Thug Training

Training Bodybuilding
81

[quote]HOV wrote:
Dr. Awesome wrote:
HOV wrote:
I did bodyweight exercises solely for several periods of a few years. I had all the motivation and intensity I could muster. At times I’d do 500 push-ups and then go swim breast stroke for a 1/2 mile.

But I never had the size or strength I later developed as a result of lifting weights. I had a real hard time putting on mass with just bodyweight exercises. A few years and 40 pounds of LBM later, I feel much stronger with my weight workouts. And I can still do pushups, pullups, dips, etc. quite easily. But I definitely couldn’t lift big when I was doing bodyweight stuff.

You can twirl yourself around however you wish, but it still ends up being your bodyweight or less.

I have a feeling that genetics plays a big role with these guys. Get some chinese guys doing that stuff (or 1/2 chinese like me) and you’ll have a bunch of bruce lee-looking mofos running around.

There are plenty of way to make bodyweight exerciese extremely difficult.

straddle planche
front lever
one arm delcine push ups
one arm pull ups
freestanding hand stand push ups on parallel bars
etc…

just change the leverage…

I’m not doubting you, as I have a friend who is pretty ripped from doing years of BW exercises.

But how the heck am I going to create similar effects as deadlifts with BW? Squats?

Isometrics is the only thing I can think of.

[/quote]

Thats true but if your goal is to save yourself some money by skipping the gym or not buying weights you could always just pick up some heavy rocks.

One interesting thing to note is that christopher sommer claimed that his gymnasts could do some pretty impressive deadlifts without ever having trained with freeweights.

82

herschel wlaker lifted weights, that same stupid story that he didnt always gets thrown around

83

I decided to throw in some of those pullup variations the last two workouts. They’re pretty brutal, especially the shifting from side to side at the top.

I also agree that those guys didn’t build those physiques doing just what’s in the videos. I’d be willing to put money on the fact that they worked out in a gym with iron to put on most of their mass.

84

[quote]Massif wrote:
Mattthepug wrote:
I think you have a definitional problem, the exercises stop being body weight when you add 100 pounds of weight.

Unless you just get really fat.

[/quote]

notice he said “body weight moves”, it takes on a different meaning then.

85

[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
I have a question to everyone who said that there was no leg training in these videos. Do you think that doing lifting for legs is essential for being in great all around shape? Do you think someone that sprinted occasionally, jumped occasionally, and ran at the most 2-300 yards at a time and besides that just walked for legs, but had the ability to haul yourself up over anything and get around anything that got in your way is not complete? We as humans are made to do well without big strong legs, I would argue that upper body muscle mass is much more important in some aspects.[/quote]

define ‘all around good shape’. my idea of ‘all around good shape’ means big ass strong legs.

86

Why do people type IMO and IMHO when it’s obvious that they’ve already expressed their opinion? Dunce!!

87

[quote]roofus_5 wrote:
all that for a body…Herchel Walker. His bodyweight only routines have been widely publicized. .

Again, genetics and diet help…plus he literally did thousands of reps each day.[/quote]

This brings up a good discussion. Assuming equal results COULD be obtained by either method, which would you choose?

Fewer reps with additional weight
(just say 1/100th of body weight reps)

OR

‘thousands’ of reps with body weight

?

88

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
awesome videos. no offense to this website, but i think it often overanalyzes things that really aren’t so complicated: how to get big and strong and cut.

no need for paralysis by analysis. just simple, effective, heavy compound movements with isolation where necessary. and the obvious progression over time.

but ya, awesome videos. how do you save those videos, btw?

also, they didn’t show any lower body training. :-[/quote]

While I agree with your generalization, how do you know that simple, compound, heavy movements are effective? It’s because someone took the time and analyzed it. Some things become good through intuition, some things become great though analysis and testing.

The videos are most likely still in your ‘temporary internet files’ folder. Go there and search for the movie types *.mpg, mov, avi, swf, etc.

The heavier your legs are, the harder it is to do pullups, etc. I can do most of what they did…just not for more than one rep. NOR can I do it and make it look just insanely smooth and effortless.

89

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
Shadowzz4 wrote:
I have a question to everyone who said that there was no leg training in these videos. Do you think that doing lifting for legs is essential for being in great all around shape? Do you think someone that sprinted occasionally, jumped occasionally, and ran at the most 2-300 yards at a time and besides that just walked for legs, but had the ability to haul yourself up over anything and get around anything that got in your way is not complete? We as humans are made to do well without big strong legs, I would argue that upper body muscle mass is much more important in some aspects.

define ‘all around good shape’. my idea of ‘all around good shape’ means big ass strong legs.[/quote]

I want to say a well designed sprinting program could have significant leg hypertrophy, not to mention strength. It wouldn’t be ideal, but neither is doing pullups in a playground.

Also to the original quoted poster, I think we more evolved to be fast runners, not heavy squatters. That doesn’t mean we were designed to have small underdeveloped lower bodies. Note, this doesn’t say anything about functionality or useless muscle, just what we probably evolved to do.

90

[quote]keylolo wrote:
Why do people type IMO and IMHO when it’s obvious that they’ve already expressed their opinion? Dunce!![/quote]

Well usually it’s so that someone won’t miss the tone of the post and start blowing flames. Jackass!!!

I used THREE exclamation points.

91

I think it’s pretty possible those guys built their bodies with calisthenics only.
It’s a question of whether high reps and high volume can build muscle. If you get to a point where you’re training every body part 6x/week without burnout + a decent diet…I’d say you get results. After all, if you get down to it, getting big equalls proper work distribution with progressing difficulty and sufficient energy uptake. These guys put their progression efforts into reps and bizzare movements. Simplicity helps too.

