Question About Pre-Fatiguing

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
As if Mentzer’s “thought process” has to do with anything discussed here. Many don’t like Dorian’s thought process either. But both were top Olympia competitors and Mentzer, if I recall correctly, was Mr. Universe. So much for people not liking how they thought or think. [/quote]

? I respect Mentzer for what he accomplished. I also think he was bat shit crazy by the time he died.

I am not sure why you have a problem with other people having opinions.

Once again, I wrote MOST…and once again, the point is that I am sure most pro’s on the planet do NOT have huge problems with target muscle groups getting taken over by accessory muscle groups.

Could you explain what it is you have such a problem with now?

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
X probably either misunderstood or overestimated the validity of that personally experienced “brachialis pre-exhaust principle”.

Contrary to classic pre-exhaustion, fatiguing stronger chain-links to force weaker ones to take over seems like a rather weak principle, meaning, it might work for a small group of people under very specific circumstances (every crazy idea might work in some cases); also, it’s hard to say wether he really applied his own idea:
Maybe all he did was actually pre-exhaust in a classical sense - and THAT new stimulus caused his arm to swell. That would have been rather ironic.
(btw, X, it would be cool if you could disprove that)

That said, posting video footage of him having trouble doing lunges = Estrogen Nation style.
I hope more people see that as such.
[/quote]

Wow. I will leave the witch hunt to guys like you. I have no desire to disprove pre-exhaust and that was not the intent here.

LOL. Laugh at lunges all you want.

I will laugh at the legs smaller than mine in return.

How are your own looking?

I will see the rest of you next week.

I sure hope you fill this thread with tons of crap so no one learns anything.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

This thread also became about what me and matty were discussing…which is NOT “pre-exhaust”.

Do you have a question about what was discussed…or did you really log in without reading the many responses indicating that you are here after missing quite a bit?[/quote]

Oh so you changed your mind again and you are not prefatiguing triceps before bench? So what dafuq have you been talking about this whole thread??? Warming up?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
As if Mentzer’s “thought process” has to do with anything discussed here. Many don’t like Dorian’s thought process either. But both were top Olympia competitors and Mentzer, if I recall correctly, was Mr. Universe. So much for people not liking how they thought or think. [/quote]

? I respect Mentzer for what he accomplished. I also think he was bat shit crazy by the time he died.

I am not sure why you have a problem with other people having opinions.

Once again, I wrote MOST…and once again, the point is that I am sure most pro’s on the planet do NOT have huge problems with target muscle groups getting taken over by accessory muscle groups.

Could you explain what it is you have such a problem with now?[/quote]

This thread is NOT about people or pros that dont have a problem with shoulders and tris taking over on bench. It’s about people that DO have that problem and how pre-exhaust can adress that. It’s also about pros and high level bbers that have used pre-exhaust to adress those issues with success. Examples of people without those isses are irrelevant.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I would imagine most pro’s don’t have problems with not getting growth in their chest because their delts take it over…THAT IS WHY THEY ARE PRO’S.[/quote]

Mentzer? Waller? (going old school with these examples)… just a couple of top Olympia competitors who were pretty damn developed, definitely at the top of their games, yet couldn’t get growth in their chests without their delts taking over and had to rely on pre-exhaust and tons of flye movements.

S[/quote]

Does “most” mean the same to me as to you?

Mentzer also believed in HIT like it was his religion…and I don’t agree with much of his thought process…and neither do many other people.

I am not sure what you were implying. Maybe you could be more clear?

I would guess most here don’t have Mentzer’s genetics.[/quote]

I think MOST Pros figure out what works for them (or at least their trainers do), and I’m willing to bet it’s not what we’re reading in the pages of Flex Magazine. As Pre-Exhaust is such a common training approach that has been documented since the 1970’s, I’m willing to bet that MOST Pros have used and arguably benefited from the technique at some time during their development. No need for them to constantly rehash and publicize it, it’s not a big issue.

Mentzer was certainly troubled, but was also most definitely a very bright guy at the heart of it all. That he undoubtedly developed one of the top physiques in the world relying on this method it’s irrelevant what the rest of his opinions on politics, religion, or which power ranger was the coolest may have been. Yes you’ll find a hell of a lot of people who admit as such in regard to his well documented stay in an institution, but you won’t find so many who will argue that his thinking along the lines of training approaches, and managing volume (something that most people never really thought about) were revolutionary. This was in the 1970’s, so we’ve already had ~40 years of people accepting such practices as standard.

Obviously anyone reaching the level Mentzer did must have serious genetics, but that’s pretty much a moot point as I don’t think we were discussing anyone with Olympia aspirations.

I’m pretty sure we both share the same meaning of ‘Most’, however the actual credibility that you and I have, should our opinions differ, might differ as well. Neither one of us knows for 100% certainty when we throw out blanket statements. Neither one of us has trained along side multiple IFBB Pros. Sure we both grew up reading the muscle rags, sure we were both pre-med (I’m assuming here), we’re both fairly intelligent and well versed in the ways of the weights, but that’s still not real credibility in making such a comment.

