If you guys believe all significant progress ends after only 5 years, what the hell are most of you still training for?
Why even hit the gym 6 days a week to stay stagnant?[/quote]
I’m with X on this one. I don’t believe at all that progress ends after 5 years. There are so many ways to progress. [/quote]
you can always progress, but the pace will slow down significantly. If it doesn’t, then imo that person’s training or diet was far from optimal.
I look at it as base building vs refinement [/quote]
…from all of your personal experience growing more after those 5 years?
I didn’t stop growing.
I am glad there wasn’t a “Brick” running around telling people this when I was starting out.
There would be no need for most people to even hit the gym more than 3 days a week after that 5 years if that were true.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
It’s probably not “fair” for me to drop back in here, as I haven’t been following the thread for a while. I just don’t have the energy to. But I was going to post this link for anyone interested.
Brad Schoenfeld discusses the issue and cites 29 different studies/references. The bottom line I come away with:
Both sides have some pros and cons. The most effective path is whichever you can stick with consistently, as neither method isn’t significantly, dramatically, overwhelmingly the better option.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Recent article posted here yesterday on this meal frequency stuff:
[/quote]
[/quote]
For the most part I agree…and would put money on the guy making more frequent eating a major priority also making bodybuilding enough of his life overall to make extreme developmental progress in the long run…vs someone who eats sporadically “whenever they feel like it”.
That structure alone can lead to more long term progress. Your body is built OUTSIDE of the gym as well.
This is about how you reach that mindset to even make those types of gains…and there is one thing most of the bigger guys do seem to have in common on this one.
Your mind has as much OR MORE to do with this as your body.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
so far I’ve gained 45 lbs lean mass in two years of training and dieting. If I keep up this pace, ill be Mr. O in a couple of years : )
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]howie424 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Holy crap.
If you guys believe all significant progress ends after only 5 years, what the hell are most of you still training for?
Why even hit the gym 6 days a week to stay stagnant?[/quote]
I’m with X on this one. I don’t believe at all that progress ends after 5 years. There are so many ways to progress. [/quote]
Nope…Brick said there is no way…so we should all just believe that and stop trying.[/quote]
He didn’t
Stop lying[/quote]
x2 dumb posts, he didn’t say that. Please explain where Brick said there is no way to progress and you should stop trying after 5 years. He said some gains can be made after that. If progress didn’t significantly slow down after several years of optimal training and optimal nutrition, then in several years I will weigh as much as PX, except be at 10% bodyfat. Furthermore, if one is to be in it for the long haul, why would I intentionally slow down my efforts because some guy on the internet said I am pushing my limits?
[quote]JFG wrote:
No, he is just saying something that he has no notion about. He wasn’t there 60 years ago and is basing his knowledge on second hand info. I stepped into my first “real” gym, in Montreal (guess who was born there and started there) in the mid '70’s. maybe it was youthful impression, but everybody there seemed big to me. Also, gyms where hard to find. Less gyms, more big people. So, your Arnold thing doesn’t stand up. [/quote]
What doesn’t stand up? I said there was ONE Arnold back then. No one else walked around looking like anything even close to that unless they were also competing bodybuilders. Bodybuilding didn’t cross over into more of the mainstream until the late 70’s and 80’s.
Today, you can find people who don’t even compete who carry close to that size.
Protein shakes were not available in GNC’s, corner stores or anything like that back then…and they tasted like shit. That was the point. Not that they didn’t exist at all. I do appreciate the critique and editor remarks. I will use that for when my book comes out.
The above photo is guys who work out at Metroflex in Plano, Texas.
In the 60’s, no one that size was just a regular gym goer.
Today, half the gym looks like that in serious gyms.[/quote]
Then, what we can agree on is that times where different. When I was young, you could buy firecrackers in a corner store…
We also have different views on what was back then. But, what I am saying is that you make blanket statements. When you look at Arnold’s pictures training or on stage, he wasn’t the only one. Most guys back then where Olympic style gyms, so again, your statement doesn’t stand up. Yes, there was less people overall going to the gyms as compare to today, but back then, people actually went to the gym to get stronger.
