(Mighty) Stu Yellin, WNBF Pro Updates n Q&A

Training
261

Thanks a lot for that stu. I’ve found that not keeping track of your lifts allows you to focus a lot more on feeling the muscle working rather than just pushing the weight up just for the sake of it. It also allows you to remain injury free since you won’t be compelled to try and beat your previous max on a day when you’re weak.

Do you do the same lifting routine every week or do you vary it? I’ve experimented a bit with this and lately I’ve been keeping the same “movement” sequence. Meaning I might change the exercises from one week to the next but the purpose of each exercise and its position in the routine remain the same. So on a leg day for example I’ll start with one form of hamstring curls, then a heavy-ish leg press or squat, then a lighter hack squat type of movement, then leg extensions and finally any version of stiff legged or romanian deadlifts.

262

One more short question:

How much of a benefit do you think you gained by competing for the first time relatively late in your training life? I can’t help but compare you and Lonnie Lowrey to folks who started competing at much younger training ages and feel like your (especially your own) successes derive at least in part from sparing your body from the strain of dieting down year after year.

I know that this is a sample size of two (lol), but I compare you to John Meadows, who started training much earlier (and had some medical issues), and I just wonder whether starting to compete so early is ultimately a good or bad idea. Of course, the answer may just be that it’s personal and people should compete whenever they’re “ready.”

263

[quote]DoingWork421 wrote:
One more short question:

How much of a benefit do you think you gained by competing for the first time relatively late in your training life? I can’t help but compare you and Lonnie Lowrey to folks who started competing at much younger training ages and feel like your (especially your own) successes derive at least in part from sparing your body from the strain of dieting down year after year.

I know that this is a sample size of two (lol), but I compare you to John Meadows, who started training much earlier (and had some medical issues), and I just wonder whether starting to compete so early is ultimately a good or bad idea. Of course, the answer may just be that it’s personal and people should compete whenever they’re “ready.”
[/quote]

Good question. I too would be interested in the answer, although I do feel it is unfair to compare the two. They are operating with two different sets of rules.

264

[quote]Myosin wrote:

[quote]DoingWork421 wrote:
One more short question:

How much of a benefit do you think you gained by competing for the first time relatively late in your training life? I can’t help but compare you and Lonnie Lowrey to folks who started competing at much younger training ages and feel like your (especially your own) successes derive at least in part from sparing your body from the strain of dieting down year after year.

I know that this is a sample size of two (lol), but I compare you to John Meadows, who started training much earlier (and had some medical issues), and I just wonder whether starting to compete so early is ultimately a good or bad idea. Of course, the answer may just be that it’s personal and people should compete whenever they’re “ready.”
[/quote]

Good question. I too would be interested in the answer, although I do feel it is unfair to compare the two. They are operating with two different sets of rules.[/quote]

Yeah I should have acknowledged that. It’s just fairly remarkable that Stu ended up with a pro card so quickly after he entered the scene–leaves me wondering where the long time under the bar before actually dieting down factors among the other obvious points (genetics, bone structure, etc).

265

[quote]Myosin wrote:
^Fantastic post, Stu. Thanks for sharing.

Near the end you mention that most exercises 5-6 reps was a good range for you. Is that a typo or do you still throw around the heavy iron in that rep range?[/quote]

I’m going to try to address all of the replies above, but this one was short, so I figured I’d hit it first :slight_smile:

For whatever reason, this range just felt right and definitely worked for me. The weights I handled were never the absolute heaviest I could manage, bcause that wasn’t the goal. However, in eliminating any portion of the ROM that unloaded the primary target muscle, avoiding any extra ‘bounce’ out of the bottoms, and really just milking the negatives (which I’m sure I’ve written about a zillion times over the years), so long as I gave myself enough rest between sets, I was still moving considerably heavy #s which IMO contributed to hypertrophy, as well as a nice dense look as others have often suggested to me over the years.

THese days, while I may let the reps creep up a bit in order to focus more on stabilization of my entire body around my now less than 100% areas, when I can, I still like that range. Just this morning, while I did very abbreviated ROM pec deck work to pre-exhaust my pecs (can’t do the deep stretch anymore because of my shoulder) and focused on a higher range - maybe 8-12, I followed up with incline smith work where my average reps each set were around 5 or so.

