Getting Big: What Works

Training Bodybuilding
141

One thing I wanna ad to the topic is the need of deloads or cycling.
Even if you jump from one programm to the next-perhaps its not the train that has to be changed- but the full fill up of your fuel.

When you trained your ass of on one programm for 6 weeks,you think if you change some variables you still gain and train really hard for another 6 weeks?Probably yes,but problably not.
I personally prefer cycling,no matter if its advocate by pavel,stuart,bill starr or somebody else.
Simply after hitting your plateau back off.

Take it easy-not for a week or only two.
Take one week off completely and then slowly build your weights up for bout 4 weeks.
Then try to beat your previous record (be it weight,sets,reps whatever) as long as possible,then back off and buid up again.
Can also be seen as part of the dual factor theory.

Try it,the principle can be applied also to some programms you like.
And important-cycling is NOT periodization.
cycling:build up-take it easy,make a PR,back off;repeat.

That is simple shit that works .

142

i think it’s all about finding what works for you. pro bodybuilders and the big guys in the gym may have crazy genetics, but odds are they have spent some serious time and effort finding what works best for them.

Being relatively new to serious weightlifting (excluding bench/curl routines), i have been experimenting with different styles, and have found things that work and don’t work. 5x5 squat, deadlift, bench, and row made me gain 10lbs in about 4 weeks, but when i tried GVT, i couldn’t even complete the 4th workout.

try everything once, and find what works

143

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

I don’t understand how this gets so controversial.

I do, but I get tired of pointing out that only the smallest lifters making the least progress would ever even focus in on what they supposedly can’t learn from someone with that much size gained.[/quote]

I know, I keep doin it to myself. I swear if I ever were to take one of these kids on and attempt to help them in person I’d make it law that they’re not allowed near an internet forum until I say. How arrogant is that? No matter how wrong I may be on some things it would still be better than having to pressure wash through their ears every time so we can continue in the same direction.

i agree with Ramo and I know you and some others think this way too. New guys who will last and do well only need a kick start. Somebody to wind em up and get em going. They’ll pick it up from there. However if you already know that the guy in the soaked shorts who could curl your bodyweight can’t teach you anything then I guess talking is the next best thing.

144

[quote]science wrote:
One thing I wanna ad to the topic is the need of deloads or cycling.
Even if you jump from one programm to the next-perhaps its not the train that has to be changed- but the full fill up of your fuel.

When you trained your ass of on one programm for 6 weeks,you think if you change some variables you still gain and train really hard for another 6 weeks?Probably yes,but problably not.
I personally prefer cycling,no matter if its advocate by pavel,stuart,bill starr or somebody else.
Simply after hitting your plateau back off.

Take it easy-not for a week or only two.
Take one week off completely and then slowly build your weights up for bout 4 weeks.
Then try to beat your previous record (be it weight,sets,reps whatever) as long as possible,then back off and buid up again.
Can also be seen as part of the dual factor theory.

Try it,the principle can be applied also to some programms you like.
And important-cycling is NOT periodization.
cycling:build up-take it easy,make a PR,back off;repeat.

That is simple shit that works .
[/quote]

You make it way too difficult for a new trainee. There is no such thing as over training - therefore no need for deload. Not for a couple of years.

Hell, you spend more time resting than you do lifting.

Getting big involves actually moving weight - not looking at it and thinking positively.

Maybe I am misinterpreting the intended audience here - but I am under the assumption the we are talking about new trainees - not intermediate/advanced.

145

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
When someone says something like “The biggest strongest guys are not good sources of information” which has been said many times, they are also saying, without actually articulating the words, one or more of the following:

  1. They got where they are by showing up and moving some weight around without any real knowledge of what they were doing, hence, in effect, by happy accident.

  2. They are on drugs, which instantly precludes them from any contribution whatsoever…

  3. They are on the extreme anabolic end of the gene pool which also precludes them from any meaningful contribution.

  4. They are intellectually vacant knuckle draggers which when combined with the above makes them not only incapable of useful input, but people who take up space at best and are downright dangerous at worst.[/quote]

It seems strange to me that saying that they are “not good sources of information” means the extremes of those 1-4 examples you gave. For you to find that interpretation is an example of WHY this issue apparently comes up a lot. Someone says something fairly gentle about not blindly trusting big guys, then some memebers take an unintended and extreme interpretation of it, then argue back against something the original poster never even meant, against the futile attempts to clarify.

