And by the way, a scientific study has shown conclusively that DragonForce rules as does HammerFall.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
[quote]trextacy wrote:
tribunal,
i actually have pretty good genetics, test highly on IQ and standardized tests, am a successful attorney and my wife is hot. not sure what your deal is, or why you think advocating Waterbury principles has any bearing on genetics. curious. i’m 6’2 and approx 200 lbs. just turned 31, am at about 10% bf and have lost a lot of weight in the last 3 years because mass for mass sake serves no purpose and physique competition is as much illusion as it is muscle growth. i know this isn’t impressive to many guys here, but to look strong and have low-ish BF and be strong isn’t as passe as many here seem to think it is. no matter, i typically find your posts fascinating. point is, steroids make a HUGE difference, and it is guys who use that get most defensive and accusatory.[/quote]
Who in god’s name would think that looking fit and healthy is passe, considering that such looks have been desirable since ancient times?
You wrote: “… because mass for mass sake serves no purpose and physique competition is as much illusion as it is muscle growth.”
Serves no purpose for YOU perhaps! You contradicted yourself too. You just wrote that competition is as much about illusion as it is about muscle growth but also wrote that mass for mass sakes serves no purpose. If competition is dependent on both muscle mass and illusion, how the fuck could the element of muscle mass (50% of the situation you present here) serve no purpose?!
Are you really a fucking attorney?
Where did anyone write that steroids don’t make a huge difference. Again, an inability to read my posts in full or interpret all while I write on a high school, or lower reading level! [/quote]
Just wanted to say, “good post”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
[quote]trextacy wrote:
tribunal,
i actually have pretty good genetics, test highly on IQ and standardized tests, am a successful attorney and my wife is hot. not sure what your deal is, or why you think advocating Waterbury principles has any bearing on genetics. curious. i’m 6’2 and approx 200 lbs. just turned 31, am at about 10% bf and have lost a lot of weight in the last 3 years because mass for mass sake serves no purpose and physique competition is as much illusion as it is muscle growth. i know this isn’t impressive to many guys here, but to look strong and have low-ish BF and be strong isn’t as passe as many here seem to think it is. no matter, i typically find your posts fascinating. point is, steroids make a HUGE difference, and it is guys who use that get most defensive and accusatory.[/quote]
Who in god’s name would think that looking fit and healthy is passe, considering that such looks have been desirable since ancient times?
You wrote: “… because mass for mass sake serves no purpose and physique competition is as much illusion as it is muscle growth.”
Serves no purpose for YOU perhaps! You contradicted yourself too. You just wrote that competition is as much about illusion as it is about muscle growth but also wrote that mass for mass sakes serves no purpose. If competition is dependent on both muscle mass and illusion, how the fuck could the element of muscle mass (50% of the situation you present here) serve no purpose?!
Are you really a fucking attorney?
Where did anyone write that steroids don’t make a huge difference. Again, an inability to read my posts in full or interpret all while I write on a high school, or lower reading level! [/quote]
Just wanted to say, “good post”.[/quote]
Me too. He brought up an excellent post about people wanting to look good since ancient times. It’s natural to want to look good. To look your best. The only difference is the “ideal” as time passes. Before it was lean and muscular. Now its HUGE and muscular (well for some).
And to tell you the truth, even for those wanting to look like BPIFC, that still takes hard work. You don’t wanke up with such a physique.
Edit: I realized I wrote wanke, but thought it’d be funny to leave it in 
Thank you, X and Forbes.
It has always been desirable. I’m no physical/racial anthropologist, but from what I remember reading, the Ancient tribes took physique and physical capability very seriously. If you look at the depictions in sculpture and painting of the Romans, Germans, Celts, and Greeks, you’ll see lean and muscular bodies. Written descriptions also go over their physical appearance. But then again, physical culture was taken extremely seriously and physical activity was inherent in daily life; a great deal of daily life was sheer drudgery. Without modern technology, people were forced to hunt for food, take a walk to the community latrine to shit and piss, and attempt to ruthlessly mow down foreign invaders or some jagoff who made a pass at one’s woman. In Ancient Greece, a broke man could go from rags to riches in a day if he performed an outrageous physical feat. Shaving entire bodies isn’t new either. The Ancient Egyptians shaved their entire bodies for hygiene and appearance.
[quote]deadlift655 wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]deadlift655 wrote:
[quote]trextacy wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
And I ask the people who spew shit like, “Da whole reason why bodybuildin’ trainin’ has been toined upside down is becuz of roidz”…
… I ask you: Have you used steroids yourself? If you have, tell us about their magical powers and how you feel on them and if it just makes this whole thing so goddamn easy and if all of the sudden after taking them you could withstand enormous workloads. If you haven’t tried them, tell us if you’ve had a close friend who took them and what they experienced. Tell us if after starting them, they drastically changed their workout routines.
