Nominal Prospect wrote:
Bodybuilders train to failure. Soreness is the goal.
Really ?
So why dont you hit your clients on the legs with a baseball bat ??
Should do the soreness bit very fast ![/quote]
Because it’s an entirely different type of soreness - internal versus external. You are making a semantic distinction, and you know it.
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Good grief, i think you have ALOT more reading to do… open your mind to the fact that you dont know very much.
Once you do that you can begin learning PROPERLY[/quote]
Do please explain how you expect me to “open my mind” when my well reasoned arguments are subjected to such childish attacks as the one above?
Do you not see the irony in telling the only intelligent person on this thread that he needs to “open his mind” or some-such nonsense?
My “mind” is wide open. I’m standing right in front of you and asking you to hit me with everything you’ve got. So far, we’ve had 25 swings, and 25 misses.
How about I re-affirm my original statement, to show how little I care for your critique?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote: Soreness is the goal of bodybuilding.
[/quote]
It’s not.
End o’ story.
The goal is growth, which does not require soreness. I mean, how many threads have there been of some beginner asking “Why aren’t I getting sore anymore?” To which the soreness=growth myth is refuted.
I’d hope a trainer would know this basic fact.
As long as I’m eating enough, I almost never get sore, but I’m still growing.
I wouldn’t make more statements about bodybuilding until you know what you’re talking about.
[quote]dankid wrote:
Your “claims” are not claims. Your just stating the obvious and completely oversimplifying as if you’ve seen the light and your here to show us all the way. You need to realize that in life, and especially training thing ARE usually in a gray area.
…
I suggest you spend less time having these revealations and more time reading the articles on here [/quote]
Speaking of the articles, what I’d like you to do right now is to PM the authors of the following articles as soon as you can and inform each one of them that “things are usually in a gray area” pertaining to training.
I will not be replying to any further posts made by you until you show proof of having done this. You may take a screenshot with the printscreen function, save it in MSPaint, and then upload it to a site like ImageShack. This will suffice for proof.
Get to it. Schnell.
[quote]roybot wrote:
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]
An experienced individual can quite easily distinguish between soreness from lactic buildup and soreness from muscle damage.
Lactic acid is only responsible for acute soreness, not DOMs. The latter is a fantastic and accurate indicator of growth.
My assertion stands.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
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]
[quote]slimthugger wrote:
Remember the crowd here knows it all. You didn’t expect them to read your post and provide anything insightful did you? [/quote]
In truth, no I did not.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
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![/quote]
If that’s the case, then practically everything I’ve ever written in 8 years online has been completely wrong. I have been at various times debunked by 16 year old stoners, senile old farts, liberal elists, conservative hicks, meatheads, vegetarians, feminists, military idiots, foreigners, and stuffed animals.
Sorry, don’t believe it. The majority has been wrong all this time, and I’ve been right.
[quote]trextacy wrote:
Since NP is posting in this thread- I have a question regarding a website you posted in another thread:
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?[/quote]
Good question, glad you brought it up, and I’m glad you gave the site a thorough read through.
No, I was not using it just to support an isolated link. I believe the views on that site in their entirety.
I believe that carbohydrates are highly addictive pathogens which have been used throughout history to turn humans into docile slaves (not so odd if you think of it in the context of recreational drugs - opiates and such, not to mention alcohol).
I believe that fiber is awful for one’s health and that nearly all carbs should be avoided.
I stand by most of what is written on the Bible Life site. I respect its author, Kent R Rieske.
I believe he is absolutely on the mark in stating that cortisol, insulin, and adrenaline are “disease causing hormones”, that chronic inflammation resulting from damage to the digestive tract is at the root of all illnesses.
Other sources echo these views. Diana Schwarzbein is an endocrinologist cited by Charles Poliquin as an authority on adrenal fatigue. Her book is excellent:
Among other things, she refutes the “calories in vs. out” dogma and explains how a person’s hormonal state determines whether they will be able to gain or lose weight.
No coincidence, she also defies the conventional wisdom of the medical establishment and recommends animal fats to her patients.
