw man to knock down.[/quote]

And you like to cherry pick the quotes you use. Here - let me re-quote the conversation"

I said:
You must be taught by someone that has done what it is you are wanting to learn.

Then you said:
Not true at all.

If it is not true at all that one has to be taught, what other possible means to learning is there? By reading a study? Having you tell them the most efficient way to do it based on your mounds of evidence?

Sorry, I would tend to believe the wish real hard method as I have actually lived in the real world.

[quote]It does not matter at all because I haven’t given ANY bodybuilding advice whatsoever to anyone that needs to be evaluated.

My point is that you do not have to apply a training strategy YOURSELF in order to study and observe whether it works for others.[/quote]

Experience rarely matters to folks like you.

At one point, I increased my bodyweight by 30% in 16 weeks. So by your logic if you haven’t done that well, you should listen to me.

How much weight is 30%, and how old were you when you did it? Over a five year period I increased my body weight tenfold. Big damn deal.

Your bragging means nothing with out some context.

But it is evident where you miss the bus in this conversation. If I am a new trainee, and I am wanting to put on as much muscle as I possible can, I am not going to gravitate towards the waif boys, nor will I seek the counsel of the morbidly obese. I am not going to bury myself in studies, and kenisiology (sp?) text books. I would go find the biggest SOB in the gym and do what he does and ask him questions.

You really don’t need a big, thick book to figure this out.

[andersons]

[quote]Flow wrote:
It’s an individual thing. I would get information from both the huge 250 lbs. 6% body fat bodybuilder and the BB trainer with the experience and credibility to speak volumes on hypertrophy training. This experience could be training BBers to success in competition. Knowing how to do something isn’t the same as teaching someone how to do something.
Why narrow yourself down to one source? The scholar and the practitioner are both sources of information with enough credibility to seek advice from. However, one must consider that both sources can be polluted with some ulterior motive or some factor which is impossible to apply to oneself (think exogenous factors like pharmaceuticals which one may not be willing to use, or endogenous factors like genetics).[/quote]

This is my opinion also. But you’ve stated it very
well.

[andersons]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
And you like to cherry pick the quotes you use. Here - let me re-quote the conversation"

I said:
You must be taught by someone that has done what it is you are wanting to learn.

Then you said:
Not true at all.

If it is not true at all that one has to be taught, what other possible means to learning is there? By reading a study? Having you tell them the most efficient way to do it based on your mounds of evidence? [/quote]

One can learn how to do something by observing others.

You can’t DO IT by observing others do it, but you can figure out how to do it and pass that information on. It’s done all the time in coaching.

Experience rarely matters to folks like you.

I don’t automatically count my own experience as the only valuable kind.

[quote] How much weight is 30%, and how old were you when you did it? Over a five year period I increased my body weight tenfold. Big damn deal.

Your bragging means nothing with out some context.[/quote]

No, my “bragging” means nothing to you because you disagree with an unrelated opinion. If someone agreed with you and said this, you wouldn’t challenge it.

I’m not giving more detail about 30% because the whole point is to standardize it; 30% is 30% no matter what your original size was. I was 23 years old at the time and that’s all I’m saying.

I would go find the biggest SOB in the gym and do what he does and ask him questions.

Well, when I was a newbie that’s exactly what I did.

The biggest guy also happened to be the trainer at the gym. I followed his routine to the letter. It was almost all machines, I forget the name but they had air resistance. He also told me to eat a lot. He himself ate tuna, egg whites, chicken, and white rice and pretty much nothing else. Fat was an absolute no-no.

So since he had the best physique I personally encountered, should I stick with his advice forever? Was he right about everything?

[Scott_M]

[quote]andersons wrote:

I’m not giving more detail about 30% because the whole point is to standardize it; 30% is 30% no matter what your original size was. I was 23 years old at the time and that’s all I’m saying.
[/quote]

It DOES matter for sure. A 5’8 (lean)140 lb guy putting on 30% of his bodyweight makes him a (still fairly lean)182 lb… regular joe. A 5’8(lean) 240 lb guy putting on 30% of his bodyweight makes him a (still fairly lean)312 lb land monster.

