[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
Fucking retarded.
What is your problem? Quit whining.
There are tons of idiot trainers out there. I happen to be one of them.[/quote]
lol
[quote]roybot wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
You may. Soreness = microtrauma = hypertrophy
Wrong! Soreness can just as easily result from a build up of lactic acid. It can’t be used as an accurate indicator of growth.
[/quote]
this.
if NP can’t understand this simple fact, well, thankfully 24hour fitness trainers never make it very far in the training world, so they’re absurd/stupid/misinformed “thoughts” stay in their local area and cant spread.
i listened to a “trainer” the other day tell his client that cheese is terrible for you since he stopped eating it he lost weight (thermodynamics much?) and that no other animal anywhere drinks other species milk, so therefore milk is terrible as well. and that pasteurized milk is even worse, but radiated vegetables are not.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Hey, most revelations have to do with SIMPLE STUFF.
How many times do you need to hear Alwyn Cosgrove or someone similar tell you to focus on the BIG things before the small ones?
This article is an extension of that philosophy.
It is not “stupid”. YOU are stupid for expecting it to be something more than it is.
The most important things are always simple.
If “just get em’ strong” was a valid contribution when it was posted elsewhere on this site, then surely my contribution is equally valid.
There really are two fundamental types of trainees, and thus, two fundamental training styles. This is news. This is useful information that can be taken and applied. It was worth posting.[/quote]
Remember the crowd here knows it all. You didn’t expect them to read your post and provide anything insightful did you?
[quote]slimthugger wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Hey, most revelations have to do with SIMPLE STUFF.
How many times do you need to hear Alwyn Cosgrove or someone similar tell you to focus on the BIG things before the small ones?
This article is an extension of that philosophy.
It is not “stupid”. YOU are stupid for expecting it to be something more than it is.
The most important things are always simple.
If “just get em’ strong” was a valid contribution when it was posted elsewhere on this site, then surely my contribution is equally valid.
There really are two fundamental types of trainees, and thus, two fundamental training styles. This is news. This is useful information that can be taken and applied. It was worth posting.
Remember the crowd here knows it all. You didn’t expect them to read your post and provide anything insightful did you? [/quote]
LOL
Did you post those pictures yet?
[quote]slimthugger wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Hey, most revelations have to do with SIMPLE STUFF.
How many times do you need to hear Alwyn Cosgrove or someone similar tell you to focus on the BIG things before the small ones?
This article is an extension of that philosophy.
It is not “stupid”. YOU are stupid for expecting it to be something more than it is.
The most important things are always simple.
If “just get em’ strong” was a valid contribution when it was posted elsewhere on this site, then surely my contribution is equally valid.
There really are two fundamental types of trainees, and thus, two fundamental training styles. This is news. This is useful information that can be taken and applied. It was worth posting.
Remember the crowd here knows it all. You didn’t expect them to read your post and provide anything insightful did you? [/quote]
Why don’t I get handjobs from random people like Nominal?
Listen, I’m all for going against the grain and all that shit, but when everyone thinks there’s something wrong with you…maybe it’s because there is something wrong!
You read all these inspirational quotes about don’t do what the majority is doing, the majority is always wrong, which is romantic thinking and all, but in the real world the majority is the majority for a reason.
You can say that a red hot iron isn’t hot, but just because you believe it isn’t, doesn’t make it real to reality.
Since NP is posting in this thread- I have a question regarding a website you posted in another thread:
http://www.biblelife.org/myths.htm
This page (and others within that site) claim that we should eat NO carbs, that fiber is unnecessary and evil, etc. There is one quote that says “never eat lettuce”.
Now, were you just posting that link to support some isolated point or do you think the POV on that site has merit?
I would obviously be interested in the opinions of guys like Bill Roberts, etc. on that site. It has a ton of info, but it gets hard to separate the BS from the truly reliable info.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
There are tons of idiot trainers out there. I happen to be one of them.[/quote]
Fixed it for you.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
No fat housewive wants to learn how to do the big three lifts. They need to develop their mind-muscle connection (which is usually severely lacking) and learn how to target specific muscle groups by using machines. They don’t need to squat 200 lbs, 100 lbs, or even 40 lbs. They’ll be able to do bodyweight squats just fine once they lose their excess blubber.