I have noticed though that with my labrum issue, if I rush too quickly from set to set, the area just feels fatigued fairly quickly. So while my rationale for feeling fully rested between sets may have changed somewhat, it still has that ‘good’ feeling to me. Whether my current weights constitute “heavy”,… well, I certainly wouldn’t compare the 2014 version of myself to the 2012 one. Still, I’m removed enough from those years that when I watch some training footage of myself from a few years ago, all I can think is “damn, what the hell was I thinking?!” -lol.

S

266

[quote]DoingWork421 wrote:
I realize that your own “inflection points” were not always obvious at the time you were making them. I guess my question is how you made the decision to make those different changes and what advice you might have for those facing similar transitions but not necessarily having the prods that you did (such as a schedule that precluded you from training every day, etc).

Sorry if this is too rambling and long a post. [/quote]

Lol, ok, that was a lot in that post, but I’ll try to address what I think was the main intent of it (if not, just throw more at me!)
Yes, I suppose a lot of my own points, at least early on in my intermediate/advanced stage, I couldn’t fully assess what I was doing. Sure I always TRIED to be objective about my progress, but I also bought into a lot of BS that guys in the gym (where everyone who wears an XL or <gasp!> a XXL shirt claims to know all the answers), and crap in the magazines would have you believe.

I obviously read a ton, but luckily I was fortunate to read a lot of very smart individuals, as well as come to be friendly with quite a good number of natty pros who all seemed to agree that I was already doing many things ‘correctly’ even if I was not fully cognizant of it myself. In your case, being about 5’10 and 205, if you’ve actually packed on a good deal of quality size, then the next step is obvious to me…

When I was first entertaining getting onstage, I ran a sort of semi-test diet for 2 months. Two things prompted me to do this. Firstly, If Cordova was getting onstage at 165 lbs (shredded to shit obviously!), and in person he looked pretty damned thick and massive, then there was a hell of a lot more to how “big” (read actual muscle) someone was then what they weighed or how big their t-shirts were. Secondly, if I could get the scale going down, and the mirror and my strength levels in the gym didn’t reflect that I was making a mistake (ie. losing muscle), then I would just suck it up, deal with the ‘omigawd I’m getting smaller!’ feeling, and finally see what I had truly built in my years pounding away at the iron.

I won’t lie, it’s scary as hell consciously structuring your day to whittle away at your physique. “Eat big and lift big” tends to fit into more people’s schedules without the risking the possible grumpiness, anti-social behavior, and just general unpleasantness that some dieters exhibit IMO. Not only can it be physically not fun, but mentally, it’s a reality check that many just aren’t ready for. That’s why so many guys will come up with every excuse in the book to never do it. Now I’m not saying you have to get onstage, that’s certainly not for everyone, but if you can’t be honest with yourself in terms of what you’ve done, then you run the risk of forever lying to yourself about where you’re going.

I had had enough gym goers over the years inquire if I ever thought about competing to have had the thought bounce around in my mind on more than a few occasions. What was the worst that could happen? I wasn’t going in expecting to win anything, so maybe I would get some photos and find out that I wasn’t as huge as I previously may have thought. Big deal. I defined myself by a hell of a lot more than my gym hobby, and I certainly never made a big deal out of it to other people anyway. I already knew there were other guys who were bigger and leaner than me, and I was very much okay with it :slight_smile:

Fitting things in, and restructuring your routine, well, if something’s important enough, you just suck it up and gut through. I’ve got a Meme on my phone from Yates that says Discipline is about giving up at the moment what you want in the long term. That about sums up any diet or contest prep. Of course if you’re like me, you start a thread on here and then everyone sees if you’re delivering or not week after week. Is it necessary? Nah, but to be honest, I think it helped me that first time quite a bit. Sure I hadn’t yet met so many of the T-Folks that I eventually would in real life, but there was still a feeling of not wanting to let any of the unknown readers who ran my thread views up without even replying each day down.

I guess the way I think about things, and this is anything, not just training, just allowed me to adapt and make adjustments without really disrupting my life in any big way. Of course, it’s easy to say this looking back now. You’d have to ask my brothers or my wife how much of a chore this lifestyle was when the competing got serious -lol.

S

267

[quote]DoingWork421 wrote:
One more short question:

How much of a benefit do you think you gained by competing for the first time relatively late in your training life? I can’t help but compare you and Lonnie Lowrey to folks who started competing at much younger training ages and feel like your (especially your own) successes derive at least in part from sparing your body from the strain of dieting down year after year.

