[quote]Professor X wrote:
Boondoggler wrote:
What a stupid ass response. I’m already trying to cut my training time down. My workout takes me about 1.5 hours as is. Full body workout, all compound lifts/movements. I have to run to school/work/gym and I have a very physically demanding job as well. If I started doing isolation work for every body part I wasn’t happy with I’d be in the gym for 2+ hours. Needless to say my CNS is taxed enough as is.
I’m 6’5 235 (just weighed myself an hour ago, new PR for me!) and I think I’m still way too small to be worrying about arm size. You don’t know my goals, you don’t know how I train. My original response to this thread was to let this guy know I’m seeing similar results. The curl comment was more sarcasm than anything.
You know what’s really stupid? the fact that you think splitting your training into specific body parts being trained will lead to you spending hours in the gym. Now THAT’S stupid. I am usually done in the gym in about 40-45min. There is no reason to be training for an hour and a half unless you are doing cardio afterwards. Your poor understanding of training is probably why you only weigh 235lbs at that height. Good luck.[/quote]
Prof X-on the days that you do cardio, do you do it after you lift weights or do you do cardio by itself?
[quote]Boondoggler wrote:
No, I never said splitting my routine would lead to longer workouts. I said adding additional isolation sets to make up for lagging body parts would lead to longer workouts.[/quote]
No, what you wrote was that your current workout takes over and hour and a half. That is too long. You are already training wrong and bitching that adding isolation exercises will damage your already overly long training sessions. Perhaps it wouldn’t if you put your routines together better.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ryu13 wrote:
People seem to be looking for the best way to look like a bodybuilder, with out actually being one.
…which is about as stupid as finding a condom in Ellen Degeneres’ back pocket.[/quote]
You can’t say it isn’t true, though. Read any training article on this site, all of them introduce some new way of lifting that contradicts the old ways. They all introduce simple new ways to build the same muscle as bodybuilders, without bodybuilding. The new ways are “functional” and “revolutionary”, and the old ways are “out dated” and “unsophisticated”.
My two cents, again.
I was at walmart today, and a SKINNY 6 foot fella was in line in front of me. When he turned halfway, he had the biggest freaking arms I had ever seen on a dude of his age. I would place them around 19 inches, and he had forearms to match. His shoulder looked like they couldn’t latterally raise his arms. by the looks of him, he probably didn’t work out. He was wearing a mechanics shirt.
I have much stronger core/assistance muscles then he does, and my arms are no where near as devolpoed or as large as that dude was. My way of thinking is that things like squats,deads,chins,presses and rows will build enough arm to do its part of the compound movement, but if your using your arms and grip everyday for a job, your body will build the muscle needed to do that job.
Try doing some Isolation work on your arms. that may be what your body needs. Try doing big compound movements too, that may be what your body needs.
Try running through the streets in your underwear rubbing jelly on your stomach while blowing into a harmonica and crying out “Help, I have little arms!”
The last peice of advice will only work if you get sent to jail, so please, do not take it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ryu13 wrote:
The new ways are “functional” and “revolutionary”, and the old ways are “out dated” and “unsophisticated”.
What happens when people figure out the old ways still work?[/quote]
These kinds of people never stick with anything past 4 weeks, so that is pretty much impossible. After 4 weeks on the “NEW WAY TO GET HUGE WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING” plan, they switch to the “EVEN NEWER REVOLUTION IN BODYBUILDING THAT GETS YOU HUGE WITH ONLY 3 COMPOUND MOVEMENTS PER WORKOUT” program. It will never change.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Boondoggler wrote:
What a stupid ass response. I’m already trying to cut my training time down. My workout takes me about 1.5 hours as is. Full body workout, all compound lifts/movements. I have to run to school/work/gym and I have a very physically demanding job as well. If I started doing isolation work for every body part I wasn’t happy with I’d be in the gym for 2+ hours. Needless to say my CNS is taxed enough as is.
