Oh and mikey
[quote]dankid wrote:
This method is great for “functional” hypertrophy for the average guy. [/quote]
LOL.
This thread has been a joke for about 2 pages now.
Vinnie too but he didnt eat big so lagged
[quote]forlife wrote:
Working with sets of 10 instead of sets of 20 will allow the newbie to push heavier weights sooner, it will stimulate more Type 2 muscle growth, and it will lead to more overall size gains.[/quote]
Ya, and working with sets of 1 is going to allow more weight sooner than sets of 10. And doing eccentrics is going to allow more weight that sets of 1. You only THINK that sets of 10 are better than 20 because you have been brain washed to think so. Im not saying 20 is better than 10 or vice versa, all Im saying is that you cant state it as a fact that sets of 20 would not be as effective as sets of 10.
We’ve all seen the research that says 1-5 is strength, 6-12 is functional hypertrophy, and 12+ is “un-functional hyertrophy” blah blah blah. If you are that simple minded and believe that is fact, then go ahead and follow it. But some of us know that TUT does matter, TEMPO does matter.
Im not saying you have to time your sets and count, but a set of 8 can last 20 seconds and be nowhere near maximal tension, and a set of 8 can last 8 seconds and be maximal tension. If you want to keep things simple then it needs to be, EAT AND GET STRONGER.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
dankid wrote:
This method is great for “functional” hypertrophy for the average guy.
LOL.
This thread has been a joke for about 2 pages now.[/quote]
The fact that you have 28000 posts is a joke
Slightly off topic but does anyone know how much Vince Gironda could bench press? ( or neck press )?
[quote]dankid wrote:
Ya, and working with sets of 1 is going to allow more weight sooner than sets of 10.[/quote]
You need to push heavy enough weights to recruit Type 2 muscle fibers, and you need to do it long enough to break down those muscle fibers to stimulate new growth. If you only do 1 rep sets, you’ll recruit Type 2 fibers, but not long enough to stimulate significant muscle growth. If you only do 20 rep sets, you’ll primarily recruit Type 1 fibers, and again won’t see the best gains. It’s about finding the right balance between the two extremes.
I can state that for me, it has proven to be a fact. I’ve tried all three approaches, and have found that moderate range, heavy weight sets deliver the best growth.
[quote]dankid wrote:
Professor X wrote:
dankid wrote:
This method is great for “functional” hypertrophy for the average guy.
LOL.
This thread has been a joke for about 2 pages now.
The fact that you have 28000 posts is a joke [/quote]
Yeah seriously, X. WHy would you have that many posts? What are you, like a long time member who happens to be HUGE and who gives out free advice to thousands of readers?
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Norvegicus wrote:
forlife wrote:
MODOK wrote:
You want to train to get big? Lift heavier and heavier weights in the “bodybuilding” rep range- roughly six to 15 reps. How in the hell can you folks complicate this so much?
Which is pretty much what I just wrote. Whether you’re talking about 8-10 or 6-15, the point is that low rep sets at extreme weights and high rep sets at low weights aren’t going to maximize muscle growth as much as medium range sets at heavy weights.
Waterbury seems to think heavy weights at low rep multiple sets works for muscle gain
Waterbury just says shit so you will buy his program, because its different than everyone else. Have you ever read his stuff? Most of its is useless, and some of it is downright psychotic. Terminating a set as soon as your reps SLOW DOWN? LOL Not to mention the practical evidence of how huge Mr. Waterbury is himself… [/quote]
I am still waiting for pictures of these huge bodybuilders who got built using his programs. I am also not sure why people into his stuff are even on this forum.
They never post pics of their progress. Hell, do most of the people here even make progress or do they just settle for making lame ass posts that just show how much they don’t know?
[quote]MODOK wrote:
If TUT and TEMPO matters so much, why do you never hear anyone who is big and strong talk about it? I’ve yet to see a metronome in Metroflex Fitness, or any other gym where serious trainers train. I have, however, read articles from some very untrained-looking people espousing the advantages of a metronome. [/quote]
- Metronome
- Protractor
What else do I need in my gym bag?
[quote]taleb wrote:
MODOK wrote:
If TUT and TEMPO matters so much, why do you never hear anyone who is big and strong talk about it? I’ve yet to see a metronome in Metroflex Fitness, or any other gym where serious trainers train. I have, however, read articles from some very untrained-looking people espousing the advantages of a metronome.
- Metronome
- Protractor
What else do I need in my gym bag?[/quote]
Don’t forget:
- Stopwatch
- Calculator
- Best of Richard Simmons on iPod
[quote]MODOK wrote:
My question is, How out of shape do you have to be to consider 10+ reps “more cardio”? You’ve got to admit, thats funny.
You are all over the map with those quotes, so I’m not sure what you are trying to prove with them unless its your Attention Deficit Disorder. Strength isn’t important? Size doesn’t come from heavy weights? The “pump” is the most important thin in training? Or is it that low reps are great for growth? Or was it that heavy weight grows tendons?
You want to train to get big? Lift heavier and heavier weights in the “bodybuilding” rep range- roughly six to 15 reps. How in the hell can you folks complicate this so much? [/quote]
Because their knowledge is based on theory, not actual experience or results. No one who is big, and not trying to sell you something, is going to argue that getting progressively stronger in a moderate rep range is going to result in muscular growth.
