Thoughts on the I,Bodybuilder Program

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
41

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]ParagonA wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]BantamRunner wrote:
Take away the name and does that really look like a HYPERTROPHY program?

Yeah, I understand the whole fixation with hypertrophy “only” being the 6-12 rep range is a bit ludicrous…but so is the opposite. Really? I thought only Powerlifters couldn’t count to 10…

That being said. I bet most of the dudes in the gym banging out the program are going to see progress BECAUSE they’ve probably done nothing but reps in the 6-12 range for an eon or two.

Alan[/quote]

Without the all-out blast set at the end of the ramp where you’d get several reps or so, I’d say no. That’s the key part of the program that makes it hypertrophy specific. Also, the squeezes and holds (e.g. cable row) helps tremendously with hypertrophy.

[/quote]

IMO, the exact opposite is true. The program would work very well for hypertrophy even without the all-out set. This set is the least important of all the sets performed and it probably just stimulates hypertrophy via another pathway than the other sets do.

Before I moved to bodybuilding, I competed in power lifting competitions. Many of my training partners never went over 3 reps and they all were pretty massive. Much more massive than all the other guys in our gym doing lots of conventional hypertrophy work.
Heck, I gained 60 within 3 years doing nothing but very heavy lifting.

I believe low, explosive reps and ultra-high forces (acceleration of heaviest possible weight) recruits type IIb fibers the best, and those have the highest growth potential. It’s just very difficult to properly recruit them, sets with too little weight and too low forces just won’t do.

Doing the low rep sets (and the low rep sets only) correctly, most people will make great gains in both strength and size with a program like this.

[/quote]

If that were true (that the low reps is all that is needed for OPTIMAL hypertrophy), why did CT put the “drop/blast set” in the program? There’s a reason, and it’s not to stimulate more strength…[/quote]

Probably to get people like you to buy into the program. CT has said that in the past, he would surround his core ideas by accepted dogma, so that his readers wouldn’t think it was too far fetched and instantly dismiss his ideas. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the case here, too.

42

[quote]ParagonA wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]BantamRunner wrote:
Take away the name and does that really look like a HYPERTROPHY program?

Yeah, I understand the whole fixation with hypertrophy “only” being the 6-12 rep range is a bit ludicrous…but so is the opposite. Really? I thought only Powerlifters couldn’t count to 10…

That being said. I bet most of the dudes in the gym banging out the program are going to see progress BECAUSE they’ve probably done nothing but reps in the 6-12 range for an eon or two.

Alan[/quote]

Without the all-out blast set at the end of the ramp where you’d get several reps or so, I’d say no. That’s the key part of the program that makes it hypertrophy specific. Also, the squeezes and holds (e.g. cable row) helps tremendously with hypertrophy.

[/quote]

IMO, the exact opposite is true. The program would work very well for hypertrophy even without the all-out set. This set is the least important of all the sets performed and it probably just stimulates hypertrophy via another pathway than the other sets do.

Before I moved to bodybuilding, I competed in power lifting competitions. Many of my training partners never went over 3 reps and they all were pretty massive. Much more massive than all the other guys in our gym doing lots of conventional hypertrophy work.
Heck, I gained 60 within 3 years doing nothing but very heavy lifting.

I believe low, explosive reps and ultra-high forces (acceleration of heaviest possible weight) recruits type IIb fibers the best, and those have the highest growth potential. It’s just very difficult to properly recruit them, sets with too little weight and too low forces just won’t do.

Doing the low rep sets (and the low rep sets only) correctly, most people will make great gains in both strength and size with a program like this.

[/quote]

I couldn’t agree more.

I spun my wheels training with 6 to 12 reps for a long time, and while I made some gains I didn’t really build a lot of muscle or strength until I learned to train heavy in the 3 to 5 rep range.

Unfortunately, bodybuilding dogma has newbies training for the burn and keeps them from building a strong base. I’ve even seen people reference Arnold’s comments in Pumping Iron about training for the burn, yet he has stated in interviews after the movie that he made this up for dramatic effect.

