[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Bill, you’re making everything way too complicated.
Long time no see Cephalic_Carnage!
Don’t know if my PM thingy is working or not…or if you’re just ignoring me (understandable lol)[/quote]
He has not been ignoring you. His PMs have been disabled due to a bunch of us exhausting his stores. Try asked him questions in his training thread.
[quote]ajweins wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Bill, you’re making everything way too complicated.
Long time no see Cephalic_Carnage!
Don’t know if my PM thingy is working or not…or if you’re just ignoring me (understandable lol)
He has not been ignoring you. His PMs have been disabled due to a bunch of us exhausting his stores. Try asked him questions in his training thread.[/quote]
Thanks for clearing that up
Why would you have thought that my response was to Antares, or why should it have been? It was plainly stated that it was to the OP’s question. And the OP found my posts useful, so why is this given as an example of me supposedly being unhelpful and irrelevant or uselessly technical?
What, I cannot answer the original poster’s question and should be criticized for doing so? I don’t get what you are objecting to?
[quote]cueball wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
EDIT: I couldn’t find it. Doing a search for all of Antares’ posts brough up only this thread, the Stupid Arguments thread, and the Reverse Grip Overhead Press thread, none of which would seem to be what you mean.
I’m referring to this, posted on page 4 of this thread:
Antares wrote:
You are approaching the ‘Physical Standard’ as my mentor called it for the Dead Lift. (assuming a Conventional DL). That is a double bodyweight DL. This was his ‘Standard’, and from what he said as one nears this (and all) milestone(s), it becomes harder and harder to nail, without adding ‘too much softness.’
I was ‘raised’ on these ‘Physical Standards.’ They are all based on bodyweight vs weight lifted in a certain amount of volume. Your height is not as important as your limb distribution. Your 'body fat %'of which I was already tired of people fussing over in JR (I knew HS/College guys) is not needed at all unless you like numbers or something. What should matter (to you as a body builder type I feel) is how you look and feel (firmness). You have not met these ‘Standards’ and though his/my way is not the only way, it is nearly idiot proof.
I will get on here and try to transfer what is applicable from these ‘Physical Standards,’ to your DL problem if you like.[/quote]
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Bill, you’re making everything way too complicated.
Long time no see Cephalic_Carnage!
Don’t know if my PM thingy is working or not…or if you’re just ignoring me (understandable lol)[/quote]
No one can pm me, it seems, so don’t feel bad
[quote]trextacy wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
I say Professor x in the title because I want people like him who are advanced answering my question. If you weigh under 220lbs (unless you’re a midget), please watch and learn lol.
I have been building up a strength foundation for about 2 years now. Previously, I’d been doing too much volume for my recovery abilities. Although bodybuilding for 8 years, I’d say that only my past 2 years counts since before I wasn’t eating enough or even concerned that much with strength. I would describe myself as ectomorphic (by genes), started off at 130lbs at 6 foot.
Currently hovering around 200lbs at >10% bf. I don’t take steroids, and don’t intend to when not at my peak natural potential.
My realistic goal is to be at a natural, lean 225-230lbs by the time I’m 30 years old (currently 25). I’ve been doing upper exercises twice a week, or once every 5 days. And lower body once per week.
Brief example:
Monday - Bench, Military Press, Barbel Curl, Skull Crusher
Wednesday - Squat, Deadlift, Shrugs
Friday - Bench, Pullup, Skull Crusher, Barbel curl
I only manage 2-3 sets per exercise (average of 7 reps/set), otherwise, strength levels go down/over-training happens. I am wanting to go onto a more advanced routine now though since it only takes 3 or 4 weeks before this becomes too much (especially with the squat and deadlift in the same workout).
Thing is though, even though I’m only doing deadlifts once a week, I seem to stagnate. My squat is going up nicely, so is some other exercises (although, not as quickly as I’d like). Currently IÃ?¢??m getting stuck at 350lbs on the deadlifts and itÃ?¢??s really annoying me since IÃ?¢??ve been hovering around this weight for months and canÃ?¢??t seem to break past it. IÃ?¢??m happy with squats (currently 340lbs and improving each week easily).
I was considering doing a more split routine, which would mean doing some exercise less and giving them more sets.
One problem I have with SOME split routines in the fact that they only �¢??hit�¢?? the chest once a week. I understand that compound movements hit other muscles too (e.g. Deadlift hits upper back too, pullups hit biceps too etc)�¢?�¦but there�¢??s no other regular big exercise that hits the chest enough (other than specific compound movements like dips/�¢??flat�¢?? presses).
The reason why this is a problem for me personally is because I get weaker/smaller in the chest if itÃ?¢??s not directly trained at least once every 5 days (maybe this is because of only doing 3 sets?). That’s only the typical split routines I’ve seen in the past though, I’m not sure if they’re different now.
