[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
how about this myth
“I train westside”
Very few people do, compared with those that claim to, and they are there at that gym. [/quote]
Is that an “inside” joke?
[quote]inthego wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
how about this myth
“I train westside”
Very few people do, compared with those that claim to, and they are there at that gym.
Is that an “inside” joke? [/quote]
yes, people like to make things
“better”
and make it worse
WHILE
claiming to be doing westside.
Westside FO LIFE!
how about waiting for at least an hour to eat to “enhance” the growth hormone effect? I heard that one the other day.
Or that steady state cardio is awesome.
Blarg
Here’s Ronnie Coleman on biceps training:
This is a pretty revolutionary concept that he’s talking about. He’s come to the realization that people tend to slack off on form when “going heavy”. Moreover, heavier weights don’t imply greater stimulation of the muscles! Who knew?
A thousand fat boy powa-lifta’s will live and die without coming to grips with these simple truths.
Ronnie goes on:
He keeps his reps HIGH…to boost density and hardness.
This guy sounds a lot like me. Who’s Ronnie Coleman again, anyways?
www.getbig.com/articles/biceps2.htm
Now I get to sit back and laugh as a bunch of people try to convince me that Chad Waterbury or some other nobody knows more about hypertrophy than Mr. Olympia.
[quote]ironjoe wrote:
how about waiting for at least an hour to eat to “enhance” the growth hormone effect? I heard that one the other day.[/quote]
So Tom Platz was wrong?
And Mike Tyson was wrong?
Stop looking at successful people. T-Nation has all the answers.
[quote]Gael wrote:
ironjoe wrote:
Or that steady state cardio is awesome.
And Mike Tyson was wrong?
[/quote]
Or people from this site. I remember that Prisoner is a big fan of low-intensity steady state cardio for fat loss. I think Dave Tate also used SS cardio for his fat loss under Berardi, et al.
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
Where did you hear that? The myth I heard was that weight-training will make your growth plates fuse early. The fact is that running can exert up to 6x bodyweight forces on your bones, not to mention something like tackling in pee-wee football. And how come so many farm-boys are so big. My dad grew up on a ranch and he used to pack 100 lb feed bags on his shoulders up a hill and he is 6’4". My cousing grew up in the same kind of situation, and he is 6’5". I think that heavy spine loading could, or at least heavy “work”(could be lifting weights) could help to stimulate growth. I grew 2 inches after I started lifting when I was 18. It could of just been a latent growth spurt, but at the least it has no effect.[/quote]
Hmm. You may be onto something. I suspect there are two different mechanisms at play here. You may be right in that weight bearing exercise stimulates grow through GH secretion. So, from a hormonal point of view, lifting stimulates growth. However, from an orthopedic point of view, heavy load bearing has a detrimental effect on bone structure and height.
Has there ever been a proposed mechanism of action for the theory which claims lifting causes early fusion of growth plates?
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
People who use lighter weights tend to have shitty form, or have it deteriorate as th set progresses. And I was under the impression that how “intense” a muscular contraction is, is a function of how much force the muscle is exerting. So that means either moving a lighter weight faster or a heavier weight as fast as possible is the only way to create a more intense contraction.[/quote]
Lighter weight is associated with better form. I disagree with your definition of intensity for muscular contractions. The intensity of a muscular contraction is a function of how many motor units it recruits, relative to total amoun of motor units available.
100% intensity = 100% recruitment
This is only possible using special bodybuilding techniques.
“Moving a lighter weight faster or a heavier weight as fast as possible” is a scientifically flawed definition because it makes the assumption that muscular stimulation and load distribution is equal in both cases. In reality, this is blatantly false. Load distribution is NEVER equal with two different loads. Heavy weights shift stress onto large muscle groups as well as the bone structure. Only at relatively light weights can true isolation occur.
Also, “lifting fast” almost certainly means using momentum (i.e. Olympic lifters bouncing out of the hole in deep squats), so this further throws off the equation.
“Explosive lifting” is complete bullshit. There is not an ounce of legitimate science behind it and it falls apart on cursory examination. The only thing that has been proven to work is TUT and isolation, both of them integral bodybuilding principles.
