Getting Big: What Works

[quote]rock_ten wrote:
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?
[/quote]

I don’t agree with anything you said as it pertains to a new trainee. 6 months is nothing for a kid.

I think folks like you like to talk about training, and think about training, and enjoy telling people how much you know about training, but you don’t really train.

My son knows a shit load about WWII. Way more than me. But if given the chance between listening to him tell me about what he has read, and listening to one of my clients tell me stories from when he landed on Normandy - guess who I choose?

Being there and doing it is much different from using big words, and theories.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think folks like you like to talk about training, and think about training, and enjoy telling people how much you know about training, but you don’t really train.
[/quote]

What makes you think that I, or folks like me, don’t really train?

–Joe

[quote]rock_ten wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I think folks like you like to talk about training, and think about training, and enjoy telling people how much you know about training, but you don’t really train.

What makes you think that I, or folks like me, don’t really train?

–Joe[/quote]

You are too concerned with words. Rather, how many you can write and say nothing.

[quote]rock_ten wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I think folks like you like to talk about training, and think about training, and enjoy telling people how much you know about training, but you don’t really train.

What makes you think that I, or folks like me, don’t really train?

–Joe[/quote]

It’s just a feeling but I’d be willing to bet we aren’t speaking to someone who benches 400+lbs. There are tons of people who “train”.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are too concerned with words. Rather, how many you can write and say nothing.

[/quote]

That’s just how I happen to write, I suppose.
It seems funny that it should imply anything about my training habits, though.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It’s just a feeling but I’d be willing to bet we aren’t speaking to someone who benches 400+lbs.[/quote]

That would be a fairly safe bet to make on anyone, lol.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It’s just a feeling but I’d be willing to bet we aren’t speaking to someone who benches 400+lbs. There are tons of people who “train”. [/quote]

So you have to bench 400+lbs to be considered someone who “trains”?

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Tirib great post above(the long one I’m not going to quote)

Science can tell us some useful stuff every once in a while, but is VERY wrong on a lot of things as well when it comes to this bodybuilding thing. If we all listened to research only we’d be doing 3x10 and eating 65% carbs, 15% protein and 20% fat, taking HMB(that one turned out great right?) blocking our myostatin genes with some algae and never going to failure. We’d never eat more than 25 grams of protein(or is it 40 or 34.249 this time?) in a single meal because the body can’t digest it. Don’t worry if you are a 110 lb grandma or a 300 lb tank, it’s exactly 25 grams.

Somehow “gym science” doesn’t seem to connect with people when it means a whole lot more to me and others on this thread than anything a study has ever shown me. Last time I checked there has never been a study on how to create a 250 lb lean monster, because honestly who the hell cares it would be a waste of money that could be used for more pressing issues. We get studies done on sedentary college kids who do 2 sets of leg extensions and then drink a carb drink and some people want to transfer that data to hard training individuals, NOT HAPPENING in my books.

Science is WAY behind the guys in the trenches at the gyms as far as I’m concerned and is telling us things today that people were figuring out 10-20-50 years ago just by seeing how it worked on themselves.

I could go on all day about this because I feel like it’s my generation(16-22 or so) that is not “getting it” but I’ve got a steak to eat and have to train today and do my cardio. If anyone needs me I’ll be the one in the gym adding 10+ lbs to all my lifts tonight.

[quote]sparkym wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It’s just a feeling but I’d be willing to bet we aren’t speaking to someone who benches 400+lbs. There are tons of people who “train”.

So you have to bench 400+lbs to be considered someone who “trains”?

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

[/quote]

He specifically wrote “really trains”. My idea of someone who “really trains” is someone at the upper end of the strength curve or at least someone likely to get there soon. If you haven’t noticed, that is pretty much what this thread has come down to. I sure as hell wouldn’t go to someone significantly weaker or smaller than me for advice.

There are tons of people in gyms everywhere who would claim they “train” even though they may just be there for their New Year’s resolution. I would hope no one on this site falls into that category.

[quote]rock_ten wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It’s just a feeling but I’d be willing to bet we aren’t speaking to someone who benches 400+lbs.

That would be a fairly safe bet to make on anyone, lol.[/quote]

There was a time on this forum when it wasn’t THAT rare.