I believe that adrenal fatigue is a real condition, contary to allopathic medicine.
Every one of these sources is supportive of fat and protein consumption and critical, to varying degrees, of carbohydrate consumption.
I think they are all very “T-Nation friendly” sites.
[quote]dankid wrote:
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]
LoL really, you think my “unconventional” views on training are going to make me a “celebrity trainer” in Hollywood?
You think that advocating high saturated fat consumption and no carbs is going to go over well with latte-sipping liberals?
You think that recommending excruciating dropsets to total exhaustion, HIT-style, is going to go over well with fat housewives who “just want to tone up”?
You think that giving people effective and difficult bodybuilding routines is going to get them more engaged than doing things like kickboxing, martial arts, bosu-ball hijinks, dancing, yoga, pilates, zoomba, and all the other BS that predominates in this industry?
Let me break it down for you:
The type of “unconventional” training that sells to the masses has people doing 1-legged squats on bosu balls while chanting new age mantra’s.
Telling fat people to stop eating bread and start eating tons of butter and red meat is a little too hardcore for your average housewife.
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote: Soreness is the goal of bodybuilding.
It’s not.
End o’ story.
The goal is growth, which does not require soreness. I mean, how many threads have there been of some beginner asking “Why aren’t I getting sore anymore?” To which the soreness=growth myth is refuted.
I’d hope a trainer would know this basic fact.
As long as I’m eating enough, I almost never get sore, but I’m still growing.
I wouldn’t make more statements about bodybuilding until you know what you’re talking about.[/quote]
Known fact:
Newbies experience the most amount of soreness.
Another known fact:
Newbies experience the most amount of growth.
Correlate the two.
Coincidence? I assure you that it’s not.
Growth is the result of physical adaptation to microtrauma. Since you can’t “open up your muscles” and check for microscopic tears, themost accurate indicator of growth is the delayed onset of pain caused by those tears.
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
I’d hope a trainer would know this basic fact. [/quote]
There’s nothing basic about it. It’s a widely debated issue within the bodybuilding community. I love the fact that you and others keep saying, “I can’t believe a trainer would say this”. Why not?
Listen, I am here to think for MYSELF, not quote position stands to you from some academic textbook.
I read what the authorities had to say, then I ignored it and formed my own opinion.
If you want to flame me for claiming that soreness is necessary for growth, do it on the following thread, which was started for that very purpose:
An experienced individual can quite easily distinguish between soreness from lactic buildup and soreness from muscle damage.
Lactic acid is only responsible for acute soreness, not DOMs. The latter is a fantastic and accurate indicator of growth.
My assertion stands.
[/quote]
Oh really? And how exactly are you able to distinguish between the two when it is your trainee that experiences the soreness? Have you developed a telepathic link with your trainees as well?
I’d be extremely interested to hear how you can differentiate between lactic acid soreness and soreness resulting from muscle damage, especially when you aren’t actually experiencing the soreness yourself. Care to elaborate?
There is no way that you can use any kind of soreness as a reliable way to judge hypertrophy. Neither lactic acid soreness or DOMS are reliable indicators of muscle stimulation, because both can occur from non-hypertrophy inducing activites.
You say that DOMS is a “fantastic and accurate indicator of growth”, and yet DOMS can be cause by non- bodybuilding activities, such as mountain biking.
You can even get DOMS from working as a manual labourer. After the first few days, you’ll get so sore that you can barely move. Will you grow as a result? Absolutely not.
If what you said was true, then it would only be possible to induce DOMS through bodybuilding related activities.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Known fact:
Newbies experience the most amount of soreness.
Another known fact:
Newbies experience the most amount of growth.
Correlate the two.
Coincidence? I assure you that it’s not.[/quote]
. . .well, that left me speechless. I don’t even know how to address something this stupid. I mean . . just . . .wow.
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
I’d hope a trainer would know this basic fact.
There’s nothing basic about it. It’s a widely debated issue within the bodybuilding community. I love the fact that you and others keep saying, “I can’t believe a trainer would say this”. Why not?[/quote]
The guys saying that are all bigger and stronger than you. Hmm . . .
