[quote]Sliver wrote:
The Mighty Stu wrote:
you realize that both Reeves and Park were making use of androgens. It’s not completely unheard of, even today, to train a bodypart more frequently, albeit with less volume each session.
S
horseshit.
DBol (the first steroid) wasn’t even available until the early 60s. That means that at least half of reg parks titles and ALL of steve reeves were earned clean.[/quote]
I thought it was the early 50s.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
The Mighty Stu wrote:
you realize that both Reeves and Park were making use of androgens. It’s not completely unheard of, even today, to train a bodypart more frequently, albeit with less volume each session.
S
horseshit.
DBol (the first steroid) wasn’t even available until the early 60s. That means that at least half of reg parks titles and ALL of steve reeves were earned clean.[/quote]
“Later, in 1929 a procedure to produce an extract of potent activity from bull’s testicles was attempted, and in 1935 a more purified form of this extract was created. A year later, a scientist named Ruzicka synthesized this compound, testosterone, from cholesterol, as did two other scientists, Butenandt and Hanisch (3). Testosterone was, of course, the first anabolic steroid ever created, and remains the basis for all other derivations we have currently being used in medicine today. Testosterone was then used in 1936, in an experiment demonstrating that nitrogen excretion of the castrated dog could be increased by giving the dog supplemental testosterone, and this would increase its body weight. (4) Shortly after this time, the Nazi´s were rumored to have given their soldiers anabolic steroids, but that rumor seems to be largely undocumented. Later, further experiments were carried out in men, of course showing that testosterone was a potent anabolic substance in humans. Later, between the years of 1948 and 1954, the pharmaceutical firms Searle and Ciba had experimented with the synthesizing of over a thousand different testosterone derivatives and similar analogues (15).”
-steroid.com
That doesn’t conflict with anything I said so I’m just going to assume you’re agreeing with me.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Oh…so it is effectively the “half asser’s guide to building some muscle”.
Got it.
Thanks for clearing that up.[/quote]
Yeah, because the t-man is supposed to be able to do parkour, and exceeding 200lbs will make you clumsy and 90% of the chicks won’t like that.
[quote]Protoculture wrote:
Sliver wrote:
The Mighty Stu wrote:
you realize that both Reeves and Park were making use of androgens. It’s not completely unheard of, even today, to train a bodypart more frequently, albeit with less volume each session.
S
horseshit.
DBol (the first steroid) wasn’t even available until the early 60s. That means that at least half of reg parks titles and ALL of steve reeves were earned clean.
I thought it was the early 50s. [/quote]
It was 58. The only bodybuilder (I know of) that used them during the experimental phase was John Grimek and they didn’t know how to use them properly so he didn’t get any real gains.
[quote]Sliver wrote:
Protoculture wrote:
Sliver wrote:
The Mighty Stu wrote:
you realize that both Reeves and Park were making use of androgens. It’s not completely unheard of, even today, to train a bodypart more frequently, albeit with less volume each session.
S
horseshit.
DBol (the first steroid) wasn’t even available until the early 60s. That means that at least half of reg parks titles and ALL of steve reeves were earned clean.
I thought it was the early 50s.
It was 58. The only bodybuilder (I know of) that used them during the experimental phase was John Grimek and they didn’t know how to use them properly so he didn’t get any real gains.[/quote]
What about synthetic testosterone? those were invented in the 30s. If Reeves was at the top of his game, he would have had access to something like this.
Reference in Wikipedia:
The partial synthesis in the 1930s of abundant, potent testosterone esters permitted the characterization of the hormone?s effects, so that Kochakian and Murlin (1936) were able to show that testosterone raised nitrogen retention (a mechanism central to anabolism) in the dog, after which Charles Kenyon?s group[4] was able to demonstrate both anabolic and androgenic effects of testosterone propionate in eunuchoidal men, boys, and women. The period of the early 1930s to the 1950s has been called “The Golden Age of Steroid Chemistry”,[5] and work during this period progressed quickly. Research in this golden age proved that this newly synthesized compound?testosterone?or rather family of compounds (for many derivatives were developed from 1940 to 1960), was a potent multiplier of muscle, strength, and wellbeing.