Its like if someone makes a perfectly true and reasonable point about pro BBers generally being “weaker” (at certain lifts, even) than whatever strength athlete, proportional to their bodyweight. Before you know it, there’s dozens of enthusiastic posters to the rescue saying LOL SO I GUESS THEY CAN ONLY USE 35lb DUMBELLS, YEA HE SAID THAT, LET’S GET HIM, WOOO
¬_¬

If you say they’re “not good sources of information” then that’s what it means, and I can’t think of any reason for exagerating it into “…precludes them from any contribution whatsoever”.
If you stop applying that interpretation to instances of this issue coming up, then you’ll find that the whole problem of noobs apparently claiming that big guys have nothing to offer, will just dissappear.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You’re gonna say you never said any of that. Fine, but try to understand this discussion from a bigger perspective.[/quote]

Well that’s right I didn’t. I got involved because I saw some seriously messed up posts further back where some poor dude was getting fucked in the ass for something he didn’t even come close to saying, and subsequently denied ever meaning.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Also nobody with a triple digit training IQ is going to say that everything an enhanced guy says is going to be usable by a natural trainee, but that does not mean that nothing they say will be either. [/quote]

I’m glad we agree. And I doubt you’d find a single person on this forum who didn’t.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t understand how this gets so controversial. …[/quote]

It doesn’t. Quite frankly, you’re imagining it.

–Joe

146

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You make it way too difficult for a new trainee. There is no such thing as over training - therefore no need for deload. Not for a couple of years.

Hell, you spend more time resting than you do lifting.

Getting big involves actually moving weight - not looking at it and thinking positively.

Maybe I am misinterpreting the intended audience here - but I am under the assumption the we are talking about new trainees - not intermediate/advanced.
[/quote]

Most lifters will hit a plateau well before a couple of years has passed, don’t you think? 6 months is a pretty good long run to get the first time, and after that they’re going to have to either drop back or keep pushing for that +5lb every week and get nowhere.

For their first “cycle” I don’t think any planned deloads should be included because it can run a whole lot longer than 6 weeks or whatever, but new trainees should at least be aware that it is impossible to progress linearly forever, and when they hit a plateau they better address the situation (most easily by dropping back and working up again) or they’ll see no further progress.

147

[quote]rainjack wrote:
science wrote:
One thing I wanna ad to the topic is the need of deloads or cycling.
Even if you jump from one programm to the next-perhaps its not the train that has to be changed- but the full fill up of your fuel.

When you trained your ass of on one programm for 6 weeks,you think if you change some variables you still gain and train really hard for another 6 weeks?Probably yes,but problably not.
I personally prefer cycling,no matter if its advocate by pavel,stuart,bill starr or somebody else.
Simply after hitting your plateau back off.

Take it easy-not for a week or only two.
Take one week off completely and then slowly build your weights up for bout 4 weeks.
Then try to beat your previous record (be it weight,sets,reps whatever) as long as possible,then back off and buid up again.
Can also be seen as part of the dual factor theory.

Try it,the principle can be applied also to some programms you like.
And important-cycling is NOT periodization.
cycling:build up-take it easy,make a PR,back off;repeat.

That is simple shit that works .

You make it way too difficult for a new trainee. There is no such thing as over training - therefore no need for deload. Not for a couple of years.

Hell, you spend more time resting than you do lifting.

Getting big involves actually moving weight - not looking at it and thinking positively.

Maybe I am misinterpreting the intended audience here - but I am under the assumption the we are talking about new trainees - not intermediate/advanced.

[/quote]

sorry ,my fault-it was thought for his further training years-so newb-read this again in 2 years;)

148

[quote]rock_ten wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You make it way too difficult for a new trainee. There is no such thing as over training - therefore no need for deload. Not for a couple of years.

Hell, you spend more time resting than you do lifting.

Getting big involves actually moving weight - not looking at it and thinking positively.

Maybe I am misinterpreting the intended audience here - but I am under the assumption the we are talking about new trainees - not intermediate/advanced.

Most lifters will hit a plateau well before a couple of years has passed, don’t you think? 6 months is a pretty good long run to get the first time, and after that they’re going to have to either drop back or keep pushing for that +5lb every week and get nowhere.

For their first “cycle” I don’t think any planned deloads should be included because it can run a whole lot longer than 6 weeks or whatever, but new trainees should at least be aware that it is impossible to progress linearly forever, and when they hit a plateau they better address the situation (most easily by dropping back and working up again) or they’ll see no further progress.

[/quote]

Please tell me how you equate hitting a plateau and over training.

Please tell me where you got the notion that anyone here has said that a new trainee will progress linearly forever.

For someone who crawled up the middle of ProfX’s ass for arguing points that were supposedly never made - you are doing a bang up job of doing exactly what you accused him of doing.

Sounding smart and using big words never put an ounce on anyone.

