My 'Revelation' About Training

Training Bodybuilding
201

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Rate of gains in muscle-mass depend on how fast you make strength gains in in the 5+ rep ranges…

Really?! Do you have literature to back that up or just anecdotal evidence?

Shit, so all I had to do my entire lifting career was make increases in my 5+ rep range to make an increase in muscle mass? Wow! That is enlightening.

That sounds entirely like what all noobs do, anyway.

In other words, you have no clue and like to overcomplicate everything?

[/quote]

Ok, this thread has gotten way off topic. What are we talking about?

NP is right. His progress, or lack of it, does not negate that.

202

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I am interested in if you think increasing strength on a regular basis for years will NOT involve an increase in muscle mass.

Of course, that is the entire argument I was making. How many YEARS it takes is a matter for the individual to worry about.

Plus, it is really hard to objectively know this on an interweb forum about specific posters when all of the necessary information is not at hand. For example, as a MD would you make a diagnoses without knowing all the facts and being able to observe that person first hand?[/quote]

This is bodybuilding, not an alveoloplasty (as I am a DDS, not an MD). A picture is worth a thousand words and acting like a personal trainer does not require a medical degree. It never has. This activity is simply NOT that complicated. It simply takes more heart and drive than most people can put together…thus weeding out the people who will simply waste your time.

There is much you can tell about someone over the internet, especially when it comes to bodybuilding. I could have told you the OP has made little progress simply by how he perceives issues concerning bodybuilding.

Just like YOU do.

203

[quote]Professor X wrote:
A picture is worth a thousand words…
[/quote]

but a training and diet log to go along with it would be a more complete picture.

204

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
A picture is worth a thousand words…

but a training and diet log to go along with it would be a more complete picture.[/quote]

I don’t keep a log and never have. Your results are what is important. That means if you, much like the OP, have been training for years and made that little progress, it might just be time to quit acting like you have it all figured out.

205

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I am interested in if you think increasing strength on a regular basis for years will NOT involve an increase in muscle mass.

Of course, that is the entire argument I was making. How many YEARS it takes is a matter for the individual to worry about.

[/quote]

If you increase your strength in the hypertrophy range at a very slow rate, your gains will come slow.

If you train in a way which allows relatively fast strength gain for enough reps while eating enough then you will make much much faster progress.

You can worry about years all you want, if you increase strength at snail’s pace then you can train for 10 or even 30 years and still look totally unimpressive. Plenty of those people around.

Are you seriously debating this? The op had more than enough time and still failed completely.

206

[quote]Professor X wrote:
it might just be time to quit acting like you have it all figured out.[/quote]

I never said I do nor do I think that the OP thinks he does. I only was responding to what I saw as a good generalization. That you choose to turn this into an Alpha Male contest (which I like playing along with) is not my problem.

Weight training is a continual personal experiment. That is all I know and I will always take the time to consider new pieces of info that have never occurred to me before.

207

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
The op had more than enough time and still failed completely.
[/quote]

How do you know?

208

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
The op had more than enough time and still failed completely.

How do you know?[/quote]

He’s been on here for two years with no progress? Plus what tribunaldude said? Are you going to tell me now that it’s impossible to make progress within 2 years?

You don’t even understand the most basic principle of mass-gain, you continue to defend a known troll just for the sake of arguing (why the hell do you think Bill would show no respect towards this guy? Or any other experienced member on here who has entered this thread or other threads of NP?) what the hell are you trying to achieve here?

Do you want us to say “Oh golly-gosh, Nominal Prospect is a genius! All hail him! Who cares if he makes no progress at all, makes idiotic statements and has been a known troll on many forums for a long time” ?

209

All my hard work, skills of deduction and patience and we still can’t make fun of Al Shades without the moral police?
What else do you guys need now? A video of him jacking off to Pavarotti’s “Figaro” in the shower?
Let this thread swing back to the honorable mission of abusing NP beyond recognition…or die a respectable death! Enough arguments!

210

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
All my hard work, skills of deduction and patience and we still can’t make fun of Al Shades without the moral police?
What else do you guys need now? A video of him jacking off to Pavarotti’s “Figaro” in the shower?
Let this thread swing back to the honorable mission of abusing NP beyond recognition…or die a respectable death! Enough arguments![/quote]

No shit…

211

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

This post makes the point of my original post very clear. The OP was specifically talking to trainers about the generalization that could be made about the common client. There was nothing in his post that was technically wrong or logically inconsistent.

Besides, pro bodybuilders are not athletes. They are people who like to look at big muscles in the mirror and wear tight bikini briefs on a stage. I think they would fall under category 2 of the OP.

Case closed.[/quote]

Here is NP’s ‘revelation’ again, exactly as he wrote it:

[quote] Group 1: The Performance Oriented Crowd
Includes Pro Athletes, aspiring athletes, or dedicated recreational trainees

How to train them in a nutshell:
“Just get em’ strong”

Group 2: The Health/Aesthetics/No-clue-what-they-want crowd (i.e. everyone who doesn’t fall into group 1)

Includes housewives, coach potatoes, the terminally obese, weekend warriors, 99.8% of women, seniors, and all the types of people who usually buy personal training. [/quote]

As you can see, group one includes pro athletes, so NP’s ‘generalization’ is clearly not intended for the average trainee or ‘common client’ alone.

