References to Golden Era Misleading

Professor_X · April 8, 2009, 7:13pm

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

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?
[/quote]

Maybe because they believed the hype surrounding these programs? They advertise like TBT is THE way to get bigger and stronger and FUNCTIONAL. The term “functional” is mostly meaningless much like “tone” and “sculpt” in terms of muscle mass. Yet they keep pushing it as if the rest of us break down and collapse if we suddenly need to push a car out of the road.

Professor_X · April 8, 2009, 7:42pm

[quote]Free2Be wrote:
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.

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]

My thoughts are that I know VERY few people who got big by training less than 4 days a week…with most training more often than that. You will find those who can MAINTAIN the size that they built by training less often, but to build the kind of size we are talking about takes several trips to the gym a week along with a lifestyle that promotes it unless the genetics of the individual are phenomenal.

I also know that there isn’t much reason for a beginner to truly avoid all isolation exercises if the goal is proportional muscle development.

That system seems to assume every newbie is genetically lacking (a “hardgainer”) so they have to train to get ready to get big.

That’s nonsense. This is bodybuilding. If your genetics suck that badly that you have zero coordination and the strength levels of a newborn, chances are you may not be cut out for this.

No, all of may not compete, but damn, if after 8 years you still haven’t gotten your arms past 15", something is fucking WRONG.

If your goal is to find size XXLarge t-shirts SNUG, train like it.

Cephalic_Carnage · April 8, 2009, 9:03pm

[quote]Free2Be wrote:
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.

“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.[/quote]

I’m kind of glad you mentioned the joint overuse/injury thing… I remember reading someone (was it pat?) mentioning that as well.

Imo that’s a big thing to consider… Do you really need some outer space , super-rebel program to get big/strong? Especially one which taxes the joints like that?
Rep/loading/exercise variation each day is included in CW programs (and others), but that alone is obviously not enough. Weak people will probably not have many problems, but intermediates and above?

Of course, if people take joint/tendon problems for granted/normal, then whatever… Beyond help lol

You can injure yourself via bad form/setup (shoulders rising off the bench during a bench press etc, maybe slight impingement occuring during upright rows and such) and by repeatedly doing that… Or you tear a muscle right away… On any program.

But constant and heavy demand on a joint is another thing that can get you over time, and usually one designs a decent training program in a way that doesn’t beat your shoulder joint into a pulp every fucking day of the weak.

There was this rave about training like olympic athletes… Yeah, like olympic trainers care whether an Oly lifter can still stand up straight at age 40.
My dad worked with a lot of former eastern-Germany’s oly-lifters…

I think quite a few people on here should ask themselves if they’re following all this super-duper-new stuff simply to be different from others or so they can feel hardcore or whatever. Do you really need to perform 8 sessions a week (or 3 full-body… A 3-way over 3 days a week or a 2-way over 3 days works just fine from my experience and is imo easier on the shoulder and knee joints depending on how you set it up) to end up…
Looking fairly average still? Maybe sort of big, but not really all that much? With strength that isn’t necessarily bad, but very damn far from an elite-total (or even a lesser total)?

Even if that stuff made you super-strong and huge, is it worth doing over a modified westside approach, or 5/3/1 or any other method which can do the same for you without abusing your body like that? Sure?

(not denying that the approaches I’m criticizing here can add strength/size… Just saying… I get the feeling that a great many people here a) do not really understand the regular methods and b) Want to be rebels for the sake of being rebels.)

Edit: I also want to add something concerning this “I gained more strength by training full-body, but more mass training splits” or whatever.
I don’t think a lot of people on here (not talking about the pl guys, but the people in the bb forum, beginners section etc) really know how to put together a split which would allow for great strength progress.

Most splits I’ve seen on here made me think “If I’d trained like that, then my incline bench today would probably be less than 300 for reps, if even”.

Sliver · April 8, 2009, 8:29pm

[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]
the fact that you don’t have any proof of your wild assumptions aside, go read:

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/JSH/JSH1993/JSH2001/jsh2001b.pdf

Scientists didn’t even have the idea that synthetic testosterone could be used to to improve athletic performance and increase muscle mass until the mid 50s and Ziegler had to spend several more years finding the right drug and getting the dosage right. And if that’s not enough, during the experimental phases the vast majority of the people being experimented on were elite level olympic lifters.

They very explicitly state that they john grimek tried using test and got no results from it at all.

So here my question to you, Nostradamus:

What did Steve Reeves and Reg Park know that they didn’t?

Free2Be · April 8, 2009, 8:44pm

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Free2Be wrote:
Chris Colucci wrote:
Free2Be wrote: