How to 'Bulk' For Naturals

Training
501

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
^Yeah, but I believe that, in X’s case, 405 was probably getting close to max effort for him. Therefore, it was probably not safe for him to work with that weight without a spotter, as he probably couldn’t handle it well enough to attempt it when alone. That’s my guess.[/quote]

I always felt like that was more of PX’s bullshit. He claimed all these numbers, then when seen on vid he’s struggling with considerably less WITH band assistance. Yeah, I know he was “injured” and has “asthma” and it was “conditioning” and he’s “fat”, but it still reeked of bullshit. He’s the same guy who claimed there’s only a 5 or so pound difference between hammer strength and free weights…[/quote]

5lb diff between HS and free weight. Ha that’s a new gem[/quote]
It’s from the website guys.
The Smith Machine site says that you’re actually lifting more weight on that piece of equipment because of the added resistance of the bar sliding up and down the guide polls.

502

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
^Yeah, but I believe that, in X’s case, 405 was probably getting close to max effort for him. Therefore, it was probably not safe for him to work with that weight without a spotter, as he probably couldn’t handle it well enough to attempt it when alone. That’s my guess.[/quote]

I always felt like that was more of PX’s bullshit. He claimed all these numbers, then when seen on vid he’s struggling with considerably less WITH band assistance. Yeah, I know he was “injured” and has “asthma” and it was “conditioning” and he’s “fat”, but it still reeked of bullshit. He’s the same guy who claimed there’s only a 5 or so pound difference between hammer strength and free weights…[/quote]

5lb diff between HS and free weight. Ha that’s a new gem[/quote]

His exact quote was “4-5 lb difference”, but he’s recently backtracked to a 10-20% difference. Still doesn’t explain his claim of benching 405 then struggling MIGHTILY with a band assisted 315. He also gripped the bar unevenly a few times, which I always found funny.

503

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
^Yeah, but I believe that, in X’s case, 405 was probably getting close to max effort for him. Therefore, it was probably not safe for him to work with that weight without a spotter, as he probably couldn’t handle it well enough to attempt it when alone. That’s my guess.[/quote]

I always felt like that was more of PX’s bullshit. He claimed all these numbers, then when seen on vid he’s struggling with considerably less WITH band assistance. Yeah, I know he was “injured” and has “asthma” and it was “conditioning” and he’s “fat”, but it still reeked of bullshit. He’s the same guy who claimed there’s only a 5 or so pound difference between hammer strength and free weights…[/quote]

5lb diff between HS and free weight. Ha that’s a new gem[/quote]

His exact quote was “4-5 lb difference”, but he’s recently backtracked to a 10-20% difference. Still doesn’t explain his claim of benching 405 then struggling MIGHTILY with a band assisted 315. He also gripped the bar unevenly a few times, which I always found funny.[/quote]

I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315? Also judged this from the way he overhead pressed and the amount on that too (not that i judge people’s lifts but was wondering how he could have a 405 bench based on those two lifts.)

504

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Personally I wouldn’t mind if I got lapped by chicks (or anyone for that matter) so long as I was trying hard. When it comes to non-competitive hobbies, to me, although there will be some better than others, heart is what counts. Even at a competitive level, there will be judgment, but few have the balls or lifestyle to compete in anything, so I give credit to all.

Most or all on here would be outdone by Synergy in any physical endeavor. [/quote]

While my comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek, I will say that there is nothing necessarily wrong with getting lapped by chicks, especially when we are talking about ones who are as phenomenally conditioned as the three he trained with.

And while synergy is, obviously, on a totally different planet than the rest of us, I really only mentioned him because I can’t recall off the top of my head who else was flown to Colorado (though despite his mutant status, he DOES train alongside another guy or two).

While I’m sure some might find some credibility in the idea of Biotest attempting to protect their favorite forumite from embarrassment, X being trained solo is more likely just due to a combination of Biotest wanting to capitalize on his reputation alongside some scheduling issues for his trip that precluded the opportunity to train alongside the other guys.[/quote]

Good post.

X, why have you abandoned all these exercises:overhead presses, dips, chinups, bent over rows, dumbbell rows, deadlifts, squats. [/quote]

inb4 bodybuilding is about results not the exercises you do, hammer strength everything built my biceps to 264561879 inches and my 30" “not fat” thighs.

But srs if the prof started doing real exercises I think he could grow more, as we’ve discussed already

505

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
All hail Bau-i warm up with 405 on bench-ber [/quote]

Lol don’t I wish. I still warm up with 135 :). Every third week or so I will do an all or mostly machine press chest workout. Helpe give my joints and tendons a break. If I could look bigger and more impressive by using lighter weight, I sure as hell would!! For me the weight amount is just a means to an end. Oh and a way to impress those fine hunnies :D.

506

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Personally I wouldn’t mind if I got lapped by chicks (or anyone for that matter) so long as I was trying hard. When it comes to non-competitive hobbies, to me, although there will be some better than others, heart is what counts. Even at a competitive level, there will be judgment, but few have the balls or lifestyle to compete in anything, so I give credit to all.