[quote]Scott M wrote:
Tirib great post above(the long one I’m not going to quote)

Science can tell us some useful stuff every once in a while, but is VERY wrong on a lot of things as well when it comes to this bodybuilding thing. If we all listened to research only we’d be doing 3x10 and eating 65% carbs, 15% protein and 20% fat, taking HMB(that one turned out great right?) blocking our myostatin genes with some algae and never going to failure. We’d never eat more than 25 grams of protein(or is it 40 or 34.249 this time?) in a single meal because the body can’t digest it. Don’t worry if you are a 110 lb grandma or a 300 lb tank, it’s exactly 25 grams.

Somehow “gym science” doesn’t seem to connect with people when it means a whole lot more to me and others on this thread than anything a study has ever shown me. Last time I checked there has never been a study on how to create a 250 lb lean monster, because honestly who the hell cares it would be a waste of money that could be used for more pressing issues. We get studies done on sedentary college kids who do 2 sets of leg extensions and then drink a carb drink and some people want to transfer that data to hard training individuals, NOT HAPPENING in my books.

Science is WAY behind the guys in the trenches at the gyms as far as I’m concerned and is telling us things today that people were figuring out 10-20-50 years ago just by seeing how it worked on themselves.

I could go on all day about this because I feel like it’s my generation(16-22 or so) that is not “getting it” but I’ve got a steak to eat and have to train today and do my cardio. If anyone needs me I’ll be the one in the gym adding 10+ lbs to all my lifts tonight. [/quote]

I think it’s a combination of people having too little confidence in themselves (realised as the inability to question the studies and apply some common sense) and too much confidence in their “knowledge” (realised as being too stubborn to learn from people with opposing views).

I’ve noticed that the biggest fanboys seem to have the least results and those that have achieved the most tend to accept that their approach isn’t the ONLY way, I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

Whatever your training method, it’s only a means to an end.

Unfortunately it seems that many can’t see the end for the means.

saiyans always train to failure…and they seem to get bigger and stronger.

[quote]Scott M wrote:
I could go on all day about this because I feel like it’s my generation(16-22 or so) [/quote]

This is very true. I’m 17 and can say that the vast majority of kids my age aspire to be 155 with abs. When these kids ask me why they’re not getting any bigger or stronger, I tell them to eat more. This gets met with cries of protest about how they don’t want to gain weight/get fat/get big.

Meanwhile, I’ve gone from 135 to 190 since I started lifting in August 2006. I’ve heard from some that it’s big enough, but screw that, I’m nowhere near big.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
rock_ten wrote:
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?

My son knows a shit load about WWII. Way more than me. But if given the chance between listening to him tell me about what he has read, and listening to one of my clients tell me stories from when he landed on Normandy - guess who I choose?

Being there and doing it is much different from using big words, and theories.

[/quote]

Well put.

The best info is learned from gentleman who found it out the hard way.


Valuable lessons learned from the thread:

Intensity is important.

Eat, rest, and lift heavy stuff.

You should never, ever phrase something in a way more complicated than the above.

A good training program is supplemented by 3500 word arguments on the web with people you don’t know. However, it isn’t a good idea to do this until you can bench press at least 400 lbs, or you are “one of the big guys.”

Victory has a hundred fathers, and defeat is an orphan. There are lots of skinny, 150lb guys in the gym that try to tell people how to get “big”…but don’t listen to them! THEY’RE LYING!!!

[quote]Scott M wrote:
Tirib great post above(the long one I’m not going to quote)

Science can tell us some useful stuff every once in a while, but is VERY wrong on a lot of things as well when it comes to this bodybuilding thing. If we all listened to research only we’d be doing 3x10 and eating 65% carbs, 15% protein and 20% fat, taking HMB(that one turned out great right?) blocking our myostatin genes with some algae and never going to failure. We’d never eat more than 25 grams of protein(or is it 40 or 34.249 this time?) in a single meal because the body can’t digest it. Don’t worry if you are a 110 lb grandma or a 300 lb tank, it’s exactly 25 grams.

Somehow “gym science” doesn’t seem to connect with people when it means a whole lot more to me and others on this thread than anything a study has ever shown me. Last time I checked there has never been a study on how to create a 250 lb lean monster, because honestly who the hell cares it would be a waste of money that could be used for more pressing issues. We get studies done on sedentary college kids who do 2 sets of leg extensions and then drink a carb drink and some people want to transfer that data to hard training individuals, NOT HAPPENING in my books.

Science is WAY behind the guys in the trenches at the gyms as far as I’m concerned and is telling us things today that people were figuring out 10-20-50 years ago just by seeing how it worked on themselves.

I could go on all day about this because I feel like it’s my generation(16-22 or so) that is not “getting it” but I’ve got a steak to eat and have to train today and do my cardio. If anyone needs me I’ll be the one in the gym adding 10+ lbs to all my lifts tonight. [/quote]

Good post Scott.

