[quote]Boondoggler wrote:
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.[/quote]
What did you miss from my previous post? Even most linebackers don’t have size alone as their priority. The only weight lifters with size as their most important priority are bodybuilders.
[quote]
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??[/quote]
If that’s true, all you did was put weight back on that had previously. You credit that to training optimally? Surprise, bodybuilders have termed that “MUSCLE MEMORY” for about 50-60 years now. Get back to me when you pass that level up. You didn’t know this before?
I still maintain that training for 1 hr 30 mins is self defeating to a certain extent unless you just aren’t interested in maximal strength and muscle gains.
Whilst most people have a basic grasp of training a lot more don’t understand that the ability to grow is defined by the ability to recover. I did not come along and do 2 half hour sessions or 3 x 45 min sessions a week because suddenly it worked, I tried all these long sessions and all that happened is minimal muscle gains.
[quote]Doc Stig wrote:
I still maintain that training for 1 hr 30 mins is self defeating to a certain extent unless you just aren’t interested in maximal strength and muscle gains.
Whilst most people have a basic grasp of training a lot more don’t understand that the ability to grow is defined by the ability to recover. I did not come along and do 2 half hour sessions or 3 x 45 min sessions a week because suddenly it worked, I tried all these long sessions and all that happened is minimal muscle gains. [/quote]
I agree completely. However, when you are discussing this with people who don’t understand what muscle memory is or how easy it is to REGAIN weight in muscle mass that they previously had, you will end up with people who used to train for sports going back to the only thing they know instead of what makes the most logical sense. I would expect a healthy, non-overweight, previously more muscular individual to be able to regain muscle lost within about two months after they return to training. This is proven over and over in bodybuilding. Regaining what you had isn’t evidence that you are training correctly. It simply means you stopped being inactive.
Yeah, what initiates hypertrophy in untrained individuals is usually continued with minimal results. The fact that there are 100 hundred different programs to choose from particularly in places like this then rather than help it confuses.
The benefit of doing only compound lifts is generally most people (if not all) will repsond to them with an adaption. It the ancillary exercises which don’t always work. Hence I think posts like this spring up. If you were training 1 hr 30 mins on heavy compound lifts you’d be fucked.
However some compound training and then some usage of other exercises like curls and stuff is possible, still however not conducive to growth long term.
But, you can in my opinion train compound lifts then add exercices like curls and pulldowns to the session and keep within resonable time parameters for maximal growth.