[quote]Listen, I am here to think for MYSELF, not quote position stands to you from some academic textbook.
I read what the authorities had to say, then I ignored it and formed my own opinion.
If you want to flame me for claiming that soreness is necessary for growth, do it on the following thread, which was started for that very purpose:
In both those threads your soreness claim gets dispelled, yet you still try to fight it.
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
As long as I’m eating enough, I almost never get sore, but I’m still growing.
You’re gaining adipose tissue and water. It happens a LOT more often than people allow themselves to believe.[/quote]
Wow! I must have been lost in my little fantasy land where I track my progress and see muscle growth and increased strength because I know what I’m doing! Thank you for pointing the truth to me, o wise internetz trainer!
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
. . .well, that left me speechless. I don’t even know how to address something this stupid. I mean . . just . . .wow.[/quote]
Keep trying, I’m sure you’ll find a way eventually…
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
In both those threads your soreness claim gets dispelled, yet you still try to fight it. [/quote]
In both threads, my claim was challenged by others, and successfully defended by me.
Do you realize…the only reason I make threads (or post at all) is to prove my superiority over others by defeating their arguments?
I elevate myself at the expense of people like you.
[quote]roybot wrote:
Oh really? And how exactly are you able to distinguish between the two when it is your trainee that experiences the soreness? Have you developed a telepathic link with your trainees as well?[/quote]
No, I just happen to be an advanced trainee myself.
[quote]roybot wrote:
I’d be extremely interested to hear how you can differentiate between lactic acid soreness and soreness resulting from muscle damage, especially when you aren’t actually experiencing the soreness yourself. Care to elaborate?[/quote]
Sure. Lactic acid burns and makes its onset during higher repetition sets. Microtrauma doesn’t burn, it simply hurts. It’s a different sensation of pain.
[quote]roybot wrote:
There is no way that you can use any kind of soreness as a reliable way to judge hypertrophy. Neither lactic acid soreness or DOMS are reliable indicators of muscle stimulation, because both can occur from non-hypertrophy inducing activites.
You say that DOMS is a “fantastic and accurate indicator of growth”, and yet DOMS can be cause by non- bodybuilding activities, such as mountain biking.[/quote]
If mountain biking results in DOMs, then mountain biking has just become a “hypertrophy inducing activity”. Oh, yes it has.
[quote]roybot wrote:
If what you said was true, then it would only be possible to induce DOMS through bodybuilding related activities.[/quote]
The only claim I ever made on the topic was that muscle will grow as a result of being broken down. I never said anything about “bodybuilding related activities” - that’s YOUR addition. You can tear down muscle playing football, powerlifting, biking, swimming, or even jogging. You just won’t do it NEARLY as effectively as on a bodybuilding routine designed for that very purpose.
I worked with a high school kid this summer who, at 220, had a legit 575 parallel squat and was cleaning around 350. However, his football performance was not up to par, as he was extremely slow off the line and absolutely awful at deceleration and change-of-direction. You would suggest “just getting him strong?”
Additionally, if you claim to be an “advanced trainee,” and have been putting these principles of yours into practice, I think everyone would appreciate some stats and photos (of yourself and/or your clients). It certainly seems relevant if we are to assess the efficacy of your propositions on a more than theoretical level.
As a side note, I agree with you almost completely on the carb issue. Check out Gary Taubes’ “Good Calories, Bad Calories” for further confirmation of the anti-carb hypothesis.
[quote]Sneaky weasel wrote:
I worked with a high school kid this summer who, at 220, had a legit 575 parallel squat and was cleaning around 350. However, his football performance was not up to par, as he was extremely slow off the line and absolutely awful at deceleration and change-of-direction. You would suggest “just getting him strong?”[/quote]
Well, you’d better inform Cressey, Cosgrove, Tate, Waterbury, et. al. Everything they’ve written has been wrong. [yes, appeal to authority]
Was the kid fat? Sounds like he was playing the wrong position.
Can I give you Mike Boyle’s stats instead? 5’8, 150 lbs, bald w/glasses.