WhatÃ?¢??s the best way forward from here? I’m only asking because I’m probably going to have to do quite a bit of customisation…something I’m not familiar with on a more split routine.
I would really value the input and thanks in advance!
Wow.
(1) You aren’t doing enough work and aren’t even remotely within the universe that could be considered overtraining. Doing 2-3 sets of military press per week at 7 reps per set is barely a workout for shoulders, much less adequate work to stimulate growth.
(2) Hate to break it to you, but if you are currently 25 years old, 200 lbs at >10% BF, you WILL NEVER, EVER REACH A LEAN (10%-ISH) 230 LBS…by the time you are 30, or any time for that matter (not naturally). Not going to happen chief. Just look at the new Shelby Starnes interview that was posted today- there is a similar question posed. People don’t get how awesome a “lean 230” is these days- natural or otherwise. If you had the genetics for that you would already be much closer to it.
(3) somatypes like “ectomorph” are basically bullshit and have no basis in actual science.
(4) If you want to do a split, do a basic 3-way split and get in the gym 5 days per week. OR, if you want to keep things closer to your current set up, do an upper push, and upper pull, and some sort of lower body movement 3 days per week, with 2 days for arms/abs/calves. Use rep schemes like 10x3, 15x1, etc. so you are working at a higher % of your 1RM more of the time. Your working weight will go up quicker this way and the # of sets will ensure sufficient total workload to cause hypertrophy.
[/quote]
So your saying its impossible to gain 30 lbs or so of LMB for a newbie trainer that doesnt even really seem to know what hes doing re: training, diet, or sumplementation? PLEASE! have you ever read any of Tibs, Defrancos, etc transformations stories. Kid if your too lazy to read and research just pick or buy a turn key program like WS4BB, Tibs Get Jacked (awesome!!) Defranco just launched Built Like a Badass.
Squat, Deadlift, Bench and SFW (smash fuckin weights) aka stop training like a pussy. Attack the gym like your worst enemy. Dont over think it. Eat like a bear. When u cant see the outline of your abs anymore cut back a bit. Dont eat anything that our ancestors couldnt have picked or clubbed and eaten and youll do just fine. After a year or two of this come back and ask the experts like prof X for some tweaking.
[quote]Gabe299 wrote:
So your saying its impossible to gain 30 lbs or so of LMB for a newbie trainer that doesnt even really seem to know what hes doing re: training, diet, or sumplementation? PLEASE! have you ever read any of Tibs, Defrancos, etc transformations stories.
Kid if your too lazy to read and research just pick or buy a turn key program like WS4BB, Tibs Get Jacked (awesome!!) Defranco just launched Built Like a Badass. Squat, Deadlift, Bench and SFW (smash fuckin weights) aka stop training like a pussy. Attack the gym like your worst enemy. Dont over think it.
Eat like a bear. When u cant see the outline of your abs anymore cut back a bit. Dont eat anything that our ancestors couldnt have picked or clubbed and eaten and youll do just fine. After a year or two of this come back and ask the experts like prof X for some tweaking. [/quote]
I have already gone up from 130lbs to 200ish (I have a very small frame)…so I’m not THAT new to BB (I am a newb as regards lifting respectable weights though).
I’m not lazy as regards research…I just don’t want to waste time when I can be doing it right now and making decent progress right now (I’m not impatient…just zealous).
This place is packed full of advanced and well educated students who are debating amongst THEMSELVES…how easy do you think it is for a guy like me who’s trying to filter out the practical from the theory/philosophies? You’re right, I do need to get a decent book or something…but then again, I don’t want to “put all my eggs in one basket” and dismiss other people’s useful advice.
You have to pick one set of advice and follow it for a while if any results are going to occur. The “I don’t want to follow one theory for lack of missing a better one” is what stops people in your position from actually achieving their goals.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
You’re right, I do need to get a decent book or something…but then again, I don’t want to “put all my eggs in one basket” and dismiss other people’s useful advice.
You have to pick one set of advice and follow it for a while if any results are going to occur. The “I don’t want to follow one theory for lack of missing a better one” is what stops people in your position from actually achieving their goals.
S
[/quote]
I have to agree with that…but, if I had followed some peoples advice on here (to do more…cause I’m a “pussy”), I would have gone down-hill (since what I said about my total volume/HIT was misunderstood). Granted, doing more volume (but while managing fatigue/intensity) will make my muscles more developed…but it wouldn’t make me stronger.
THAT was THE question…how come even though my volume was low, was I not getting anywhere…and the answer was - I was taking EVERY work set to failure (shouting/eye poping failure) instead of ramping up to one/two big sets. I did warmup to the work sets (like 3 sets), and then I would do 3 more max rep sets.