One guy went from 2.05 lbs/inch(scrawny) to 2.67(average)
The other went from 3.53(already advanced)4.58(in the stratosphere)

Is there a difference to you from putting on pounds that everyone is able to do versus gaining at an already advanced rate?

If you cut down on your 100 meter time by 10% (assuming you don’t train in this) from 13-11.7 is that as good as Osafa Powell taking off 10% from his 9.7 to 8.73? Is that even in the same ballpark to you?

[IQ1]

[quote]andersons wrote:
No, you don’t FIND data that supports a predetermined conclusion. You look for it. You set up a situation where, if your hypothesis is true, you’ll see certain results. You can’t MAKE the results come out the way you think, unless you are dishonest or doing something wrong. You must start with a hypothesis to test (or apply, if you prefer); there’s no other way to find out the truth.

How would you suggest that studies be conducted instead?

[/quote]

To use your clueless yet somehow successful trainee scenario, I would suggest that if the people around you who succeed don’t do what you do then maybe it’s worth considering that you’re the one that’s wrong.

In other words, be prepared to change your hypothesis instead of continuously changing the parameters (looking for people to prove you right for instance).

When you try a training program, this is exactly what you are doing. You start with a belief that certain training parameters are going to cause a certain result. It’s not like you have no opinion either way. You measure your results. That is exactly the same as a scientific study, if you are systematic about it.

And if the training program doesn’t work do you keep on trying it because it’s what you believe or do you try something else?

“Smart and diligent training isn’t the best way to get huge” ??? What in the world?

I guess you have trouble reading words inside brackets, huh?

Are you/quote[quote]?

No, which is why I’m not stupid enough to think that people who have achieved more than me should look towards me or those at my level of development (with the exception of those who have coached others to higher levels of development, before you try that one ONCE AGAIN) for advice.

It doesn’t matter. Not about what I have said in this thread.

It matters if you think that you (or those at your level) are a more valuable source of INFORMATION than someone who has achieved more than you.

If that’s not the case, you accidentally typed some rubbish on an internet forum and you may want to delete it before someone notices

[quote]

Is the logic now, Only huge people have knowledge? If you say you’re not huge, then ha! You’re wrong about everything!

I have not offered any advice to anyone how to get huge. Ever, as far as I remember.

If I offered advice, people would have every right to critique it.

Since I have not told you what to do to get huge, or claimed to be a bodybuilding coach, you have no right to ask me, and it’s not relevant to my opinion about sources of quality information at all.

I have increased my bodyweight by 30% over 16 weeks when that was the primary goal I was working toward. [/quote]

Only those who have achieved something or coached someone else to achieve it have knowledge, everyone else only has information.

I have the knowledge of how to reach my current level of development and information of how to reach the next level.

I’m mature enough to realise that my information may be wrong, time will tell.

If I don’t have the right to question you I guess you don’t have the right to question anybody else and will now stop posting.

So as you eloquently stated…

Ha! You’re wrong about everything!

[andersons]

[quote]IQ wrote:
To use your clueless yet somehow successful trainee scenario, I would suggest that if the people around you who succeed don’t do what you do then maybe it’s worth considering that you’re the one that’s wrong.

In other words, be prepared to change your hypothesis instead of continuously changing the parameters (looking for people to prove you right for instance).[/quote]

You have no good reason to conclude that I’m not successful just because I’m willing to learn from someone smaller than me.

Looking for people is not changing parameters, or a hypothesis. Examples of specific people simply prove that they can exist.

Someone originally said that no one with small arms can tell him anything useful.

An example of just one small person offering successful advice proves this false.

It was also said that if someone is big, he must know how to get big. This is false, if he is just genetically big.

Those examples of people are not hypotheses or studies, they are existence proofs.

Hypotheses are made to be disproved. I change them all the time. Therefore I believe different things than I did 5 years ago.

And if the training program doesn’t work do you keep on trying it because it’s what you believe or do you try something else?

Um, I would try something else. I do this constantly in my work, my hobbies, everything. A hypothesis is what you wonder might be true. Not a firm belief you refuse to reconsider despite evidence to the contrary!