I’m 6’5 235 (just weighed myself an hour ago, new PR for me!) and I think I’m still way too small to be worrying about arm size. You don’t know my goals, you don’t know how I train. My original response to this thread was to let this guy know I’m seeing similar results. The curl comment was more sarcasm than anything.
You know what’s really stupid? the fact that you think splitting your training into specific body parts being trained will lead to you spending hours in the gym. Now THAT’S stupid. I am usually done in the gym in about 40-45min. There is no reason to be training for an hour and a half unless you are doing cardio afterwards. Your poor understanding of training is probably why you only weigh 235lbs at that height. Good luck.[/quote]
Right on. Some guy posted that he trained for 1 hr 20 mins and I basically said who the fuck trains that long, its not great for anything, and got told by an author here that Elite Athletes train for that long or longer and get results or words to that effect. Anyway bollocks to that, Elite Athletes can do what they like, its 40-45 mins max for me too.
I mean one of the main reasons is that after 45 mins if you are training hard, as we all know you will feel fucked anyway.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Boondoggler wrote:
No, I never said splitting my routine would lead to longer workouts. I said adding additional isolation sets to make up for lagging body parts would lead to longer workouts.
No, what you wrote was that your current workout takes over and hour and a half. That is too long. You are already training wrong and bitching that adding isolation exercises will damage your already overly long training sessions. Perhaps it wouldn’t if you put your routines together better.[/quote]
Okay listen up. Read every word carefully. Alright, you with me? I said I trained for about an hour and a half. Actually more like 1hr 20 min.
And if I am “training wrong” then I suppose a very large percentage of college/professional athletes are “training wrong”. My program is a modified and SHORTENED version of the program assigned to me in college. I hate to break it to you but being stubborn and outspoken when it comes to your own OPINION doesn’t do anything as far as validating your argument.
[quote]Boondoggler wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Boondoggler wrote:
No, I never said splitting my routine would lead to longer workouts. I said adding additional isolation sets to make up for lagging body parts would lead to longer workouts.
No, what you wrote was that your current workout takes over and hour and a half. That is too long. You are already training wrong and bitching that adding isolation exercises will damage your already overly long training sessions. Perhaps it wouldn’t if you put your routines together better.
Okay listen up. Read every word carefully. Alright, you with me? I said I trained for about an hour and a half. Actually more like 1hr 20 min.
And if I am “training wrong” then I suppose a very large percentage of college/professional athletes are “training wrong”. My program is a modified and SHORTENED version of the program assigned to me in college. I hate to break it to you but being stubborn and outspoken when it comes to your own OPINION doesn’t do anything as far as validating your argument.
If it works for me, then how can it be wrong?
[/quote]
There is no ‘right’ way to train. But if you think about it, ,is everyone was training more ‘correctly’ then there would be a hella lot more strong and muscular people knocking about. But as a flipside to your long routine, I sometimes train for just one half of an hour twice a week and that works for me.
Your long routines would not work for me, if that makes sense.
Show me someone who doesn’t fit the A. and B. who trains for that long who has appreciable muscle mass (I mean theoretically enough to enter an amateur BB contest at least) and has built their mass this way and I’ll be very impressed.
[quote]Doc Stig wrote:
Training for 1 hr and half works well if…
a. You are on the gear
b. you are not interested in maximal hypertrophy.
Show me someone who doesn’t fit the A. and B. who trains for that long who has appreciable muscle mass (I mean theoretically enough to enter an amateur BB contest at least) and has built their mass this way and I’ll be very impressed.
[/quote]
I think your point b really hits the nail more on the head. A lot of people who train for athletics will have longer workouts because of longer rest periods. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe a lot of bodybuilders are training with around 60-90 seconds rest on most exercises, to maximize growth hormone release or to keep the muscle from recovering fully so you can fatigue it more? An exercise like dynamic squats with bands might take a lot longer to do, because generally the loading parameters are something like 8 sets with 2-3 minutes rest between them, so just one exercise could take over 20 minutes to complete. Same thing with olympic weightlifting.
Obviously there’s a lot of individuality, so why change what’s working for you?