No, you won’t be seeing my pictures on here [again]. I find it unnecessary to post my stats. You’re on a very slippery slope when you decide to listen to the biggest guy in the room for every decision. Problem? There’s always a different room, with a bigger guy in it.
I look like a natural bodybuilder, which means I’m small, yet lean and have developed muscle all over my body. That’s all you really need to know.
[quote]Sneaky weasel wrote:
As a side note, I agree with you almost completely on the carb issue. Check out Gary Taubes’ “Good Calories, Bad Calories” for further confirmation of the anti-carb hypothesis.[/quote]
Good.
[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]
First of all, the majority of people at commercial gyms would consider a loss of 10-20 lbs. per year to be excellent. Exceptional, even. Trainers achieving those kinds of results would receive accolades. Hell, I’ve seen trainers receive props for doing less.
Second of all, you’re making assumptions that are 180 degrees off the mark. Allow me to fill you in about my style of training:
-It is no nonsense. I am not there to be your friend. I am not there to make it “fun” for you. I believe the real “fun” of training comes from getting results and seeing your body change.
-I believe in educating people and informing them exactly what is going on when they are training. I am not a doctor who hands out prescriptions without telling the patient anything. I seek to make my clients active and informed participants in their own improvement. I recognize that nobody ever got past the beginner’s stage by falling asleep and letting someone else do the work for them. My clients are EXPECTED to learn what the hell they are doing (I teach them) and then apply that knowledge themselves.
-I am ENTIRELY results oriented. Everybody says it: I live it. Nobody gets started without having their measurements done, their body composition taken. Things are tracked every step of the way. I tell them to EXPECT progress. If I don’t provide it, that comes back to bite me in the ass.
-I cover ALL the bases. I have a system for everything. I am used to dealing with excuses, so I developed a system in which there wouldn’t be any. No cancellations, no dietary binges, no skipped sessions. They are expected to track their meals, track their workouts, and track their progress.
If I wanted to make it seem too hard for them to do on their own, then I’d do what every other trainer does, I’d do what all the organizations tell me to do: I’d put all of my clients on stability balls and have them doing functional bullshit. Or, alternatively, I could show them an all free-weight routine, which they would also perceive as “too hard to do on their own”. How come I’m not doing that? How come you’re still giving me shit, even though I’m doing the exact opposite of what you claim?
People actually get the OPPOSITE impression from my workouts, to their own detriment. Because my workouts are machine based, they think they can “do them on their own”. And when that happens, they tend to screw up badly and not make any progress. Because machine training is EVERY BIT as complicated as free weight training. There are dozens of nuances to every exercise. It takes a very high degree of proprioceptive awareness to notice your own compensation patterns as they occur. No beginner trainee has such awareness. My programs are specifically designed to create it.
If my clients do everything I tell them to, they end up knowledge, experienced, and vastly improved - in other words, they don’t need me anymore.
[quote]roybot wrote:
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.[/quote]
Ah, now THIS is the most idiotic comment I could hope to encounter from my detactors - the fabulous and oft-repeated cannard that I “never admit to being wrong”.
A moment’s reflection would have revealed the inherent idiocy of such a statement, but that, apparently, is too much time for you to spare.
For the purposes of illustration, let’s explore which other members of this site “never admit they are wrong”:
Professor X,
Rainjack,
Zap Branigan,
Vegita,
Every member of the “Alpha Cell” Crowd,
All of the site contributors,
And by the way, when was the last time YOU admit to being wrong? Please link me to the post.
P.S.
When did Thomas Jeffersion “admit he was wrong”? How about Donald Trump?
If “admitting to being wrong” in the complete absence of evidence to that effect constitutes a necessary social ritual among philistines such as yourself, I wish to take no part of it.
It sounds as if you are trying to apply the Christian doctrine of original sin to a bodybuilding discussion.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself.
I’ll “admit that I’m wrong” IF and when someone proves me wrong. Not a moment sooner.
And no amount of mere disagreement will suffice to replace the need for solid PROOF.