The hardest thing to know is whether an approach needs more time to be successful, whether something really isn’t working or just requires more persistence.

It matters if you think that you (or those at your level) are a more valuable source of INFORMATION than someone who has achieved more than you.

Achievement is not the only path to knowledge. It’s a well-traveled route, but it’s not the only one.

[Ackrite]

I started lifting at a powerlifting gym 2 months ago and also joined the local powerlifting club. Almost all of the knowledge within the club is hierarchical. Long-time members help out the new members when it comes to training, not the other way around.

In fact, if I were ever to offer advice to someone bigger and stronger than me it would most likely end up with them telling me to STFU. The point I’m trying to make is that bodybuilding and powerlifting are like "careers " in a sense. When you want advice, look for the person with a proven track record.

It’s like choosing to get your surgery done by a new graduate, or a surgeon that’s been in the field for 30 years.

[Ghost22]

Some credibility means a lot.

I take some folks advice on this site and weigh it more heavily than that of someone who’s been sulking around without pictures for ages.

[IQ1]

Alright, here we go again.

[quote]andersons wrote:
You have no good reason to conclude that I’m not successful just because I’m willing to learn from someone smaller than me.[/quote]

Other than your reluctance to tell us anything about what you’ve achieved, coupled with the jealously in your posts when speaking of the big guys. You could just be modest and weary of shaming us with your greatness

[quote]

Looking for people is not changing parameters, or a hypothesis. Examples of specific people simply prove that they can exist.[/quote]

So you don’t know anyone who follows all of the latest studies yet isn’t making any progress? By the sounds of it there are quite a few that post around here.

[quote]
Someone originally said that no one with small arms can tell him anything useful.

An example of just one small person offering successful advice proves this false.[/quote]

By that (incredibly flawed) logic it only takes one lucky big guy to prove you wrong, doesn’t it?

That’s why most intelligent people tend to look for patterns of success instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.

[quote]

It was also said that if someone is big, he must know how to get big. This is false, if he is just genetically big. [/quote]

He does know how he got big, he’s big isn’t he? Even if he’s genetically gifted he still knows what works for him, which using your terminology means that he has personally collected more DATA to support his HYPOTHESIS.

Those who haven’t applied the information they regurgitate only have a hypothesis as they have yet to collect any data.

Case in point, I’ve seen people writing that steady state cardio actually makes you fatter. Their view was supported by respected members of the field and they had scientific proof too! But wait, I’ve used steady state cardio to get lean, every bodybuilder uses steady state cardio to get lean, what on earth am I to believe?

The Hypothesis: Steady state cardio makes you fat.
My personal data shows: Steady state cardio makes you leaner.
My personal conclusion: Hypothesis was complete and utter nonsense.

This is just one of many instances where experience is better than theory.

[quote]

Those examples of people are not hypotheses or studies, they are existence proofs.

Hypotheses are made to be disproved. I change them all the time. Therefore I believe different things than I did 5 years ago.[/quote]

Data that disproves your hypothesis = Existence proofs.
Date that supports your hypothesis = Valid scientific proof.

I understand now.

[quote]Um, I would try something else. I do this constantly in my work, my hobbies, everything. A hypothesis is what you wonder might be true. Not a firm belief you refuse to reconsider despite evidence to the contrary!

The hardest thing to know is whether an approach needs more time to be successful, whether something really isn’t working or just requires more persistence. [/quote]

If only you could apply that open thinking to this discussion we might actually get somewhere. Of course to do that you would have to admit that you could be wrong so I doubt it’ll happen.

[quote]
Achievement is not the only path to knowledge. It’s a well-traveled route, but it’s not the only one.[/quote]

Results are the only valid means to knowledge, even with all the research and observation in the world you can’t be sure you have the full picture without application.

I’ll take someone who can successfully apply something they don’t know about over someone who knows about something they can’t successfully apply any day of the week.

[Professor_X]

[quote]IQ wrote:
Alright, here we go again.

andersons wrote:

It was also said that if someone is big, he must know how to get big. This is false, if he is just genetically big.

