To lazy to read of of this so SIAP, but there is evidence that HGH response is greater in a full-body workout. I think Chad Waterbury has talke about this in a few of his interviews.
This isn’t the end all be all though. There is a lot more that goes into training and results than maximizing HGH. I would say that switching either way (total body to split or vice versa), can help you break through plateaus.
[quote]McG78 wrote:
To lazy to read of of this so SIAP, but there is evidence that HGH response is greater in a full-body workout. I think Chad Waterbury has talke about this in a few of his interviews.
[/quote]
If this is true, it still doesn’t change the fact that those who are the most developed (biggest) likely used traditional splits (for lack of a better term) to get there.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
McG78 wrote:
To lazy to read of of this so SIAP, but there is evidence that HGH response is greater in a full-body workout. I think Chad Waterbury has talke about this in a few of his interviews.
If this is true, it still doesn’t change the fact that those who are the most developed (biggest) likely used traditional splits (for lack of a better term) to get there.
[/quote]
conclusory argument is conclusory.
also, they may have more than made up for the GH using other means (wink). you can blast at your muscles to a greater degree when recovery is MUCH less an issue, as it is w/ AAS…which is why for guys who bodybuild professionally (i.e. have 7 days a week and 100% attention to it and chemical advantages) a split of course seems to particularly well. when talking about the best way for a natural, non-pro guy with something less than elite/gifted genetics, it stands to reason the calculus changes.
but it should be obvious that a day of squatting, dipping and chinning will trigger more muscle growth and anabolic hormonal reaction than “chest day”.
[quote]trextacy wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
McG78 wrote:
To lazy to read of of this so SIAP, but there is evidence that HGH response is greater in a full-body workout. I think Chad Waterbury has talke about this in a few of his interviews.
If this is true, it still doesn’t change the fact that those who are the most developed (biggest) likely used traditional splits (for lack of a better term) to get there.
conclusory argument is conclusory.
also, they may have more than made up for the GH using other means (wink). you can blast at your muscles to a greater degree when recovery is MUCH less an issue, as it is w/ AAS…which is why for guys who bodybuild professionally (i.e. have 7 days a week and 100% attention to it and chemical advantages) a split of course seems to particularly well. when talking about the best way for a natural, non-pro guy with something less than elite/gifted genetics, it stands to reason the calculus changes.
but it should be obvious that a day of squatting, dipping and chinning will trigger more muscle growth and anabolic hormonal reaction than “chest day”.[/quote]
This is funny…
Maybe its cause there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that maximizing the growth hormone, or overall hormonal response to a resistance exercise session elicits better local muscle growth…
MAYBE the scientific evidence is starting to quite overwhelmingly show that growth hormone and insulin like growth factor aren’t as important a stimulant for downstream increases in protein synthesis rates than people first thought…
Maybe the evidence comparing whole body to localized training show ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in local muscle growth when training volumes and intensities are matched for the given muscle group.
Maybe recent evidence from top labs is specifically showing that just maximizing serum testosterone and GH levels means next to nothing for local protein synthesis, and that observing serum hormone levels is a gross misrepresentation of the effectiveness/potential of a protocol…
Maybe if we were just going by a whole body hormonal stimulus, we should just do interval training for hypertrophy training…
Or maybe you guys (Trextacy in this case…but usually Dankid-sometimes he actually puts stuff I don’t mind…(hurt myself for that) should just shut the fuck up and get your facts straight before you start throwing around some shitty, and in the case of the last post, incredibly naive statements.
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
…or maybe you guys (Trextacy in this case…but usually Dankid-sometimes he actually puts stuff I don’t mind…(hurt myself for that) should just shut the fuck up and get your facts straight before you start throwing around some shitty, and in the case of the last post, incredibly naive statements. [/quote]
I’ve had one of those time when a pretty suspect individual supported a post I’d made, & I immediately started worrying about my previous conclusion being in error.
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
trextacy wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
McG78 wrote:
To lazy to read of of this so SIAP, but there is evidence that HGH response is greater in a full-body workout. I think Chad Waterbury has talke about this in a few of his interviews.
