JB's Eating Habits, First 3 Years?

Nutrition
21

I train a guy who is 36 and rides Motocross. He’s “in-season” right now and rides a mtn bike 2x/week.

We are doing the 20 rep squat routine (without the milk) and he owns a turkey farm and has access to the best foods money can buy.

He weighs about 175 now and that is up around six solid lbs in about four weeks. He was having trouble finding jeans that would fit his thighs last week. And this guy is not new to weight training.

His workouts involve 1 set of 20 rep squats, 2 sets of weighted dips, 2 sets of standing presses, two sets of chins, 2 sets of barbell curls, 1 set of 15 reps deadlifts and abs on Monday. Friday is similarly structured but without the squats and replacing the barbell press with dumbbells for instance.

Two hours per week with three full days off in between and he’s been making the best strength and muscle mass gains of his life.

This is just one example of how different we all are and that’s all it is. If you can make excellent gains training 4-6 days per week and you enjoy your time in the gym then go ahead and lift your ass off.

If that doesn’t work, cut back and train less. Whatever you do, use others as guidelines and experiment with your own body. Just don’t get so caught up in what made (insert name) get so big, so ripped, so strong etc.

Be an expert on your own abilities and think for yourselfand forget what works for someone else.

22

[quote]Professor X wrote:
MMYeah wrote:
Whoa whoa whoa calm down bud.

CW, a man who came up with TBT, ABBH, and other programs running on 3/4 days of work a week I would think would have a different opinion on alot of this here.

What is your point?
[/quote]

No shit. He’s said the same thing 3 times now. Apprently, he’s not familiar with Chad’s HFT. 8 session a week anyone?

I think derek summed up this thread best though.

23

[quote]Professor X wrote:
MMYeah wrote:
Whoa whoa whoa calm down bud.

CW, a man who came up with TBT, ABBH, and other programs running on 3/4 days of work a week I would think would have a different opinion on alot of this here.

What is your point?
[/quote]

It’s just bringing something else to think about into the mix.

24

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
Professor X wrote:
MMYeah wrote:
Whoa whoa whoa calm down bud.

CW, a man who came up with TBT, ABBH, and other programs running on 3/4 days of work a week I would think would have a different opinion on alot of this here.

What is your point?

It’s just bringing something else to think about into the mix.[/quote]

No it isn’t. I don’t base my workouts on what one author thinks. I base it on the results I see. It is like some of you take articles, not as suggestions, but as law or near-religion. It makes me wonder if there is even the motivation to gain your own base of knowledge or if following others is the plan for life from now on.

25

[quote]Professor X wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
Professor X wrote:
MMYeah wrote:
Whoa whoa whoa calm down bud.

CW, a man who came up with TBT, ABBH, and other programs running on 3/4 days of work a week I would think would have a different opinion on alot of this here.

What is your point?

It’s just bringing something else to think about into the mix.

No it isn’t. I don’t base my workouts on what one author thinks. I base it on the results I see. It is like some of you take articles, not as suggestions, but as law or near-religion. It makes me wonder if there is even the motivation to gain your own base of knowledge or if following others is the plan for life from now on.[/quote]

I love this guy.

26

Shouldn’t it work with 5-6x per week at one hour each? The only times I get up to 1.5 hours is when I have friends in the gym who distract me. Supersetting really cuts down the time. Maybe it’s just the splits that I do, but I generally leave the gym barely able to contract my muscles anymore and I’m done in an hour.

27

[quote]Professor X wrote:
itsthetimman wrote:
John M Berardi wrote:

Anyway, although low volume, low frequency workouts seem to still be all the rage lately, I’ve yet to see anyone dramatically restructure their body this way - unless it’s fat loss and they achieved it with more dietary restriction than energy output. Jaw dropping musculature requires a ton of work and time spent.

I have to say, I’ve heard this from a couple other people and it worked for myself before. Too many people, it seems like, went from thinking, “Oh you’re a pussy, you’re not training enough.” to “I’m smart and know my body’s limits before testing them, anything over 1 hr is overtraining.”

Sometimes I think if people would do these “monster workouts” in Flex or whatever, they might actually get better results than what they’ve seen so far with their training. I know I might get some heat for that, but seriously, I see too many people half-assing it or attempting to keep workouts exactly under one hour.

It isn’t so much the “1 hour” aspect as it is the concept that training 6 days a week is somehow impossible. I have trained that way for years. You would think guys who are much smaller in the gym would pay attention to what guys bigger than them are actually doing. Instead, there seems to be some attitude as if the big guys are doing it wrong. I think that is how that “functional” bullshit caught on the way it did. It allowed them to justify the lack of gains.[/quote]

Professor X,

You say that you have trained that way for years, (as you stated above). I am curious, (and this is just me being curious, not judging your program) have you spent much time trying a full body 3 X’s/week set-up, or an upper/lower split?

