Pyramid or Not?

Training Bodybuilding
41

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

I like CT and of all the coaches on this site, he’s really the only one who’s articles I read anymore regularly. And from the pics of guys who he’s trained (the he posted) I’m certainly not going to argue that he gets results.

But, if you look at things from a big picture perspective, then what C_C and X have been saying about the fact that the majority of huge, strong BB’ers don’t train with tons of straight sets, but instead ramp up to a top set (maybe 2) per exercise still holds true.

You want to defy convention and go a different route than the one that most people effectively use to reach their goals, then no one is stopping you. Good luck to you in getting there (sincerely). Just don’t go telling people that the other way isn’t the right way to get there or that your way is in fact the most commonly used method. That’s what causes a lot of the confusion in the industry IMO.[/quote]

We’re both on the same page here, I was just explaining to GoodFellow CT’s stance on the subject.

I agree with what your saying but nevertheless it is still confusing that such a top coach who trains so many people would write to do straight sets almost exclusively in the articles he writes for the average person reading the article if it wasn’t the best approach (again I’m not giving my opinion here, just pointing this stuff out)

42

[quote]pumped340 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:

I like CT and of all the coaches on this site, he’s really the only one who’s articles I read anymore regularly. And from the pics of guys who he’s trained (the he posted) I’m certainly not going to argue that he gets results.

But, if you look at things from a big picture perspective, then what C_C and X have been saying about the fact that the majority of huge, strong BB’ers don’t train with tons of straight sets, but instead ramp up to a top set (maybe 2) per exercise still holds true.

You want to defy convention and go a different route than the one that most people effectively use to reach their goals, then no one is stopping you. Good luck to you in getting there (sincerely). Just don’t go telling people that the other way isn’t the right way to get there or that your way is in fact the most commonly used method. That’s what causes a lot of the confusion in the industry IMO.

We’re both on the same page here, I was just explaining to GoodFellow CT’s stance on the subject.

I agree with what your saying but nevertheless it is still confusing that such a top coach who trains so many people would write to do straight sets almost exclusively in the articles he writes for the average person reading the article if it wasn’t the best approach (again I’m not giving my opinion here, just pointing this stuff out)[/quote]

I have been wondering the same thing for a long time as well. As several have mentioned already, just about all of the top coaches (CT, Poliquin, etc) prescribe straight sets in all of their programs. You would think that if they felt that ramping on everything was the most effective methodology that they would give it more credence.

From what many of them have written over the years, hypertrophy results from a number of variables, not just load. Yes, you want to lift progressively heavier weights, but you also want to use enough volume to ensure that enough mechanical damage is being done to the muscles as well. This is why I have often wondered if one top set is really enough, even on 3-4 movements for a given muscle group.

43

[quote]Professor X wrote:

It doesn’t even make sense to use the same weight on all sets. There have been many days I go into the gym and have a little trouble with a certain weight only to come back to it after two other exercises to find that it is much easier to rep with.

The more sets you do, the greater the chance that muscle fibers not initially fired can be affected by the movement. This also means if you are easily able to get 10 reps with THE SAME DAMN WEIGHT for 4 sets, then there is no doubt in my mind that the weight you are using isn’t challenging enough for you to see much growth.

[/quote]

It seems like the bolded part is actually an argument for straight sets. Maybe I’m looking at it wrong?

44

[quote]pumped340 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

It doesn’t even make sense to use the same weight on all sets. There have been many days I go into the gym and have a little trouble with a certain weight only to come back to it after two other exercises to find that it is much easier to rep with.

The more sets you do, the greater the chance that muscle fibers not initially fired can be affected by the movement. This also means if you are easily able to get 10 reps with THE SAME DAMN WEIGHT for 4 sets, then there is no doubt in my mind that the weight you are using isn’t challenging enough for you to see much growth.

It seems like the bolded part is actually an argument for straight sets. Maybe I’m looking at it wrong?[/quote]

If a weight is getting easier to put up because more fibers are being activated, how the hell does it make sense to stay with the same weight as it gets easier for following sets? That is how you think muscles are stressed into growing?