I know that this is a sample size of two (lol), but I compare you to John Meadows, who started training much earlier (and had some medical issues), and I just wonder whether starting to compete so early is ultimately a good or bad idea. Of course, the answer may just be that it’s personal and people should compete whenever they’re “ready.”
[/quote]

This is an interesting topic, and to be honest, I’ve seen the opinions on it breakdown with the majority of competitors feeling one way, and the majority of people who have never stepped onstage (or dieted down) feeling the other. I’m only speaking in terms of what I’ve personally seen though, so before I comment, I’ll stress that my thoughts are my own and supported by all of the competitors I interact with on a regular basis, as well as the internet ‘experts’ I see on various forums (especially on here).

I’ve already written many times about the fact that I was “going to the gym” for about 15 years before I ever stepped foot onstage. Of course I’ll also point out that the level of commitment and sheer mental fortitude I had up to that point, while definitely commendable wasn’t what it would be once I started viewing myself as a competitor. So while I won’t deny that there was certainly some type of foundation built over all those early years, I will also point to the fact that I made my best ever gains after my 35th birthday. Year after year, I continued to improve my conditioning as well as my lean muscle mass (as evidenced at least by contest weights and photos).

If you’re going to talk about people getting onstage before they’re “ready”, meaning they haven’t built ANY muscle mass, well I don’t think it’s a great idea, as you certainly need at least a minimum amount of size before you start whittling away. However, I’ve personally seen plenty of young natty competitors who compete through their teen years, improving every year, and no one in their right mind would look at them and convince anyone that they had hurt themselves by dieting down. In fact, some of the most impressive young guys I know started relatively early, and have grown into monsters with no negative effects of stepping onstage each year. Heck, look at Anthony Monetti. The guy started competing in his teens, and is now one of the thickest Pros I’ve ever seen (also a damn nice guy who I’ve sat on several judging panels with). Now for everyone on this site who I’ve met in person, and told me what a “huge Middleweight” I was, lemme tell you that Monetti dwarfed me at my peak.

Sure if you’re going to compete every month for years on end, I doubt you’ll be able to make much if anything in the way of improvements, but for most competitors who step onstage once or twice as year tops, the idea that they’ve prevented themselves from reaching their optimal gains is just silly. There are too many people out there whose contest history (and accompanying pics) show this. I hate to reference myself as an example, because I’m far from being one of the top Pros, but my contest weight in 2009 was 170 lbs. In 2012 it was 178 lbs. This was while competing a couple of times each year, in my late 30’s, after “training” (at least “going to the gym” for 15-20 years). Any clean competitor will tell you that those gains I made, age aside, are damned impressive!

I know there will always be examples that you can cite against donning the trunks, like a kid who obsesses too much about silly minutae and never makes the progress he potentially could between shows. However, it’s not the competing or dieting down that ultimately hurts him, it’s his lack of intelligent training and/or nutritional protocols. If you feel you’re ready to test your mettle, and see how you stack up, or even just what you’ve really built, then go for it. Don’t let some possibly disillusioned, or in denial, experts in your gym, or online, put their own fears and irrationalities on you.

I’m trying to really give thought to answering these recent questions, but just wanted to say that I’ll be out of town, a little skiing and 'boarding in Colorado, this coming week. Cat says we’ll have WiFi in our lodge, so I might, or might not be around much. Just a little heads up so no one thinks I’m ignoring any threads, PMs, or Emails. :slight_smile:

S

268

Great thread Stu. Thank you for the invaluable information. I have a question on supplements banned by INBF. I read an older thread of yours where HOT-ROX was a banned substance.

I am competing in my first natural Physique show in April and was about to add some fat burning supplements to my arsenal…I was about to purchase HOT-ROX. Do you know if this is still in their banned list or is there anything else you would you recommend for my last 9 weeks?

I’m at 174 lbs, figure I probably need to be somewhere in the vicinity of 165. I’ve dropped all pre-workouts and daily caffeine for the last 6 weeks, except for one large cup of coffee before training. Mainly to reset my system and tolerancy to caffeine and stimulants. My current sups are Creatine(which I think I may drop for now), BCAA’s, Vitamin D, fish oil, Glucosamine.

Any advice would be appreciated.

269

[quote]yodaddy wrote:
Great thread Stu. Thank you for the invaluable information. I have a question on supplements banned by INBF. I read an older thread of yours where HOT-ROX was a banned substance.

