[quote]Professor X wrote:
They needed the basic genetic material and a shit load of drive.[/quote]
Watch out man, you might be being too hardcore here. (God knows no one likes that around here, lol)
I mean effort? Come on, you can’t expect people to sweat…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I mean effort? Come on, you can’t expect people to sweat…[/quote]
Sweating is for wusses who do cardio, or people with hyperhidrosis =/
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Professor X wrote:
They needed the basic genetic material and a shit load of drive.
Watch out man, you might be being too hardcore here. (God knows no one likes that around here, lol)
I mean effort? Come on, you can’t expect people to sweat…[/quote]
The gym = a Hip ( i said Hip) hang out for cool teens…with their caramel macchiatos, and their rock N roll music, and their make out parties.
[quote]Akuma01 wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
Professor X wrote:
They needed the basic genetic material and a shit load of drive.
Watch out man, you might be being too hardcore here. (God knows no one likes that around here, lol)
I mean effort? Come on, you can’t expect people to sweat…
The gym = a Hip ( i said Hip) hang out for cool teens…with their caramel macchiatos, and their rock N roll music, and their make out parties.[/quote]
What are you? 70?! ;')
While the terminology and the distinctions have gotten out of control, and in the end it’s all semantics, I still think some of it is useful.
Separating pyramidding and ramping by saying pyramidding goes back down in weights after the top set makes sense to me. I don’t care what it was in the old days. Today, for me, it makes sense to distinguish the two by using a simple word instead of describing the entire process.
Like I said, in the end it’s all semantics, but as long as everyone was on the same page with what everything means I think the different terms can still be advantageous.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
While the terminology and the distinctions have gotten out of control, and in the end it’s all semantics, I still think some of it is useful.
Separating pyramidding and ramping by saying pyramidding goes back down in weights after the top set makes sense to me. I don’t care what it was in the old days. Today, for me, it makes sense to distinguish the two by using a simple word instead of describing the entire process.
Like I said, in the end it’s all semantics, but as long as everyone was on the same page with what everything means I think the different terms can still be advantageous. [/quote]
But there is a problem with terms when they are changed to suit someones situtation. Pyramiding, as long as I can remember (and it’s a long time) was always defined as going up in weight and down in reps. Now ramping has taken over as the new hip term and newer ( people young than X and myself) have found it fit to redefine the original term.
Terms can not be changed if we are indeed "all going to be on the same page.
I also think that people get to concerned with the latest study and read way to much. To become “all that you can be” you must learn to read your own body and forget what everyone else is doing or saying.
I have no idea what this is with the claim now that pyramiding supposedly means going back down in weight, or “now” it means that.
So far as I know (I could be wrong) this concept on this forum originates from a single post from someone who claimed that. Certainly it seems to have spread here from a single such post.
A pyramid is a set scheme where weight increases with each set, and reps decrease. The pyramid ends at a top weight. As already mentioned.
Some might add something after it such as “burn sets” or “pump sets” but the above is what the pyramid is.
A double pyramid is where the weight goes back down again and the reps go back up.
Just because someone posted here that a pyramid (supposedly) REALLY is going both up and down, and going only up is supposedly a half-pyramid, does not mean this was accepted usage in the past, is widely used now, or SHOULD be used now.
I know this’ll be misinterped…
The first exposure we had to the term ‘pyramiding’ was with one of our S&C coaches (in '93 or '94 - kinda early www) doing bodyweight stuff (sit-ups, burpees, & pull ups) for (1rep, 2reps, 3reps…2 reps, 1 rep).
Working up to a heavy single with weights was ‘ramping’ (I do apologize for mis-stating the flat load vs. increasing load.)
I had figured that if I had listed the info using the bodyweight exercise context, that somebody would get all hissy over that.
& yeah Lanky is right, it’s semantics.
Using the term “semantics” as a pejorative or dismissingly (if one does so) winds up missing the point that using words contrary to how others – due to longstanding usage over decades – understand them is an unproductive thing to do.
Therefore, although maybe it is “just semantics” that going up to a top weight while dropping reps and not back down again is pyramiding, while going back down and increasing reps again makes it double-pyramiding, it is useful to use the words according to what has been normal usage for many decades.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Using the term “semantics” as a pejorative or dismissingly (if one does so) winds up missing the point that using words contrary to how others – due to longstanding usage over decades – understand them is an unproductive thing to do.
Therefore, although maybe it is “just semantics” that going up to a top weight while dropping reps and not back down again is pyramiding, while going back down and increasing reps again makes it double-pyramiding, it is useful to use the words according to what has been normal usage for many decades.[/quote]
Agreed…and you can see the effects of all of this wonderful colorful brand new terminology in the decrease of the truly big guys in most gyms.
For all of this supposed “knowledge”, these fuckers sure don’t have much to show for it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Using the term “semantics” as a pejorative or dismissingly (if one does so) winds up missing the point that using words contrary to how others – due to longstanding usage over decades – understand them is an unproductive thing to do.