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
Bulking up is more a function of eating more[/quote]
That is correct. And I should have said that lifting intensely on a regular basis will bulk somebody up. Man or woman, it doesn’t matter.
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
The system adapts, is squatting bad for your bones. No, in fact heavy resistance training (IE squatting) has been shown to actually improve bone density. Why wouldn’t the kydneys do the same? It has only been shown to be bad for people with kidneys that are failing already.[/quote]
It adapts, up to a point. You don’t really know the point where your organs are going to give out, so it’s better to play it safe.
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
So heavy weights will bulk you up but won’t build muscle? If someone who is doing the 3x8 hypertrophy scheme with dropsets and all that, will they gain weight if they dont eat more? Maybe someone should of told POW’s(or that kid who was starved by his host family in Egypt) to do a hypertrophy program while they aren’t eating to keep their mass. How is someone having a “more intense muscular contraction” with half of a 1 RM versus as much as they can lift? How you lift isnt nearly as important as putting effort in to whatever it is that you are doing, being consistant, and eating enough to gain weight. It’s really very simple.[/quote]
Heavy weight lifting (and by this, I’m talking about 5RM or under) will not do a damn thing except make you stronger in the lifts that you happen to train on. If you train bicep curls, you will be able to curl more. If it’s squats, you’ll squat more. If it’s Smith Machine upright rows, you’ll do more on those. It doesn’t do shit beyond that. <5RM lifting does NOT affect body composition in any significant, measurable or repeatable way. I can’t state it any simpler than that.
“How is someone having a “more intense muscular contraction” with half of a 1 RM versus as much as they can lift?”
Because “as much as you can lift” translates into throwing your entire body under a load and having that load be distributed across a dozen major muscle groups and bones/joints.
I can’t do reps with 1000 lbs. on the leg press but I might be able to lock out my knees and use my bone structure to support the weight. Can you see the difference between doing stupid shit like that and using a lighter weight to keep constant tension on the muscles?
TUT is the gateway to hypertrophy. With <5RM, your TUT is going to be shit, by default. You can’t hold a contraction for longer than 1/4 a second, assuming you can even contract your muscles at all.
“If someone who is doing the 3x8 hypertrophy scheme with dropsets and all that, will they gain weight if they dont eat more?”
They will not gain weight, but they WILL change their body composition if they train like a bodybuilder. They will put on as much muscle as their body is capable of holding at that weight. Think of prisoners who get fed a set amount of calories every day. They don’t gain weight, but they do get muscular.
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
Where did you hear that? Is it because your knee’s hurt from squatting? That is because you are doing them wrong. Instruction from your ACE certified trainer isn’t going to help, 9 times out of 10. Strain on your ligaments and connective tissue(not cartilage) will build them up, making them less prone to injury, however faulty form will likely put your connective tissues in a disadvantagous situation, and when enough weight is added they may not be able to handle it. [/quote]
I was not doing them wrong. I have read all the strength articles on this site and I know how you’re “supposed” to squat. I even wore Chuck’s. I agree that it does build up your ligaments and tendons, but only as a defensive mechanism against the stress that you’re putting on them. I mean, no kidding, if you get underneath 300 lbs. on a regular basis, your body is going to try and strength your knee ligaments. But this added “strength” would be completely unnecessary if you weren’t squatting in the first place. There is absolutely no situation in real life that calls for a strength capacity greater than a 200 lb. bench, 250 squat, and 200 lb. That’s actually being very generous. For most people it’s more like 50/70/100.
The fact of the matter is that net experts still can’t agree on the proper form for the compound lifts. Every time someone posts a video for critique, people voice different opinions on their idea of proper form. It doesn’t help that professional weightlifters use shitty form almost exclusively. Nobody ever does a 1RM with good form. It’s never happened and it never will. Another reason why the argument that “it’s a perfectly safe/effective exercise, you just need to use the right form” is bullcrap. You can put someone on a leg press and have them using the right form and well on their way to leg hypertrophy in 5 minutes. Or you can teach them the squat and have it take 5 months, after which they will still look the same.