43

I’m with the jacked monkey on this one. Looks intense, and I’m sure it would bring results, but a lot of programs bring results. Training has to be a lot of things to be truly effective in the long term. One of them, and for me a major one, is fun. This kitchen sink program of concepts and techniques looks like it might be fun at least by virtue of it being different, for about three sessions. After that, it seems like it would become more of a chore than anything. Getting to the gym week in/week out is a chore in itself sometimes, no way I’m turning the workout into one as well.

Not trashing the “program”, tons of appreciation for the time and effort it took to document and teach it…but realistically, I think most people would tire of it very quickly. I hope lots of you prove me wrong, post pics of results!

44

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]ParagonA wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]BantamRunner wrote:
Take away the name and does that really look like a HYPERTROPHY program?

Yeah, I understand the whole fixation with hypertrophy “only” being the 6-12 rep range is a bit ludicrous…but so is the opposite. Really? I thought only Powerlifters couldn’t count to 10…

That being said. I bet most of the dudes in the gym banging out the program are going to see progress BECAUSE they’ve probably done nothing but reps in the 6-12 range for an eon or two.

Alan[/quote]

Without the all-out blast set at the end of the ramp where you’d get several reps or so, I’d say no. That’s the key part of the program that makes it hypertrophy specific. Also, the squeezes and holds (e.g. cable row) helps tremendously with hypertrophy.

[/quote]

IMO, the exact opposite is true. The program would work very well for hypertrophy even without the all-out set. This set is the least important of all the sets performed and it probably just stimulates hypertrophy via another pathway than the other sets do.

Before I moved to bodybuilding, I competed in power lifting competitions. Many of my training partners never went over 3 reps and they all were pretty massive. Much more massive than all the other guys in our gym doing lots of conventional hypertrophy work.
Heck, I gained 60 within 3 years doing nothing but very heavy lifting.

I believe low, explosive reps and ultra-high forces (acceleration of heaviest possible weight) recruits type IIb fibers the best, and those have the highest growth potential. It’s just very difficult to properly recruit them, sets with too little weight and too low forces just won’t do.

Doing the low rep sets (and the low rep sets only) correctly, most people will make great gains in both strength and size with a program like this.

[/quote]

If that were true (that the low reps is all that is needed for OPTIMAL hypertrophy), why did CT put the “drop/blast set” in the program? There’s a reason, and it’s not to stimulate more strength…[/quote]

Of course there is a reason. You can trigger hypertrophy via diffrent pathways. High rep work works via another pathway and is more efficient in recruiting other types of muscle fibers (others than type IIb or d that is).
For optimal hypertrophy it’s probably a good idea to do both, higher rep work as well as low rep, high force work.
BUT what I am saying is that the all-out set is NOT the core of the program. The core is the low-rep, high-force work.
If more people would focus on lower reps and heavier weight, you’d see much more big guys in your gym. I only see 170lbs pencilnecks doing tons of sets f 8-12 resp around me, 'cause that’s what your supposed to do, isn’t it?
'nough said.

45

[quote]grandin11 wrote:

Probably to get people like you to buy into the program. CT has said that in the past, he would surround his core ideas by accepted dogma, so that his readers wouldn’t think it was too far fetched and instantly dismiss his ideas. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the case here, too.[/quote]

Its good that you don’t get suckered into program after program, including this one, but I think you’re missing the point.

The “program” is just a means of driving home a point. This is more of a “concept compilation” than a program, given to us gradually to get the basics. The faulty dogma going on for so long has been the burn and pump, DOMS, and high reps etc etc. This program is basically telling us what the Big Boys truly have done all along.

Ya dig me grandin??

46

[quote]ParagonA wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]ParagonA wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]BantamRunner wrote:
Take away the name and does that really look like a HYPERTROPHY program?

Yeah, I understand the whole fixation with hypertrophy “only” being the 6-12 rep range is a bit ludicrous…but so is the opposite. Really? I thought only Powerlifters couldn’t count to 10…

That being said. I bet most of the dudes in the gym banging out the program are going to see progress BECAUSE they’ve probably done nothing but reps in the 6-12 range for an eon or two.