Danny

28

[quote]Dboy wrote:

Professor X,

You say that you have trained that way for years, (as you stated above). I am curious, (and this is just me being curious, not judging your program) have you spent much time trying a full body 3 X’s/week set-up, or an upper/lower split?

Danny[/quote]

I trained 2-3 body parts a session as a BEGINNER getting into the weight room for the first time. There is no way in hell I would try to train that many body parts in only one training session now. I know the intensity I put into training just one body part. I also know any other groups trained that day would get LESS intensity as a result.

I personally question exactly how hard someone is pushing themselves when training that many body parts in one session. As a beginner, you can get away with things like that because you haven’t trained yourself to come even close to that level of intensity. This is also why some of you need to realize that all advice is not meant for you. every training program released on this site is not meant for everyone. The same way I wouldn’t expect some 150lbs kid to lift what I lift the way I lift it, some of you need to realize that bodybuilding is a progression, not a destination.

29

Check this out…

its called:

The Creation of a T-Man
by John M Berardi

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=460967

30

Professor X,

Since you’ve become an “advanced” trainee, it sounds like you have not been training more than 1-2 muscle groups/workout. I REALLY wonder what kinda results you’d get if you spent a significant time training full body or w/ an upper/lower split. Maybe they’d be as good or better. (or maybe not) But we’ll never know as it sounds like there is NO way you’ll be changing your 1-2 body part/workout set-up any time soon.

For the record, I’m not against body part splits if they are performed w/ some thought, (i.e. over balance in movements throughout the program etc.).

Danny

31

[quote]El_Animal wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I love this guy.

[/quote]

Rent a room.

32

Let motherf**kin’ Professor X be. Whatever works for him, works for him. He’s supposed to be a big, strong mofo so w/e he’s doing works.

For the record, I like three day a week split; lift heavy is all. Make it so you don’t wanna go to the gym the next day due to being sore. That’s what gets results for me. I go the day after, sometimes 48 (+/-) hours later.

33

[quote]Dboy wrote:
Professor X,

Since you’ve become an “advanced” trainee, it sounds like you have not been training more than 1-2 muscle groups/workout. I REALLY wonder what kinda results you’d get if you spent a significant time training full body or w/ an upper/lower split. Maybe they’d be as good or better. (or maybe not) But we’ll never know as it sounds like there is NO way you’ll be changing your 1-2 body part/workout set-up any time soon.

For the record, I’m not against body part splits if they are performed w/ some thought, (i.e. over balance in movements throughout the program etc.).

Danny[/quote]

How could you create the same stress of a muscle group doing a upper body/lower body split compared to one body part per day? There is no chance that is possible.

How can you create the stress on a chest using an incline bench, decline bench, flat bench, 100 rep finisher workout with a cable row, flat bench, biceps curl, tricep pressdown, pull-up, incline bench, hammer curl, kick back workout? The volume isnt there. Its not possible to give the same effort. You’ll be way to spent from all of the other movements.

A body part specific split can be done twice in 7 days. 6-8 movements per week per body part split with complete intensity focused on that single bodypart compared to 6-8 movements per week with a much lower intensity because of the drain from all of the other movements. The two are on an entirely different level with respect to building mass.

34

I’m going to agree with the prof on this one.

For hypertrophy gains, overall from experience and other people’s results, body part splits have worked best. For a while, I used a total body workout, but this was only good due to the fact that I shouldn’t put on much weight being a middle distance runner. I also feel as if I’m half-assing half of my workout when I do total body workouts.

The best results, I have to say, came from the “Arnold” type split, with less leg days.

mon Chest AM/ Legs PM, tues Back AM, wed Arms AM/Legs PM, thurs Back, fri Chest AM/shoulders PM (no pressing shoulders)

Each workout was 1 to 1 1/2 hrs and I was running/biking a lot during this time.

35

[quote]Dboy wrote:
I REALLY wonder what kinda results you’d get if you spent a significant time training full body or w/ an upper/lower split. Maybe they’d be as good or better. (or maybe not) But we’ll never know as it sounds like there is NO way you’ll be changing your 1-2 body part/workout set-up any time soon.
[/quote]

No offense, man, but you aren’t talking to someone who would train half ass and see no results for years. I could see your “concern” if I was still under 200lbs after training this long, but that isn’t the case. What is the logic behind training several body parts in one day when I can create more intensity by training specific body parts on different days and train more often?

The only way I would go back to stuffing that many body parts into one day, is if my goal was purely MAINTENANCE or I had to change my schedule around and could only make it into the gym 3 nights a week.

