[quote]Professor X wrote:
Is this site for serious lifters or not?
[/quote]
Remember baby carrots?
[quote]kelleyb wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Is this site for serious lifters or not?
Remember baby carrots?
[/quote]
Ah, yes. Baby carrots. I keep forgetting.
I’ll just stand over here next to the kiddie weight liftin’ play table so I don’t get in the way.
Anyone want to ask a question about creatine?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
kelleyb wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Is this site for serious lifters or not?
Remember baby carrots?
Ah, yes. Baby carrots. I keep forgetting.
I’ll just stand over here next to the kiddie weight liftin’ play table so I don’t get in the way.
Anyone want to ask a question about creatine?[/quote]
I wish I could find that thread. I could literally hear you screaming at your computer as you typed your response. lol
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
forbes wrote:
I never, ever said BB slits left out compounds. I also never said they never added mass allover. Heck, I do BB splits after years of wasted high volume TBT. But I just said that it COULD be used and still add mass.
Again, why talk about specific mass and such? Not focusing on planes gives you specific mass, but focusing on planes does add mass all-over? That post quoted below doesn’t really make sense, that’s what I’m saying.
As long as you make progress on exercises for every major muscle-group/bodypart/whatever, you will add mass everywhere.
Focusing on planes… Gotta say that most plane-focused routines I’ve seen thus far left something to be desired as far as balance (in case that the trainee wants to end up looking like a bodybuilder), but that may just be due to people posting/thinking up those routines being inexperienced still.
To me, all the talk about planes (Though you won’t find many serious bodybuilders who have even heard of this before because it has simply made zero impact in the big world of bodybuilding outside of certain websites whose main audience doesn’t even give a damn about bodybuilding… And powerlifters usually don’t think in planes either from what I’ve gathered) is just a way to make certain people sound intelligent/creative etc…
Just fancy stuff that isn’t really needed.
You can think that way if you want, but seriously… That isn’t all that different from loading up the bar and doing 1/19th of a squat with 3 spotters keeping that bar from crushing you. Just there to impress others (or yourself) and, in case of planes, to appear novel… So they can say “I’m different” for the sake of just being different.
But what if you have an individual who is all but 140 lbs? Does he need to focus on specific parts, or does he need to just add mass all over? In this case, he can get away by focusing on “planes” because specific mass is not needed, but rather overall mass.
Oh and, please don’t think Im trying to argue. Im just posing a scenario thats all.
[/quote]
I do have to say well said. Again, perhaps I didnt make myself clear. All I said was that its an option. I never said it was optimal. In my honest opinion, yes, focusing on “planes” can leave some things incomplete. It IS preferable to organize things based on body parts. I thought I made myself clear…I was wrong.
[quote]forbes wrote:
I do have to say well said. Again, perhaps I didnt make myself clear. All I said was that its an option. I never said it was optimal. In my honest opinion, yes, focusing on “planes” can leave some things incomplete. It IS preferable to organize things based on body parts. I thought I made myself clear…I was wrong. [/quote]
You know I’m just trying to make sure that all those 120 lb guys reading this don’t end up misinterpreting stuff too much.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why even go in that direction? Why not simply tell people to avoid working muscle groups while ignoring the antagonist?
[/quote]
You can tell people what you want, they will get from it what they want. Then you tell it to them in a different way until they get it. Just as the authors clearly state I’m not about building muscle with the aesthetics as the sole purpose, and the “bodybuilders” on the site still argue how planes is a stupid idea for bodybuilding.
In the example I gave the person worked his chest and his lats, and the program still can cause an imbalance. Using Chest - lat as agonist/antagonist is different than horizontal push/pull, vertical push/pull. Specially when considering how complicated the back is when it comes to primary, secondary, and tertiary movers with traps,lats, rotators, rear delts, and other stabilizing muscles. It is much simpler to have the target audience think in terms of planes then look for every agonist/antagonist combo. Next thing you know your serious lifters will be trying to find the antagonist for his serratus muscle. When performing athletic movements, or daily odd movements slight imbalances can cause minor and majoir injuries such as muscle pulls. A pulled muscle means time off building that muscle. Perhaps you and carnage never had an injury but plenty of pro’s and aspiring pro’s who would consider themselves serious lifters have, and would prefer to learn ways to avoid repeated injury.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Gee, he’s doing stuff wrong in general… Could just as well learn how to create a proper split based on bodyparts… What was your point again?
[/quote]
My point is that you can’t read.
Again…Maybe if you read the articles that your debating against you would see that their focus is not mass building but performance and movement. You can even read todays article where he clearly shitted on bodybuilders. If the guy says “THIS IS NOT FOR BODYBUILDERS” why are you even debating that using planes is not a superior method to gaining mass?
Reminder: This is the Bodybuilding forum.
Movement plane splits, if followed appropriately, are more likely to accomodate equal volume to each movement pattern. I think for those interested in improving sports performance, movement plan splits are pretty useful.
For BBing purposes body part splits are optimal. The goal of BBing is to train muscles, not movements or exercises, a fact I think that sometimes gets lost. It all comes down to specificity! You train in the manner that most suits the requirement of the endeavour!
[quote]kelleyb wrote:
Professor X wrote:
kelleyb wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Is this site for serious lifters or not?
Remember baby carrots?
Ah, yes. Baby carrots. I keep forgetting.
I’ll just stand over here next to the kiddie weight liftin’ play table so I don’t get in the way.
Anyone want to ask a question about creatine?
I wish I could find that thread. I could literally hear you screaming at your computer as you typed your response. lol
[/quote]
Someone please link that thread. I’ve been reading these forums a lot lately, and Prof X’s constant frustration over 150 lbs newbies is a great source of entertainment. :-p
[quote]Dave Rogerson wrote:
Movement plane splits, if followed appropriately, are more likely to accomodate equal volume to each movement pattern. I think for those interested in improving sports performance, movement plan splits are pretty useful.
