First program I ever paid money for was one of his. Proof that buying programs is not the same as buying coaching.
1 Like
Well I think his programs are OK but I don’t know if he did much individual coaching via the Internet. His general advice is good though. I don’t know if he ever handled individualized nutrition.
I remember it being a fairly standard full body template with some basic progression built in, nothing groundbreaking. Exactly the kind of thing that would have worked wonders if I’d had an experienced coach to help me get the most out of it.
1 Like
@Paul_Carter do you think some body parts and exercises are more beneficial to do “for volume” as opposed to “for effort”?
For example…while you would do a good, gut busting set of leg presses, rear delt flies or lunges don’t seem great to do “to a top set”
Do you generally do volume for accessory type stuff? If so how much have you found to be “enough” versus “definitely too much” (like 400 side laterals for example)
4 Likes
It’s exactly what you said. I can’t answer for Paul but I realized that instinctively. I can’t give it everything on more than 1 or 2 sets on big lifts but the lesser taxing ones can get 3. I know when enough is enough though.
1 Like
Exactly the same for me.
1 Like
Yes. It’s why I’ve talked about how movements need to be dictated differently in regards to volume and even effort depending on what they are. Some movements have a high degree of neural taxation associated with them. Squats, deadlifts, etc. Most people have it backwards IMO as to how to approach them effectively for growth. You don’t do a ton of sets on them, and you go to “form failure” with them.
I don’t squat and deadlift anymore for those reasons. First off, I think they are actually quite overrated for most people and they are highly systemic taxing.
But to stay on point, something like bent laterals, triceps pushdowns, calf raises, or pec decks have a low neural output so they can be done with more volume and to true failure points.
The key to long term progress with training is to maximize muscular stress, while minimizing neurological stress. That’s the principle people need to keep in mind when fleshing out movements, effort, and volume.
1 Like
I’ve always disliked squats, but mostly because I’m 6’4", mostly legs, and suck at them. I really enjoy deadlifts.
That being said, my nagging hip has eliminated both from my training and I have to admit that I feel great! I’ve eliminated the constant lower back fatigue and soreness. My energy levels seem to be more consistent through the week. And I’m still able to train effectively.
I’ve switched from strength to a “bodybuilding” style of training. I think I look better than I ever have, even though I’m a bit smaller/lighter than I thought I’d be.
I guess this I just a long winded way of agreeing with you. 
1 Like
Oh absolutely the same! Once I retired from powerlifting I never benched again. And I would hit some squats here or there, and I think I my have deadlifted less than half a dozen times since then. In that time, I’ve had zero injuries. None. I can train more often, feel better, look better, and don’t deal with the awful workout hangover that come from those movements.
Also, for tall guys, hack squats with bands are a GREAT movement for blasting the quads.
2 Likes
I’m assuming you mean all of this for lifters that are already experienced and have built a base, right?
Don’t you think that for people with less experience and that have yet to build a foundation it’d be better to actually do focus on squats, deadlifts, and the bench?
Main driver for muscle growth?
Protein synthesis!
And as such I think we should differentiate between enhanced and natural.
To keep it shallow, once cortisol comes into play, protein synthesis decreases.
Digging in a little deeper, training without adequate levels of testosterone, be it age or enhancement, protein synthesis decreases.
Once that is taken care of, imho, we can think about volume, intensity and alike.
Right?
It’s pretty much implied people want adequate T values.
I don’t think protein synth is as important as many people say it is. If it were, all these frequency nuts would be growing faster than others.
1 Like
I’ve heard that notion quite a bit and at this point I think it’s bunk. The bench press isn’t even a good pec builder for many and the standard deadlift isn’t much of a muscle builder generally.
2 Likes
No. Not unless they know they want to compete in powerlifting. Which means they aren’t focused on hypertrophy.
Of those three only the “squat” would be sort of a “must” for a beginner.
1 Like
True story. The bench is a great anterior delt developer and the deadlift kind of sucks overall in terms of being a mass building movement.
1 Like
If that is the case, what actually happens when muscle is gained!!!??
Hyperplasia surely not!
Hypertrophy most certainly, and that is made up of what, if not prot syn?!
Just because protein synthesis is an essential step, doesn’t mean it’s the rate limiting step.
2 Likes
“Frequency Nuts”, if enhanced, should gain more!
Best examples to me would be:
Helmut Strebl
And
Serge Nubret
Both, work/ed with high pump workouts!
Why?
Because they drive nutrients to the muscles! Since prot syn, presuming they were/ are enhanced ( which imho is very likely looking at their builds, or they are extremely gifted, which again means high prot syn) makes them having the switch on 24/7
How else does it work?
And, what is muscle breakdown if prot syn is not important?
Rate limiter?
Cortisol excretion! (as the first)
Since you brought this up and mentioned lots of times, what do you think of high rep, ball busting sets of Deadlift for mass building? I said sets, but I probably mean a single set. Like on 5/3/1, where you have that pr set that you push for more weight and more reps every week. Since I’ve mostly been ending up in the 10+ rep range with those pr sets on the deadlift, do you think that it’s not a good way to build muscle overall either?