Please realize, I am talking perception here. I agree, more big people are in gyms today. What I am not agreeing on is the “percentage”. Probably because I do not agree with your percentage (half the gym). But as it is a point neither of can prove, I will leave it at that.
Good luck with your book. You will find that publishing can be harder then actually writing the damn thing. If you were being “sarcastic”, then you should look at growing up so we can actually have a discussion.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The above photo is guys who work out at Metroflex in Plano, Texas.
In the 60’s, no one that size was just a regular gym goer.
Today, half the gym looks like that in serious gyms.[/quote]
I’ve never seen a gym like that. Nothing implied by that statement, but I’ve never personally seen a gym anything remotely like that.
Which, certainly, explains some differences in perspective.[/quote]
Metroflex is all over Texas now. We have one down the street…and yes, Houston has a decently sized competitive bodybuilding population. Most of the gyms I train at have guys walking around who look like that. I wouldn’t train at a gym where that wasn’t the case.
Either way, the point stands, people that size are WAAAAY more common now as opposed to the 1960’s.
NO ONE walked around looking like that in the 60’s UNLESS they competed or played pro sports.
I usually train at 24 Hour Fitness and yeah, one guy I train with is 270lbs right now with abs showing. You see guys like this everywhere here.
Seeing people like this around you pushes you more. If you see NO ONE this size or bigger, you need to understand that it will affect your perception of what you can do yourself.
I am only showing these because Metroflex encourages it. I can’t show too many pics from 24 Hour Fitness.
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
You can only achieve so much growth as a natty over a given time - even if you accept the notion that you can continually gain for decades (I don’t), you will still only be putting on a relatively small amount of muscle in a given week/month/year. I[/quote]
Most natties with adequate and consistent nutrition and training are tapped out for growth in 5 years or so. SOME gains can be made after that, but they are negligible and come at a snail’s pace. [/quote]
Then we’re in agreement.
What do you think about gains in other areas, though, like neurological efficiency? Let’s say a natural trainee is relatively tapped out on hypertrophic gains. Do you think this hypothetical trainee could still continue to gain strength through neurological improvement?
You’re never going to convince the OP and he isn’t going to convince you. Let him type away and you just focus on you and not his facts. Its the same circular arguments in viryually every thread. You can’t teach and old dog new tricks.
Once you finally figure this out and ignore his baiting posts your time and experience here on T Nation will be a lot more positive.
Focus on you, kick butt in the gym and stay away from the negative mindset.
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
You can only achieve so much growth as a natty over a given time - even if you accept the notion that you can continually gain for decades (I don’t), you will still only be putting on a relatively small amount of muscle in a given week/month/year. I[/quote]
Most natties with adequate and consistent nutrition and training are tapped out for growth in 5 years or so. SOME gains can be made after that, but they are negligible and come at a snail’s pace. [/quote]
Then we’re in agreement.
What do you think about gains in other areas, though, like neurological efficiency? Let’s say a natural trainee is relatively tapped out on hypertrophic gains. Do you think this hypothetical trainee could still continue to gain strength through neurological improvement?[/quote]
I’m not Brick but I would think so.
The key statement, IMO, in bricks original post that seems to have caused so much outrage is “with adequate and consistent nutrition and training.” No noob is starting out with adequate and consistent/optimal training. That’s why “significant” gains are made past that 5 year mark.
And like brick and you said, gains can/will still bear but they are very slow! Look at The Might Stu! He made progress and gains between his last two shows but had a net stage weight gain of 2-3 pounds I believe? (I could be wrong here so chime in if you’re reading Stu)
2-3 pounds of muscle in a year! A whole year! That’s .6-1 OUNCE of muscle a week!!! Think about it!
Just because scale weight isn’t shooting up every week doesn’t mean gains aren’t being made.
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
You can only achieve so much growth as a natty over a given time - even if you accept the notion that you can continually gain for decades (I don’t), you will still only be putting on a relatively small amount of muscle in a given week/month/year. I[/quote]
Most natties with adequate and consistent nutrition and training are tapped out for growth in 5 years or so. SOME gains can be made after that, but they are negligible and come at a snail’s pace. [/quote]
Then we’re in agreement.