Alan[/quote]

Without the all-out blast set at the end of the ramp where you’d get several reps or so, I’d say no. That’s the key part of the program that makes it hypertrophy specific. Also, the squeezes and holds (e.g. cable row) helps tremendously with hypertrophy.

[/quote]

IMO, the exact opposite is true. The program would work very well for hypertrophy even without the all-out set. This set is the least important of all the sets performed and it probably just stimulates hypertrophy via another pathway than the other sets do.

Before I moved to bodybuilding, I competed in power lifting competitions. Many of my training partners never went over 3 reps and they all were pretty massive. Much more massive than all the other guys in our gym doing lots of conventional hypertrophy work.
Heck, I gained 60 within 3 years doing nothing but very heavy lifting.

I believe low, explosive reps and ultra-high forces (acceleration of heaviest possible weight) recruits type IIb fibers the best, and those have the highest growth potential. It’s just very difficult to properly recruit them, sets with too little weight and too low forces just won’t do.

Doing the low rep sets (and the low rep sets only) correctly, most people will make great gains in both strength and size with a program like this.

[/quote]

If that were true (that the low reps is all that is needed for OPTIMAL hypertrophy), why did CT put the “drop/blast set” in the program? There’s a reason, and it’s not to stimulate more strength…[/quote]

Of course there is a reason. You can trigger hypertrophy via diffrent pathways. High rep work works via another pathway and is more efficient in recruiting other types of muscle fibers (others than type IIb or d that is).
For optimal hypertrophy it’s probably a good idea to do both, higher rep work as well as low rep, high force work.
BUT what I am saying is that the all-out set is NOT the core of the program. The core is the low-rep, high-force work.
If more people would focus on lower reps and heavier weight, you’d see much more big guys in your gym. I only see 170lbs pencilnecks doing tons of sets f 8-12 resp around me, 'cause that’s what your supposed to do, isn’t it?
'nough said.[/quote]

This man is right.

47

Talking purely from a training perspective (not food intake) I think that a lot of people who’ve spent some training doing 5-8 reps and find it doesn’t work haven’t really grasped the concept of intensity. Doing 8 reps is not an excuse for lifting “light” weights. It would be better for trainees to start off with low rep schemes so that they grasp what weight lifting is all about, then they could move onto a higher rep scheme (and the intensity/strength/focus will pass over).

You tell a newbie to do a 20 rep squat and then tell an advanced trainee to do one - tell me the difference? It’s a big one…for starters, the newbie will very likely highly underestimate the weight to lift with and won’t even prepare his body properly…

Just because so many people get it wrong, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work very well. Training in the 6-12 rep range is not all about training for the burn (that’s just a side effect of higher reps), and any bodybuilding program that doesn’t emphasise progression (e.g. strength) simply isn’t a good program. Besides that, I think that most good advanced programs don’t usually have the trainee going far above 6 reps (hardly any burn there).

I’m not criticizing IBB in any way, I’m currently doing the perfect rep/ramping etc and thoroughly enjoying it (not able to give the program, that is the specialisation phases, any justice at the moment though so not doing them until later).

48

The focus on “the rep” is very Zen-like. If you can find that sublime state where force is not a number, you won’t even know how many reps you did and you won’t care. The perfect rep is a journey through a gigantic universe inside a smaller galaxy. Impossible I know, but that is exactly what the perfect rep is, impossible. It can always be improved upon depending on where YOU are on the continuum, but it will never be perfect. …much like your physique if you keep counting reps.

49

[quote]ParagonA wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
If that were true (that the low reps is all that is needed for OPTIMAL hypertrophy), why did CT put the “drop/blast set” in the program? There’s a reason, and it’s not to stimulate more strength…[/quote]

…BUT what I am saying is that the all-out set is NOT the core of the program. The core is the low-rep, high-force work.
If more people would focus on lower reps and heavier weight, you’d see much more big guys in your gym. I only see 170lbs pencilnecks doing tons of sets f 8-12 resp around me, 'cause that’s what your supposed to do, isn’t it?
'nough said.[/quote]

I’m not saying it is the core of the program (the drop set/all out set)…how can you do a drop set without working up to a max or near max? lol. Low reps will stimulate hypertrophy (I’m not even arguing this here), but you’d be a fool to only do one method all the time, as if this whole low rep and speed thing is new and the next revolutionary thing to “replace” bodybuilding training…

I think what CT is doing is brilliant, it’s putting more focus on strength which is very often a deficient in most bodybuilders. But like I said, the drop sets etc is like the “cherry on top” which completes it as a hypertrophy program. Without that, what makes it that much different from what strength athletes do?