[quote]Doc Stig wrote:
Training for 1 hr and half works well if…
a. You are on the gear
b. you are not interested in maximal hypertrophy.
Show me someone who doesn’t fit the A. and B. who trains for that long who has appreciable muscle mass (I mean theoretically enough to enter an amateur BB contest at least) and has built their mass this way and I’ll be very impressed.
[/quote]
Age is a big factor too. At 18, I sometimes train for an hour and a half myself. No offense, but a young man probably recovers quicker then an old man. Sometimes I have to train that long to get in all the wonderful excercises I want to do. If shortened training was the complete answer, some people would have huge triceps from “dipping” to get their ass out of a chair. if someone trains one way, and it works for them, then they should probably keep on training that way.
One fella said he trains for two 30 minute sessions a week. My muscles would laugh at that, and then atrophy into nothing. Then again, I rest a minute between sets. The feller with the two 30 minute sessions mite superset so that he still gets around 4 or more excercises in. I have never tried 30 minutes twice a week, so it could actually be the right way for me, but I get results with workouts around the hour mark, sometimes stretching to two hours.
[quote]Doc Stig wrote:
There is no ‘right’ way to train. But if you think about it, ,is everyone was training more ‘correctly’ then there would be a hella lot more strong and muscular people knocking about. But as a flipside to your long routine, I sometimes train for just one half of an hour twice a week and that works for me.
Your long routines would not work for me, if that makes sense.
[/quote]
Hey, as long as you can recognize that different training methods work for different people, then I’m a happy man. I’m glad you’ve found an approach that works for you.
[quote]Boondoggler wrote:
Okay listen up. Read every word carefully. Alright, you with me? I said I trained for about an hour and a half. Actually more like 1hr 20 min.
And if I am “training wrong” then I suppose a very large percentage of college/professional athletes are “training wrong”. My program is a modified and SHORTENED version of the program assigned to me in college. I hate to break it to you but being stubborn and outspoken when it comes to your own OPINION doesn’t do anything as far as validating your argument.
If it works for me, then how can it be wrong?
[/quote]
Professional Athletes get paid to train. Are you a professional athlete or do you have a JOB? Most college athletes are not training for muscle growth as their priority. Most are also training for endurance or are involved in more sports specific training. You just wrote previously that your goals have changed. I mean, I hate to break this to you, but from what you have written, that means you were 200lbs or less at 6’5" before this past year from your college training. I am very glad you stopped being underweight for your height if your goals are now to add muscle mass. You at 6’5" 230lbs is like someone 6 feet tall around 180lbs. Perhaps you would make even more progress if you stopped training past the point most of your energy reseves had been expended. I mean, you do realize how TALL 6’5" is, right?
Direct arm training certainly isn’t going to kill anyone. If you want outstanding arms, it stands to reason that you might actually have to give them some attention every now and then.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Professional Athletes get paid to train. Are you a professional athlete or do you have a JOB? Most college athletes are not training for muscle growth as their priority. Most are also training for endurance or are involved in more sports specific training. You just wrote previously that your goals have changed. I mean, I hate to break this to you, but from what you have written, that means you were 200lbs or less at 6’5" before this past year from your college training. I am very glad you stopped being underweight for your height if your goals are now to add muscle mass. You at 6’5" 230lbs is like someone 6 feet tall around 180lbs. Perhaps you would make even more progress if you stopped training past the point most of your energy reseves had been expended. I mean, you do realize how TALL 6’5" is, right?[/quote]
Are you seriously still arguing? Are you telling me every football player recruited out of high school is at the weight he’ll be playing at for the next 4/5 years? NO! Gaining weight is usually of equal or even more importance in comparison to improving strength, especially when looking at linemen and linebackers. I was a receiver, my playing weight was roughly 225. I stopped lifting after my last season of football. I basically stopped exercising at all. Thanksgiving day I weighed myself and when I saw 202 on the scale I decided I needed to get my ass back in gear. You say perhaps I’d see even more progress if I cut my workouts back?? I’ve gained over 30 pounds in roughly 3 months. Are really that oblivious to the reality of the situation??