@ counting beans I care because they are paying me to make them succeed in their endeavor.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
wtf am I even talking about anymore?[/quote]
The same thing we’ve been saying. I will go all out to help some guy in the gym who I see is working his ass off and is really trying. i will not waste that kind of time on the guy who is “pressing” a 10lbs plate on each side and not even breaking a sweat…and then gabbing on the cell for 30min.
I don’t need to save cell phone guy. He won’t even be in the gym next year anyway. Therefore, why would I give out advice as if I need to focus on that guy?
I don’t.
No one does…unless they just want to get some money from them before they quit.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
but if you want me to concede that a 16 year old 170lb kid spends the majority of his time on chest/tri day in the cable crossover machine, I will still say with impunity that he should spend a little more time in the rack, on the bench, or on the platform.
[/quote]
So will anyone posting in this thread though. Like you said, don’t do one at the expense of the other, and you’ll get where you need to go.
It’s not like having a big total, and doing arm work are mutually exclusive. And no one is saying they are. It’s just that in this particular forum, it is a touchy subject due to years of “all you need is chins and rows to have big arms”, and those people being literal.
[/quote]
ya, i see your point.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Also, part of the problem is audience. I think a lot of the back-and-forth comes from some people posting advice towards everyone, even the clueless newb. Some people are tryign to save everyone that ever stepped in the gym.
And then other people are posting for those lifters that are going to survive, those that will still be passionate after year 3, 6 or 9.
I mean in the end, all we are talking about is lifting fucking wieghts, but when your serious enough to still be pounding away 10 years down the road, unless they are paying you, why give a shit about the newb that only does curls? I mean, shouldn’t you expect someone who wants it to figure at least some of this shit out for himself?
Honest question. Do you care about and try and save everyone? Or shoudl you wait until someone shows at least dermination, even if they have failed to progress, but at least kept coming back and trying, before you try and save them?
wtf am I even talking about anymore?[/quote]
lol, yeah, really? wtf…
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
@ X and Kngbeef again, I agree with you. I am just making them realize that they need t focus their attention on how to get big and not copy an already big guy on what he does.
X a question, I remember reading about how you “evolved into the HS machines” over a period of time right?
So if a newbie comes along and asks you how to get big like +75lbs big, would you have him do your routine as your doing now or something different? Because if you answer something different then you are agreeing with me just maybe not in my methods.
By the way in the weightroom I train people to get strong. I don’t do functional crap with them. If I feel someone could benefit with a better work capacity we work with the tire, sled and sprints.
@ everyone I never said don’t do direct arm work-that is silly. Just that the routines you are bashing on are not geared in the first place for Bodybuilders.[/quote]
My advice is clear in that “professor x advice” thread. You will NEVER hear me tell some newb to focus only on HS machines. Not only that, but there was a very good reason I moved to mostly machines and they allowed to keep making progress in spite of screwed tendons and torn muscle groups.
I look like this because of everything I ever did, not just what i am doing now.
And one thing I always did was train muscle groups directly…just like most of the huge fuckers on the planet that people would assume are either bodybuilders are college or pro football players.
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
@ X and Kngbeef again, I agree with you. I am just making them realize that they need t focus their attention on how to get big and not copy an already big guy on what he does.
X a question, I remember reading about how you “evolved into the HS machines” over a period of time right?
So if a newbie comes along and asks you how to get big like +75lbs big, would you have him do your routine as your doing now or something different? Because if you answer something different then you are agreeing with me just maybe not in my methods.
By the way in the weightroom I train people to get strong. I don’t do functional crap with them. If I feel someone could benefit with a better work capacity we work with the tire, sled and sprints.
@ everyone I never said don’t do direct arm work-that is silly. Just that the routines you are bashing on are not geared in the first place for Bodybuilders.[/quote]
well said.
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
@ counting beans I care because they are paying me to make them succeed in their endeavor.[/quote]
And thank god you do. I see “trainers” having people do some of the dumbest shit ever. 45 mins fo curls 3 days a week would be a serious upgrade.
But outside of being paid, at what point would you go out of your way for someone?
Family and freinds aside, is it like X said, when you see they have balls and drive? Or should “we” dive right in and try and save everyone?
(Posting on here is different as they are seeking out info, which IMO, is 3/4’s the battle for a lot of people.)
@ X you answered my question on how training evolves over time and how you would tell them diffrently than what you do. Thank you.
@ CountingBeans I help out non-clients alot with things like diets or helping out on form and such. Not a big deal really.
I’m still young, and I used to be affected by the “no direct arm work” concept. All I ever did was squat, bench, deadlift, and overhead press with barbells. That was it. Did I grow? Yes, I went from 170 lbs to around 195. My goal was always to get big and muscular, and it worked a bit. But I was narrow with relatively small arms.
Less than a year today I decided that I’m intelligent, that I don’t need to religiously read these articles every day and try to incorporate them into my training. I could find things out on my own. But doing so would require an open mind. I decided I would no longer shun machines and direct arm work. I’m hovering at about 208 lbs now, but my arms are almost an entire inch larger and way more “shapely”, and my shoulders are much wider than they used to be.