Along with that, if you can honestly put up the same weight for 10 full reps over three sets, why do you think that is enough to force growth? It can’t possibly be that much of a challenge if you got three sets out of it for the same number of reps.

Maybe your idea of intensity when training is drastically different than mine. I would never do that because common sense tells me if I can get that many reps out of it for that many sets then the weight isn’t heavy enough and I need to go up.

45

[quote]Stl Ram wrote:
pumped340 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:

I like CT and of all the coaches on this site, he’s really the only one who’s articles I read anymore regularly. And from the pics of guys who he’s trained (the he posted) I’m certainly not going to argue that he gets results.

But, if you look at things from a big picture perspective, then what C_C and X have been saying about the fact that the majority of huge, strong BB’ers don’t train with tons of straight sets, but instead ramp up to a top set (maybe 2) per exercise still holds true.

You want to defy convention and go a different route than the one that most people effectively use to reach their goals, then no one is stopping you. Good luck to you in getting there (sincerely). Just don’t go telling people that the other way isn’t the right way to get there or that your way is in fact the most commonly used method. That’s what causes a lot of the confusion in the industry IMO.

We’re both on the same page here, I was just explaining to GoodFellow CT’s stance on the subject.

I agree with what your saying but nevertheless it is still confusing that such a top coach who trains so many people would write to do straight sets almost exclusively in the articles he writes for the average person reading the article if it wasn’t the best approach (again I’m not giving my opinion here, just pointing this stuff out)

I have been wondering the same thing for a long time as well. As several have mentioned already, just about all of the top coaches (CT, Poliquin, etc) prescribe straight sets in all of their programs. You would think that if they felt that ramping on everything was the most effective methodology that they would give it more credence.

From what many of them have written over the years, hypertrophy results from a number of variables, not just load. Yes, you want to lift progressively heavier weights, but you also want to use enough volume to ensure that enough mechanical damage is being done to the muscles as well. This is why I have often wondered if one top set is really enough, even on 3-4 movements for a given muscle group.

[/quote]

Hopefully there is a more of an argument here than, “well, this author/trainer said so”.

I’ll stick with what works. It doesn’t matter to me whether any of the guys you mentioned agrees with it.

46

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Stl Ram wrote:
pumped340 wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:

I like CT and of all the coaches on this site, he’s really the only one who’s articles I read anymore regularly. And from the pics of guys who he’s trained (the he posted) I’m certainly not going to argue that he gets results.

But, if you look at things from a big picture perspective, then what C_C and X have been saying about the fact that the majority of huge, strong BB’ers don’t train with tons of straight sets, but instead ramp up to a top set (maybe 2) per exercise still holds true.

You want to defy convention and go a different route than the one that most people effectively use to reach their goals, then no one is stopping you. Good luck to you in getting there (sincerely). Just don’t go telling people that the other way isn’t the right way to get there or that your way is in fact the most commonly used method. That’s what causes a lot of the confusion in the industry IMO.

We’re both on the same page here, I was just explaining to GoodFellow CT’s stance on the subject.

I agree with what your saying but nevertheless it is still confusing that such a top coach who trains so many people would write to do straight sets almost exclusively in the articles he writes for the average person reading the article if it wasn’t the best approach (again I’m not giving my opinion here, just pointing this stuff out)

I have been wondering the same thing for a long time as well. As several have mentioned already, just about all of the top coaches (CT, Poliquin, etc) prescribe straight sets in all of their programs. You would think that if they felt that ramping on everything was the most effective methodology that they would give it more credence.

From what many of them have written over the years, hypertrophy results from a number of variables, not just load. Yes, you want to lift progressively heavier weights, but you also want to use enough volume to ensure that enough mechanical damage is being done to the muscles as well. This is why I have often wondered if one top set is really enough, even on 3-4 movements for a given muscle group.

Hopefully there is a more of an argument here than, “well, this author/trainer said so”.

I’ll stick with what works. It doesn’t matter to me whether any of the guys you mentioned agrees with it.[/quote]

Well, the argument is supposed to be that ramping to one top set doesn’t provide enough challenging reps to cause optimal growth. But it does seem that a lot of the really big guys on here seem to think that ramping will provide enough of a stimulus regardless. To be honest, I really do prefer to train that way, and I do on my big movements(bench, squat, etc.). I am just wondering why so many coaches love to put straight sets into their programs?