I am competing in my first natural Physique show in April and was about to add some fat burning supplements to my arsenal…I was about to purchase HOT-ROX. Do you know if this is still in their banned list or is there anything else you would you recommend for my last 9 weeks?

I’m at 174 lbs, figure I probably need to be somewhere in the vicinity of 165. I’ve dropped all pre-workouts and daily caffeine for the last 6 weeks, except for one large cup of coffee before training. Mainly to reset my system and tolerancy to caffeine and stimulants. My current sups are Creatine(which I think I may drop for now), BCAA’s, Vitamin D, fish oil, Glucosamine.

Any advice would be appreciated. [/quote]

Yes, back in '09 I had to compete in a different federation because the ingredients in HR at the time were listed on the WNBF/INBF banned list. I do believe though that the product has since been reformulated, so you definitely want to double check that. As far as fat burning products go, I certainly was a big fan, however, you don’t want to screw up a poly or even a urinalysis for something so small. What I did use a few preps instead was something called Meltdown, which was pretty good, but eventually I just began getting yohimbine, caffeine, and tyrosine individually.

What I would suggest is to pull up the latest HR ingredient profile (click “store” up top for anyone reading along -lol), and compare to this file I’m going to try linking. It’s a fairly recent (2013 I believe) list of the federations banned substances.

Specifically, I would look under “Fat burning pro hormone derivatives”

http://thenaturalnorthamerica.com/BannedSubstanceList.pdf

As far as other supps, your listed items are all good. The only other real basic staples that I made use of myself was curcumin (which I always took with my fish oils because of the stress of the prep on my joints), and extra minerals with the intention of helping me sleep.

Any other questions, just lemme know!

S

270

Hey stu, thanks for all the information you have provided over the course of this thread and your other competition threads.
I was curious to see what your opinions on progressive overload are. Do you think that progressive overload is the best and fastest way to gain size? or maybe its the best way for beginners and intermediate lifters but not so for advanced lifters?

Although i know that you dont really train to increase your strength every workout now. However, in the past when you were training with that goal in mind and you occurred a plateau. what did you do to break those strength plateaus?

Thanks again for you being so helpful on this site!

271

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]yodaddy wrote:
Great thread Stu. Thank you for the invaluable information. I have a question on supplements banned by INBF. I read an older thread of yours where HOT-ROX was a banned substance.

I am competing in my first natural Physique show in April and was about to add some fat burning supplements to my arsenal…I was about to purchase HOT-ROX. Do you know if this is still in their banned list or is there anything else you would you recommend for my last 9 weeks?

I’m at 174 lbs, figure I probably need to be somewhere in the vicinity of 165. I’ve dropped all pre-workouts and daily caffeine for the last 6 weeks, except for one large cup of coffee before training. Mainly to reset my system and tolerancy to caffeine and stimulants. My current sups are Creatine(which I think I may drop for now), BCAA’s, Vitamin D, fish oil, Glucosamine.

Any advice would be appreciated. [/quote]

Yes, back in '09 I had to compete in a different federation because the ingredients in HR at the time were listed on the WNBF/INBF banned list. I do believe though that the product has since been reformulated, so you definitely want to double check that. As far as fat burning products go, I certainly was a big fan, however, you don’t want to screw up a poly or even a urinalysis for something so small. What I did use a few preps instead was something called Meltdown, which was pretty good, but eventually I just began getting yohimbine, caffeine, and tyrosine individually.

What I would suggest is to pull up the latest HR ingredient profile (click “store” up top for anyone reading along -lol), and compare to this file I’m going to try linking. It’s a fairly recent (2013 I believe) list of the federations banned substances.

Specifically, I would look under “Fat burning pro hormone derivatives”

http://thenaturalnorthamerica.com/BannedSubstanceList.pdf

As far as other supps, your listed items are all good. The only other real basic staples that I made use of myself was curcumin (which I always took with my fish oils because of the stress of the prep on my joints), and extra minerals with the intention of helping me sleep.

Any other questions, just lemme know!

S[/quote]

Greatly appreciated!

272

Hi Stu.
What do you think of very high volume for naturals? I know that you can build up volume in time and that you would have to find out what works for you etc… I saw Amits article yesterday and i couldn’t help my self thinking it is a hell of a lot volume and if it in most cases would be counterproductive for a natural?