If this is true, it still doesn’t change the fact that those who are the most developed (biggest) likely used traditional splits (for lack of a better term) to get there.
conclusory argument is conclusory.
also, they may have more than made up for the GH using other means (wink). you can blast at your muscles to a greater degree when recovery is MUCH less an issue, as it is w/ AAS…which is why for guys who bodybuild professionally (i.e. have 7 days a week and 100% attention to it and chemical advantages) a split of course seems to particularly well. when talking about the best way for a natural, non-pro guy with something less than elite/gifted genetics, it stands to reason the calculus changes.
but it should be obvious that a day of squatting, dipping and chinning will trigger more muscle growth and anabolic hormonal reaction than “chest day”.
This is funny…
Maybe its cause there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that maximizing the growth hormone, or overall hormonal response to a resistance exercise session elicits better local muscle growth…
MAYBE the scientific evidence is starting to quite overwhelmingly show that growth hormone and insulin like growth factor aren’t as important a stimulant for downstream increases in protein synthesis rates than people first thought…
Maybe the evidence comparing whole body to localized training show ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in local muscle growth when training volumes and intensities are matched for the given muscle group.
Maybe recent evidence from top labs is specifically showing that just maximizing serum testosterone and GH levels means next to nothing for local protein synthesis, and that observing serum hormone levels is a gross misrepresentation of the effectiveness/potential of a protocol…
Maybe if we were just going by a whole body hormonal stimulus, we should just do interval training for hypertrophy training…
Or maybe you guys (Trextacy in this case…but usually Dankid-sometimes he actually puts stuff I don’t mind…(hurt myself for that) should just shut the fuck up and get your facts straight before you start throwing around some shitty, and in the case of the last post, incredibly naive statements. [/quote]
APPLAUSE
Not trying to start anything or something. Yet trextacy seems to talk a big talk. Yet I have not seen one pic or stats from him. To even show something if anything. His words could hold more weight if he showed something moderately impressive whether it was done naturally or otherwise…
[quote]McG78 wrote:
To lazy to read of of this so SIAP, but there is evidence that HGH response is greater in a full-body workout. I think Chad Waterbury has talke about this in a few of his interviews.
This isn’t the end all be all though. There is a lot more that goes into training and results than maximizing HGH. I would say that switching either way (total body to split or vice versa), can help you break through plateaus.[/quote]
Im in agreement with most of the others here. The HGH response to lifting is ACUTE and I believe it returns to previous levels pretty quickly. Also, I beleive HGH is elevated more after training if you DONT eat anything after the workout. This will definately raise your HGH but will not build muscle.
This is another one of those things that DONT MATTER.
[quote]vcjha wrote:
Great advice. Yeah, I guess I must be but I’m just trying find what’s perfect for me, not necessarily a one size fits all thing. Basically, it’s like this. Every successful bodybuilder probably did not follow certain programs written by personal trainers. The great ones tailored various workouts to fit them best, either by themselves or using help.
I’m asking for help. I’m asking how will I know what rep ranges, sets, frequency to change and when. I’m asking how will I know what macro to toy with when there have been recommendations to lower, protein, carbs, and fat, or two of those or even three of those! We all know to lift more and harder each day, but it’s not about who works the hardest, it’s about who works the smartest, and always will be.
I guess I still have to admit I dislike trial and error because that will mean I wasted time just like I explained in my previous post. Most of us want to get up to a size we feel satisfied with, and then just get more defined as the days go by. Few of us like CT or others who strive to know more and more and are willing to learn and be confused in order to learn more are willing to do that.
I mean let’s face it, bodybuilding can be one of the most downright annoying subjects to crack. We want to reach our dream bodies and just be able to maintain it. I mean most of us want to reach our body NOW, but I’m just trying to reach my body in the smartest way possible, and frankly, in bodybuilding, it’s all about the details.
I must be going around in circles but this question should sum it all up. Do you want to spend years following people, sticking with the basics, and then finally discovering what’s right for you, or do you want to learn all you can now so you can keep yourself from wasting time and reaching your body faster because you decided to work smarter?[/quote]
I think your still looking at this the wrong way. It seems as if you aren’t looking for the “perfect program” that will work for everyone, but you ARE looking for the “perfect program” for you. It still doesn’t exist, and it ISN’T IMPORTANT.
A lot of those little things, like training split, macro percentages, etc. are not going to matter at all until you are very advanced. THEY ARE THE GRAVY ON YOUR MEAT AND POTATOES. If you just load up on gravy and dont have any meat and potatoes, then your meal is crap. Its all about the meat and potatoes. Gravy is a condiment. All the little aspects of training/diet are the condiments.