I think the intelligent/passionate bodybuilders end up finding the way they should train in order to spur growth in all body parts, regardless of how misguided their start is. All I know is that my arms are still lagging behind the rest of my body despite relentlessly working on them, and that can be attributed to these non-direct arm training advocates and my susceptibility as a youth.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
but if you want me to concede that a 16 year old 170lb kid spends the majority of his time on chest/tri day in the cable crossover machine, I will still say with impunity that he should spend a little more time in the rack, on the bench, or on the platform.
[/quote]
Sorry to beat a dead horse here again, just to clarify that some authors advocate absolutely no single joint movements (at least not consistently). They argue that a pull-up or whatever will develop better biceps than curls etc.
So it’s not a case of meeting somewhere in the middle, some are completely “left wing”. Take Chad for example; when working on arms (i.e. a bodybuilder), he’ll have the trainee doing all sorts of movements, anything other than a simple damn isolation movement. And it’s not just isolation movements per ce, it’s consistent weekly “hitting” of the arms he discourages (e.g. even close grip benching every week would at least be something).
And then what’s worse, people will argue “ah, but he does train arms!”. Yeah, in an arm specific training phase, which is full of anything but a consistent direct arm training regime. Something that wouldn’t be needed if the bodybuilder was hitting arms each week anyway.
Seriously, why the hate for bodybuilding splits so much when it’s the most direct path to your goals? Even an upper/lower split…When the push comes to the shove, at the end he will say something along the lines of “well it’s only drugged up bodybuilders who want to look like cartoon characters who do splits”.
That’s what people here are getting at ^^^. Not trainers that simply want newbies to focus. I never focussed too much on arms (that’s something the weekend warriors do, and then quite). Even now, my routines are mostly compound, with a few sets of direct arm work thrown in (not much, but still needed). As a newbie, all I wanted was some authoritive guidance at the start, and Chad was one of them (yet he has this issue with bodybuilders wanting to be…well…bodybuilders). If you don’t like a subject, don’t write a book for that subject 
That’s just misleading.
BTW, I hope that didn’t sound bitter/whiny ^
I truly have followed much of what Chad has said and I feel that he has pioneered great things (especially the speed of reps, stopping sets when they slow, his progression methods, nervous system work etc), but just don’t get why he can be so blinkered/one track minded in the sports field when it comes to dishing out advice for the bodybuilding “purist”
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
but if you want me to concede that a 16 year old 170lb kid spends the majority of his time on chest/tri day in the cable crossover machine, I will still say with impunity that he should spend a little more time in the rack, on the bench, or on the platform.
[/quote]
Sorry to beat a dead horse here again, just to clarify that some authors advocate absolutely no single joint movements (at least not consistently). They argue that a pull-up or whatever will develop better biceps than curls etc.
So it’s not a case of meeting somewhere in the middle, some are completely “left wing”. Take Chad for example; when working on arms (i.e. a bodybuilder), he’ll have the trainee doing all sorts of movements, anything other than a simple damn isolation movement. And it’s not just isolation movements per ce, it’s consistent weekly “hitting” of the arms he discourages (e.g. even close grip benching every week would at least be something).
And then what’s worse, people will argue “ah, but he does train arms!”. Yeah, in an arm specific training phase, which is full of anything but a consistent direct arm training regime. Something that wouldn’t be needed if the bodybuilder was hitting arms each week anyway.
Seriously, why the hate for bodybuilding splits so much when it’s the most direct path to your goals? Even an upper/lower split…When the push comes to the shove, at the end he will say something along the lines of “well it’s only drugged up bodybuilders who want to look like cartoon characters who do splits”.
That’s what people here are getting at ^^^. Not trainers that simply want newbies to focus. I never focussed too much on arms (that’s something the weekend warriors do, and then quite). Even now, my routines are mostly compound, with a few sets of direct arm work thrown in (not much, but still needed). As a newbie, all I wanted was some authoritive guidance at the start, and Chad was one of them (yet he has this issue with bodybuilders wanting to be…well…bodybuilders). If you don’t like a subject, don’t write a book for that subject That’s just misleading.[/quote]
read all my posts, I agree with you totally.
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
If you could bench press 400lbs on a bench, why would a cable press make your pecs grow more since obviously there’s no way you’d be able to press that load while standing upright? Simple long term hypertrophy logic…[/quote]
This is what I said earlier ^ And to Chad’s credit, he did respond (for those who are interested) -
[quote]Chad wrote:
@its_just_me: That’s a good question. First, higher loads don’t always mean more direct stimulation of the targeted muscle. Often, higher loads recruit more muscle groups for stability. So just because a guy might be able to bench press 350 pounds doesn’t mean he needs 175 pound dumbbells to get the same direct stimulation with the pectoral muscles. The standing cable chest is ideal because the line of resistance matches the line of the fibers and it allows the shoulder blades to move freely, and it recruits the core more than a traditional bench press. Again, don’t get stuck thinking about nothing more than load - think about the amount of stimulation to the targeted muscle.