Honestly, back squats do not do shit for leg hypertrophy. It’s an open secret among pro bodybuilders, which is why none of them squat.
Good points, I enjoyed replying.
Hey scrotus, there’s a dog barking outside your window. Why don;t you go out and try to intelligently reason with it?
[quote]Scrotus wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
HvRv wrote:
I’m doing a list of training, supplement and diet myths and so far all I’ve got is this:
- The best indicators of a good workout are how tired you are after the workout and how sore you are the next day
- Strength training will stunt the growth of children
- Lifting light weights for high reps will “shape and tone” your muscles
- Creatine will make you stronger
- Don’t use heavy weights because you’ll bulk up too much
- Certain exercises will “peak” your biceps
- Protein is bad for your kidneys
- Heavy weights and low reps won’t build muscle, just strength
- Squats are bad for your knees
- Muscles will make you slow
So I need more good stuff to put on my list. Enlighten me…
Some of these are, indeed, myths. Others are perfectly valid advice which have gotten a bad rap online.
“The best indicators of a good workout are how tired you are after the workout and how sore you are the next day”
Localized DOMs is a pretty damn good indicator of the effectiveness of a workout (unless you’re an athlete). If nothing else, soreness tells you that you actually hit the muscles that you were trying to target. Considering how many people have no idea how to target their muscles, this is pretty useful.
“Strength training will stunt the growth of children”
All strength training exercises? Certainly not. But heavy, spine-loading exercises will. You shouldn’t get under or in between anything heavy if you’re still growing. No squats, leg press, standing calf, or military press.
Where did you hear that? The myth I heard was that weight-training will make your growth plates fuse early. The fact is that running can exert up to 6x bodyweight forces on your bones, not to mention something like tackling in pee-wee football. And how come so many farm-boys are so big. My dad grew up on a ranch and he used to pack 100 lb feed bags on his shoulders up a hill and he is 6’4". My cousing grew up in the same kind of situation, and he is 6’5". I think that heavy spine loading could, or at least heavy “work”(could be lifting weights) could help to stimulate growth. I grew 2 inches after I started lifting when I was 18. It could of just been a latent growth spurt, but at the least it has no effect.
“Lifting light weights for high reps will ‘shape and tone’ your muscles”
May not be true in theory, but it IS in practice. The reason: people using lighter weights for higher reps tend to use better form and have more intense muscular contractions. There is also greater sarcoplasmic hypertrophy with higher reps. So the “myth” is actually true.
People who use lighter weights tend to have shitty form, or have it deteriorate as th set progresses. And I was under the impression that how “intense” a muscular contraction is, is a function of how much force the muscle is exerting. So that means either moving a lighter weight faster or a heavier weight as fast as possible is the only way to create a more intense contraction.
“Don’t use heavy weights because you’ll bulk up too much”
Heavy weight lifting for an extended period of time will bulk somebody up. For some people, that is detrimental. For others, it is ideal.
Bulking up is more a function of eating more
“Protein is bad for your kidneys”
Anything you put in your body adds to the net load on your system. Protein, in-and-of-itself, may not be “bad” for the kidneys, but eating 300 grams a day certainly adds an additional load to your system.
The system adapts, is squatting bad for your bones. No, in fact heavy resistance training (IE squatting) has been shown to actually improve bone density. Why wouldn’t the kydneys do the same? It has only been shown to be bad for people with kidneys that are failing already.
“Heavy weights and low reps won’t build muscle, just strength”
By and large, heavy lifting doesn’t build visible muscle. Intense muscular contractions build muscle. Everyone who lifts heavy started out big. There is not a person alive who started out as a skinny runt and transformed themselves into a meathead by doing compound lifts alone. If you do this experiment, you have to control for diet. A lot of guys bulk up by eating a ton and they convince themselves that it’s the compound lifts that are doing it. It isn’t. Have someone lift heavy and keep their diet the same. They will have the exact same physique after 3 mnths, 6 mnths, 1 year.