It doesn’t matter if you train 2x per week, or 10x per week. It doesn’t matter if you only use machines, or only isolation movements. If you increase your bench by 50%, you’ll be bigger, or have more potential to be bigger. The same goes for squat and every other lift. It doesn’t matter if you are increasing your bench with DB’s or with BB’s. It doesn’t matter if you are hitting the muscle 1x per week, or 5x per week. If your strength goes up significantly so does you size.
Having said all that, I hope you get the point, that what you need to do is figure out how to lift more weight. It might take a bit of individualization. Usually you’ll have to either cut back on the number of sets, or maybe push a bit harder. And eating more always helps. But the nice thing about this is that you’ll know each week if what you are doing is working. If your strength on a lift hasn’t changed in 2 months, then you need to be doing something different.
Its not about what the “best” program is, or what will give you the fastest results. Its about doing a REASONABLE program and consistent progress. (If you were to add 5lbs to each lift every MONTH, you would be lifting 60lbs more at the end of a year, and would be much bigger.) Its easier said than done.
And nutrition is the exact same way. Its not about what will let you lose fat the fastest or build muscle the fastest, its about consistency. If you add 1lb per week thats 52lbs per year. This also is much easier said than done. And I myself actually prefer the BULK method, than the slow and steady method, but its still just as simple as eat more to gain weight, eat less to lose weight.
Enough said.
hmm then wtf is proven? I’ll try to learn from there. I’m tired of following these “accepted concepts” thrown out by people. Someone let me know because I’m confused.
Not all studies are the same and they should be. Some say rep ranges don’t matter, some say 4-6 for strength, 8-12 for hypertrophy, 12-15 muscle endurance, and etc. some say interval is the way to go for fat loss, some people swear by low intensity cardio. I’m not even talking about results. Some say low-carb is the way to go for even musce gain, some say it’s proven carbs are more likely stored as fat after a certain time. I’m talking about science, which should have a way to prove things, not word of mouth. I dont have all the studies on me, but I will definitely say that after reading countless ones, I’ve just given up. who the fuck knows their shit and is telling the truth? Can someone please set everything straight and prove it?!
See the other thread I started for the general summary of what scientific studies say…the funny thing is that some of the people saying they disagree with numerous points listed in that thread are also those who just seem to miss the big point and flit from program to program.
Apart from quibbling about how you put the volume together, or how many reps you should aim for in your max set, all the other points are pretty indisputable. Its only self-important fuckwits who want to argue about rep tempos, supramax work, only using certain exercises/pieces of equipment to train etc etc.
If you want the simple summary of what works try this; for every given muscle train it with an exercise that allows you to hit it with a high enough intensity (over 70% of max) for at least one hard out maximal set, at least once per week, to stimulate protein turnover in muscle, eat enough food with good levels of protein, supplement with whey protein at the very least, rest appropriately, don’t get caught up in wanting to be sore, and continue for many years.
[quote]trextacy wrote:
conclusory argument is conclusory.
also, they may have more than made up for the GH using other means (wink). you can blast at your muscles to a greater degree when recovery is MUCH less an issue, as it is w/ AAS…which is why for guys who bodybuild professionally (i.e. have 7 days a week and 100% attention to it and chemical advantages) a split of course seems to particularly well. when talking about the best way for a natural, non-pro guy with something less than elite/gifted genetics, it stands to reason the calculus changes.
but it should be obvious that a day of squatting, dipping and chinning will trigger more muscle growth and anabolic hormonal reaction than “chest day”.[/quote]
Although I wouldn’t use the same wording, there is nothing wrong with MOST of what trex said here. I agree. If I were a competative bodybuilding professional and had 7 days a week to train, I would. The difference between 5 day and 7 days might be pretty negligable to me now, but if I had the time and was competative, I would do everything I could that would POTENTIALLY help. I also agree that having the drugs drastically changes how much they can handle and how fast they can grow. There is NO way around this. If it didn’t make a signficant difference, then there would be no issues with it, and there wouldn’t be separate competition and classifications for naturals. Acting like it doesn’t make a difference is just plain idiotic.
BUT, trex’s last statement I wouldn’t agree with. Im not gonna say one way or the other will trigger more muscle, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever make that statement. Even if you had the world’s best research study and somehow tested it with millions of people, you would still find that 5-10% of people AT LEAST would build better on a different program than everyone else. I actually imagine the number would be higher. This means that everyone is different, and that you cant make claims like these.