IMO proper work distribution and diet is where 90% of people screw up and overcomplicate things. That’s why you see guys like these passing up most people who go to the gym. Sad.

92

I’m pretty sure most of them built themselves up with BW variations only.
it’s really possible.

I say do pullups and variations and planches and the like, and lift weights.

93

what do you guys think about how in most of the exercises in these videos, the dudes rarely went for full extension with their chins/pull-ups?

i’m thinking about adopting one of those ‘pumping style’ techniques, soon. as it stands now, i always make a complete stop at the bottom of my exercises and a complete contraction at the top in order to minimize momentum and stretch reflex.

i guess you gotta do both, some training with full stops, and some training with rhythm/momentum/bouncing/partial range of motion.

94

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
what do you guys think about how in most of the exercises in these videos, the dudes rarely went for full extension with their chins/pull-ups?

i’m thinking about adopting one of those ‘pumping style’ techniques, soon. as it stands now, i always make a complete stop at the bottom of my exercises and a complete contraction at the top in order to minimize momentum and stretch reflex.

i guess you gotta do both, some training with full stops, and some training with rhythm/momentum/bouncing/partial range of motion.[/quote]

What is wrong with momentum? While I may do my very last exercise sometimes a little slower, the rest of my training has always been a little quicker and I rarely worry about taking things to full extension on every exercise. Obviously, it depends on the movement, but why would think this is a necessity?

95

How many pushups with my knees on the ground equal regular pushups? I can do about 250 and was wondering if that equates to the 100 that guy did with regular form.

96

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What is wrong with momentum? While I may do my very last exercise sometimes a little slower, the rest of my training has always been a little quicker and I rarely worry about taking things to full extension on every exercise. Obviously, it depends on the movement, but why would think this is a necessity?[/quote]

I think it is just what a lot of people were taught early on in their lifting. I know I personally was taught to lift with a slow controlled tempo when I first started. Some people probably never make it past that or experiment.

I also think it’s spilled over from powerlifting and such, where a rep doesn’t count unless you use a full and complete ROM. Some people fail to see that this doesn’t mean as much in bodybuilding. Of course that’s just my guess.

97

[quote]Professor X wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
what do you guys think about how in most of the exercises in these videos, the dudes rarely went for full extension with their chins/pull-ups?

i’m thinking about adopting one of those ‘pumping style’ techniques, soon. as it stands now, i always make a complete stop at the bottom of my exercises and a complete contraction at the top in order to minimize momentum and stretch reflex.

i guess you gotta do both, some training with full stops, and some training with rhythm/momentum/bouncing/partial range of motion.

What is wrong with momentum? While I may do my very last exercise sometimes a little slower, the rest of my training has always been a little quicker and I rarely worry about taking things to full extension on every exercise. Obviously, it depends on the movement, but why would think this is a necessity?[/quote]

never said there was anything wrong with momentum, just that for the past while <like maybe 8 months> i’ve been very particular about making complete stops at the bottom and top of all my movements <aside fron squats, i bounce out of the hole>.

i.e. i always pause at the bottom of bench and always lock out at the top of military press, and always make a complete stop at the hang position of every type of chin/pull-up.

i find this a way to make sure that every rep is ‘equal’, so it’s not like i can go any higher or lower on this rep or that rep.

but ya i guess that is way too anal. nothing wrong with pumping/partial range type training. a little over a year ago i probably did a year of training ‘momentum’ style, meaning i’d always quickly bounce out of every motion and never pull lock out or contract… kinda like the ronnie coleman training videos. and i got decent gains that year, too.

also don’t get me wrong, i’m all about speed. i perform my reps pretty quickly when possible, it’s just that i make full stops at the top and bottom. after watching this video, it reminds me when i was getting bigger doing that same type of rep style.

98

[quote]HOV wrote:
But how the heck am I going to create similar effects as deadlifts with BW? Squats?

Isometrics is the only thing I can think of.[/quote]

Single leg squats and deadlifts. Search the site for instructions on these bodyweight exercises.

99

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Professor X wrote:
What is wrong with momentum? While I may do my very last exercise sometimes a little slower, the rest of my training has always been a little quicker and I rarely worry about taking things to full extension on every exercise. Obviously, it depends on the movement, but why would think this is a necessity?

I think it is just what a lot of people were taught early on in their lifting. I know I personally was taught to lift with a slow controlled tempo when I first started. Some people probably never make it past that or experiment.

I also think it’s spilled over from powerlifting and such, where a rep doesn’t count unless you use a full and complete ROM. Some people fail to see that this doesn’t mean as much in bodybuilding. Of course that’s just my guess.[/quote]

i never said anything about ‘slow controlled tempo’. you need to be careful about putting words into other people’s mouths.

i’m all about speed and power, my friend.

but i think you’re right about the whole powerlifting spillover. i think i’ve let that bullshit cloud my bodybuilding judgement. it’s as if a rep doesn’t ‘count’ unless it’s got a full stop at the very bottom and very top. i gotta remind myself that i’m not in front of any judges when i’m at the gym doing chins and military :slight_smile:

100

with bodybuilding, though… i think when you practise full ROMs you stand to get the most bang for your buck with any particular exercise. if you cut out particular parts of the ROM in any given exercise, you’re missing out on muscle stimulation.

i.e. your triceps get less work if you don’t lock out your bench reps i.e. ronnie coleman style.

i’m sure you can think of many other examples where lessened ROMs lead to less work getting done, and therefore less bang for your buck.