[/quote]
Explain to me how it is benefical to these fat housewives to avoid learning to use ALL of their muscles together in a coordinated effort? What good does it do them to learn how to contract individual muscles? I havent met a single person who couldnt extend their knee, but finding an average person with the coordination and mobility to squat properly is a different story.
Hm, I take it you people are at least enjoying yourselves… Oh well.
[quote]roybot wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
You may. Soreness = microtrauma = hypertrophy
Wrong! Soreness can just as easily result from a build up of lactic acid. It can’t be used as an accurate indicator of growth.
[/quote]
I might have to disagree with you here. I agree that soreness isn’t a great indicator of growth or progress, but lactic acid buildup can be a good indicator of stimulus for progress.
But I agree soreness almost means nothing. If you want to get sore, fast for a day, then do heavy eccentric squats with high volume, and continue to fast for the rest of that day.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Hm, I take it you people are at least enjoying yourselves… Oh well.
[/quote]
Your damn right. This is the high point of my day. These threads are what drives a site like T-Nation.
You know me though. Im all for being unconventional and finding “better” or different ways of doing things. There are three types of trainers in my mind. The trainer with novel ideas, the trainer who gets results, and the trainer with novel ideas that is effective.
The third one is probably going to have the best success in the industry, but that doesn’t mean he or she should be stubborn and ignore all the science, or follow the science and ignore everything else. There are so many different methods of getting the same results, and I always think its best to understand what works, and why it works, and have many tools in your tool box.
But ya, this guy’s “revelations” are so unconventional that he’ll probably become a top trainer in hollywood. J/K I still think he just stated the obvious. He would be much better off being a palm reader, or a psychic so he could “reveal” more reduntant redundancies to people.
***Oh and carnage, you know if I posted this thread you’d be giving me hell for it, so why arent you now? Has it gotten old for you?
[quote]dankid wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Hm, I take it you people are at least enjoying yourselves… Oh well.
Your damn right. This is the high point of my day. These threads are what drives a site like T-Nation.
You know me though. Im all for being unconventional and finding “better” or different ways of doing things. There are three types of trainers in my mind. The trainer with novel ideas, the trainer who gets results, and the trainer with novel ideas that is effective. The third one is probably going to have the best success in the industry, but that doesn’t mean he or she should be stubborn and ignore all the science, or follow the science and ignore everything else. There are so many different methods of getting the same results, and I always think its best to understand what works, and why it works, and have many tools in your tool box.
But ya, this guy’s “revelations” are so unconventional that he’ll probably become a top trainer in hollywood. J/K I still think he just stated the obvious. He would be much better off being a palm reader, or a psychic so he could “reveal” more reduntant redundancies to people.
***Oh and carnage, you know if I posted this thread you’d be giving me hell for it, so why arent you now? Has it gotten old for you?[/quote]
I’m not chiming in against NP because I know that he is a troll and that no one in their right is going to take him seriously (the ones that do are beyond help anyway).
With you I’m never entirely certain.
I still wonder if the two of you aren’t just alternative accounts/personalities of HeadHunter, though.
He doesn’t seem to be all that active these days. Coincidence ? 
[quote]dankid wrote:
roybot wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
You may. Soreness = microtrauma = hypertrophy
Wrong! Soreness can just as easily result from a build up of lactic acid. It can’t be used as an accurate indicator of growth.
I might have to disagree with you here. I agree that soreness isn’t a great indicator of growth or progress, but lactic acid buildup can be a good indicator of stimulus for progress.
But I agree soreness almost means nothing. If you want to get sore, fast for a day, then do heavy eccentric squats with high volume, and continue to fast for the rest of that day.
[/quote]
Lactic acid is a waste product generated as a result of fatigue during heavy exercise, and nothing more. I can’t see how it can be used as an indicator for anything other the fact that you have lactic acid in the bloodstream and you are getting tired.
Sure, it tells you that you have been working hard, but it’s not going to make you run faster or make your muscles bigger or stronger by itself.