IMO, people don’t seem to realize that the gym is a sort of laboratory. Think about it, the scientific process is to simply:

  1. Observe a phenomenon in actual life
  2. Form a hypothesis about the phenomenon
  3. Develop methods to test the hypothesis
  4. Draw conclusions from the results of the test(s)

This is precisely what people have been doing in weight lifting/athletic circles for the better part of a century now. To suggest that some know it all in a lab coat is going to come in, do a 12 week study and then know more about the process of building muscle than the bodybuilding community (which has been going strong for over a half a century now), or even an advanced lifter is ridiculous.

As far as I’m concerned studies are only good for telling us why what works works, not telling us what works.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
<<< As far as I’m concerned studies are only good for telling us why what works works, not telling us what works.[/quote]

That IS the critical distinction. I have no disdain for science as such and would not want to say that the whitecoats and safety glasses have NOTHING to say.

One has to do the grain of salt thing however when large numbers of people exist who have had decades of success with various methods that are now being declared obsolete, ineffective, and even dangerous in some cases for all the goofy reasons Scott cites.

It also gives a false sense of authority to some who enjoy reading white papers more than lifting weights.

Of course you CAN be studious AND effective, but don’t tell me something is or isn’t when my eyes tell me otherwise.

[quote]Scott M wrote:
Not going to quote everything he said again, just go back a page a read it.[/quote]

I agree with you but wanted to ad one thing. Sometimes people latch on to the “study of the moment” that they read on Yahoo news and take it way out of context of the experiment performed.

A study might say that there is a causative link between say, calcium deficiency in diet and osteoporosis and then women around the world start gulping thousands of grams of calcium from Wal-mart’s bargain-bin rack. Then the high doses of calcium start leading to an increase of kidney stones in these “morans”. Does that mean that calcium supplementation for a specific control group was a lie? People just run with things without reading the fine print.

And then you have a much more sinister side of science, where a loose causative link proven in a study leads directly to someone’s personal agenda (like a supplement company). Take the stupid running/high endurance cardio craze that STILL is going on some 30 + years later as the end-all-be-all of health and fitness and long life (I’m looking in the general direction of your headstone, Mr. Cooper!)

Chicken or egg, take it for what it’s worth.

My advice instead of getting too caught up in it (and I like the science side of things due to my interest in medicine) is to do your thinking outside of the gym. Then go in and if you see or read about someone who started where you are and has made consistent changes and is on the path of where you’d like to be DO THAT. Buy him/her a cup of coffee or beer and pick their brain…you’d be surprised what Joe Average has come up with as a solution to your problem all on their own and without the help of the Mayo Clinic.

Umm…well, I think I have my own 2-cents worth to add here…while I see that this same topic is the one from Pump’s other thread regarding some guy he’s coaching, I believe we all will see different directions on the issue but I’ll post my answer in both, hope that helps.

There’s a physical therapist with my group which has become the personal trainer/life coach for all of us. He is in wheelchair too, but he lost both legs to a landmine, and the guy is tough as nails. I used to feel sorry for not being able to dance salsa more than a simpleton or advanced beginner’s level or a mediocre middle-level, with a prosthetic leg, but this guy has 2 and he didn’t let that stop him. He’s the guy who’s always getting us big and strong and making sure we stay on track, and he’s got a method that may work:

His experience comes from training,and like mah of us, his injuries did affect his CNS a little so he’s conditioned to fast movements or isometric movements, he’s “hyperkinetic” as doctors usually tell us all. He got big, and keps getting big,. ripped and strong, even on what’s left of his thighs, but he doesn’t even read a fitness magazine at all, so he basically tells you things he’s learned the hard way.

His advise ¿?

1-) Eat well, but don’t eat few…

2-) Rest to recover, but don’t become idle.

3-) Find something heavy,lift it fast. Think each rep is the last and each set is the only set you’ll do, and as long as you don’t reach full failure, just reach a limit at the end of the set, you’ll do a lot with 3 sets while others will need 30 and steroids. Don’t worry about speed, worry about tension, don’t worry about loads, worry about work.