[quote]roybot wrote:
If someone is genuinely insightful and intelligent, they don’t have to go ramming it down people’s throats like he does.[/quote]
What is the definition of a mob? A group of people committing acts which, upon reflection after the fact, they will come to be ashamed of.
There will come a time when all of you will be ashamed of your posts on this thread. It may take decades for some of you…but that time will come.
[quote]roybot wrote:
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,[/quote]
[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.[/quote]
I’ll say it one more time:
The lactic acid you feel is ACUTE soreness. By itself, it WON’T result in hypertrophy.
The “corresponding muscle soreness the following few days” is NOT lactic acid, it is DOMS, and this WILL result in hypertrophy.
To the extent that ANY DOMs is felt at all, there will be SOME degree of hypertrophy. Yes, even after marathon running.
And I trust you know how much I hate endurance sports, so I do not say this lightly.
Who knows? How about a physiology textbook? Endurance-type exercises WILL result in more lactic acid buildup because lactic acid is the product of Anaerobic Glycolysis, which becomes the primary energy system after ATP-CP stores have been expended in the first few seconds of high intensity exercise. Thus, I posted before that one of the ways in which you can “tell” lactic soreness is by the fact that it sets in towards the middle of a normal set, never before.
Maybe I know what I’m talking about, after all.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Him saying he can throw everyone into 2 boxes is assenine.
[/quote]
Then Cosgrove, Cressey, Boyle et. al are even more asinine for attempting to fit everyone into the “just get em’ strong” box. Let me hear you make the same comment about them, so that I might know you’re not a hypocrite.
[quote]roybot wrote:
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]
Lactic acid will NOT cause soreness after exercise. DOMS will. DOMS is not lactic acid. I used to think that it was, until I looked it up. I suggest you do the same.
At any rate, you need to start differentiating between acute and chronic soreness, which I have been doing the entire time.
You have not come close to disproving a single one of my claims.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Do you realize…the only reason I make threads (or post at all) is to prove my superiority over others by defeating their arguments?
I elevate myself at the expense of people like you.
[/quote]
I should try that, right now I just kill homeless people.
[quote]Sneaky weasel wrote:
As a side note, I agree with you almost completely on the carb issue. Check out Gary Taubes’ “Good Calories, Bad Calories” for further confirmation of the anti-carb hypothesis.[/quote]
roybot wrote:
There is no way that you can use any kind of soreness as a reliable way to judge hypertrophy. Neither lactic acid soreness or DOMS are reliable indicators of muscle stimulation, because both can occur from non-hypertrophy inducing activites.
You say that DOMS is a “fantastic and accurate indicator of growth”, and yet DOMS can be cause by non- bodybuilding activities, such as mountain biking.
If mountain biking results in DOMs, then mountain biking has just become a “hypertrophy inducing activity”. Oh, yes it has. [/quote]
Yeah, right. Mountain biking can cause DOMS, but it is most certainly not a “hypertrophy inducing activity”. That is just your opinion.
How many mountain bikers do you see walking around with huge quads?
I never tried to imply that it was your addition. Now your just being argumentative for the sake of it. I used the term “bodybuilding related activities” because, unlike you, I don’t believe that such activities as mountain biking can induce significant hypertrophy.
Your claim that you can tear down muscle through activities like football, swimming and jogging is ridiculous. They are called low impact for a reason.
Are you going to try to convince me that you can build muscle through Yoga as well?
A marathon runner will tear down their muscles during the course of a race. It doesn’t mean that it’s going to result in muscle growth. Yawn. Yet another one of your generalizations.
[quote]
You just won’t do it NEARLY as effectively as on a bodybuilding routine designed for that very purpose.[/quote]
Even then, any advanced bodybuilder will tell you that their rate of growth was not in proportion to the soreness they experienced throughout their training career.
Soreness is not consistent with growth, so it follows that the two are unrelated. Of course, you can experience the two together, but growth can come without soreness and vice versa.
Sigh, any advanced trainer would stop getting DOMS pretty soon. Surely you (with the body of a natural BB apparently) would be aware of this.