36

[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Dboy wrote:
Professor X,

Since you’ve become an “advanced” trainee, it sounds like you have not been training more than 1-2 muscle groups/workout. I REALLY wonder what kinda results you’d get if you spent a significant time training full body or w/ an upper/lower split. Maybe they’d be as good or better. (or maybe not) But we’ll never know as it sounds like there is NO way you’ll be changing your 1-2 body part/workout set-up any time soon.

For the record, I’m not against body part splits if they are performed w/ some thought, (i.e. over balance in movements throughout the program etc.).

Danny

How could you create the same stress of a muscle group doing a upper body/lower body split compared to one body part per day? There is no chance that is possible.

How can you create the stress on a chest using an incline bench, decline bench, flat bench, 100 rep finisher workout with a cable row, flat bench, biceps curl, tricep pressdown, pull-up, incline bench, hammer curl, kick back workout? The volume isnt there. Its not possible to give the same effort. You’ll be way to spent from all of the other movements.

A body part specific split can be done twice in 7 days. 6-8 movements per week per body part split with complete intensity focused on that single bodypart compared to 6-8 movements per week with a much lower intensity because of the drain from all of the other movements. The two are on an entirely different level with respect to building mass.[/quote]

I’m not saying you can create the same stress on an upper/lower or total body split. But if you created stress more often, (as usually is the case w/ total body and upper/lower splits) I believe many people can see as good or better results than w/ the “annihilating” the muscle every 5th or 7th day method. (AGAIN, I’m not against body-part splits, I’m of the opinion that any set-up can work if set up properly)

And I’m definitely NOT saying Professor X is wrong in what he is doing. As I mentioned above, I’m curious what his results would be (or anyone’s results would be if they were to change to a different set-up for awhile) if he were to train for awhile w/ a TB or upper/lower split.

Danny

37

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dboy wrote:
I REALLY wonder what kinda results you’d get if you spent a significant time training full body or w/ an upper/lower split. Maybe they’d be as good or better. (or maybe not) But we’ll never know as it sounds like there is NO way you’ll be changing your 1-2 body part/workout set-up any time soon.

No offense, man, but you aren’t talking to someone who would train half ass and see no results for years. I could see your “concern” if I was still under 200lbs after training this long, but that isn’t the case. What is the logic behind training several body parts in one day when I can create more intensity by training specific body parts on different days and train more often?

The only way I would go back to stuffing that many body parts into one day, is if my goal was purely MAINTENANCE or I had to change my schedule around and could only make it into the gym 3 nights a week.[/quote]

No offense taken. And I know you wouldn’t train half ass!

Danny

38

[quote]Professor X wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
Professor X wrote:
MMYeah wrote:
Whoa whoa whoa calm down bud.

CW, a man who came up with TBT, ABBH, and other programs running on 3/4 days of work a week I would think would have a different opinion on alot of this here.

What is your point?

It’s just bringing something else to think about into the mix.

No it isn’t. I don’t base my workouts on what one author thinks. I base it on the results I see. It is like some of you take articles, not as suggestions, but as law or near-religion. It makes me wonder if there is even the motivation to gain your own base of knowledge or if following others is the plan for life from now on.[/quote]

What? Who says anyone is basing their workout on what one author thinks? Waterbury’s a succesful trainer who doesn’t always advocate high volume, take it as it is, I take it as a suggestion to look at his programs, maybe try one, and see which you like more. It’s almost the same as saying “I do low volume and it works better for me.”

Now I’m not advocating that, I like high volume, but I know you always brand people who mention any author/trainer in a discussion as morons who base their whole lifting on someone else’s program. This kid didn’t do that here in just mentioning Waterbury, and I have NO clue how you can possibly think he did.

39

[quote]danmaftei wrote:

Now I’m not advocating that, I like high volume, but I know you always brand people who mention any author/trainer in a discussion as morons who base their whole lifting on someone else’s program.[/quote]

No I don’t. I consider people who drop the name of an author in a thread as if that is a point in and of itself to be name dropping for no reason. I also consider them to not fully understand the concept enough to support an idea on their own without doing something like that.

For instance, if we are having a discussion about what we believe up to this point in science as far as what makes a muscle grow…and I jump into the conversation and say, “Dr. Red Duke from UT Medical doesn’t think so”, what do you think the point is?

If someone were really trying to make a point based on facts, wouldn’t they present whatever ideals they are hyping instead of simply the name of someone else? In fact, as many pointed out, the name that was dropped in this thread doesn’t even believe what he was credited to believe. That means the poster who dropped his name didn’t even understand the concept…which is exactly the point.

Follow that? Dr. Red Duke could.

40

[quote]Professor X wrote:

No I don’t. I consider people who drop the name of an author in a thread as if that is a point in and of itself to be name dropping for no reason. [/quote]

Best quote I’ve read this morning.