In total, I’d be doing 6 proper failure sets per muscle group each week (not including the “warmups”…of which the last warmup set was only 10% less than the max set).
its_just_me, have a look at that T-Cell thread called “so many complicated training systems” (or so). The last post of mine in there, about my fall-back routine, might help you.
That one.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
its_just_me, have a look at that T-Cell thread called “so many complicated training systems” (or so). The last post of mine in there, about my fall-back routine, might help you.
[/quote]
You’re hilarious!
“Wife (preferably several at once) = Prepares your food, does the washing etc for you”
“Kids (the more, the better) = Make good slaves”
“Job and colleagues = More slaves, for you are the boss”
I’m deffinately doing something wrong 
So are you more of a one muscle group/week guy…as apposed to twice? (leaving out the fact that you don’t just do ONE muscle argument…).
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
its_just_me, have a look at that t-cell thread called “so many complicated training systems” (or so). The last post of mine in there, about my fall-back routine, might help you.
You’re hilarious!
“Wife (preferably several at once) = Prepares your food, does the washing etc for you”
“Kids (the more, the better) = Make good slaves”
“Job and colleagues = More slaves, for you are the boss”
I’m deffinately doing something wrong
So are you more of a one muscle group/week guy…as apposed to twice? (leaving out the fact that you don’t just do ONE muscle argument…).[/quote]
Not that post, the one further down the page
I’ve trained muscle-groups from once a week to three times a week each… Can all be made to work well, but in your case I’d go with one of those 3-ways I described in that thread.
I can go into more detail if you want…
That post:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Hmmm. Whenever work, family or whatever interferes (i.e. whenever the slaves get it into their heads that they should have rights too… Fools! Who earns the money here, huh? :), or when I’m just kind of fed up with more complex stuff or whatever, I tend to fall back to a 3-way split and train whenever I want (can be 3 times a week if I have little time, or up to 6 times if I feel like it…
Can even go twice a day if I really feel great, but that usually doesn’t happen… Basically, it’s a very flexible routine)…
Fav variants would be
(most recent incarnation)
-Chest, Tris, Quads (no back squats in that case, would go with front or hack or zercher)
-Back, Hams, Abs
-Delts, Traps, Bis
(trusty yates-split that many of my trainees and guys I’m helping out have fallen in love with)
-Chest, Bis, Tris
-Legs, Abs
-Delts, Back
(yates modified for several reasons)
-Chest, Back
-Legs, Abs
-Delts, Arms
Any of these will do… 2 and sometimes 3 exercises per muscle-group (back, perhaps delts), only one for traps in my case, all ramped (often the first exercise being heavy, CT-ish ramp in fives or threes… Second being done in eights or tens or in a regular, old-school BB ramp… And what people now call auto-regulation is done on all exercises, though that’s 3 syllables too many for such a simple thing).
As I said, I train whenever I feel like it and have the time, can vary a lot from week to week, made some great progress that way and when the ramping is done right, you leave the gym feeling fresher than when you entered it
Even the progression sort of takes care of itself.
[/quote]
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
I have to agree with that…but, if I had followed some peoples advice on here (to do more…cause I’m a “pussy”), I would have gone down-hill (since what I said about my total volume/HIT was misunderstood). Granted, doing more volume (but while managing fatigue/intensity) will make my muscles more developed…but it wouldn’t make me stronger. [/quote]
What was wrong with the “don’t be a pussy, use more volume” advice in that context? (Other than being incomplete, as it turns out that avoiding excessively draining reps proved to be also necessary advice.)
Your reported 2-3 sets of one exercise at 7 reps per set is not optimal volume for strength, either.
If you’re looking for strength as a higher priority than development, look at reps and volumes such as – assuming you’re ramping and starting at 55% 1RM and going up 5% RM each set:
5 reps ramping up to 70%
4 reps ramping up to 75%
Triples ramping up to 80% OR do doubles and on reaching 80%, do up to 6 sets
Doubles ramping up to 85% and on reaching that, do up to 4 sets
You can cycle up through these percentages rather than sticking with the same percentage for a long period of time.
Don’t worry that you could have gotten more reps with these percentages. This is still properly challenging work if you drive every rep as hard as you can rather than simply lift them.
Or the old standby of 5x5 with as much weight as you can still do POWERFULLY on the last set. On increasing weight, drop to 4 reps for the first 4 sets, then aim for 5 on the last, then fill in towards the front. (For example, the next time would be 4,4,4,5,5; the time after that 4,4,5,5,5; etc though if you are sure you can “fill in” faster while still completing the final set forcefully then do so.)
The above filling-in technique is not standard, but I like it.
Of course there are lots of approaches: these are not the only ones.
But 2 or 3 sets of 7 is not among them.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
I’ve trained muscle-groups from once a week to three times a week each… Can all be made to work well, but in your case I’d go with one of those 3-ways I described in that thread.
I can go into more detail if you want…
[/quote]
Yes please.