I was responding to Nominal Prospect’s claim that “soreness = microtrauma = hypertrophy”. Clearly, soreness is not always caused by microtrauma, so his formula is inaccurate.
The reason I specifically mentioned lactic acid is that it will cause soreness after exercise without inducing hypertrophy. I wasn’t trying to argue anything beyond that.
[quote]roybot wrote:
dankid wrote:
roybot wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
You may. Soreness = microtrauma = hypertrophy
Wrong! Soreness can just as easily result from a build up of lactic acid. It can’t be used as an accurate indicator of growth.
I might have to disagree with you here. I agree that soreness isn’t a great indicator of growth or progress, but lactic acid buildup can be a good indicator of stimulus for progress.
But I agree soreness almost means nothing. If you want to get sore, fast for a day, then do heavy eccentric squats with high volume, and continue to fast for the rest of that day.
Lactic acid is a waste product generated as a result of fatigue during heavy exercise, and nothing more. I can’t see how it can be used as an indicator for anything other the fact that you have lactic acid in the bloodstream and you are getting tired.
Sure, it tells you that you have been working hard, but it’s not going to make you run faster or make your muscles bigger or stronger by itself.
I was responding to Nominal Prospect’s claim that “soreness = microtrauma = hypertrophy”. Clearly, soreness is not always caused by microtrauma, so his formula is inaccurate.
The reason I specifically mentioned lactic acid is that it will cause soreness after exercise without inducing hypertrophy. I wasn’t trying to argue anything beyond that.
[/quote]
I don’t even think it’s just heavy excercise. Go run 5 miles and you will have a buildup of Lactic Acid and corresponding muscle soreness the following few days. However this is certainly not going to make your legs huge. I actually think endurance type excercises will build up more lactic acid than the heavy stuff. Who knows.
Look, NP has SOME valid points. The whole point of bashing him is that who friggin cares. Many people will respond to many different training styles based on a zillion different variables. A good trainer will do individual assesments and try to hit the most productive method right off the bat, but if progress is slow, a good trainer will attempt to adapt the training until it is effective. Him saying he can throw everyone into 2 boxes is assenine.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I don’t even think it’s just heavy excercise. Go run 5 miles and you will have a buildup of Lactic Acid and corresponding muscle soreness the following few days. However this is certainly not going to make your legs huge. I actually think endurance type excercises will build up more lactic acid than the heavy stuff. Who knows.
Look, NP has SOME valid points. The whole point of bashing him is that who friggin cares. Many people will respond to many different training styles based on a zillion different variables. A good trainer will do individual assesments and try to hit the most productive method right off the bat, but if progress is slow, a good trainer will attempt to adapt the training until it is effective. Him saying he can throw everyone into 2 boxes is assenine.
V[/quote]
I agree with everything you’ve said. I meant heavy exercise in a relative sense: ‘heavy’ exercise for a sedentary individual is not going to be the same as for a well conditioned athlete.
Maybe ‘challenging’ would have been a better term. I’m not trying to bash the guy, but NP issued a challenge for someone to refute his theories.
I saw some gaping holes in his thinking, so I pointed them out.
[quote]roybot wrote:
Vegita wrote:
I don’t even think it’s just heavy excercise. Go run 5 miles and you will have a buildup of Lactic Acid and corresponding muscle soreness the following few days. However this is certainly not going to make your legs huge. I actually think endurance type excercises will build up more lactic acid than the heavy stuff. Who knows.
Look, NP has SOME valid points. The whole point of bashing him is that who friggin cares. Many people will respond to many different training styles based on a zillion different variables. A good trainer will do individual assesments and try to hit the most productive method right off the bat, but if progress is slow, a good trainer will attempt to adapt the training until it is effective. Him saying he can throw everyone into 2 boxes is assenine.
V
I agree with everything you’ve said. I meant heavy exercise in a relative sense: ‘heavy’ exercise for a sedentary individual is not going to be the same as for a well conditioned athlete.
Maybe ‘challenging’ would have been a better term. I’m not trying to bash the guy, but NP issued a challenge for someone to refute his theories.
I saw some gaping holes in his thinking, so I pointed them out.