50

[quote]its_just_me wrote

I think what CT is doing is brilliant, it’s putting more focus on strength which is very often a deficient in most bodybuilders. But like I said, the drop sets etc is like the “cherry on top” which completes it as a hypertrophy program. Without that, what makes it that much different from what strength athletes do?[/quote]

Out of curiosity why do you say most bodybuilders lack strength?

Not trying to start an internet fight btw, just want to hear the rationale.

51

[quote]chimera182 wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote

I think what CT is doing is brilliant, it’s putting more focus on strength which is very often a deficient in most bodybuilders. But like I said, the drop sets etc is like the “cherry on top” which completes it as a hypertrophy program. Without that, what makes it that much different from what strength athletes do?[/quote]

Out of curiosity why do you say most bodybuilders lack strength?

Not trying to start an internet fight btw, just want to hear the rationale.[/quote]

I mean lack strength compared to their potential…

That doesn’t mean that there are no bodybuilders that are brutally strong. Progress makes a bodybuilder strong, but THAT (strength) is not the main goal. If it was, they would be FAR stronger than they are…

52

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]chimera182 wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote

I think what CT is doing is brilliant, it’s putting more focus on strength which is very often a deficient in most bodybuilders. But like I said, the drop sets etc is like the “cherry on top” which completes it as a hypertrophy program. Without that, what makes it that much different from what strength athletes do?[/quote]

Out of curiosity why do you say most bodybuilders lack strength?

Not trying to start an internet fight btw, just want to hear the rationale.[/quote]

I mean lack strength compared to their potential…

That doesn’t mean that there are no bodybuilders that are brutally strong. Progress makes a bodybuilder strong, but THAT (strength) is not the main goal. If it was, they would be FAR stronger than they are…[/quote]

I suppose I’m being nitpicky. If someone doesn’t need to be as strong as their potential, then they don’t need strength and therefore don’t lack it. Either way, bodybuilders are as strong as they need to be. I’ll agree that maximum strength isn’t their main goal, how much it helps hypertrophy I don’t know as I don’t have that much experience.

53

[quote]chimera182 wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]chimera182 wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote

I think what CT is doing is brilliant, it’s putting more focus on strength which is very often a deficient in most bodybuilders. But like I said, the drop sets etc is like the “cherry on top” which completes it as a hypertrophy program. Without that, what makes it that much different from what strength athletes do?[/quote]

Out of curiosity why do you say most bodybuilders lack strength?

Not trying to start an internet fight btw, just want to hear the rationale.[/quote]

I mean lack strength compared to their potential…

That doesn’t mean that there are no bodybuilders that are brutally strong. Progress makes a bodybuilder strong, but THAT (strength) is not the main goal. If it was, they would be FAR stronger than they are…[/quote]

I suppose I’m being nitpicky. If someone doesn’t need to be as strong as their potential, then they don’t need strength and therefore don’t lack it. Either way, bodybuilders are as strong as they need to be. I’ll agree that maximum strength isn’t their main goal, how much it helps hypertrophy I don’t know as I don’t have that much experience.[/quote]

It depends on the context - if a newbie wanders why he’s not all that big when he can barely even bench much past his bodywieght, for example…then the answer’s right there (aside from nutrition/rest).

We’re only talking about big gaps though, between size and strength. Bodybuilders don’t NEED to be as strong as they look, but “catching up” when there’s a BIG difference does tremendously help.

Using a similar example to CT - building a house. Bodybuilding style training is like giving the workers more material to build with, whereas building up more strength via neural adaptation/NS efficiency is like hiring more workers. Obviously, there comes a point where the workers can only handle a certain amount of work load/material (the saturation point of bodybuilding training), at which point, it would benefit you more to hire extra workers (work on strength), then you can give those workers more work load/material again (bodybuilding style training).