He uses a Doggcrapp workout modification: Instead of doing 1 exercise per bodypart doing 1 rest-pause set to failure preceeded by 3-5 “approach” sets (heavier than warm-ups but not really hard sets), to total failure, and taking 6, 8 or even 10 seconds toi lower the weight down and lifting explosively, he lifts explosively but lowers in a little over a second, does more than 1 exericse per bodypart, in fact, he can do more than 1 set, and he doesn’t aim for 20 total reps (sometimes if he’s going heavy he does), but normally he aims to get 12-15 reps on the first part, rest 10 secs, then get 8-10 and then rest 15 secs to get 4-6 reps, but if he’s going heavy it’s more like 6-8 + 4-6 + 2-4 reps. And it works for him to do so 2 times a week, doing no less than 2 compound, 2 “bodyweight” ( actually, that’s with with added weight on a X-vest)and 2 isolation exercises per muscle group (horizontal and vertical planes)and he’s big, and he actually makes us “punch” the weight, he doesn’t really go too heavy, he makes us hit a pad with the disc or the center of the bar when doing dumbell or barbell bench presses, hit a pad with the albows when doing rows or pulldowns, and such things, and well, it works for us.

Hope that helps

[quote]Der Candy wrote:
http://www.hypertrophy-research.com/articles/microweights.pdf

there.

You should realize the incredible value of stuff like this (especially when you are advanced).[/quote]

I have to say this whole hypertrophy research website is cool…it is however, a “back to basics” idea…let me explain why:

The concept of racking the weight between reps to manage fatigue and do 20-rep sets isn’t new…in fact it’s quite old, in T-Nation, Waterbury speaks of how to use pauses between reps in his article “Building Your Rep” as well as “Lift Fast, Get Big” and other articles of other authors do, but in this, the Singles Club article is king and this one is a good source of info for someone who wnats to follow a path like the one in this cool but naive hypertrophy research website, which isn’t all that bad.

I had the pleasure of meeting some great European and American bodybuilders, powerlifters and of course, coaches, but one that impressed me a lot gave me a good advise before retiring due to injuries, but he said to me “any set between 1 and 5 reps will get you big if you know how to use rest periods, and loads…tempo isn’t even a factor, it’s a consequence from the relation between load and force” and he explained something to me:

basically, if you aim to get 100 reps on a single session, you can get thsoe with singles, or with 5 rep sets, you can start with a load and a given rest period timeframe and end up resting twice a smuch between sets at the end of the session and lifting almost half the load…as long as you get a good, deep and throrough work, you’ll grow, by using the pauses and rest between sets smart, you’ll stave off the catabolic process that comes from badly managed fatigue. And trust me that advise holds true.

My old sargeant used to say “machineguns are overrated…even if you hit 9 out of 10 tiems you fire one, after the first couple bullets hit hard and good on the right spot, the other 7 are just overkill, unnecessary waste of ammo, it’s excess…it’s why sniper rifles are better” and I feel like HIT practicioners agree: why use a shitload of sets and reps if you can do less to get more?

That is right, conceptually, but in the real world, nobody likes HIT when they prefer doing a lot of reps which are easier on the indibvidual sets and they think they fill their cups with smalld rops, kind alike hammering a nail into a wall with 1000 hits, while the hit guys won’t liek volume and will prefer to smack that nail hard a few times and drive it in faster. All is good if your body answers to it, so here’s what I propose to you about this concept of getting big, for the guy you sponsor:

Have him pick a given load and let him do some reps: ask him at what rep he starts feelign the pump that tells him he’s doing good on the set and when does the pump fade and the next reps become a bore, when the flavor is gone…also ask him and measure yourself, when does he start losing lifting speed, as his strenght fades.

The trick is: you have to give him a laod and tell him to doa s manyr eps as he can on a weight he already knows he can get some reps from and which he thinks he gets the most growth-inducing benefits from.

Try to add weight to it by 10% and make him rest 10 minutes between sets. After the third attempt, this is what you’ll do: Make sure that you find a weight he feels that first “pumping rep” the closest to the initial rep and that he feels the last “good rep” close to the end…allow me to explain:

assume he tries some 135 pounds on the barbell for bench rpesses on a 15-rep set and he tells you : “I feel the weight start to work from rep 4th, lose speed by rep 9 and stop feeling the pump at rep 12 so any rep after is hard and the muscle isn’t feeling it, and I am smashed” so then ad weight until the set is like this:

he does 8 reps, by rep 2 he feels the muscle is startting to get an effect or pump, and that he keeps his speed and maximal force output until rep 5 so by rep 6 he loses the pump and gives room to the other 2 strained and hard reps being rep 8 where he stops for he won’t get more out of the load and the set even if doing more reps, for the pump is gone, the set ran dry. Now reduce rest intervals between thsoe sets and have him work hard on them and you’ll see results.