47

I used to do straight sets. It was too much volume and hard to move up.

My growth and strength gains came from ramping up to one or two working sets. I am with X I am sticking with what works for me.

48

i like to go

10
4-6

then i either go for my working set

or a set of 2-3

the idea is to let your body adjust and prepare better for the heavy weight youre about to use, it doesnt work if you do a set thats near your working weight for even moderate reps

if im doing say a 315 bench

im doing 225 for 5 first, then maybe like 275x2-3 because that wont get me tired but even for a few reps it gets you used to a heavier weight and kind of gets more mentally prepared or id go straight to my set of 315 x6-8 or whatever.

49

As a trainer most things are done in straight sets in the fitness world, so that’s what I did for years.

After talking with C_C, he noticed I wasn’t ramping. Taking his advice I gave it a shot. Took a little getting used to, but I noticed very quickly that my strength improved greatly.

The first couple of sets are challenging, but not all out. This gives you some reserve in the tank to take that last set to the max. Kind of what PX is talking about, if you’re doing 3-4 sets all at the same weight, then you’re burning yourself out before you can truly lift heavier weight.

50

C_C you waste way too much fucking time with people.

people, if something isnt working for you what do you stand to lose by switching to a different training style?

try it for a month, if you dont like it go find something else.

51

I will never do straight sets unless they are done like this…

225x8
225x7
225x5

your goal would be to get 3 sets of 8 but you would purposely pick a weight that for the first set it is a hard 8…also that means you would never really get to 3 sets of 8 reps…its just an imaginary goal…

my younger brother trained like this exclusively his whole training life and weighs 250lbs solid at 5’10" 18yrs old…benches 380lbs…

im pretty certain that if i would have trained like him i would be at least 20lbs bigger and a lot stronger…big mistake…

anyway i was wondering if anybody else trains like that because it obviously worked for my brother…

52

[quote]D Public wrote:
I will never do straight sets unless they are done like this…

225x8
225x7
225x5

your goal would be to get 3 sets of 8 but you would purposely pick a weight that for the first set it is a hard 8…meaning you would fail on the 9th…also that means you would never get to 3 sets of 8 reps…its just an imaginary goal…

my younger brother trained like this exclusively his whole training life and weighs 250lbs solid at 5’10" 18yrs old…benches 380lbs…

im pretty certain that if i would have trained like him i would be at least 20lbs bigger and a lot stronger…big mistake…

anyway i was wondering if anybody else trains like that because it obviously worked for my brother…

[/quote]

I want to say the poster “Maurader…” or something like that, does this Big guy, avatar has him front squatting in a power rack I believe

53

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pumped340 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

It doesn’t even make sense to use the same weight on all sets. There have been many days I go into the gym and have a little trouble with a certain weight only to come back to it after two other exercises to find that it is much easier to rep with.

The more sets you do, the greater the chance that muscle fibers not initially fired can be affected by the movement. This also means if you are easily able to get 10 reps with THE SAME DAMN WEIGHT for 4 sets, then there is no doubt in my mind that the weight you are using isn’t challenging enough for you to see much growth.

It seems like the bolded part is actually an argument for straight sets. Maybe I’m looking at it wrong?

If a weight is getting easier to put up because more fibers are being activated, how the hell does it make sense to stay with the same weight as it gets easier for following sets? That is how you think muscles are stressed into growing?

[/quote]

The way I looked at it was that since you said more sets would affect fibers not initially stimulated it would make more sense to do more sets to stimulate those fibers. I guess thats not what your saying thats just how it came across to me. Misunderstanding I guess

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Along with that, if you can honestly put up the same weight for 10 full reps over three sets, why do you think that is enough to force growth? It can’t possibly be that much of a challenge if you got three sets out of it for the same number of reps.