Yes DOMS is a good indicator for growth, but the sad fact that by week 3 of a program it almost completely disappears due to your body adapting (even if you are progressing on weight, volume etc). Therefore relying on it as a indicator for growth is flawed.
You could have someone change there program almost weekly, making them do different exercises, activities etc, and they would probably get far more DOMS than if they stayed on the same routine. Would they grow more however? No.
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
The guys saying that are all bigger and stronger than you. Hmm . . .[/quote]
That, and a good deal older, which largely nullifies the other points.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
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]
Simple.
Because “using all the muscles together in a coordinated effort” is precisely what people are already doing every day outside the gym.
When people get up from a chair, watch them use their entire body, even their arms, to help themselves up.
By no means are they attempting to isolate their quads.
When people lift something up to put it on a shelf, watch them engage their biceps, calves, quads, delts, and triceps, in that order.
The fact that “nobody isolates in the real world” is PRECISELY why you need to isolate in the gym if you want to see results.
No doubt, this is strange and new to your ears, but it is very true. You are not going to get any significant adaptation unless the stimulus for that adaptation is sufficiently different from what you are doing on a daily basis.
And that, in a nutshell, is why isolation training builds more muscle than compound movements.
In the bodybuilding world, there is a term for “putting your whole body into each lift”.
Do you know what it is? It’s called cheating.
I know you must hate me for saying this, as a powerlifter. But recognize the truth in it:
When the goal is NOT simply to “move the weight from point A to point B”, but to overload a muscle, you are not served by involving other muscles in that effort.
Another great reason not to train people this way is because every new-age, “functional”, bosu-BS trainer is doing precisely that.
Watch the reality shows. Go to a commercial gym. You will hear the trainers constantly telling their clients, “This is going to hit every muscle in your body”.
Integration is their mantra. Isolation is a dirty word. The goal is to hit as many muscles at once as possible. This is the EXACT reasoning for having people do things like balance board squats and all of the stability ball nonsense.
Now that you know what kind of company you’re in, do you still feel good about endorsing this type of training?
What did Charles Poliquin say?
“If you try to do everything at once, you get nothing”.
Poliquin is right. What can be applied to entire workout routines, similarly applies to individual exercises.
You are NEVER going to get hypertrophy “all over your body” from one exercise. It is a complete pipe dream. The physiques of pro bodybuilders attest to this. They use isolation training and are much more defined and muscular than either powerlifters or pro athletes.
This guy used to post as “Al Shades” earlier. I have a few pictures of his skinny ass lying around on my father’s old hard drive, and I’ll see if I can put em up sometime soon. But that would be cruel…and I;m a kind person.
In the meantime, rest assured, he’s a troll. He makes statements that only HE agrees with, and he has the results (or lack thereof) to show for it.
He basically serves the same purpose on the bodybuilding forum as I serve on the PWI forum - comic relief and annoying senior members. Listen to him and have a good laugh, don’t argue.
[quote]aussie101 wrote:
Sigh, any advanced trainer would stop getting DOMS pretty soon.[/quote]
And any advanced trainer is not going to be experiencing hypertrophy nearly as often as a beginner. Surely you would know that.
Once again, the two processes are directly related.
When DOMs disappears, growth disappears. I intentionally train to make myself sore, because I know it’s the only thing that will make me grow.
[quote]aussie101 wrote:
You could have someone change there program almost weekly, making them do different exercises, activities etc, and they would probably get far more DOMS than if they stayed on the same routine. Would they grow more however? No. [/quote]
Yes they would.
[quote]roybot wrote:
How many mountain bikers do you see walking around with huge quads?[/quote]
None. And it doesn’t change anything, because you are confusing absolute and relative statements.
The reason why mountain bikers don’t have huge quads compared to bodybuilders is that their activity produces significantly less DOMs and - as a consequence - significantly less hypertrophy than bodybuilding.
Another possible explanation, which cannot be overlooked, is the fact that they are not giving themselves the nutrients necessary to build their bodies back up after the damage has occurred.