He does know how he got big, he’s big isn’t he? Even if he’s genetically gifted he still knows what works for him, which using your terminology means that he has personally collected more DATA to support his HYPOTHESIS.[/quote]

Don’t forget, he is under the impression that by “big” we mean someone who does not work out much, if at all, but happens to weigh an overweight 250lbs. I don’t know anyone who got 20" arms without training for it at all. Then again, I suppose I have to specifically write out “20” MUSCULAR arms" before someone tells me about some guy with 30% body fat who has 20" arms. It may come easier to some people, but even Michael Lockett is in the gym lifting to look like that even though he was miles ahead of most to start.

I did want to respond to the “he was always big” mentality. There are very few people on this planet who are extremely muscular without working for it at all. Even Ronnie Coleman was in the gym most of the week and had been in some form or another since high school. Most smaller lifters simply ASSUME that nearly every big guy they see was always near that size. I know I have had many people make a similar comment to me when that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

I honestly think this comes down to feelings of relevance. There are guys who are small who feel they shouldn’t be overlooked even though they haven’t really achieved much personally. To that, the only response is that it makes little sense to believe your ideas should be sought out over those who have produced results similar to the goals of the lifter. Unless you have produced extremely muscular bodybuilders or are one yourself, stop thinking your “advice” is superior to those who have. It just doesn’t make much sense to anyone who is actually trying to reach that goal in this life time.

This is specifically why the word “functional” was invented.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
IQ wrote:
Alright, here we go again.

andersons wrote:

It was also said that if someone is big, he must know how to get big. This is false, if he is just genetically big.

He does know how he got big, he’s big isn’t he? Even if he’s genetically gifted he still knows what works for him, which using your terminology means that he has personally collected more DATA to support his HYPOTHESIS.

Don’t forget, he is under the impression that by “big” we mean someone who does not work out much, if at all, but happens to weigh an overweight 250lbs. [/quote]

Or was born “genetically” big and just filled out some by hanging around the gym helping put the equipment away on weekends.

[jsbrook]

Is this still going on? It’s pretty simple, really. There’s a presumption against listening to some little Joe Schmoe. And there should be. It’s not rebutted because they can parrot some information that sounds good. It can be rebutted by the fact that they are very strong and have their own reasons for staying smaller. People like Eric Cressey.

Anyone can learn something from someone like that and it can help their own training. Or the smaller guy is renowned and had widespread success in buildng high level strength athletes and putting significant size on others. Cressey again and probably Charles Staley even moreso.

Conversely, there’s a presumption for listening to a big guy. And there should be. It can be rebutted by complete idiocy. But I have yet to see it.

People don’t get big by accident from shitty training and poor nutrition, excellent genetics notwithstanding. And their approach may not be perfect but there’s stuff there that works. Even Anderson’s example about the guy following a low-fat diet, high-carb diet. Maybe not the most effective or satisfying way of going about things.

But most people are going to still gain a lot of size with that approach if they’re eating enough and training with intensity. I’m not sure anyone on this thread has said there shouldn’t be a go-to presumption that a big guy knows what he’s talking about and a go-to presumption that a little guy doesn’t. Even andersons. I think he’s just enjoying arguing for no apparent reason.

[Joe3]

I’ve read all this thread for some unknown reason. I am not sure how knowing how to play the piano will help me get big arms, but it may lead to some serious finger hypertrophy.

As for the rest of the thread. I know two big guys (250lbs+) into bodybuilding, both of which gave me advice as to how to get bigger. The general consensus was, train a lot, one of which often trained nearly every day at times. Use heavy weights 4-6 reps most of the time and eat a whole lot to grow.

I spent a good few years not following their advice after having read about 2000 conflicting articles, and made mediocre progress. Since taking their advice seriously in the last year I have made good progress. Strangely, these large bodybuilders had some useful advice on becoming large bodybuilders.

Now, one of them has good genetics, and one has done a few cycles; But, by making my own adjustments for my recovery, I was able to use the advice. A nary a sub-150lb personal trainer in sight.