149

[quote]rock_ten wrote:
It seems strange to me that saying that they are “not good sources of information” means the extremes of those 1-4 examples you gave. For you to find that interpretation is an example of WHY this issue apparently comes up a lot. Someone says something fairly gentle about not blindly trusting big guys, then some memebers take an unintended and extreme interpretation of it, then argue back against something the original poster never even meant, against the futile attempts to clarify.
[/quote]

Mate, you’ve got to understand the context here. There are people who are trying to push those extremes, and lots of people who listen to them. If you want to get a start on this point of view go read some of Chad Waterbury’s articles, especially his older ones. There’s one for his full body training methods were he says something along the lines of ‘let’s cut the bullshit, for years people have built slabs of muscle by training full body and bodybuilders only do splits because they’re lazy and can get away with it due to drugs’. As if your triceps care if you also trained quads that day…

Anyway, my point is they’re responding that way because the idea that those who succeed in bodybuilding don’t know how to succeed in bodybuilding is rampant and they’re trying to keep newbies from falling into this trap. Relax, there’s a reason they’re getting worked up, and maybe one day it’ll piss you off like it does the vets.

150

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Please tell me how you equate hitting a plateau and over training.

Please tell me where you got the notion that anyone here has said that a new trainee will progress linearly forever.

[/quote]

I don’t, they’re not the same thing.

I didn’t - AFAIK no one said that.

151

[quote]rock_ten wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Please tell me how you equate hitting a plateau and over training.

Please tell me where you got the notion that anyone here has said that a new trainee will progress linearly forever.

I don’t, they’re not the same thing.

I didn’t - AFAIK no one said that.

[/quote]

Then why are you posting as if that was part of the discussion? I noticed you conveniently left out commenting on why you are doing the exact same thing you accuse ProfX of doing.

152

[quote]will to power wrote:
Mate, you’ve got to understand the context here. There are people who are trying to push those extremes, and lots of people who listen to them. If you want to get a start on this point of view go read some of Chad Waterbury’s articles, especially his older ones. There’s one for his full body training methods were he says something along the lines of ‘let’s cut the bullshit, for years people have built slabs of muscle by training full body and bodybuilders only do splits because they’re lazy and can get away with it due to drugs’. As if your triceps care if you also trained quads that day…

Anyway, my point is they’re responding that way because the idea that those who succeed in bodybuilding don’t know how to succeed in bodybuilding is rampant and they’re trying to keep newbies from falling into this trap. Relax, there’s a reason they’re getting worked up, and maybe one day it’ll piss you off like it does the vets.[/quote]

Werd, valid. I don’t come on these forums much so I don’t know what does or doesn’t get said about this kind of thing here. All I’ve seen is what was said in this thread. I can see what you mean about it pissing people off if it does keep coming up, which probably makes people more ready to jump on anything that sounds a bit like it but wasn’t really.

If anyone said anything like the quote of Waterbury there, I’d not have a problem with people raping the poster. But I expect the apparent prevalence of such beliefs is contributed to significantly by misinterpretations like we had here.
Getting pissed off about it is valid, when “it” is really there.

Thanks dude

–Joe

153

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Then why are you posting as if that was part of the discussion?

I noticed you conveniently left out commenting on why you are doing the exact same thing you accuse ProfX of doing.

[/quote]

Because what I said was relevant to the topic. I wasn’t arguing against anything in particular, but just continuing that line of discussion.

I left out commenting on that because by clarifying with those two points it should be apparent that I was not in fact arguing against something you never said.

Me saying something in the discussion shouldn’t be taken to mean that I think someone else said the opposite. Its possible to agree on things here, you know :slight_smile:

154

[quote]rock_ten wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Then why are you posting as if that was part of the discussion?

I noticed you conveniently left out commenting on why you are doing the exact same thing you accuse ProfX of doing.

Because what I said was relevant to the topic. I wasn’t arguing against anything in particular, but just continuing that line of discussion.

I left out commenting on that because by clarifying with those two points it should be apparent that I was not in fact arguing against something you never said.

Me saying something in the discussion shouldn’t be taken to mean that I think someone else said the opposite. Its possible to agree on things here, you know :)[/quote]

You use my quotes about overtraining, or the myth of over training in new trainees to go off on a tangent about deloading phases, and plateaus. Even after the guy that started the deloading phase talk backed out by admitting it is not a proper practice for young/new trainees.

What have you said that can be agreed with?

155

[quote]rock_ten wrote:
<<<<<<>>>>>>>

Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t understand how this gets so controversial. …

It doesn’t. Quite frankly, you’re imagining it.

–Joe

[/quote]

Look Chum,
You’ve been around here about a half hour. Some of these guys like Rainjack, Professor X and Ramo have been here for years. I’ve spent quite a bit of time here the last couple years. Nobody is imagining anything.

There’s an entire generation of young trainees who think that 150 pound guys in lab coats and safety glasses have more to say to them than the people who have actually accomplished something in this game.

Not only that, you missed the debates from first year trainees about things like whether Ronnie Coleman, a man with 40 inch legs, is using a full enough ROM on the leg press or whether he should be pressing at all because they read something somewhere.