So heavy weights will bulk you up but won’t build muscle? If someone who is doing the 3x8 hypertrophy scheme with dropsets and all that, will they gain weight if they dont eat more? Maybe someone should of told POW’s(or that kid who was starved by his host family in Egypt) to do a hypertrophy program while they aren’t eating to keep their mass. How is someone having a “more intense muscular contraction” with half of a 1 RM versus as much as they can lift? How you lift isnt nearly as important as putting effort in to whatever it is that you are doing, being consistant, and eating enough to gain weight. It’s really very simple.
“Squats are bad for your knees”
Compared to other exercises, they are. There’s simply more strain on the knee capsule in a squat than a leg press, 9 times out of 10. Don’t talk to me about PL vs. Oly stance, depth and all that bullshit. Nobody outside of Ohio does that crap.
Where did you hear that? Is it because your knee’s hurt from squatting? That is because you are doing them wrong. Instruction from your ACE certified trainer isn’t going to help, 9 times out of 10. Strain on your ligaments and connective tissue(not cartilage) will build them up, making them less prone to injury, however faulty form will likely put your connective tissues in a disadvantagous situation, and when enough weight is added they may not be able to handle it. [/quote]
NP… I was in your camp with the stunted growth, so i looked it up.
It seems that that was a theory in the 70’s onwards that when actually put to the test under controlled conditions, there were no negative effects.
What they did say though, was that HEAVY, exerting, compressive forces such as 1RM etc will cause damage to the growth plates… but kids trained at 10 reps or above will not be effected.
Any child is never to be trained at 6 reps or less.
AND that those heavy damaging forces such as during a 1RM repetition, could also be exerted in a childs playground under normal conditions.
Interesting. I respect your malleability on the subjects, it shows character.
Joe
[quote]Mykayl wrote:
although standard deadlifts are an integral part of the sport of powerlifting, they really don’t serve much purpose in a bodybuilding bulking program or general fitness program.
properly performed squats in combination with stiff leg dedlifts or good-mornings are sufficient for developing the posterior chain, and less likely to cause injury.[/quote]
Have you seen the difference in back size of a non deadlifter and someone who does standard deadlifts? Night and day. It’s not just the posterior chain here, but also the entire back up to the neck. Deads rule.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
HvRv wrote:
I’m doing a list of training, supplement and diet myths and so far all I’ve got is this:
- The best indicators of a good workout are how tired you are after the workout and how sore you are the next day
- Strength training will stunt the growth of children
- Lifting light weights for high reps will “shape and tone” your muscles
- Creatine will make you stronger
- Don’t use heavy weights because you’ll bulk up too much
- Certain exercises will “peak” your biceps
- Protein is bad for your kidneys
- Heavy weights and low reps won’t build muscle, just strength
- Squats are bad for your knees
- Muscles will make you slow
So I need more good stuff to put on my list. Enlighten me…
Some of these are, indeed, myths. Others are perfectly valid advice which have gotten a bad rap online.
“The best indicators of a good workout are how tired you are after the workout and how sore you are the next day”
Localized DOMs is a pretty damn good indicator of the effectiveness of a workout (unless you’re an athlete). If nothing else, soreness tells you that you actually hit the muscles that you were trying to target. Considering how many people have no idea how to target their muscles, this is pretty useful.
“Strength training will stunt the growth of children”
All strength training exercises? Certainly not. But heavy, spine-loading exercises will. You shouldn’t get under or in between anything heavy if you’re still growing. No squats, leg press, standing calf, or military press.
“Lifting light weights for high reps will ‘shape and tone’ your muscles”
May not be true in theory, but it IS in practice. The reason: people using lighter weights for higher reps tend to use better form and have more intense muscular contractions. There is also greater sarcoplasmic hypertrophy with higher reps. So the “myth” is actually true.
“Don’t use heavy weights because you’ll bulk up too much”
Heavy weight lifting for an extended period of time will bulk somebody up. For some people, that is detrimental. For others, it is ideal.
“Protein is bad for your kidneys”
Anything you put in your body adds to the net load on your system. Protein, in-and-of-itself, may not be “bad” for the kidneys, but eating 300 grams a day certainly adds an additional load to your system.