Therefore, although maybe it is “just semantics” that going up to a top weight while dropping reps and not back down again is pyramiding, while going back down and increasing reps again makes it double-pyramiding, it is useful to use the words according to what has been normal usage for many decades.
Agreed…and you can see the effects of all of this wonderful colorful brand new terminology in the decrease of the truly big guys in most gyms.
For all of this supposed “knowledge”, these fuckers sure don’t have much to show for it.[/quote]
This isn’t the reason why there are seeming so few truly big guys in most gyms.
Regardless of terminology, which really isn’t all that confusing in the first place, people simply don’t want to take much effort to improve themselves in any area of their lives.
The fact that building an impressive physique requires years of dedication in the gym and kitchen means that there simply will not be many who are successful.
The vast majority of people are too lazy, and much lazier than our ancestors.
[quote]HK24719 wrote:
This isn’t the reason why there are seeming so few truly big guys in most gyms.
Regardless of terminology, which really isn’t all that confusing in the first place, people simply don’t want to take much effort to improve themselves in any area of their lives.
The fact that building an impressive physique requires years of dedication in the gym and kitchen means that there simply will not be many who are successful.
The vast majority of people are too lazy, and much lazier than our ancestors.[/quote]
I disagree, not in a fuck you kindof way, but here’s my example.
A buddy of mine (owns his own gym, mid 20’s) who trains very regularly wanted to ramp up his strength/size gains and wanted to try something new. I suggested that he have a look at the DC model of training and give it a go. I know he’s been training with weights and all kinds of odd techniques over the years…
So I run into him the other weekend at a mutual get-together, and he said he’d given that (DC type training) a go, but got bored. Also, he found that it wasn’t “functional strength” he was gaining, which was a goal in addition to size and general strength. So, he’s gone back to weight training using Swiss balls/BOSU balls combined with free or cable weights to be more “functional”.
I know, story you’ve probably all heard heaps, but this is my point.
This guy is dedicated, and expresses a desire to get bigger/stronger.
People are getting all cluttered up in bullshit, and are generally trying to do something complicated to make themselves feel more important or look ‘different’ in the gym (IMO), and are missing the big, very basic picture about what works.
A contributing problem to this has to be professional writers finding it in their self-interest to make things complicated and to make any given thing they are writing about which may be a good idea, seem to be THE idea.
Christian Thibaudeau and myself (in my case, in steroid writing, as opposed to training writing) are about the only bb’ing authors I can think of who would rather just give a clear explanation that gives the reader an understanding to figure out the rest for themselves, and not need endless further articles.
Now why would this be more of a problem today than in the past?
Because in the Weider days, the ol’ Blaster figured he had a brand new audience of readers every year anyway. Therefore, an author could explain things clearly enough, and this wouldn’t end his opportunity to make more money later because he could just say the same thing again next year, just slightly differently worded, and would still collect his paycheck.
And – now I’m getting into an area where many will reflexively disagree with me – while of course the “Weider Principles” were not invented by Joe Weider, the fact that this was set down and pretty much mandated for the authors as being the backbone (and there was nothing in there that was a bad principle) prevented authors from presenting endless “new” schemes as the be-all and end-all, resulting in endless sidetracks and quests for “functional strength” with Bosu balls.
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
HK24719 wrote:
This isn’t the reason why there are seeming so few truly big guys in most gyms.
Regardless of terminology, which really isn’t all that confusing in the first place, people simply don’t want to take much effort to improve themselves in any area of their lives.
The fact that building an impressive physique requires years of dedication in the gym and kitchen means that there simply will not be many who are successful.
The vast majority of people are too lazy, and much lazier than our ancestors.
I disagree, not in a fuck you kindof way, but here’s my example.
A buddy of mine (owns his own gym, mid 20’s) who trains very regularly wanted to ramp up his strength/size gains and wanted to try something new. I suggested that he have a look at the DC model of training and give it a go. I know he’s been training with weights and all kinds of odd techniques over the years…
So I run into him the other weekend at a mutual get-together, and he said he’d given that (DC type training) a go, but got bored. Also, he found that it wasn’t “functional strength” he was gaining, which was a goal in addition to size and general strength. So, he’s gone back to weight training using Swiss balls/BOSU balls combined with free or cable weights to be more “functional”.
I know, story you’ve probably all heard heaps, but this is my point.
This guy is dedicated, and expresses a desire to get bigger/stronger.
People are getting all cluttered up in bullshit, and are generally trying to do something complicated to make themselves feel more important or look ‘different’ in the gym (IMO), and are missing the big, very basic picture about what works.
[/quote]
Exactly. It isn’t like there were more people 10 years ago that wanted to get huge. It was that those who did didn’t have 5,000 different methodologies being force fed to them as they are told that they must memorize thousands of brand new terms and read tons of ridiculous books from wannabe “gurus”.