[quote]roybot wrote:
I never tried to imply that it was your addition. Now your just being argumentative for the sake of it. I used the term “bodybuilding related activities” because, unlike you, I don’t believe that such activities as mountain biking can induce significant hypertrophy.[/quote]
They cannot induce significant hypertrophy, and I never claimed otherwise. All I said was that, to the extent there is DOMS, there will be concurrent hypertrophy. How many times shall I repeat it?
[quote]roybot wrote:
Your claim that you can tear down muscle through activities like football, swimming and jogging is ridiculous. They are called low impact for a reason.[/quote]
Football low impact? lol
Strictly speaking, muscle can be torn down doing anything, even getting up from your couch. I never implied that the amount of muscle breakdown would be sufficient to result in much hypertrophy, but there it is.
[quote]roybot wrote:
Are you going to try to convince me that you can build muscle through Yoga as well?[/quote]
Yes. Madonna did it. For her body, THAT was enough stimulus for change. Everything is relative.
[quote]roybot wrote:
A marathon runner will tear down their muscles during the course of a race. It doesn’t mean that it’s going to result in muscle growth. Yawn. Yet another one of your generalizations.[/quote]
It sure as shit does.
[quote]roybot wrote:
Even then, any advanced bodybuilder will tell you that their rate of growth was not in proportion to the soreness they experienced throughout their training career.
Soreness is not consistent with growth, so it follows that the two are unrelated. Of course, you can experience the two together, but growth can come without soreness and vice versa. [/quote]
Pro bodybuilders have anabolic assistance to recover from soreness as fast as possible. Also, many of them are addicted to painkillers. If hypertrophy and soreness weren’t directly related, then how do you explain the fact that most pro’s are in constant pain?
No doubt, this is strange and new to your ears, but it is very true. You are not going to get any significant adaptation unless the stimulus for that adaptation is sufficiently different from what you are doing on a daily basis.
[/quote]
Like squatting with a heavy barbell? Or picking up a heavy barbell off the floor?
roybot wrote:
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.
Ah, now THIS is the most idiotic comment I could hope to encounter from my detactors - the fabulous and oft-repeated cannard that I “never admit to being wrong”.
[/quote] What’s so idiotic about stating a fact? You’ve already admitted that you post deliberately inflammatory comments. Here is one of your gems: “the only reason I make threads (or post at all) is to prove my superiority over others by defeating their arguments?”
Get over yourself hotshot.
I’ll speak as I find. The real idiot is you, because you make all these claims but they all lack a little thing called hard evidence.
I’m not interested in discussing anybody else. Why does it always come back to other people? Your the one that started this thread, not the people on that list.
Besides, none of the people on that list have openly claimed that they are superior to everybody else, nor do they start threads in order to show off, like you do.
[quote]
And by the way, when was the last time YOU admit to being wrong? Please link me to the post [/quote].
I havn’t been posting here long to admit that I’m wrong, but I’m willing to do so if the need arises. It’s not going to happen on this thread, though.
You aren’t Thomas Jefferson or Donald Trump. Neither of them are members of T-Nation, nor are they friends of yours, so stop trying to bring other people into it. It’s totally irrelevant.
That made absolutely no sense. Care to repeat that in English?
That’s meant to be a joke, right? I mean, you can’t possibly be serious when you never back up any thing you say with a shred of proof.
Your hypocrisy is astounding.
Congratulations. You have dictionary and can look up words. Good for you!
Don’t hold your breath waiting. You might die of suffocation.
[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
This guy used to post as “Al Shades” earlier. I have a few pictures of his skinny ass lying around on my father’s old hard drive, and I’ll see if I can put em up sometime soon. But that would be cruel…and I;m a kind person.
In the meantime, rest assured, he’s a troll. He makes statements that only HE agrees with, and he has the results (or lack thereof) to show for it.
He basically serves the same purpose on the bodybuilding forum as I serve on the PWI forum - comic relief and annoying senior members. Listen to him and have a good laugh, don’t argue.[/quote]
Oh wait, this guy is Al Shades?! Now that’s funny. I was just talking about that thread the other day.