What do you think about gains in other areas, though, like neurological efficiency? Let’s say a natural trainee is relatively tapped out on hypertrophic gains. Do you think this hypothetical trainee could still continue to gain strength through neurological improvement?[/quote]
I’m not Brick but I would think so.
The key statement, IMO, in bricks original post that seems to have caused so much outrage is “with adequate and consistent nutrition and training.” No noob is starting out with adequate and consistent/optimal training. That’s why “significant” gains are made past that 5 year mark.
And like brick and you said, gains can/will still bear but they are very slow! Look at The Might Stu! He made progress and gains between his last two shows but had a net stage weight gain of 2-3 pounds I believe? (I could be wrong here so chime in if you’re reading Stu)
2-3 pounds of muscle in a year! A whole year! That’s .6-1 OUNCE of muscle a week!!! Think about it!
Just because scale weight isn’t shooting up every week doesn’t mean gains aren’t being made.[/quote]
Good points. Awesome on Stu, also, since at his level, 2-3 lbs of muscle/year is very, very impressive.
If I can cop some Axiron from my doc, do you think I will look like Ronnie in a couple years? More importantly, do you think I can adopt the Dave Tate bulking strategy?
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
You can only achieve so much growth as a natty over a given time - even if you accept the notion that you can continually gain for decades (I don’t), you will still only be putting on a relatively small amount of muscle in a given week/month/year. I[/quote]
Most natties with adequate and consistent nutrition and training are tapped out for growth in 5 years or so. SOME gains can be made after that, but they are negligible and come at a snail’s pace. [/quote]
Then we’re in agreement.
What do you think about gains in other areas, though, like neurological efficiency? Let’s say a natural trainee is relatively tapped out on hypertrophic gains. Do you think this hypothetical trainee could still continue to gain strength through neurological improvement?[/quote]
I’m not Brick but I would think so.
The key statement, IMO, in bricks original post that seems to have caused so much outrage is “with adequate and consistent nutrition and training.” No noob is starting out with adequate and consistent/optimal training. That’s why “significant” gains are made past that 5 year mark.
And like brick and you said, gains can/will still bear but they are very slow! Look at The Might Stu! He made progress and gains between his last two shows but had a net stage weight gain of 2-3 pounds I believe? (I could be wrong here so chime in if you’re reading Stu)
2-3 pounds of muscle in a year! A whole year! That’s .6-1 OUNCE of muscle a week!!! Think about it!
Just because scale weight isn’t shooting up every week doesn’t mean gains aren’t being made.[/quote]
Good points. Awesome on Stu, also, since at his level, 2-3 lbs of muscle/year is very, very impressive.[/quote]
Again, I could be wrong but I know he added less than 5 pounds.
And that IS a lot! Look at the physique! I mean 3-4-5 pounds of actual muscle is a lot and it took a whole year of extreme dedication (if you know anything about Stu you know this is the case) extremely smart and well laid out training (he trains NFL/NBA athletes for crying out loud, the guy knows how to train) AND top of the line supplementation from this very site! He may not being doing everything exactly 100% of maximum optimality (lol) but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone more dialed in than him IMO. Maybe he’s at 99.8%
5 pounds of muscle is a HUGE gain and would make an incredibly drastic improvement in your physique. I think most people don’t actually realize how much muscle that is.
2-3lbs of muscle in a year after several years of training is now “negligible” progress?
Question…if he didn’t spend much time dieting, do you understand he could have gained more?
Brick’s post:[quote]
Most natties with adequate and consistent nutrition and training are tapped out for growth in 5 years or so. SOME gains can be made after that, but they are negligible and come at a snail’s pace.[/quote]
My gains did not tap out after 5 years. I did NOT only make “negligible” progress after that time.
Gaining 3lbs of muscle AFTER DIETING and AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF TRAINING is not 'NEGLIGIBLE" progress coming at a snail’s pace…and anyone who thinks that the same person couldn’t gain more if they didn’t spend time dieting for a show is strange.
To think no one has even better genetics for growth than that is even stranger and doesn’t match any biological model.
People who really think like that probably won’t be training too hard after a decade…
The picture above is Chris Darby who also train at MetroFlex…just trying to give an idea of what I see when I train.