That is why we keep saying “keep it simple”. You have skinny newbs on this site who really think they are hot shit because they can quote certain authors by heart. These are often the same ones who are truly so clueless and turned around that they write nonsense like, “I like to use my CNS to lift weights”…as if they can shut it on and off.
You have way too many undereducated people trying to act like scholars.
You have way too many people getting lost in a forest of bullshit jargon when they would benefit more from NOT reading so much crap and simply getting in the gym and working hard while observing what the people who actually built big muscles are doing.
I had one poster call me out for not knowing what “5x5” was a couple of years ago…as if that was even important.
It means there are people who truly think their progress hinges on whether they do exactly “X” number of sets and reps. The fact that they use the same weight for all of these sets and that they really aren’t making that much progress overall AND that their choice of training has led them to having muscle imbalances from pure neglect doesn’t even register as being a problem to them.
Watching lay people try to use terminology outside of their league is painful to watch at best.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
A contributing problem to this has to be professional writers finding it in their self-interest to make things complicated and to make any given thing they are writing about which may be a good idea, seem to be THE idea.
Christian Thibaudeau and myself (in my case, in steroid writing, not bb’ing writing) are about the only bb’ing authors I can think of who would rather just give a clear explanation that gives the reader an understanding to figure out the rest out for themselves, and not need endless further articles.
Now why would this be more of a problem today than in the past?
Because in the Weider days, the ol’ Blaster figured he had a brand new audience of readers every year anyway. Therefore, an author could explain things clearly enough, and this wouldn’t end his opportunity to make more money later because he could just say the same thing again next year, just slightly differently worded, and would still collect his paycheck.
And – now I’m getting into an area where many will reflexively disagree with me – while of course the “Weider Principles” were not invented by Joe Weider, the fact that this was set down and pretty much mandated for the authors as being the backbone (and there was nothing in there that was a bad principle) prevented authors from presenting endless “new” schemes as the be-all and end-all, resulting in endless sidetracks and questions for “functional strength” with Bosu balls.
[/quote]
…Which in conclusion is why there are far fewer truly impressively built people in most gyms.
It isn’t that even more are now less dedicated. It is that the ones who could have made it that far in the past now are too caught up in “idea land” to actually get to the stage where they figure out their own bodies and stop hating on every guy who is way bigger than them by claiming they all got big by accident.
One of the dumbest statements I have read on this site is that big bodybuilders are the worst to go to for advice.
Yeah, you guys keep believing that. You’ll figure out why that has led to your own decreased progress one day…I guess.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
One of the dumbest statements I have read on this site is that big bodybuilders are the worst to go to for advice.
[/quote]
Completely agree…it doesn’t matter whether you think the guy is a dumbass/meathead, whatever, if he got that way there is SOMETHING that he is obviously doing right.
Its like the whole “perfect technique” discussion…if the big guy is using ‘bad technique’ and isn’t getting injured, and you’re using ‘perfect technique’ and aren’t getting bigger, who has the better technique???
[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
Professor X wrote:
One of the dumbest statements I have read on this site is that big bodybuilders are the worst to go to for advice.
Completely agree…it doesn’t matter whether you think the guy is a dumbass/meathead, whatever, if he got that way there is SOMETHING that he is obviously doing right.
Its like the whole “perfect technique” discussion…if the big guy is using ‘bad technique’ and isn’t getting injured, and you’re using ‘perfect technique’ and aren’t getting bigger, who has the better technique???
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone ever said not to ask a big bodybuilder how he got there.
IIRC it was something like the best coaches were not insanely gifted, but had to work extremely hard for everything they had. In which case they would be better suited to training the vast majority of the populace.
Some dick will flame me for that, saying “elites DO work hard” and I didn’t mean to take anything away from those guys… but training like Arnold in Pumping Iron will not make you look like him. You have to find your own style. Thibs talked about it in his thread- learn how to train and don’t follow one “program” forever.
Back to the original topic- Good post. As I was reading it I was liked “Yea, this is ramping. duh”
[quote]Therizza wrote:
I don’t think anyone ever said not to ask a big bodybuilder how he got there.
[/quote]
yeah man, they have. I posted the picture of the bullshit button when one doucher said it.
While I can see the value of looking to someone who tried like a motherfucker to overcome average genetics, to write off someone with elite genetics, because of them, is stupid.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Therizza wrote:
I don’t think anyone ever said not to ask a big bodybuilder how he got there.
yeah man, they have. I posted the picture of the bullshit button when one doucher said it.
While I can see the value of looking to someone who tried like a motherfucker to overcome average genetics, to write off someone with elite genetics, because of them, is stupid.[/quote]
well then, I stand corrected. I agree with your point as well.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Therizza wrote:
I don’t think anyone ever said not to ask a big bodybuilder how he got there.
yeah man, they have. I posted the picture of the bullshit button when one doucher said it.
While I can see the value of looking to someone who tried like a motherfucker to overcome average genetics, to write off someone with elite genetics, because of them, is stupid.[/quote]
Perhaps we should ask this fellow…