Most or all on here would be outdone by Synergy in any physical endeavor. [/quote]

While my comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek, I will say that there is nothing necessarily wrong with getting lapped by chicks, especially when we are talking about ones who are as phenomenally conditioned as the three he trained with.

And while synergy is, obviously, on a totally different planet than the rest of us, I really only mentioned him because I can’t recall off the top of my head who else was flown to Colorado (though despite his mutant status, he DOES train alongside another guy or two).

While I’m sure some might find some credibility in the idea of Biotest attempting to protect their favorite forumite from embarrassment, X being trained solo is more likely just due to a combination of Biotest wanting to capitalize on his reputation alongside some scheduling issues for his trip that precluded the opportunity to train alongside the other guys.[/quote]

Good post.

X, why have you abandoned all these exercises:overhead presses, dips, chinups, bent over rows, dumbbell rows, deadlifts, squats. [/quote]

inb4 bodybuilding is about results not the exercises you do, hammer strength everything built my biceps to 264561879 inches and my 30" “not fat” thighs.

But srs if the prof started doing real exercises I think he could grow more, as we’ve discussed already
[/quote]

He has more mass potential left, especially in the lower body.

507

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315?[/quote]

Can’t this just be, at least in part, a consequence of years and years of relying on machines instead of free weights for compound movements?

When using instruments that lock you into fixed movement patterns, isn’t it expected that the ancillary muscles that would otherwise be fighting to stabilize the weight would likely become less efficient at that task?

Can’t the difficulty found when switching back to free weights be the byproduct of a loss of coordination combined with a decrease in force output due to a perceived awkward novelty of the movement by the supporting musculature?

I mean, I thought this sort of phenomenon was commonly mentioned when discussions of “functional” training crop up.

If you add in the injuries (though I don’t know what they are off the top of my head) and the likelihood that he was already fatigued from other exercises, doesn’t this give a fairly plausible scenario that explains why his performance didn’t live up to expectations? Though would I be incorrect in believing that the band would help with stabilizing the weight to a degree?

I really don’t have too great of an idea as I am not riddled with injuries that would have killed mortal men and don’t rely almost exclusively on machines, so I’ve never experienced that sort of thing firsthand.

508

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
All hail Bau-i warm up with 405 on bench-ber [/quote]

Lol don’t I wish. I still warm up with 135 :). Every third week or so I will do an all or mostly machine press chest workout. Helpe give my joints and tendons a break. If I could look bigger and more impressive by using lighter weight, I sure as hell would!! For me the weight amount is just a means to an end. Oh and a way to impress those fine hunnies :D.[/quote]
Totally agree.
Lifting a lot of weight is cool and all but is secondary to a “look”
How much do ya bench brah?

509

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315?[/quote]

Can’t this just be, at least in part, a consequence of years and years of relying on machines instead of free weights for compound movements?

When using instruments that lock you into fixed movement patterns, isn’t it expected that the ancillary muscles that would otherwise be fighting to stabilize the weight would likely become less efficient at that task?

Can’t the difficulty found when switching back to free weights be the byproduct of a loss of coordination combined with a decrease in force output due to a perceived awkward novelty of the movement by the supporting musculature?

I mean, I thought this sort of phenomenon was commonly mentioned when discussions of “functional” training crop up.

If you add in the injuries (though I don’t know what they are off the top of my head) and the likelihood that he was already fatigued from other exercises, doesn’t this give a fairly plausible scenario that explains why his performance didn’t live up to expectations? Though would I be incorrect in believing that the band would help with stabilizing the weight to a degree?

I really don’t have too great of an idea as I am not riddled with injuries that would have killed mortal men and don’t rely almost exclusively on machines, so I’ve never experienced that sort of thing firsthand.[/quote]

Yeah, I have no doubt PX benched 405+ at some point. But I don’t know anyone in the lifting community (BB’er, PL’er, etc) who uses machines for 80% of their lifting.

510

I don’t think X’s bench performance in Colorado is all that surprising, the dude hadn’t benched in years.

511

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I don’t think X’s bench performance in Colorado is all that surprising, the dude hadn’t benched in years.
[/quote]

Yes, but there is a certain “look” to someone- their form, and the way their body moves - that give cues as to what they’ve done and what they’re capable of. The trained eye can see this.

512

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315?[/quote]

Can’t this just be, at least in part, a consequence of years and years of relying on machines instead of free weights for compound movements?

When using instruments that lock you into fixed movement patterns, isn’t it expected that the ancillary muscles that would otherwise be fighting to stabilize the weight would likely become less efficient at that task?

Can’t the difficulty found when switching back to free weights be the byproduct of a loss of coordination combined with a decrease in force output due to a perceived awkward novelty of the movement by the supporting musculature?

I mean, I thought this sort of phenomenon was commonly mentioned when discussions of “functional” training crop up.