Maybe your idea of intensity when training is drastically different than mine. I would never do that because common sense tells me if I can get that many reps out of it for that many sets then the weight isn’t heavy enough and I need to go up.[/quote]

But wouldn’t it be a challenge by the 3rd set? Sure the first set wouldn’t be as hard but if your near failing on the 3rd set then thats obviously very intense for it to be hard enough for you to fail with that weight right? I understand that the point of the 1-2 work sets is that you will progress faster, I’m just wondering about your point that 3 sets with the same weight would somehow be easier when your still near failure on the last set you do.

(by the way I’m basically coming at this from a neutral point,I actually like the way you and CC are explaining, I’m just trying to figure out the reasoning behind what your saying)

54

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
C_C you waste way too much fucking time with people.

people, if something isnt working for you what do you stand to lose by switching to a different training style?

try it for a month, if you dont like it go find something else. [/quote]

Well, I am going to try it for a month, though I like the idea of doing like a 6 rep max, and then rest pausing to 10-12.

My measurements are not going to change in a month so I am going to go by whether my weights and reps on my main sets go up in 4 cycles. If they are up by the 4th cycle, then I’ll stick with it.

I also will probably do a heavy exercise for a 3-5 rep max for my first exercise, and then 1-2 other exercises.
What do people think of something like this:
I) Delts/triceps

  1. Push press for a 5 rep max
  2. 3/4 range shoulder presses (stopping 3/4 up)for a set of 6-10, and then going to 15-20 in rest pause fashion
  3. Lateral raises (same after ramping)1 x 6-10 rest pause to 15-20
  4. Lockouts: 5 rep max
  5. Lying tricep extensions: 1 x 6-10 RP to 15-20
  6. Tricep dips same

II) Back

  1. Row to waist: Ramp up, main set rest pause for 20 reps
  2. Row to chest: same
  3. Pullup: same with negative
  4. Rack pulls from knees

III) Quads

  1. Squats in the lower 2/3 ROM (from rock bottom to about ) 1/3 from lockout)rest pause for 20
  2. Barbell hack squats rest pause for 15
  3. Standing calf raise: Rest pause for 30 reps

IV) Chest/Biceps

  1. Bench press, power style to a 5 RM
  2. Incline press
  3. Decline dumbell press
  4. Barbell curl
  5. Reverse curl

V) Hams/abs

  1. Leg curl
  2. Stiff leg deadlift
  3. Glute-ham raise
  4. Bent leg raise

I will probably be able to complete this 4x in about 32 days.

Any suggestions? What should I cut. What am I missing. Should I split it up differently? 4 ways?

55

problem one:

1 bicep exercise

3 chest exercises

do 2 of each

same issue with hams/abs

in fact calves and abs shouldnt have their own day, you should throw them in as often as possible, these workouts will generally be shorter so its going to be easier to do so.

you should start calves on 1 abs on 2 and go 1 EOD 2 EOD so youre doing one or the other ED. i mean you dont HAVE TO do them EOD, you can take a day off here or there, they arent super important.

BB hacksquats are useless

i personally hate pullups.

if youre the same guy im thinking of, i dont think someone who just got told they lack intensity should be trying to do RP techniques. if youve never trained to failure before you arent going to be able to RP

56

I was searching for some real bodybuilder’s workout and this was the first one I found

0:20
0:54

2:05
2:35

you get the point…lol

57

another:

edit: I posted at like 1min, but it looks like he actually ramps up but then does 4 straight sets at 150kg

Is this just for the interview you think? Dennis Wolf Training - YouTube

I was almost sure Dennis Wolf did ramping sets but it seems he did straight sets on everything there except on machine pull down he did 2 plates one set then 3 plates the next. Honestly didn’t look like he was pushing very hard on any of those sets.

58

[quote]
BB hacksquats are useless

i personally hate pullups.

if youre the same guy im thinking of, i dont think someone who just got told they lack intensity should be trying to do RP techniques. if youve never trained to failure before you arent going to be able to RP[/quote]

No, not me. I have trained more like a (weak) powerlifter for the last 7-8 years. The main difference for me will be in doing sets in the 7-15 rep range while most of my stuff has been 2-6. Also switching to stricter movements.

I have power squatted 445 (not great) and benched 357.5, and front squatted 305. Most of my training has been something like 5 x 3, 4 x 6.