Personally, I think Reeves and Park and all the old time bodybuilders were on some kind of Androgen. There were no taboos associated with it at the time. It was just another supplement they used.
[quote]Invictica wrote:
Personally, I think Reeves and Park and all the old time bodybuilders were on some kind of Androgen. There were no taboos associated with it at the time. It was just another supplement they used.
[/quote]
As do I. I’m not saying there weren’t some relative ‘beasts’ in the era, but if you look at guys who were naturally gifted, and trained intelligently hard as well(Armand Tanny, Gironda etc), they looked good, but not like Reeves, and ,most certainly not like Park, who stood next to Arnold himself during the Oak’s prime, and arguably held his own.
S
[quote]Sliver wrote:
That doesn’t conflict with anything I said so I’m just going to assume you’re agreeing with me.[/quote]
Seeing as you didn’t bother reading the piece:
1936 was the year testosterone was first synthesized (the year of the dog experiment)… the earliest comp I could find for Park and Reeves were 1946 (4th and 1st, respectively - though not the same competition).
Looks about 10 years later to me.
You are correct about when Dianabol hit the market, but wrong in your assertion that it was the first steroid ever created and in the fact they competed largely before its creation guarantees them being natty.
As you can see, there were other things floating around during that period.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Sliver wrote:
That doesn’t conflict with anything I said so I’m just going to assume you’re agreeing with me.
Seeing as you didn’t bother reading the piece:
1936 was the year testosterone was first synthesized (the year of the dog experiment)… the earliest comp I could find for Park and Reeves were 1946 (4th and 1st, respectively - though not the same competition).
Looks about 10 years later to me.
You are correct about when Dianabol hit the market, but wrong in your assertion that it was the first steroid ever created and in the fact they competed largely before its creation guarantees them being natty.
As you can see, there were other things floating around during that period.[/quote]
That being said I doubt these guys were soo cutting edge that they would have had access to the substances you mentioned.
For those born as of the internet era you might find it hard to believe how long it took simple information to trickle down to average people before the interweb was invented, let alone actual substances.
I’m in my mid-30s and have been following the UFC since #2. Back then (early 90s) if you didn’t see the event on PPV you’d have to wait 3-4 months before the results were published in a martial art magazine! Now, people can illegally download some of the fights before the event is even finished.
I’m not saying Reg or Steve never used drugs. As a matter of fact I believe both admitted to it, but I’d be surprised to learn they had access in the 40s. Shit didn’t happen that fast back then.
[quote]Protoculture wrote:
anonym wrote:
Sliver wrote:
That doesn’t conflict with anything I said so I’m just going to assume you’re agreeing with me.
Seeing as you didn’t bother reading the piece:
1936 was the year testosterone was first synthesized (the year of the dog experiment)… the earliest comp I could find for Park and Reeves were 1946 (4th and 1st, respectively - though not the same competition).
Looks about 10 years later to me.
You are correct about when Dianabol hit the market, but wrong in your assertion that it was the first steroid ever created and in the fact they competed largely before its creation guarantees them being natty.
As you can see, there were other things floating around during that period.
That being said I doubt these guys were soo cutting edge that they would have had access to the substances you mentioned.
For those born as of the internet era you might find it hard to believe how long it took simple information to trickle down to average people before the interweb was invented, let alone actual substances.
I’m in my mid-30s and have been following the UFC since #2. Back then (early 90s) if you didn’t see the event on PPV you’d have to wait 3-4 months before the results were published in a martial art magazine! Now, people can illegally download some of the fights before the event is even finished.
I’m not saying Reg or Steve never used drugs. As a matter of fact I believe both admitted to it, but I’d be surprised to learn they had access in the 40s. Shit didn’t happen that fast back then.[/quote]
Testosterone was synthesized in 1936. Reeves did not win anything till 1946. That’s many years apart. They probably didn’t get their hands on it a week after it was synthesized but I wouldn’t doubt 1 or 2 years after they’d have easy access to it. Hell even 5 years. That would give him 5 years of cycle time, which is fairly significant. Not to take away from the achievements of Reeves and Park, but steroids played a role in developing their champion physiques
[quote]Invictica wrote:
Testosterone was synthesized in 1936. Reeves did not win anything till 1946. That’s many years apart. They probably didn’t get their hands on it a week after it was synthesized but I wouldn’t doubt 1 or 2 years after they’d have easy access to it. Hell even 5 years. That would give him 5 years of cycle time, which is fairly significant. Not to take away from the achievements of Reeves and Park, but steroids played a role in developing their champion physiques[/quote]
LMFAO
Yeah, in the early 90s it took me 3-4 months to get fight results, but only about 2 years for Reeves:
i) Discover the substance
ii) Get his hands on it
Dude, back then it’s not as if they had access to pubmed. There were no “medical minute breakthrough reports” on the evening news. The news focused on “need to know” events.
Hell, most of the training concepts regularly discussed on forums were unheard of to most lifters before the internet… yet these concepts were around much longer than 2 years before the internet went mainstream!
If you would have approached any serious lifter in the early to mid nineties and asked him about Westside Barbell, chances are they would have given you a blank stare. Why? Because information did not travel like it does now. 2 years? Fuck 2 years. No one but a few select (compared to now) had heard about it.
We’re living in the “information age” for a reason. Seriously, dude, if your grandparents are still alive sit down and talk to them about how slow things were in their day.
Oh, yeah, and lets not forget a little something called world war 2 preoccupied the media back then…
Again, I agree they took drugs, I just don’t agree on the time table you’re suggesting.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I am confused as to how “build some muscle” is now being completely separated from the BODYBUILDING aspect that has been the defining form of what “some muscle” looks like for decades.
By “build some muscle,” I’m referring to the Average Joes who aren’t trying to get as large as humanly possible. For someone who’s “okay” not looking like a competitive bodybuiler but who wants to look better than 51% of the other schlubs on the street, they can progress fine with a basic, compound-focused full body routine, with occasional isolation exercises.
Why would someone looking to “build some muscle” avoid isolation exercises? They will have weak points developing in the very areas they are ignoring.
Correct,and I agree. And when I said “peel away some of the “extras” (isolation lifts, multiple exercise per part per session) to maximize the results produced compared to the time spent in the gym.” I meant as compared to the original routine in the first post, and I did say “some of the ‘extras’”
That Average Joe wouldn’t have to do flat bench and incline, shoulder press and laterals, leg press and squats, two triceps exercises, all three times each week.
They could do fine with a bare-bones, full body workout three times a week, and maybe a specific arm day once a week or targeted isolation lifts at the end of the training session. That’s along the lines of what I was getting at, but it’s tricky to have a conversation about hypothetical clients.[/quote]
See the above is why I take offense to the way, for instance, Waterbury writes.
He writes as though his way is the way to ultimate muscle mass. It is not.
Man im sorry i don’t believe that a guy who is just looking to gain muscle mass would train in teh way that has shown to produce the least amount of the stuff.
i mean splits are so popular because they are responsible for all the slabs of mass on the pros anyways. so why would some guy whort change himself training like some ufc fighter if he wants a nice v-taper and big arms? it just doesnt make sense man.
i mean it’s like ‘ok man, i don’t want to get too big, so i’ll make sure i don’t by picking a training regime that will downright guarantee i don’t add more than 1.5" on my bis’.
but that’s just me and i could be wrong.
[quote]Free2Be wrote:
See the above is why I take offense to the way, for instance, Waterbury writes.
He writes as though his way is the way to ultimate muscle mass. It is not.[/quote]
Now you understand why he catches so much flack on this site (and others) by people who do actually know how to build muscle mass.
You will also the get the “I live in the real world” crowd jumping to his defense immediately as if the rest of us don’t have similar or more responsibility in our own lives.
i want to build slabs of muscle, look huge and stand out from anyone and everyone. bought Waterbury’s book… great information… great 3 day full body routines. poor for bodybuilding purposes. hahaha… as he states in the book. how misinformed i was. and many others like me getting caught up in the ‘Waterbury method’
An open question to whomever… setting aside a discussion about sets and reps, will this training plan build muscle?