For BBing purposes body part splits are optimal. The goal of BBing is to train muscles, not movements or exercises, a fact I think that sometimes gets lost. It all comes down to specificity! You train in the manner that most suits the requirement of the endeavour!
[/quote]
Peace.
The OP just posted in the wrong forum.
If you posted “will doggcrap training increase my vertical leap” in the strength sports forum you’d get blasted too.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Gee, he’s doing stuff wrong in general… Could just as well learn how to create a proper split based on bodyparts… What was your point again?
My point is that you can’t read.
Again…Maybe if you read the articles that your debating against you would see that their focus is not mass building but performance and movement. You can even read todays article where he clearly shitted on bodybuilders. If the guy says “THIS IS NOT FOR BODYBUILDERS” why are you even debating that using planes is not a superior method to gaining mass? [/quote]
The OP asked “Planes or Bodypart splits?”… This is the bodybuilding forum, so obviously all this is going to be debated in a bodybuilding context. If the authors mention that their methods are not for bodybuilding, then why bring them up in this forum and expect me to say “Great stuff!”?
Besides, where did I argue for any method being superior? Thinking in planes is just a different way of thinking which is used by no serious/successful bodybuilders (or Powerlifters, at least none that I’m aware of) whatsoever… And that, one could assume, has reasons.
You shouldn’t complain about me being unable to read… Your own reading comprehension isn’t exactly stellar considering that you completely missed any of the points I was making.
Again, no person with a brain is going to work his back very little but use a ton of chest exercises. That is simple inexperience (Or lack of intelligence… Or both). Especially a serious bodybuilder (seeing as how huge backs are kind of a trademark for us) or powerlifter (who needs the back size and strength for the big three).
[quote]mr popular wrote:
Reminder: This is the Bodybuilding forum.[/quote]
We need to use that as a signature line or something. Or a pop-up which comes up whenever someone tries to respond in a thread in this sub-forum…
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Why even go in that direction? Why not simply tell people to avoid working muscle groups while ignoring the antagonist?
You can tell people what you want, they will get from it what they want. Then you tell it to them in a different way until they get it. Just as the authors clearly state I’m not about building muscle with the aesthetics as the sole purpose, and the “bodybuilders” on the site still argue how planes is a stupid idea for bodybuilding.
[/quote]
What forum is this again?
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Gee, he’s doing stuff wrong in general… Could just as well learn how to create a proper split based on bodyparts… What was your point again?
My point is that you can’t read.
Again…Maybe if you read the articles that your debating against you would see that their focus is not mass building but performance and movement. You can even read todays article where he clearly shitted on bodybuilders. If the guy says “THIS IS NOT FOR BODYBUILDERS” why are you even debating that using planes is not a superior method to gaining mass?
The OP asked “Planes or Bodypart splits?”… This is the bodybuilding forum, so obviously all this is going to be debated in a bodybuilding context. If the authors mention that their methods are not for bodybuilding, then why bring them up in this forum and expect me to say “Great stuff!”?
Besides, where did I argue for any method being superior? Thinking in planes is just a different way of thinking which is used by no serious/successful bodybuilders (or Powerlifters, at least none that I’m aware of) whatsoever… And that, one could assume, has reasons.
You shouldn’t complain about me being unable to read… Your own reading comprehension isn’t exactly stellar considering that you completely missed any of the points I was making.
Again, no person with a brain is going to work his back very little but use a ton of chest exercises. That is simple inexperience (Or lack of intelligence… Or both). Especially a serious bodybuilder (seeing as how huge backs are kind of a trademark for us) or powerlifter (who needs the back size and strength for the big three).
[/quote]
I think I’m going to head over to a forum about race cars and shoe horn in some threads about knitting.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Gee, he’s doing stuff wrong in general… Could just as well learn how to create a proper split based on bodyparts… What was your point again?
My point is that you can’t read.
Again…Maybe if you read the articles that your debating against you would see that their focus is not mass building but performance and movement. You can even read todays article where he clearly shitted on bodybuilders. If the guy says “THIS IS NOT FOR BODYBUILDERS” why are you even debating that using planes is not a superior method to gaining mass?
The OP asked “Planes or Bodypart splits?”… This is the bodybuilding forum, so obviously all this is going to be debated in a bodybuilding context. If the authors mention that their methods are not for bodybuilding, then why bring them up in this forum and expect me to say “Great stuff!”?
Besides, where did I argue for any method being superior? Thinking in planes is just a different way of thinking which is used by no serious/successful bodybuilders (or Powerlifters, at least none that I’m aware of) whatsoever… And that, one could assume, has reasons.
You shouldn’t complain about me being unable to read… Your own reading comprehension isn’t exactly stellar considering that you completely missed any of the points I was making.
Again, no person with a brain is going to work his back very little but use a ton of chest exercises. That is simple inexperience (Or lack of intelligence… Or both). Especially a serious bodybuilder (seeing as how huge backs are kind of a trademark for us) or powerlifter (who needs the back size and strength for the big three).
I think I’m going to head over to a forum about race cars and shoe horn in some threads about knitting.[/quote]
That’d be funny. You should seriously do that!
[quote]forbes wrote:
I think I’m going to head over to a forum about race cars and shoe horn in some threads about knitting.
That’d be funny. You should seriously do that![/quote]
And then go all airtruth on them (“You clearly can’t read. Knitters usually say that knitting has no effect on the speed of a race car, but the “race drivers” on this forum about race cars still argue that a motor is superior to knitting for race car speed.”)