Nothing negative on Amits article. I was thinking of giving it a shot myself but i’m just not sure if it is “too much” even with a solid diet and plenty of rest. What’s your approach on high volume for a natural?

Best regards

273

[quote]Mejlstrup wrote:
Hi Stu.
What do you think of very high volume for naturals? I know that you can build up volume in time and that you would have to find out what works for you etc… I saw Amits article yesterday and i couldn’t help my self thinking it is a hell of a lot volume and if it in most cases would be counterproductive for a natural?

Nothing negative on Amits article. I was thinking of giving it a shot myself but i’m just not sure if it is “too much” even with a solid diet and plenty of rest. What’s your approach on high volume for a natural?

Best regards[/quote]

You are definetly thinking along the correct lines here.

274

[quote]Mejlstrup wrote:
Hi Stu.
What do you think of very high volume for naturals? I know that you can build up volume in time and that you would have to find out what works for you etc… I saw Amits article yesterday and i couldn’t help my self thinking it is a hell of a lot volume and if it in most cases would be counterproductive for a natural?

Nothing negative on Amits article. I was thinking of giving it a shot myself but i’m just not sure if it is “too much” even with a solid diet and plenty of rest. What’s your approach on high volume for a natural?

Best regards[/quote]

Curious about your reply on this to Stu.

275

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
So while I won’t deny that there was certainly some type of foundation built over all those early years, I will also point to the fact that I made my best ever gains after my 35th birthday. [/quote]

As someone who is about to turn 35, I love reading this!

276

[quote]Mejlstrup wrote:
Hi Stu.
What do you think of very high volume for naturals? I know that you can build up volume in time and that you would have to find out what works for you etc… I saw Amits article yesterday and i couldn’t help my self thinking it is a hell of a lot volume and if it in most cases would be counterproductive for a natural?

Nothing negative on Amits article. I was thinking of giving it a shot myself but i’m just not sure if it is “too much” even with a solid diet and plenty of rest. What’s your approach on high volume for a natural?

Best regards[/quote]

First thing that must be touched on, is the fact that individuals are going to always differ greatly. In addition to factors such as age, experience, work outside of the gym (9-5 job, school, sports etc), mental stress etc, people are just going to vary quite a bit. Now, within that spectrum, there will always (ALWAYS!) be a difference between those who get a little help from PEDs and those who don’t. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise needs to step away from their computer and piles of self help books for a little bit.

I DO however think that over time you can develop a tolerance to and thereby be able to benefit from a greater amount of volume than you may have initially been able to. This is something that Bill Pearl often spoke about, and despite his admission of PED usage, he always struck me as a very analytically bright guy.

Of course despite being able to handle more volume, there is going to be a limit where it’s just too much. I’ve made jokes in the past about the programs outlined in Arnold’s Encyclopedia, where you’re doing every bodypart 3x a week, for 5 exercises each session, 5 sets each, training twice a day… because while some natties may indeed be able to make progress from greater frequency, I think that the volume must be adjusted inversely to some degree.

I will stress that in my best competitive years, I started doing much more volume than I previously had, BUT, I also made the most concerted effort I could have to focus on my nutrition and recovery. This meant not just having a good diet, but learning how to train for stimulus, and not just wearing myself down so I felt destroyed and sore the day after a session. If you view how much volume you’re using solely in terms of the number of sets, it won’t be a complete picture.

For example, I loved training ~5 reps each set, especially on my big ‘meat and potatoes’ movements. If I only did a few sets though, it just didn’t feel that I had done enough. Some days, I may have done 8-10 sets of an exercise in that rep range. Of course, that may only come out to 40-50 total reps, which isn’t much more volume than 4-5 sets of 10. To me, it was always about getting a certain amount of ‘productive’ reps with each movement. If that meant I needed a few more sets, after sufficient rest, then I’d wait a few minutes, and attack the weights again.

As to Amit’s article, you may be able to take it and adjust it down a bit if you feel it may be more than you can handle. Just because someone can recover from much more work than you can, is no reason to discount their understanding of sequencing movements in a routine, or stressing performance points. I think I made this point a couple of weeks ago about Lee Haney. I loved Haney, and I’ve borrowed (learned) many things from the man, BUT, I also realize that I can’t mimic his routine 100% (and the reason has nothing to do with genetics -lol)

S

277

I never realized Pearl ever admitted to using anything. I have one of his books and he is ADAMANT about the fact he was natty, repeatedly bringing it up. I understand that is kind of a trend among the old guard of the Golden Age, kind of like an old magicians club who will never reveal the secrets they have sworn to protect.