Sure, working more muscle will release more HGH, and trigger more muscular growth, FOR THAT DAY, but if you are training like this, you are probably training 3x per week. Someone having just a chest day, will be training 5-7 days per week, and thus might not be “triggering” as much growth on one specific day, but probably about the same amount for the week.
In defense of Trex though, pretty much all the “goons” on the other side, are trying to make a similar statement about splits which is equally false.
And you guys have very primitive reasoning. This is your reasoning. Professional bodybuilders are the biggest people, and most professional bodybuilders train with a split, therefore a split is the best method for growth. Basically you are trying to say, If you are big, then you train with a split. This MAY be true, but it definely doesn’t work in reverse, which is what you guys are trying to do.
This would read as If you train with a split, then you are big. I know im twisting it a bit, but that is pretty much how you guys are trying to twist it
This is a flawed view of cause and effect. Are splits the best, because the biggest guys use them, or do the biggest guys use them because they are the most effective. Or maybe the biggest guys use them, because the other big guys use them.
And really I dont know why you guys are still arguing about this. I think if there are any conclusions that we can make based on this thread, its that we truly dont know, and probalby never will know the “best methods”.
That and that prof. X has some serious social and emotional problems.
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
See the other thread I started for the general summary of what scientific studies say…the funny thing is that some of the people saying they disagree with numerous points listed in that thread are also those who just seem to miss the big point and flit from program to program.
Apart from quibbling about how you put the volume together, or how many reps you should aim for in your max set, all the other points are pretty indisputable. Its only self-important fuckwits who want to argue about rep tempos, supramax work, only using certain exercises/pieces of equipment to train etc etc.
If you want the simple summary of what works try this; for every given muscle train it with an exercise that allows you to hit it with a high enough intensity (over 70% of max) for at least one hard out maximal set, at least once per week, to stimulate protein turnover in muscle, eat enough food with good levels of protein, supplement with whey protein at the very least, rest appropriately, don’t get caught up in wanting to be sore, and continue for many years.
[/quote]
I like how you can suddently summarize all research and all the commanalities of “good” training programs and that anyone that disagrees is a “self-important fuckwit” Come down off your high horse and join the rest of us fuckwits.
Having said that, I agree with everything you said that is important.
The problem is that these GENERAL guidelines are too general for most people which leaves all this room for interpretation and arguments like this thread. Because you know the next question will be, are two maximal sets better than one? Or will eating 2g of protein per lb help me build more muscle than 1.5g of protein per lb.
But I like your description of what works, because you said AT LEAST, for these things, and you said a GOOD amount of protein. It at least covers most situations.
I think the better recomendation though would be the best methods are the ones that work the best. This is kinda silly to say, but its true. But its hard to measure muscle gain, especially when its slow and steady over a long time. This is why I think progress in strength is a very good indicator that what you are doing is working. Its not perfect, but its easy enough to tell each week if you are getting stronger or not.
[quote]vcjha wrote:
hmm then wtf is proven? I’ll try to learn from there. I’m tired of following these “accepted concepts” thrown out by people. Someone let me know because I’m confused.
Not all studies are the same and they should be. Some say rep ranges don’t matter, some say 4-6 for strength, 8-12 for hypertrophy, 12-15 muscle endurance, and etc. some say interval is the way to go for fat loss, some people swear by low intensity cardio. I’m not even talking about results. Some say low-carb is the way to go for even musce gain, some say it’s proven carbs are more likely stored as fat after a certain time. I’m talking about science, which should have a way to prove things, not word of mouth. I dont have all the studies on me, but I will definitely say that after reading countless ones, I’ve just given up. who the fuck knows their shit and is telling the truth? Can someone please set everything straight and prove it?![/quote]
Sorry but NOTHING will ever be proven. Even with the best research, and as much personal experience nothing is ever proven. Research doens’t prove anything, it suggests something. And usually it takes A LOT of good reasearch to have a good idea about anything. Usually for every study you have suggesting something, you’ll find another one suggesting something different. This leaves most of it up to interpretation. A lot of times the findings of these studies will be based off the results of 10-15 people. There are standards as to what is significant, but all research isn’t good, and many times these guidelines are ignored.