If you add in the injuries (though I don’t know what they are off the top of my head) and the likelihood that he was already fatigued from other exercises, doesn’t this give a fairly plausible scenario that explains why his performance didn’t live up to expectations? Though would I be incorrect in believing that the band would help with stabilizing the weight to a degree?

I really don’t have too great of an idea as I am not riddled with injuries that would have killed mortal men and don’t rely almost exclusively on machines, so I’ve never experienced that sort of thing firsthand.[/quote]
yes

513

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
All hail Bau-i warm up with 405 on bench-ber [/quote]

Lol don’t I wish. I still warm up with 135 :). Every third week or so I will do an all or mostly machine press chest workout. Helpe give my joints and tendons a break. If I could look bigger and more impressive by using lighter weight, I sure as hell would!! For me the weight amount is just a means to an end. Oh and a way to impress those fine hunnies :D.[/quote]
Totally agree.
Lifting a lot of weight is cool and all but is secondary to a “look”
How much do ya bench brah?[/quote]

The most I have ever been under is 465. I did it 5 times and after that got a wicked ass case of tendonitis in my left bicep tendon that goes into the shoulder. Have not gone over 405 since.

514

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
All hail Bau-i warm up with 405 on bench-ber [/quote]

Lol don’t I wish. I still warm up with 135 :). Every third week or so I will do an all or mostly machine press chest workout. Helpe give my joints and tendons a break. If I could look bigger and more impressive by using lighter weight, I sure as hell would!! For me the weight amount is just a means to an end. Oh and a way to impress those fine hunnies :D.[/quote]
Totally agree.
Lifting a lot of weight is cool and all but is secondary to a “look”
How much do ya bench brah?[/quote]

The most I have ever been under is 465. I did it 5 times and after that got a wicked ass case of tendonitis in my left bicep tendon that goes into the shoulder. Have not gone over 405 since.[/quote]

Dear god.

515

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315?[/quote]

Can’t this just be, at least in part, a consequence of years and years of relying on machines instead of free weights for compound movements?

When using instruments that lock you into fixed movement patterns, isn’t it expected that the ancillary muscles that would otherwise be fighting to stabilize the weight would likely become less efficient at that task?

Can’t the difficulty found when switching back to free weights be the byproduct of a loss of coordination combined with a decrease in force output due to a perceived awkward novelty of the movement by the supporting musculature?

I mean, I thought this sort of phenomenon was commonly mentioned when discussions of “functional” training crop up.

If you add in the injuries (though I don’t know what they are off the top of my head) and the likelihood that he was already fatigued from other exercises, doesn’t this give a fairly plausible scenario that explains why his performance didn’t live up to expectations? Though would I be incorrect in believing that the band would help with stabilizing the weight to a degree?

I really don’t have too great of an idea as I am not riddled with injuries that would have killed mortal men and don’t rely almost exclusively on machines, so I’ve never experienced that sort of thing firsthand.[/quote]

Yeah, I have no doubt PX benched 405+ at some point. But I don’t know anyone in the lifting community (BB’er, PL’er, etc) who uses machines for 80% of their lifting. [/quote]

As valid as all of those points are, how can he claim a 4-5lb difference? And, he benched first in the workout. He told CT “I usually warmup more” to which CT replied “that is a warmup”. Seems to me that the good Prof knew his weakness was about to be displayed and starred with the lame excuses, and CT didn’t entertain it. Didn’t he also say he preacher curled an 85lb db, and backed that joker who claimed to incline 495 for 6-15 and Max Charles when he claimed world record bench, dead and curl weights but wouldn’t post a vid? Yeah, think it’s pretty safe to assume that ol’ PX is full of shit.

516

Preacher curling an 85 db correctly is a pretty badass feat lol. Would toss me in the dust for sure. And incline is my weakness as far as presses go. I am getting better at it, but not great for me.

517

Also note that X doesn’t post on weekends. More evidence he’s a conglomerate of Biotest peeps.

518

Personally, whether or not Prof X is just a disillusioned dude or really a schemer to pull in more traffic for the site, I find it downright disrespectful to those of us who have contributed a good deal financially to Biotest as well as contributed to the forums. The fact that his antics are given a free pass has actually encouraged me to never purchase from here again.

519

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
Also note that X doesn’t post on weekends. More evidence he’s a conglomerate of Biotest peeps. [/quote]

He’s usually on Saturday mornings and early afternoon.

520

First off, I know someone who I love more than anyone else in the world who has asthma and I have witnessed close up his anxiety that his current hard fought for breath might be his last so to mock PX’s efforts in CO regards his performance CONDITIONING wise isnt fair IMO.

I don’t know much about the geography of America as to be frank I dont know much about America in general but what I do know from reading on here that CO is very high above sea level which can cause a lot of difficulty to those with breathing problems.

I don’t like the guy and I don’t know what he brings to the site but knocking him on his CO performance regards his conditioning in light of his asthma has little merit in my opinion.