Day One
Back squat
Lying leg curl
Flat barbell bench press
One-arm dumbbell row
Seated dumbbell shoulder press
Lateral raise
Day Two
Sumo deadlift
Incline dumbbell bench press
Barbell row
Machine shoulder press
Barbell curl
Rope pressdown
Day Three
Leg press
Seated calf raise
Pull-up
Seated cable row
Dip
Standing military press
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
An open question to whomever… will this training plan build muscle?
Day One
Back squat
Lying leg curl
Flat barbell bench press
One-arm dumbbell row
Seated dumbbell shoulder press
Lateral raise
Day Two
Sumo deadlift
Incline dumbbell bench press
Barbell row
Machine shoulder press
Barbell curl
Rope pressdown
Day Three
Leg press
Seated calf raise
Pull-up
Seated cable row
Dip
Standing military press[/quote]
Too open ended of a question.
Let me ask you this. If you can deadlift say 500lbs and Bench press say 385 and you us 80 to 85% of those maxes on these workouts will you have joint problems doing this three times a week?
I can tell you I would.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Free2Be wrote:
See the above is why I take offense to the way, for instance, Waterbury writes.
He writes as though his way is the way to ultimate muscle mass. It is not.
Now you understand why he catches so much flack on this site (and others) by people who do actually know how to build muscle mass.
You will also the get the “I live in the real world” crowd jumping to his defense immediately as if the rest of us don’t have similar or more responsibility in our own lives.[/quote]
No doubt.
I would say that his programs are good for sedentary individuals who are new to training and have no previous athletic or heavy work ethic. I’m not saying one won’t get strong even or fairly big even, but if you do and do train so often your joints will probably be shit very soon!
Thoughts?
[quote]Free2Be wrote:
If you can deadlift say 500lbs and Bench press say 385 and you us 80 to 85% of those maxes on these workouts will you have joint problems doing this three times a week?[/quote]
If someone can put up those numbers, then I’d say full body workouts are probably not appropriate for them. But then, why would someone at that level, and likely the body to show for it, be interested in full body training in the first place?
I agree. Full body training is a good choice for beginners, and certain people depending on their goals and resources.
Dude, that’s a slippery slope. I disagree that full body training means someone has a poor work ethic. Remember that the old Bill Starr clean/bench/squat 5x5 plan is a essentially a full body workout, too.
I’d say a heavy work ethic is pretty much mandatory for seeing any results from weight training, regardless of the workouts you’re doing.
This ties in to the set/rep issue (which I tried to avoid in my example above, because it’s one more variable to complicate the issue), but joint issues can be managed, if not avoided, by manipulating the set/rep pattern and including higher rep sets on one training day, and/or by varying the exercise selections.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Free2Be wrote:
or heavy work ethic.
Dude, that’s a slippery slope. I disagree that full body training means someone has a poor work ethic. Remember that the old Bill Starr clean/bench/squat 5x5 plan is a essentially a full body workout, too.
I’d say a heavy work ethic is pretty much mandatory for seeing any results from weight training, regardless of the workouts you’re doing.
I’m not saying one won’t get strong even or fairly big even, but if you do and do train so often your joints will probably be shit very soon!
This ties in to the set/rep issue (which I tried to avoid in my example above, because it’s one more variable to complicate the issue), but joint issues can be managed, if not avoided, by manipulating the set/rep pattern and including higher rep sets on one training day, and/or by varying the exercise selections.[/quote]
“heavy work ethic” I mis-typed mis-thought…didn’t mean that, Heavy work load like I was talking about in the beginning. Getting late here in Afghanistan.
I tried the whole body three times a week and it hurt me. I had the numbers above. Bench was probably higher.
I can tell you for me the set and rep issue did not matter, I used a high variation, once I got so strong that did not matter and my low reps lifts hardly changed weather I was sore or not. My high rep work always sucked.
My lifts sky rocketed after I went back to upper lower split but the joint stress was already in place and with that new strength came more joint pain and more pushing through the pain.
I had to basically take two years off of serious training and am just now able to start back again. I lost over 30 lbs and loads of strength. I’m 32 years old.
I know everyone is different, but I paid a high price for that lesson. Chad Waterbury is full of shit when he says his way is the best way to huge muscle gain and huge strength gain. His way is a good way for people who are weak and need to start. His way will kill someone who is strong. He should be honest about it.
I was an idiot for trying, that is on me.