As far as reps ranges go, I look at it like this. Clarrifying number of reps for different qualities came about because of TUT studies. If it was found that Max strength was attained with a set lasting 10 seconds or less, and people were doing reps that lasted 2-3 seconds, the conclusion was that 1-5 reps was best for size. I think most guys that train for strength have intuitively found what rep range works best for them. Want to know how they determined the best rep range? They started lifting heavy weight, and found the rep range that allowed them to lift the most weight, and make progress.
If you are training for a sport, you set your training up to be resemble the demands of your sport. If you are just training for size, you pick a method that at least has SOME reasoning behind it, and you stick with it and progress.
And based on the tone in your questions, it seems to me that you need to read some of the stuff in the beginner forum, and probably should stick with a BASIC beginner program with NO customizations at the moment. You dont need to worry about what works best for you, because probably there are a lot of things that work for you. And rather then sit around pondering what works best, JUST PICK SOMETHING ALREADY AND FORCE THAT METHOD TO WORK BEST.
I didn’t summarize the research…other people with more time and interest have done that and I’ve summarized what they’ve said.
Regardless of any good point, post you make, its just impossible to get past the not wanting to bench 405 thread, and the rash of threads when it seemed like you were changing program every 3-4 weeks.
Also, the indignation at the T-cell, whether it be because you feel you are knowledgable enough to be in there and no-one is recognizing you so its not fair, or you feel like its some clique that believes it is superior to everyone else, or you’ve had bad life experiences in the past with groups picking on you, gets a bit dull and tends to reinforce my opinion of your overall immaturity.
I like my high-horse, cause I get to laugh at all the fuckwits complicating something that is actually just about sticking to a general set of guidelines then tweaking it to ensure your own personal progress.
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
trextacy wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
McG78 wrote:
To lazy to read of of this so SIAP, but there is evidence that HGH response is greater in a full-body workout. I think Chad Waterbury has talke about this in a few of his interviews.
If this is true, it still doesn’t change the fact that those who are the most developed (biggest) likely used traditional splits (for lack of a better term) to get there.
conclusory argument is conclusory.
also, they may have more than made up for the GH using other means (wink). you can blast at your muscles to a greater degree when recovery is MUCH less an issue, as it is w/ AAS…which is why for guys who bodybuild professionally (i.e. have 7 days a week and 100% attention to it and chemical advantages) a split of course seems to particularly well. when talking about the best way for a natural, non-pro guy with something less than elite/gifted genetics, it stands to reason the calculus changes.
but it should be obvious that a day of squatting, dipping and chinning will trigger more muscle growth and anabolic hormonal reaction than “chest day”.
This is funny…
Maybe its cause there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that maximizing the growth hormone, or overall hormonal response to a resistance exercise session elicits better local muscle growth…
MAYBE the scientific evidence is starting to quite overwhelmingly show that growth hormone and insulin like growth factor aren’t as important a stimulant for downstream increases in protein synthesis rates than people first thought…
Maybe the evidence comparing whole body to localized training show ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in local muscle growth when training volumes and intensities are matched for the given muscle group.
Maybe recent evidence from top labs is specifically showing that just maximizing serum testosterone and GH levels means next to nothing for local protein synthesis, and that observing serum hormone levels is a gross misrepresentation of the effectiveness/potential of a protocol…
Maybe if we were just going by a whole body hormonal stimulus, we should just do interval training for hypertrophy training…
Or maybe you guys (Trextacy in this case…but usually Dankid-sometimes he actually puts stuff I don’t mind…(hurt myself for that) should just shut the fuck up and get your facts straight before you start throwing around some shitty, and in the case of the last post, incredibly naive statements. [/quote]
I hope you read all of these studies with more discernment and care than you did my post.
i never said that changes in hormone levels as a direct result of training were significant, just pointed out that (a) his argument was conclusory and unsupported and that (b) his anecdotal reference to “big guys using traditional splits” ignores many other factors inolved in getting big and the fact that big guys have gotten big many different ways.
as for my last statement, REGARDLESS of whether the response is significant, which session would would elicit a greater biological response? Just as deadlifts > calf raises, a full body session > a single bodypart day.
of course, if you limit the analysis to “LOCAL MUSCLE GROWTH” you shift the scope of the inquiry and can win the debate- but i think the so-called systemic hypertrophy effects in the big picture of muscle building should be addressed as well.
I think the point here is you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Your posts remind me so much of Stringer…wonder where he went.
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
I think the point here is you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
[/quote]
Yes, because your such a good judge of this.