[/quote]
Kind of food for thought to me (good response), because it’s very true that with dumbbell work (the example he used), the load is less (for pressing, typically about 60-70% of barbell load as an estimate)…and no-one can argue the effectiveness of DB’s for pec growth.
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
@ X you answered my question on how training evolves over time and how you would tell them diffrently than what you do. Thank you.
@ CountingBeans I help out non-clients alot with things like diets or helping out on form and such. Not a big deal really.[/quote]
he just in a matter of a few hours respnding to things on my training log, has helped me a lot already. FISCHER is a good guy…please understand that even if he disagrees with some of your training philosophies, he is a great asset to this site.
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
If you could bench press 400lbs on a bench, why would a cable press make your pecs grow more since obviously there’s no way you’d be able to press that load while standing upright? Simple long term hypertrophy logic…[/quote]
This is what I said earlier ^ And to Chad’s credit, he did respond (for those who are interested) -
[quote]Chad wrote:
@its_just_me: That’s a good question. First, higher loads don’t always mean more direct stimulation of the targeted muscle. Often, higher loads recruit more muscle groups for stability. So just because a guy might be able to bench press 350 pounds doesn’t mean he needs 175 pound dumbbells to get the same direct stimulation with the pectoral muscles. The standing cable chest is ideal because the line of resistance matches the line of the fibers and it allows the shoulder blades to move freely, and it recruits the core more than a traditional bench press. Again, don’t get stuck thinking about nothing more than load - think about the amount of stimulation to the targeted muscle.
[/quote]
Kind of food for thought to me (good response), because it’s very true that with dumbbell work (the example he used), the load is less (for pressing, typically about 60-70% of barbell load as an estimate)…and no-one can argue the effectiveness of DB’s for pec growth.[/quote]
very informative, thanks for posting…
I have said before, chad has some great Ideas as far as making you “lean and mean” as far a tfunctional strength and real world strong and lean.
try “Waterbury Walks” with 70-80% of your deadlift max. IT WILL KILL YOU, and make you stronger mentally and physically.
I posted this in my “ht’s crossfit experience” thread years ago:
when I trained at norcal crossfit(no norcal strength and conditioning) Rob Wolf’s gym (Paleo diet guy), I introduced them to “Waterbury Walks” and they left even those guys crumpled in a heap on the floor crying for mommy…lol.
edit: I know Rob Wolfe and he is a super NICE guy and VERY intelligent and knowledgeable guy. he offered to let me train free at norcal strength and conditioning in exchange for offering personal training to his clients for mass and strength building, as an assistant coach for them.
my crazy work schedule prevented me from taking him up on his offer, but I have lots of respect for Robb and what he is doing in the strength/fitness industry.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
please understand that even if he disagrees with some of your training philosophies, he is a great asset to this site. [/quote]
I don’t think anyone thought otherwise
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]tveddy wrote:
I agree with Fischer on his original point in that when I was training junior high kids, it was hard to get them to go hard for 3 lifts before they were jacking around because none of them really wanted to be there with the exception of a couple kids. If you want to get the most out of those 3 lifts you make them do full body lifts. [/quote]
?
But that isn’t bodybuilding. Bodybuilders don’t play around the gym wishing they weren’t there.
I mean, I really don;t understand the stance some here are taking.
Bodybuilding does not equal “people in gyms who barely want to be there who only train chest and biceps”.[/quote]
Not advocating it for bodybuilding. Just beginners where you only get to use a few money exercises.
[quote]tveddy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]tveddy wrote:
I agree with Fischer on his original point in that when I was training junior high kids, it was hard to get them to go hard for 3 lifts before they were jacking around because none of them really wanted to be there with the exception of a couple kids. If you want to get the most out of those 3 lifts you make them do full body lifts. [/quote]
?
But that isn’t bodybuilding. Bodybuilders don’t play around the gym wishing they weren’t there.
I mean, I really don;t understand the stance some here are taking.
Bodybuilding does not equal “people in gyms who barely want to be there who only train chest and biceps”.[/quote]
Not advocating it for bodybuilding. Just beginners where you only get to use a few money exercises.[/quote]
OH…we call those “new years Resolutioners”.
You had me confused for a second.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]tveddy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]tveddy wrote:
I agree with Fischer on his original point in that when I was training junior high kids, it was hard to get them to go hard for 3 lifts before they were jacking around because none of them really wanted to be there with the exception of a couple kids. If you want to get the most out of those 3 lifts you make them do full body lifts. [/quote]
?
But that isn’t bodybuilding. Bodybuilders don’t play around the gym wishing they weren’t there.
I mean, I really don;t understand the stance some here are taking.
Bodybuilding does not equal “people in gyms who barely want to be there who only train chest and biceps”.[/quote]
Not advocating it for bodybuilding. Just beginners where you only get to use a few money exercises.[/quote]
OH…we call those “new years Resolutioners”.
You had me confused for a second.[/quote]
fortunately I couldn’t stand trying to train/teach kids that didn’t want to be there and I got out of it. So now I don’t call them anything.