But the strict BB type exercises really cut my weight.

I bench 330 x 2 about a month ago and in one workout in Sept. did 342.5 for 10 singles in 15 minutes, but when I did strict BB type bench presses I could only do 155 x 12! so I at least have a lot of improvement I can make.

I have squatted 445, but again, strict, no-lockout close stance squats did just 215 x 8!

BB hack squats do seem to work for me much like a leg exension. I’ve seen Ronnie Coleman do them in videos and the way he does them seems to work. My other option would be lunges, or split squats or front squats.

59

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

BB hacksquats are useless

i personally hate pullups.

if youre the same guy im thinking of, i dont think someone who just got told they lack intensity should be trying to do RP techniques. if youve never trained to failure before you arent going to be able to RP

No, not me. I have trained more like a (weak) powerlifter for the last 7-8 years. The main difference for me will be in doing sets in the 7-15 rep range while most of my stuff has been 2-6. Also switching to stricter movements.

I have power squatted 445 (not great) and benched 357.5, and front squatted 305. Most of my training has been something like 5 x 3, 4 x 6.

But the strict BB type exercises really cut my weight.

I bench 330 x 2 about a month ago and in one workout in Sept. did 342.5 for 10 singles in 15 minutes, but when I did strict BB type bench presses I could only do 155 x 12! so I at least have a lot of improvement I can make.

I have squatted 445, but again, strict, no-lockout close stance squats did just 215 x 8!

BB hack squats do seem to work for me much like a leg exension. I’ve seen Ronnie Coleman do them in videos and the way he does them seems to work. My other option would be lunges, or split squats or front squats.[/quote]

thats my whole point and you just reaffirmed it.

youve been doing low rep strength work

it is absolutely different from rest pausing or training to failure.

you can go for it anyway, i know youre going to but dont be suprised when youre benching 225 for 12 RP’d.

60

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Ok, just stand there, keep your body loose, get your hands into CGP position (shoulder-wide grip or so, elbows tucked) and, without minding your scapulae etc, just mimic a close-grip press. Rep out…
If you do it explosively, you’re probably rocking back and forth as well.

Now,
2)
-Get into CGP position again, but this time touch your scapulae together behind you and shrug your shoulders down, chest out, tense your mid/upperback. If you were lying on a bench, your rear delts and upper back should be forming a stable base and be pressed into that bench.

-arch your back so that the upper part of your pelvis tilts forward and the lower part of your chest comes out/high. If you were lying on a bench, your head and traps would be pressed into the bench now.

-whilst keeping your back arched like that, bring your pelvis into a more neutral position again (sort of flexes your abs and butt, your low-back isn’t as hyperextended anymore but still extended to some degree).
Your whole body should be tense (we can’t simulate leg drive while standing, I guess, but keep your legs tight, too. You’d be straddling the bench with your thighs if you were lying on a bench now).

Ok, now rep out again (keep everything tight and tucked). If you got it right, you should now be wanting to rep out real fast.

Now, you HATE THAT FUCKING BAR!
Get angry at that thing, explosively push it away from you (while staying totally tight so that your shoulders don’t rise off the bench), and then lower it back under control (could think of it as “rowing” the bar back into you).
If, on a real CGP, the weight were getting real heavy now or your triceps aren’t in there as they should be, make a conscious effort to force your elbows under it/tuck harder.
Bar comes down just below the nipples or so.

Try this out a few times, then try it in the gym…

Well, this doesn’t make you “intense” per se, but it might help you understand the whole concept a bit better…
(I didn’t mention breathing, but you should now how to breath during training anyway)
You have to lift with your whole body… The body doesn’t lie there relaxed while your arms move on that cgp.

When doing laterals even… You get tense before the rep, initiate the movement with your delts and hate those goddamn db’s. You have to think of yourself as “powerful” or so… I’m not too good at explaining this… Maybe X could give us a better example or so.

[/quote]

lol

You need to stop saying that you’re not good at explaining things. You do a great job of explaining both the big picture and the “little” things.

…and outlining the standard BB approach in the T-cell is a good idea, I hope you do it.