If I’m implying anything, and to be honest, I don’t believe that I was, it’s possibly the slight irritation I stifle when you throw such bold blanket statements out about IFBB pros. Argue, discuss, suggest all you want about approaches you like, or have experience with, but just as I would hesitate to issue such comments as fact, perhaps you wouldn’t garner such a polarizing presence on here if you’d hold your tongue at times.

S

I know Kai Green is one of the greatest of all time. He uses pre-exhaust, but some don’t like his fashion sense, or how he talks sometimes.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I would imagine most pro’s don’t have problems with not getting growth in their chest because their delts take it over…THAT IS WHY THEY ARE PRO’S.[/quote]

I honestly believe that most people that make it to pro level do so because:

  1. They have good genetics in terms of muscle shape, muscle length/insertion points, and muscle growth
  2. Were highly motivated to making it to that point and thus were willing to make the necessary sacrifices and lifestyle adjustments to do so
    and
  3. Found what worked for them as individuals when it came to training and eating

Obviously we could also include the use of pharmaceuticals, but there are plenty of guys walking around commercial gyms all over the world on the same drugs and possibly even higher dosages who don’t have pro level physiques, so I think the 3 above mentioned characteristics are truly what separate the elite.

Number 3 is what is most relevant to this thread. I doubt you’d find more than a handful of pros throughout the history of modern bodybuilding who got it perfectly right training or diet wise and didn’t have to use trial and error in terms of exercise selection, workout format, frequency, volume, range of motion, or workout format. That’s why when you watch different pros train they tend to prefer different exercises, orders of exercises, splits, etc…

This thread originally started out about the classical “pre-fatigue” method of lifting, but I for one am glad that Prof X, Matty XL, Jason, and others brought up a different perspective on the concept as it has potentially lead to the the acquiring of a potentially helpful/useful new lifting technique and possibly a better understanding of the old one.

Less than 1 page later and we’ve already gotten everything except #5.

Come on… We’re so close!

X, you did not only not understand my post, you turned its meaning upside-down.

Feeling insulted is always an option if someone’s not willing to communicate, I guess.

[quote]gregron wrote:

Less than 1 page later and we’ve already gotten everything except #5.

Come on… We’re so close![/quote]
LOL

careful now, there’s a poster here that fits the “mass shooter” profile perfectly

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Laugh at lunges all you want.

I will laugh at the legs smaller than mine in return.

[/quote]

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Laugh at lunges all you want.

I will laugh at the legs smaller than mine in return.

[/quote]

Not sure what I learned from that video other than they have an awesome gym at Biotest headquarters.

This thread got kinda boring after the semi-interesting discussion of both techniques and the hilarious .gif war between SS and X. Needs more actual entertainment.

[quote]krillin wrote:
This thread got kinda boring after the semi-interesting discussion of both techniques and the hilarious .gif war between SS and X. Needs more actual entertainment.[/quote]

Thanks for contributing. You’ve been, by far, the most entertaining poster in this thread and probably the most entertaining poster in all of T-Nation.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]krillin wrote:
This thread got kinda boring after the semi-interesting discussion of both techniques and the hilarious .gif war between SS and X. Needs more actual entertainment.[/quote]

Thanks for contributing. You’ve been, by far, the most entertaining poster in this thread and probably the most entertaining poster in all of T-Nation. [/quote]

haha this made me LOL in real life

Read his post again. He’s on YOUR side as far as posting the lunges videos is concerned.

I’m not joining the witchhunt in this thread. Yes, you made some statements that deserved a negative response. However, you got more than even your statements deserved. Of course, your usual antagonists joined the ongoing flamewar and both sides kept egging each other on and now the thread is out of control.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
X probably either misunderstood or overestimated the validity of that personally experienced “brachialis pre-exhaust principle”.

Contrary to classic pre-exhaustion, fatiguing stronger chain-links to force weaker ones to take over seems like a rather weak principle, meaning, it might work for a small group of people under very specific circumstances (every crazy idea might work in some cases); also, it’s hard to say wether he really applied his own idea:
Maybe all he did was actually pre-exhaust in a classical sense - and THAT new stimulus caused his arm to swell. That would have been rather ironic.
(btw, X, it would be cool if you could disprove that)

That said, posting video footage of him having trouble doing lunges = Estrogen Nation style.
I hope more people see that as such.
[/quote]

Wow. I will leave the witch hunt to guys like you. I have no desire to disprove pre-exhaust and that was not the intent here.

LOL. Laugh at lunges all you want.

I will laugh at the legs smaller than mine in return.

How are your own looking?

I will see the rest of you next week.

I sure hope you fill this thread with tons of crap so no one learns anything.[/quote]

Reading this thread makes me want to see if I can return my Master’s Degree.

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:
Reading this thread makes me want to see if I can return my Master’s Degree.[/quote]

Hey! Your post went through!

Isnt what X and others describing called Post Fatigue? I am sure I read in old mags that this was an alternative method

[quote]steven alex wrote:
Isnt what X and others describing called Post Fatigue? I am sure I read in old mags that this was an alternative method
[/quote]

Post-fatigue is a compound exercise followed by an iso . AKA a compound set.