So do you think that a 3 way routine will be better for me than a 2 way? Why do you think that?
2 way e.g. -
Mon - Push / pull
Tue - Squat
Thu - Push / Pull
Fri - DL
I’m guessing the 3 way routine would look something like this correct? -
Day 1 - Chest, Bi’s, Tri’s
Day 2 - Legs
Day 3 - Off
Day 4 - Delts, Back
Day 5 - Off
Day 6 repeat
Can you tell I’ve been researching? You proud of me? lol
I wouldn’t schedule DL the day immediately after pull exercises.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
That post:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Hmmm. Whenever work, family or whatever interferes (i.e. whenever the slaves get it into their heads that they should have rights too… Fools! Who earns the money here, huh? :), or when I’m just kind of fed up with more complex stuff or whatever, I tend to fall back to a 3-way split and train whenever I want (can be 3 times a week if I have little time, or up to 6 times if I feel like it…
-Chest, Bis, Tris
-Legs, Abs
-Delts, Back
2 and sometimes 3 exercises per muscle-group (back, perhaps delts), only one for traps in my case, all ramped (often the first exercise being heavy, CT-ish ramp in fives or threes… Second being done in eights or tens or in a regular, old-school BB ramp… And what people now call auto-regulation is done on all exercises, though that’s 3 syllables too many for such a simple thing).
[/quote]
You are a big and wise German. You must have been peeking in my home windows and checking out my log book. Have a plan but be prepared for life to get in the way and work around it.
This is also my favorite split. I just switched back to it from push/pull/legs. I particularly don’t like pressing exercises all on one day. The strength drop after chest doesn’t work for me.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
I have to agree with that…but, if I had followed some peoples advice on here (to do more…cause I’m a “pussy”), I would have gone down-hill (since what I said about my total volume/HIT was misunderstood). Granted, doing more volume (but while managing fatigue/intensity) will make my muscles more developed…but it wouldn’t make me stronger.
What was wrong with the “don’t be a pussy, use more volume” advice in that context? (Other than being incomplete, as it turns out that avoiding excessively draining reps proved to be also necessary advice.)
Your reported 2-3 sets of one exercise at 7 reps per set is not optimal volume for strength, either.
If you’re looking for strength, look at reps and volumes such as – assuming you’re ramping and starting at 55% 1RM and going up 5% RM each set:
5 reps ramping up to 70%
4 reps ramping up to 75%
Triples ramping up to 80% OR do doubles and on reaching 80%, do up to 6 sets
Doubles ramping up to 85% and on reaching that, do up to 4 sets
You can cycle up through these percentages rather than sticking with the same percentage for a long period of time.
Don’t worry that you could have gotten more reps with these percentages. This is still properly challenging work if you drive every rep as hard as you can rather than simply lift them.
Or the old standby of 5x5 with as much weight as you can still do POWERFULLY on the last set. On increasing weight, drop to 4 reps for the first 4 sets, then aim for 5 on the last, then fill in towards the front. (For example, the next time would be 4,4,4,5,5; the time after that 4,4,5,5,5; etc though if you are sure you can “fill in” faster while still completing the final set forcefully then do so.)
The above filling-in technique is not standard, but I like it.
Of course there are lots of approaches: these are not the only ones.
But 2 or 3 sets of 7 is not among them.[/quote]
The 2 or 3 sets of 7 was just an example of what I do…strictly speaking, I never ended an exercise on just a set template. I would go by the total volume. So for an exercise (of which I did twice a week), I would do a total of 24-36 reps. Here’s an example of how it could go:
7, 6, 5, 5, 4. (all sets about 85% 1RM)
Here’s the same example including “warm ups”
8 @ 50%, 6 @ 50%, 6 @ 65%, 6 @ 75%. 4 @ 75%, work sets (7, 6, 5, 5, 4 @85%)
So if you were to say that I was “ramping”, I would be doing 6 sets plus 4 more extra at 85% 1RM. So for benching (for example) that would be a total of 20 sets per week.
A few weeks I may be doing low reps (e.g. 8 sets of 3), the next few I may do high reps (e.g. 8-10 reps)…so I can’t say that I do only one rep range…or that I favour just one type (although if I had to give just one range, it would be 6-8 for upper, and 10-20 for lower).
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I wouldn’t schedule DL the day immediately after pull exercises.[/quote]
Yeah, I’d probably switch that around to
M–Squat
T–push/pull
TH-Dead
F–push/pull
Or do mon, wed, fri, sun
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I wouldn’t schedule DL the day immediately after pull exercises.
Yeah, I’d probably switch that around to
M–Squat
T–push/pull
TH-Dead
F–push/pull
Or do mon, wed, fri, sun
[/quote]
Yeah this routine does have quite a bit of overlap either way…the DL will effect the pull and vice versa.