[/quote]
AHHHHH yea I get what yopu meant now. Cool. BTW I don’t mind Bashing NP, or anyone else who makes an ass of themselves. Doesn’t mean he’ll be forever stuck in the halls of trolldom, but he’ll have to have some logical discussions on the board before he can rejoin the realm of non-idiocy.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
roybot wrote:
Vegita wrote:
I don’t even think it’s just heavy excercise. Go run 5 miles and you will have a buildup of Lactic Acid and corresponding muscle soreness the following few days. However this is certainly not going to make your legs huge. I actually think endurance type excercises will build up more lactic acid than the heavy stuff. Who knows.
Look, NP has SOME valid points. The whole point of bashing him is that who friggin cares. Many people will respond to many different training styles based on a zillion different variables. A good trainer will do individual assesments and try to hit the most productive method right off the bat, but if progress is slow, a good trainer will attempt to adapt the training until it is effective. Him saying he can throw everyone into 2 boxes is assenine.
V
I agree with everything you’ve said. I meant heavy exercise in a relative sense: ‘heavy’ exercise for a sedentary individual is not going to be the same as for a well conditioned athlete.
Maybe ‘challenging’ would have been a better term. I’m not trying to bash the guy, but NP issued a challenge for someone to refute his theories.
I saw some gaping holes in his thinking, so I pointed them out.
AHHHHH yea I get what yopu meant now. Cool. BTW I don’t mind Bashing NP, or anyone else who makes an ass of themselves. Doesn’t mean he’ll be forever stuck in the halls of trolldom, but he’ll have to have some logical discussions on the board before he can rejoin the realm of non-idiocy.
V[/quote]
I’m not sure he’ll ever shake off his reputation as a troll. I was just a lurker on these boards long before I thought that I could contribute anything worthwhile, so I know that NP is a shit-monger of epic proportions.
None of the longer standing members of this site are willing to enter into a debate with him and I see that it’s not because he’s always right (as he apparently believes), but because he will never accept that he’s wrong.
I just thought that if I could point out the obvious flaws in his thinking, then it would shut him up sooner rather than later, because this pseudo-intellectual act is wearing thin. Really fucking thin.
If someone is genuinely insightful and intelligent, they don’t have to go ramming it down people’s throats like he does.
Just because I’m willing to enter into a debate with him doesn’t mean that I take him seriously.
I mean, the guy has got a serious love affair going on with Putin (aka Dobby the elf). Sorry NP, Dobby loves Harry Potter more than you…
And worse still, he leaves such a trail of bullshit in his wake that it attracts other, minor trolls that feed of the all crap that he spews (slimthugger, I’m talking to you).
It reminds me of the Cloverfield monster with all those bloodsucking parasites it unleashes on the population…
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
dankid wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Hm, I take it you people are at least enjoying yourselves… Oh well.
Your damn right. This is the high point of my day. These threads are what drives a site like T-Nation.
You know me though. Im all for being unconventional and finding “better” or different ways of doing things. There are three types of trainers in my mind. The trainer with novel ideas, the trainer who gets results, and the trainer with novel ideas that is effective. The third one is probably going to have the best success in the industry, but that doesn’t mean he or she should be stubborn and ignore all the science, or follow the science and ignore everything else. There are so many different methods of getting the same results, and I always think its best to understand what works, and why it works, and have many tools in your tool box.
But ya, this guy’s “revelations” are so unconventional that he’ll probably become a top trainer in hollywood. J/K I still think he just stated the obvious. He would be much better off being a palm reader, or a psychic so he could “reveal” more reduntant redundancies to people.
***Oh and carnage, you know if I posted this thread you’d be giving me hell for it, so why arent you now? Has it gotten old for you?
I’m not chiming in against NP because I know that he is a troll and that no one in their right is going to take him seriously (the ones that do are beyond help anyway).
With you I’m never entirely certain.
I still wonder if the two of you aren’t just alternative accounts/personalities of HeadHunter, though.
He doesn’t seem to be all that active these days. Coincidence ?