I can imagine at some point in the not too distant future using steroids wont have quite the stigma it does now, and the hush-hush aspect that is so prevalent in the sport today will be looked at as a “can you believe they used to hide it?” kind of thing. I say good riddance, as I believe much of damage done to lifters pysches (and wallets) is due to the unrealistic expectations that are set because no one can talk about their usage.

How many of us who train natural would have been little less crazy in our early years (carrying tupper ware, eating on the DOT ever 3 hours, etc…) if we knew an Arnold physique was impossible without aid, and that a lean 180-190 is really about the top of the line for most natty trainers? I suppose its a bit more open now, but even 10 years ago the info on net wasnt quite so prevalent and books like Pearls and Arnolds were really the biggest source of info around, you certainly didnt have height/weights/stats from natty shows around the country.

278

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I never realized Pearl ever admitted to using anything. I have one of his books and he is ADAMANT about the fact he was natty, repeatedly bringing it up. I understand that is kind of a trend among the old guard of the Golden Age, kind of like an old magicians club who will never reveal the secrets they have sworn to protect.

I can imagine at some point in the not too distant future using steroids wont have quite the stigma it does now, and the hush-hush aspect that is so prevalent in the sport today will be looked at as a “can you believe they used to hide it?” kind of thing. I say good riddance, as I believe much of damage done to lifters pysches (and wallets) is due to the unrealistic expectations that are set because no one can talk about their usage.

How many of us who train natural would have been little less crazy in our early years (carrying tupper ware, eating on the DOT ever 3 hours, etc…) if we knew an Arnold physique was impossible without aid, and that a lean 180-190 is really about the top of the line for most natty trainers? I suppose its a bit more open now, but even 10 years ago the info on net wasnt quite so prevalent and books like Pearls and Arnolds were really the biggest source of info around, you certainly didnt have height/weights/stats from natty shows around the country.[/quote]

Yeah, if you can find first printings of his books, he was pretty open about things. Of course I can only assume that as the general attitude of the bodybuilding community shifted in regard to how they were perceived, possibly he figured it was better to not openly admit to such controversial issues.

I think you can liken the perception of PEDs and the hush hush attitudes to wrestling now being referred to as Sports Entertainment. While in its early days, no one outside the business knew it was fake. Nowadays, people who are fans realize it’s not quite 100% real, but still embrace it. Similarly, in olden days, no one outside of the actual competitors even knew about PEDs in bodybuilding. Nowadays, people who are fans realize they play a part, and just accept it.

Your point about Arnold and Pearl’s books vs being able to truly get fairly accurate stats of unassisted lifters is truly good. I grew up reading those books, as well as Flex, but the day I stumbled upon an issue of Natural Bodybuilding and Fitness in the magazine shop of Penn Station in NYC, suddenly I had a much better assessment tool in terms of seeing an actual photo of an impressive physique, and understanding just what range of weight it would be in a lean state.

Like it or not, it really opened a box that you can’t just close or ignore anymore. If some guy online claims single digit bodyfat and a champion caliber physique at 5’7 and without the aid of chemical assistance, it’s just a matter of time before someone else throws up a picture of Whitacre or Cordova and says “so you look like this huh?” -lol

S

279

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I never realized Pearl ever admitted to using anything. I have one of his books and he is ADAMANT about the fact he was natty, repeatedly bringing it up. I understand that is kind of a trend among the old guard of the Golden Age, kind of like an old magicians club who will never reveal the secrets they have sworn to protect.

I can imagine at some point in the not too distant future using steroids wont have quite the stigma it does now, and the hush-hush aspect that is so prevalent in the sport today will be looked at as a “can you believe they used to hide it?” kind of thing. I say good riddance, as I believe much of damage done to lifters pysches (and wallets) is due to the unrealistic expectations that are set because no one can talk about their usage.