There are guys who have memorized every single name brand program and every single syllable of research that they allege tells them something about how to train, but would probably piss themselves if you put a heavy bar across their backs.

Every time somebody suggests that the big guys might have something to teach them out comes the inevitable, “yeah but, yeah but, yeah, but, they’re all on drugs and they all train wrong and only make progress because of all the drugs and because they have better genetics than me” and besides my professor says what they do doesn’t work.

Here’s a flash for everybody who thinks that way. Nobody is saying to copy their exact routine. They are saying that the major foundational principles they live by will be more useful than 10,000 articles or studies.

You’re floating through here in a 20 post bubble thinking you have a grip on the situation from this one discussion.

156

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
rock_ten wrote:
<<<<<<>>>>>>>

Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t understand how this gets so controversial. …

It doesn’t. Quite frankly, you’re imagining it.

–Joe

Look Chum,
You’ve been around here about a half hour. Some of these guys like Rainjack, Professor X and Ramo have been here for years. I’ve spent quite a bit of time here the last couple years. Nobody is imagining anything.

There’s an entire generation of young trainees who think that 150 pound guys in lab coats and safety glasses have more to say to them than the people who have actually accomplished something in this game.

Not only that, you missed the debates from first year trainees about things like whether Ronnie Coleman, a man with 40 inch legs, is using a full enough ROM on the leg press or whether he should be pressing at all because they read something somewhere.

There are guys who have memorized every single name brand program and every single syllable of research that they allege tells them something about how to train, but would probably piss themselves if you put a heavy bar across their backs.

Every time somebody suggests that the big guys might have something to teach them out comes the inevitable, “yeah but, yeah but, yeah, but, they’re all on drugs and they all train wrong and only make progress because of all the drugs and because they have better genetics than me” and besides my professor says what they do doesn’t work.

Here’s a flash for everybody who thinks that way. Nobody is saying to copy their exact routine. They are saying that the major foundational principles they live by will be more useful than 10,000 articles or studies.

You’re floating through here in a 20 post bubble thinking you have a grip on the situation from this one discussion.

[/quote]

nice post

…waiting for all the yeah buts to come out of the woodwork…

157

I don’t link to too many articles and I have a feeling Shugart doesn’t like me very much, but this is still one of my favorite pieces ever here, if taken the right way. THIS is what people are missing, not some super secret scientific technique.

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1515536

158

[quote]rainjack wrote:
rock_ten wrote:
Its possible to agree on things here, you know :slight_smile:

You use my quotes about overtraining, or the myth of over training in new trainees to go off on a tangent about deloading phases, and plateaus. Even after the guy that started the deloading phase talk backed out by admitting it is not a proper practice for young/new trainees.

What have you said that can be agreed with?
[/quote]

I don’t see it as tangental, in fact it looks directly relevant to me.
What I said about it being possible to agree was that just because I made a certain claim or suggestion it doesn’t mean that I believe someone else made an opposite claim. I was just saying something, not claiming someone else had said the opposite.

[quote]rock_ten said:
Most lifters will hit a plateau well before a couple of years has passed, don’t you think? 6 months is a pretty good long run to get the first time, and after that they’re going to have to either drop back or keep pushing for that +5lb every week and get nowhere.

For their first “cycle” I don’t think any planned deloads should be included because it can run a whole lot longer than 6 weeks or whatever, but new trainees should at least be aware that it is impossible to progress linearly forever, and when they hit a plateau they better address the situation (most easily by dropping back and working up again) or they’ll see no further progress.
[/quote]

Do you actually disagree with any of what I said or is your only problem with it the fact that I quoted your post in the reply?

Tribulus - yea, fine, as I said above I don’t know this place, and don’t come here, so I can’t claim anything about shit outside of this thread.

159

[quote]rock_ten wrote:

Tribulus - yea, fine, as I said above I don’t know this place, and don’t come here, so I can’t claim anything about shit outside of this thread.

[/quote]

Don’t sell yourself short. You write just like all of the other guys who aren’t gaining any muscle mass yet have dissected the simple act of lifting a weight down to its smallest molecule based on their favorite authors’ recommendation. You’ve got talent.

160

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t link to too many articles and I have a feeling Shugart doesn’t like me very much, but this is still one of my favorite pieces ever here, if taken the right way. THIS is what people are missing, not some super secret scientific technique.

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1515536

[/quote]

Valid, yea. A word came up in that thread that I think is important; ‘consistency’. That obviously doesn’t mean doing the exact same shit all the time - but it means working towards similar goals for a long period and continuously building yourself towards them. I’d add to that a concept that Steve Justa likes, which is ‘momentum’. You can train constantly for years with as much enthusiasm as you like but you have to get the ball rolling instead of just kicking at it randomly. (Also, just like with a snowball or something, too much force at the wrong time or in the wrong place will break the ball and you’re left with nothing.)