[/quote]
Well C_C i find it good that people keep replying to this thread and shooting it down. Because if no one was that’d be a bad sign towards the knowledge level of the sight. Also, if no one replied, and some noob digs this up and takes it as truth…well leave it up to imagination.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
There are tons of idiot trainers out there. I happen to be one of them.
Fixed it for you.
Nominal Prospect wrote:
No fat housewive wants to learn how to do the big three lifts. They need to develop their mind-muscle connection (which is usually severely lacking) and learn how to target specific muscle groups by using machines. They don’t need to squat 200 lbs, 100 lbs, or even 40 lbs. They’ll be able to do bodyweight squats just fine once they lose their excess blubber.
Explain to me how it is benefical to these fat housewives to avoid learning to use ALL of their muscles together in a coordinated effort? What good does it do them to learn how to contract individual muscles? I havent met a single person who couldnt extend their knee, but finding an average person with the coordination and mobility to squat properly is a different story.[/quote]
It’s not meant to benefit the fat housewives, it’s meant to benefit the trainer. If you taught these cows the right way, they’d get good results and realize they can do it on their own WITHOUT a trainer.
So, the shitty trainer has to make it seem really hard. The results come incredibly slowly and the housewife thinks “Gee, this is so HARD, there’s no way I could manage to this on my own, thank god for my trainer!”
A year later, she’s lost only 10-20 pounds and still looks like a fat sack of shit while his wallet gets fatter and fatter.
[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
It’s not meant to benefit the fat housewives, it’s meant to benefit the trainer. If you taught these cows the right way, they’d get good results and realize they can do it on their own WITHOUT a trainer.
So, the shitty trainer has to make it seem really hard. The results come incredibly slowly and the housewife thinks “Gee, this is so HARD, there’s no way I could manage to this on my own, thank god for my trainer!”
A year later, she’s lost only 10-20 pounds and still looks like a fat sack of shit while his wallet gets fatter and fatter.
[/quote]
Exactly. The same is true of any trade (in this case a PT), but it applies to anybody providing a service - if a problem was fixed permanently, the tradesperson would be out of a job.
Now if the problem was only fixed temporarily, the tradesperson would be able to return to perform “maintenance”. In the end, it’s all about the money.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
I’m amazed that you guys take him seriously?
My congratulations to you, NP, you always manage this feat for some reason.
What do you do to make them forget your previous escapades over and over again? Soviet mind-control tech ?
[/quote]
I have been using the internet since about 1998. I’ve been posting on various message boards since 01 or 02.
I have posted on forums about online computer games, bodybuilding, health, politics, philosophy, general interest, computer hardware, and likely a few others which I’m forgetting.
On nearly every board where I amassed a good number of posts, I developed the reputation of being a provacateur and sometimes a “troll”.
All I’ve been doing the entire time, is presenting my views as directly and plainly as I can. Not once have I intentionally written anything which I did not believe just to get a rise out of people. Have I timed certain statements to provoke a reaction? Absolutely. Does this mean I don’t believe in what I’m saying? Not in the least. I stand ready to wage protracted wars to defend every one of my remarks.
I am not a troll. I state what I believe. What you see online is a very accurate representation of my real world beliefs and personna.
Stop worrying, “is he a troll? is he a troll?” and either ignore my posts or reply to them with something meaningful.
Do not be like a dumb, neurotic woman, constantly worrying about irrelevant details.
In the final analysis, I make certain assertions, and those assertions are either WRONG or they are RIGHT. Concentrate on PROVING my assertions wrong if you disagree with me, instead of constantly attacking my character.
There are people in this world who hold extremely unconventional views who nevertheless uphold these views just as much - more so, in fact - than the majority who hold conventional views.
Please explain to me what is “not to be taken seriously” about this thread. I am genuinely curious to learn your thinking process.
I started off with what I believed would be a legitimate premise: the concept of “just get em’ stronger”. Why is it legitimate? Because it has been used elsewhere on this site by people like Eric Cressey, who is a respected contributor. Had EC made this thread, I think the reaction would have been significantly different.
The only thing I did was to take this premise and expand on it a little.
And you call this trolling? You think I’m just vying for attention? You can’t see how I possibly could have intended to make an academic point by expanding on something that had already been established? What’s the matter with you?