This principle (of progressive resistance) is THE underlying principle when it comes to building muscle (at least from a training perspective). It has been known for literally thousands of years. Milos of Greece understood the principle, and the reason for his great increases in strength and muscle came as a result of the resistance he was working with (the calf/cow) increasing in size, not doing any special set/rep schemes, or focusing on “feeling” the muscles working (not that there isn’t some truth to that idea), or “experiencing” the cow on his back or any such nonsense.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Maybe I’ll get Bigfoot to train me. I’ve heard he is big as hell… even though he’s never posted pics.[/quote]
That’s funny lol
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
MODOK wrote:
My question is, How out of shape do you have to be to consider 10+ reps “more cardio”? You’ve got to admit, thats funny.
You are all over the map with those quotes, so I’m not sure what you are trying to prove with them unless its your Attention Deficit Disorder. Strength isn’t important? Size doesn’t come from heavy weights? The “pump” is the most important thin in training? Or is it that low reps are great for growth? Or was it that heavy weight grows tendons?
You want to train to get big? Lift heavier and heavier weights in the “bodybuilding” rep range- roughly six to 15 reps. How in the hell can you folks complicate this so much?
Because their knowledge is based on theory, not actual experience or results. No one who is big, and not trying to sell you something, is going to argue that getting progressively stronger in a moderate rep range is going to result in muscular growth.
This principle (of progressive resistance) is THE underlying principle when it comes to building muscle (at least from a training perspective). It has been known for literally thousands of years. Milos of Greece understood the principle, and the reason for his great increases in strength and muscle came as a result of the resistance he was working with (the calf/cow) increasing in size, not doing any special set/rep schemes, or focusing on “feeling” the muscles working (not that there isn’t some truth to that idea), or “experiencing” the cow on his back or any such nonsense. [/quote]
…yet we end up with 10 page threads filled with newb posts acting like the experienced people on the site are the clueless ones.
I just don’t get it…have people actually gotten dumber over the last 10-15 years?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
MODOK wrote:
Norvegicus wrote:
forlife wrote:
MODOK wrote:
You want to train to get big? Lift heavier and heavier weights in the “bodybuilding” rep range- roughly six to 15 reps. How in the hell can you folks complicate this so much?
Which is pretty much what I just wrote. Whether you’re talking about 8-10 or 6-15, the point is that low rep sets at extreme weights and high rep sets at low weights aren’t going to maximize muscle growth as much as medium range sets at heavy weights.
Waterbury seems to think heavy weights at low rep multiple sets works for muscle gain
Waterbury just says shit so you will buy his program, because its different than everyone else. Have you ever read his stuff? Most of its is useless, and some of it is downright psychotic. Terminating a set as soon as your reps SLOW DOWN? LOL Not to mention the practical evidence of how huge Mr. Waterbury is himself…
I am still waiting for pictures of these huge bodybuilders who got built using his programs. I am also not sure why people into his stuff are even on this forum.
They never post pics of their progress. Hell, do most of the people here even make progress or do they just settle for making lame ass posts that just show how much they don’t know?[/quote]
I thought you were asking for fat fuckers
It’s a shame I bought Huge in a Hurry, but there are a lot of CW fanboys here. Anyone interested in this book, it isn’t even read?
I mentioned Waterbury initially not because i am a fan of his or whatever it was in response to someone saying something about low reps dont build muscle or whatever. Whether they do or not is besides the point I was pointing out that Mr. Waterbury clearly thinks it does
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I just don’t get it…have people actually gotten dumber over the last 10-15 years?[/quote]
No, there is just more access and opportunity for people in general to display their stupidity.
TBH there arent many people on T-Nation who are doing that great in their bodybuilding endeavours. Bodybuilding.com members can beat anyone here into a cocked hat
[quote]Norvegicus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
MODOK wrote:
Norvegicus wrote:
forlife wrote:
MODOK wrote:
You want to train to get big? Lift heavier and heavier weights in the “bodybuilding” rep range- roughly six to 15 reps. How in the hell can you folks complicate this so much?
Which is pretty much what I just wrote. Whether you’re talking about 8-10 or 6-15, the point is that low rep sets at extreme weights and high rep sets at low weights aren’t going to maximize muscle growth as much as medium range sets at heavy weights.
Waterbury seems to think heavy weights at low rep multiple sets works for muscle gain
Waterbury just says shit so you will buy his program, because its different than everyone else. Have you ever read his stuff? Most of its is useless, and some of it is downright psychotic. Terminating a set as soon as your reps SLOW DOWN? LOL Not to mention the practical evidence of how huge Mr. Waterbury is himself…
I am still waiting for pictures of these huge bodybuilders who got built using his programs. I am also not sure why people into his stuff are even on this forum.
They never post pics of their progress. Hell, do most of the people here even make progress or do they just settle for making lame ass posts that just show how much they don’t know?
I thought you were asking for fat fuckers[/quote]
Oh, you’re hilarious.
This is me. Picture taken July 1st. Post your pic under this one so I can see how in shape I am supposed to be. While you are at it, find some pics of people training using Waterbury tactics who are more muscular.