It is a huge mistake to train anyone looking for increased athletic performance for strength alone. There are many other aspects of performance that have been ignored here. Even if it is just a generalization, it is very dangerous and not a very logical one.

I also don’t believe that you can lump serious bodybuilders (at any level) in with any of the other types of trainee mentioned in group 2. That is another, very dangerous assumption.

An effective workout plan for a serious bodybuilder would not look anything like one designed for the average gymgoer. Even when generalizing you cannot compare them: the difference between them is going to be so great that the bodybuilder’s training style is probably going to require a separate group.

It’s like trying to train a sprinter and a marathon runner in exactly the same way because they both run. That is just as logical, but logical thinking alone doesn’t always pan out in the real world.

Just look at HIT and Static Contraction Training - both systems were devised through purely logical thinking. They looked great in theory, but weren’t all they were cracked up to be when put into practice. Sometimes logic is best left to the Vulcans.

Real world results win out over theory and logic every time.

212

[quote]roybot wrote:

Real world results win out over theory and logic every time.

[/quote]

I’ve seen people say the opposite (seriously)…
On this very site.

No use arguing with fanatics.

213


Wow, some people just can’t see the forest through the trees.

214

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
roybot wrote:

Real world results win out over theory and logic every time.

I’ve seen people say the opposite (seriously)…
On this very site.

No use arguing with fanatics.[/quote]

And yet the fanatics are the ones left in the dust with the least impressive results.

Still, at least they look really intelligent, what with their big words and all.

Um, they do look really intelligent…don’t they?..

215

Outcome of this thread=LOL

216

Best.

Thread.

Ever.

Wal-Mart is all sold out of troll kibble and goat-flavoured biscuits.

This thread is so huge that homeless people are starting to feel safe sleeping under bridges again.

-chris

217

well done Avocado.

218

I know I said I would take the time to refute all of NP’s claims, but frankly im too busy with school to waste my time on it.

But I will say this. NP, if you take the time to offer a reasonable arguement for your claims, then i’ll take the time to prove you wrong, or at least destroy your argument. But you have to understand if you come on here and offer “hasty generalizations” without results, or any form of argument to back them up, then your going to get about as much respect as a 2$ hooker.

Its easy to offer up claims with no evidence to back them up. But in the real world, smart people base things on fact and not just what someone else claims.

For example,

I could claim this:

  1. All men want big muscles, therefore if a client is a man, then train them like a bodybuilder.

  2. If the client is not a man, then they dont want big muscles, so train them like a skinny model.

This is a horrible generalization, but about as sound as yours. There are so many problems in it that I could argue against it all day. First off, the whole statement is based on the assumption that all men want to be huge, and women dont. The fact that there are many men that dont want to be huge, and many women that might want to be huge makes this generalization useless.

Then, outside of just plain logic, is the science of exercise. Sure if a guy wants to get huge you can get really good results training him like a bodybuilder. But on the otherhand, theres the girl that wants to look like a skinny model. How do skinny models train? Maybe they dont train? Maybe they are addicted to coke?

So how do you train a women then?

Lets just assume that skinny models train using programs similar to magazine programs with pink dumbells. Sure this might get the client the results she wants, but maybe training like a bodybuilder would be better? Sure she might get huge, but doesn’t mass have a lot to do with nutrition? So really, you could train both men and women the same way, but have them modify their diets to get different results?

Hmmmmm. very interesting.

Your generalizations are about as loose as the one I made, and will fall apart just as easily. So all im asking, is offer up an argument before I shoot it down.

219

[quote]dankid wrote:

  1. All men want big muscles, therefore if a client is a man, then train them like a bodybuilder.

  2. If the client is not a man, then they dont want big muscles, so train them like a skinny model.
    [/quote]

The difference between the above arguments and the arguments offered by NP is that you begin with blatantly incorrect premises.

NP’s premises are not incorrect and, in fact, must be deduced before they can be refuted. Since his reasoning was not incorrect then it requires you to first deduce and then refute the premise to prove him wrong.

Let me help you understand the inferred premise of his first generalization. Athletic performance is dependent on strength.

There are only two ways to refute an argument:

  1. demonstrate that the premise is not true.
  2. demonstrate that the premise results in a conclusion that is not true.

The caveat is this:
One can have a sound argument with both a true premise and a true conclusion but still fail to reproduce the expected results due to a faulty method – e.g. failing to train a client properly in the manner of a powerlifter.

We see this happen in laboratory settings all the time due to carelessness and not necessarily faulty reasoning.

220

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
All my hard work, skills of deduction and patience and we still can’t make fun of Al Shades without the moral police?
What else do you guys need now? A video of him jacking off to Pavarotti’s “Figaro” in the shower?

Let this thread swing back to the honorable mission of abusing NP beyond recognition…or die a respectable death! Enough arguments!

No shit… [/quote]

What really surprises me, was how long it took some of you to figure out he was a troll. I perused some of the politics and off topic threads when I first joined here (some of the BS in there makes NP look sophisticated by comparison) and after reading one post by this guy about his “racialist” beliefs I immediately knew that he was a troll, as well as a douch, and a pretentious little twat at that.