That’s an example similar to what CT would have said in the past, but he’s changed his opinion slightly now (I think he incorporates both into one style of training).

54

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]chimera182 wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]chimera182 wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote

I think what CT is doing is brilliant, it’s putting more focus on strength which is very often a deficient in most bodybuilders. But like I said, the drop sets etc is like the “cherry on top” which completes it as a hypertrophy program. Without that, what makes it that much different from what strength athletes do?[/quote]

Out of curiosity why do you say most bodybuilders lack strength?

Not trying to start an internet fight btw, just want to hear the rationale.[/quote]

I mean lack strength compared to their potential…

That doesn’t mean that there are no bodybuilders that are brutally strong. Progress makes a bodybuilder strong, but THAT (strength) is not the main goal. If it was, they would be FAR stronger than they are…[/quote]

I suppose I’m being nitpicky. If someone doesn’t need to be as strong as their potential, then they don’t need strength and therefore don’t lack it. Either way, bodybuilders are as strong as they need to be. I’ll agree that maximum strength isn’t their main goal, how much it helps hypertrophy I don’t know as I don’t have that much experience.[/quote]

It depends on the context - if a newbie wanders why he’s not all that big when he can barely even bench much past his bodywieght, for example…then the answer’s right there (aside from nutrition/rest).

We’re only talking about big gaps though, between size and strength. Bodybuilders don’t NEED to be as strong as they look, but “catching up” when there’s a BIG difference does tremendously help.

Using a similar example to CT - building a house. Bodybuilding style training is like giving the workers more material to build with, whereas building up more strength via neural adaptation/NS efficiency is like hiring more workers. Obviously, there comes a point where the workers can only handle a certain amount of work load/material (the saturation point of bodybuilding training), at which point, it would benefit you more to hire extra workers (work on strength), then you can give those workers more work load/material again (bodybuilding style training).

That’s an example similar to what CT would have said in the past, but he’s changed his opinion slightly now (I think he incorporates both into one style of training).[/quote]

I agree completely that people new to lifting should definitely focus on getting stronger.

As to the other stuff, I don’t know I really don’t have enough experience to make any claims other than just theoretically.

55

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Bodybuilders don’t NEED to be as strong as they look, [/quote]

Ahhhh finally. It took you long enough to show your ass in this conversation. Face it, you don’t know what youre talking about because you haven’t walked the walk. Why is so hard for you to understand that you sound like a moron when you blurt out shit that experienced people can see right through?

56

I would definitely give this program a try if the gym i was going to didn’t have only one power rack that is almost always being used or waiting to be used by most of the serious lifters that train there, along with everyone else.

57

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Bodybuilders don’t NEED to be as strong as they look, [/quote]

Ahhhh finally. It took you long enough to show your ass in this conversation. Face it, you don’t know what youre talking about because you haven’t walked the walk. Why is so hard for you to understand that you sound like a moron when you blurt out shit that experienced people can see right through?

[/quote]

x2

I first thought about getting a bit angry, but then again:

its_just_him

58

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Bodybuilders don’t NEED to be as strong as they look, [/quote]

Ahhhh finally. It took you long enough to show your ass in this conversation. Face it, you don’t know what youre talking about because you haven’t walked the walk. Why is so hard for you to understand that you sound like a moron when you blurt out shit that experienced people can see right through?

[/quote]

…you take that the wrong way, and that makes ME an ass?

59

It seems there are a lot of people looking at this program and only seeing “the program”. Which is exactly what CT didn’t want.

The IBB program is unique compared to the programs outlined in a standard article here in that it describes and shows how to incorporate the ideas that CT has been talking about. Perfect rep, ramping, ratchet loading, activation sets, etc. It also demonstrates how to design a spec phase.

I think that those who look at the concepts each phase of the program presents will get a lot more out of those who just following the program and ignore the fundamentals. I’m not following the program, but I’m trynig my best to incorporate some of the concepts into my 4 day upper/lower split routine.

60

Same thing for me.

Because of some shoulder/scapula issues I cannot follow the program as written or even closely, but I am employing the concepts.