How many of us who train natural would have been little less crazy in our early years (carrying tupper ware, eating on the DOT ever 3 hours, etc…) if we knew an Arnold physique was impossible without aid, and that a lean 180-190 is really about the top of the line for most natty trainers? I suppose its a bit more open now, but even 10 years ago the info on net wasnt quite so prevalent and books like Pearls and Arnolds were really the biggest source of info around, you certainly didnt have height/weights/stats from natty shows around the country.[/quote]

Yeah, if you can find first printings of his books, he was pretty open about things. Of course I can only assume that as the general attitude of the bodybuilding community shifted in regard to how they were perceived, possibly he figured it was better to not openly admit to such controversial issues.

I think you can liken the perception of PEDs and the hush hush attitudes to wrestling now being referred to as Sports Entertainment. While in its early days, no one outside the business knew it was fake. Nowadays, people who are fans realize it’s not quite 100% real, but still embrace it. Similarly, in olden days, no one outside of the actual competitors even knew about PEDs in bodybuilding. Nowadays, people who are fans realize they play a part, and just accept it.

Your point about Arnold and Pearl’s books vs being able to truly get fairly accurate stats of unassisted lifters is truly good. I grew up reading those books, as well as Flex, but the day I stumbled upon an issue of Natural Bodybuilding and Fitness in the magazine shop of Penn Station in NYC, suddenly I had a much better assessment tool in terms of seeing an actual photo of an impressive physique, and understanding just what range of weight it would be in a lean state.

Like it or not, it really opened a box that you can’t just close or ignore anymore. If some guy online claims single digit bodyfat and a champion caliber physique at 5’7 and without the aid of chemical assistance, it’s just a matter of time before someone else throws up a picture of Whitacre or Cordova and says “so you look like this huh?” -lol

S
[/quote]
Good posts Stu and Lonnie

280

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Mejlstrup wrote:
Hi Stu.
What do you think of very high volume for naturals? I know that you can build up volume in time and that you would have to find out what works for you etc… I saw Amits article yesterday and i couldn’t help my self thinking it is a hell of a lot volume and if it in most cases would be counterproductive for a natural?

Nothing negative on Amits article. I was thinking of giving it a shot myself but i’m just not sure if it is “too much” even with a solid diet and plenty of rest. What’s your approach on high volume for a natural?

Best regards[/quote]

First thing that must be touched on, is the fact that individuals are going to always differ greatly. In addition to factors such as age, experience, work outside of the gym (9-5 job, school, sports etc), mental stress etc, people are just going to vary quite a bit. Now, within that spectrum, there will always (ALWAYS!) be a difference between those who get a little help from PEDs and those who don’t. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise needs to step away from their computer and piles of self help books for a little bit.

I DO however think that over time you can develop a tolerance to and thereby be able to benefit from a greater amount of volume than you may have initially been able to. This is something that Bill Pearl often spoke about, and despite his admission of PED usage, he always struck me as a very analytically bright guy.

Of course despite being able to handle more volume, there is going to be a limit where it’s just too much. I’ve made jokes in the past about the programs outlined in Arnold’s Encyclopedia, where you’re doing every bodypart 3x a week, for 5 exercises each session, 5 sets each, training twice a day… because while some natties may indeed be able to make progress from greater frequency, I think that the volume must be adjusted inversely to some degree.

I will stress that in my best competitive years, I started doing much more volume than I previously had, BUT, I also made the most concerted effort I could have to focus on my nutrition and recovery. This meant not just having a good diet, but learning how to train for stimulus, and not just wearing myself down so I felt destroyed and sore the day after a session. If you view how much volume you’re using solely in terms of the number of sets, it won’t be a complete picture.

For example, I loved training ~5 reps each set, especially on my big ‘meat and potatoes’ movements. If I only did a few sets though, it just didn’t feel that I had done enough. Some days, I may have done 8-10 sets of an exercise in that rep range. Of course, that may only come out to 40-50 total reps, which isn’t much more volume than 4-5 sets of 10. To me, it was always about getting a certain amount of ‘productive’ reps with each movement. If that meant I needed a few more sets, after sufficient rest, then I’d wait a few minutes, and attack the weights again.

As to Amit’s article, you may be able to take it and adjust it down a bit if you feel it may be more than you can handle. Just because someone can recover from much more work than you can, is no reason to discount their understanding of sequencing movements in a routine, or stressing performance points. I think I made this point a couple of weeks ago about Lee Haney. I loved Haney, and I’ve borrowed (learned) many things from the man, BUT, I also realize that I can’t mimic his routine 100% (and the reason has nothing to do with genetics -lol)

S[/quote]

Thank you for the thoughtful answer, Stu. Really appreciate it.