“Heavy weights and low reps won’t build muscle, just strength”
By and large, heavy lifting doesn’t build visible muscle. Intense muscular contractions build muscle. Everyone who lifts heavy started out big. There is not a person alive who started out as a skinny runt and transformed themselves into a meathead by doing compound lifts alone. If you do this experiment, you have to control for diet. A lot of guys bulk up by eating a ton and they convince themselves that it’s the compound lifts that are doing it. It isn’t. Have someone lift heavy and keep their diet the same. They will have the exact same physique after 3 mnths, 6 mnths, 1 year.
“Squats are bad for your knees”
Compared to other exercises, they are. There’s simply more strain on the knee capsule in a squat than a leg press, 9 times out of 10. Don’t talk to me about PL vs. Oly stance, depth and all that bullshit. Nobody outside of Ohio does that crap. [/quote]
Terrible post. You say no one ever got big from compound lifts? Then later actually type that a leg press of all exercises is BETTER than a properly performed Barbell Squat? Who added nancy boy pills into your diet?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Honestly, back squats do not do shit for leg hypertrophy. It’s an open secret among pro bodybuilders, which is why none of them squat.
[/quote]
So a barbell squat will do NOTHING for leg hypertrophy? Hmm, and here I though my 27" thighs were built from 21" by doing them.
Let me guess something:
-You speak of TUT
-You hail the leg press
-You claim no size gains at all can be made from 5 rep sets
-If it smells like Darden, barks like Mentzer, and makes me vomit like training to failure, hmmm sounds like a HIT advocate!
And just because Ronnie Coleman has retarded good genetics, you know the ones where he looks at a weight and grows, couple with ten tons of gear, means we should listen to how he built 22" arms? Simply because he is Mr. O? Great reasoning there. If Ronnie cannot use good form on a 6 rep heavy barbell curl, something’s wrong, because I can.
Oh, and NEWS FLASH! ever see Ronnie squat 800? He trained like a powerlifter for years and gained muscle off of it. You should go yell at him for breaking your rule of gainin size off “strength only” training.
Making fun of world renowned strength coaches like Waterbury makes you look the fool, I’d suggest not doing that.
“Let me guess something:
-You speak of TUT
-You hail the leg press
-You claim no size gains at all can be made from 5 rep sets”
Yes, all three are correct.
Not an HIT guy, I’m actually an HICT guy.
High Intensity Circuit Training
I don’t believe in performing multiple consecutive sets at one exercise (unless it’s a dropset). I believe in minimizing rest times between sets and alternating between agonists/antagonists in order to maximize workout intensity and hypertrophy.
I use the “original” definition of intensity: the amount of work performed in a given time, not the definition invented by Westside adherents, which claims that intensity is directly correlated to load (if that’s the case, why have two separate terms for the same thing?)
I train by performing high intensity circuits of back-to-back exercises, say, chest/back/lats, bi’s/tri’s, front/side/rear delts, quad dominant/hip dominant. I rest at the end of the circuit, not in between sets.
This is the most effective training method I’ve ever come across and I wouldn’t go back to doing multiple consecutive sets if you paid me. From the time my workout starts, I’m basically moving constantly. I never stop for more than 30 seconds.
I definitely think that more than 1 set is necessary to properly stimulate a muscle. I also strongly believe that training frequency is the single most important factor for growth. I think that “overtraining” is a spook and people can and should train as often as possible.
Now, just because Ron Coleman squats and deads occasionally does not mean he “trains like a powerlifter”. For every heavy squat he does there are twenty leg presses. For every heavy dead there are cable rows and T-Bar rows.
[quote]Justin27 wrote:
Terrible post. You say no one ever got big from compound lifts? Then later actually type that a leg press of all exercises is BETTER than a properly performed Barbell Squat? Who added nancy boy pills into your diet? [/quote]
See, that’s the whole thing. You lift to impress people inside the gym. I lift to impress people outside the gym.
Machine lateral raises don’t look as cool as military presses, but they’re 10 times more effective in packing mass onto your shoulders.
I do what works. And I stand by my statement that nobody ever got big from low reps or compound lifts. The guy above who grew his thighs from 21-27" did it by eating more, guaranteed.