[quote]dankid wrote:
GluteusGigantis wrote:
I think the point here is you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Yes, because your such a good judge of this.[/quote]
A lot better than you.
[quote]dankid wrote:
vcjha wrote:
hmm then wtf is proven? I’ll try to learn from there. I’m tired of following these “accepted concepts” thrown out by people. Someone let me know because I’m confused.
Not all studies are the same and they should be. Some say rep ranges don’t matter, some say 4-6 for strength, 8-12 for hypertrophy, 12-15 muscle endurance, and etc. some say interval is the way to go for fat loss, some people swear by low intensity cardio. I’m not even talking about results. Some say low-carb is the way to go for even musce gain, some say it’s proven carbs are more likely stored as fat after a certain time. I’m talking about science, which should have a way to prove things, not word of mouth. I dont have all the studies on me, but I will definitely say that after reading countless ones, I’ve just given up. who the fuck knows their shit and is telling the truth? Can someone please set everything straight and prove it?!
Sorry but NOTHING will ever be proven. Even with the best research, and as much personal experience nothing is ever proven. Research doens’t prove anything, it suggests something. And usually it takes A LOT of good reasearch to have a good idea about anything. Usually for every study you have suggesting something, you’ll find another one suggesting something different. This leaves most of it up to interpretation. A lot of times the findings of these studies will be based off the results of 10-15 people. There are standards as to what is significant, but all research isn’t good, and many times these guidelines are ignored.
As far as reps ranges go, I look at it like this. Clarrifying number of reps for different qualities came about because of TUT studies. If it was found that Max strength was attained with a set lasting 10 seconds or less, and people were doing reps that lasted 2-3 seconds, the conclusion was that 1-5 reps was best for size. I think most guys that train for strength have intuitively found what rep range works best for them. Want to know how they determined the best rep range? They started lifting heavy weight, and found the rep range that allowed them to lift the most weight, and make progress.
If you are training for a sport, you set your training up to be resemble the demands of your sport. If you are just training for size, you pick a method that at least has SOME reasoning behind it, and you stick with it and progress.
And based on the tone in your questions, it seems to me that you need to read some of the stuff in the beginner forum, and probably should stick with a BASIC beginner program with NO customizations at the moment. You dont need to worry about what works best for you, because probably there are a lot of things that work for you. And rather then sit around pondering what works best, JUST PICK SOMETHING ALREADY AND FORCE THAT METHOD TO WORK BEST.[/quote
I say I will take any advice and I will but I think some of you don’t read all the words in a post. I have made it extremely clear that I have tried beginner programs and the ones I’ve listed. Of course everyone starts with the basics which is why sometimes I don’t understand why all of you keep on pushing the basics. I’m not pondering, I’m RUNNING to find what works best for me. I mean honestly, do I want to stick with the beginner’s programs and then move on to find something that will better suit me or better to skip to step 2? Most natural bodybuilders are required to gain pounds of muscle per year WITHOUT fail or else…they risk not winning competitions. Most of us are in this to reach a body that will satisfy us, not keep on striving for more. This is exactly the reason why there’s a forum called “get a life.” I’m not saying anybody here needs to. I’m just saying would you spend years of your life reaching for the body you want or would you rather do what it takes to reach it in good time and enjoy the rest of your life? Enough with the basic talk, it’s time to find out exactly what to do. I’m not saying I want a quick fix like, “I want to reach my dream body in a month!” that is absolutely absurd, but I definitely do not want to be well into my late 20’s because I decided to “stick to the basics,” when I could’ve gotten help to work smarter, work harder, and work faster. I’m sick of being dissappointed after a month of every routine I try and hearing disappointments from others when a good number of bodybuilders have to do what we want to achieve year after year. If the basics satisfied everyone, most of us would not be on this forum frequently. But we are, and I want to learn all I can so I can finally end the confusion, put every “guaranteed” program to shame, and finally give people what they deserve. Noone deserves to spend huge amounts of money and time to reach their dream body. Everybody has bills to pay, themselves to take care of and probably even family. This is the one thing we want to spend our hard-earned money on and most of us do not wish to be disappointed and shell out more money and more time that we should be devoting to things we should be doing. Please somebody out there, help me, help all of us. we live in hard times right now, and although we do not have enough, we save a small portion for bodybuilding, and it would all be worth it if we could figure it out and get everything right.