Or you can stop saying shit about stuff you’ve never tried or that not even a close friend of yours tried![/quote]
friends of mine have. we train hard, and they add 30+ lbs in 6 months while on, then lose it if they go off and/or get tits if they don’t pct.
it’s a huge fucking factor and advantage.
cutting is easier
strength/size gains come quicker.
it is a huge factor. that is why you see douches on Jersey Shore and guys getting shitfaced at the bar/club with 8% bodyfat at 230+lbs.
it’s huge, and you can draw a line in the history of the olympia and other major bb comps when it became widely in use.[/quote]
I dont want to take anything away from the guys who train hard and are not natural, but I also agree that there is a huge difference.
I have seen the same guys, out drinking most nights, eating crap, and still not having it take it’s toll on them.
I personally know guys who fall into this category.
Now, before anyone labels me a “hater” or whatever, I have a good deal of muscle on a large frame. If it were legal, I probably would not have to think that hard before losing my natural status. [/quote]
And I know natural guys who don’t sleep, eat 2-3 times a day, train a few times a week and party 3-4 nights a week and STILL gain muscle while keeping their abs. And I also know quite a few guys who have used AAS at some point in their lives and look like every other random shmoe in the gym. For someone who has not used AAS you are sure giving them a lot of credit. High testosterone levels don’t build slabs of muscle by itself. Fuel and stimulus is still absolutely essential.
Its posts like yours that it make it so obvious why Americans hate performance enhancing drugs. You feel like youre being cheated even though you aren’t in a competition.
[/quote]
I personally don’t hate performance enhancing drugs. I have seen the exact cases you mentioned though. The natural who could train hard and still party and the juicer who relied on his stuff for the edge. I know of one case in particular involving a hard gainer who initially was just big and fat while partying who later turned into big and ripped while partying. The only change was him going on a good cycle.
Just because I have not used AAS does not mean I know nothing about them. Maybe the guys I know who take them are more open in admitting it and discussing them. [/quote]
If you’re implying that I’m not admitting that AAS definitely work, you’re completely wrong. I know how well AAS work when used properly in conjuction with an adequate diet for ones goals and a good weight lifting program. I’d be curious to find out what happened to the guy you mentioned after he went off his cycle. He likely reverted back to his original self.
I feel confident assuming that because if he started off in such bad shape there must have been one or more things going wrong. Either a bad diet and/or bad training or horrible genetics for holding a decent amount of muscle in lean condition. The second thing cant be changed so someone using AAS will always start to drift back to “normal” when they come off. Having Diet and training well managed before during and after a cycle will go a long way for making permament changes in one’s physique.
The nutrient partitioning effects of various AAS are very real but they only occur while on cycle. So unless someone is on year round for many years the steroids aren’t doing much more than just amplifying the effects of what would happen anyway. It seems like your friend used AAS to take the easy way to his physique goals.
Unfortunately, people who do that never seem to grasp what changes needed to be made to diet and training and therefore rely on AAS to do all of the work instead of accelerating the gains that they should be making anyway.
They may be open enough to discuss them but if your knowledge isn’t up to par how do you know if what theyre saying is even accurate?
Chad Waterbury is some what vindicated, on this board by virtue of the “Perfect Rep Scheme” principles being similar to his own (other than the fact that Waterbury would never be on board with splits).
I loved Waterbury’s book for the most part, but he is one of those guys that makes it sound as if the second you lift more than 3 days a week, your CNS is going to go into overdrive and that overtraining is a foregone conclusion. We know that’s not the case.
That being said, I generally do a 5 day split for most the year, but whenever I hit a wall on any of the majory body part lifts (for me, those being squat, deadlift and bench), I turn to TBT for about 4-6 weeks and I’ve always broken down those walls using his program, then I go back to the 5 day split again.
Although I suppose that anytime you hit a wall and you drastically switch training programs, as long as the new program is a tried-and-true solid program you will see progress.
I wonder what the first argument on this site was about.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]deadlift655 wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]deadlift655 wrote:
[quote]trextacy wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
And I ask the people who spew shit like, “Da whole reason why bodybuildin’ trainin’ has been toined upside down is becuz of roidz”…
… I ask you: Have you used steroids yourself? If you have, tell us about their magical powers and how you feel on them and if it just makes this whole thing so goddamn easy and if all of the sudden after taking them you could withstand enormous workloads. If you haven’t tried them, tell us if you’ve had a close friend who took them and what they experienced. Tell us if after starting them, they drastically changed their workout routines.
Or you can stop saying shit about stuff you’ve never tried or that not even a close friend of yours tried![/quote]
friends of mine have. we train hard, and they add 30+ lbs in 6 months while on, then lose it if they go off and/or get tits if they don’t pct.
it’s a huge fucking factor and advantage.
cutting is easier
strength/size gains come quicker.
it is a huge factor. that is why you see douches on Jersey Shore and guys getting shitfaced at the bar/club with 8% bodyfat at 230+lbs.
it’s huge, and you can draw a line in the history of the olympia and other major bb comps when it became widely in use.[/quote]
I dont want to take anything away from the guys who train hard and are not natural, but I also agree that there is a huge difference.
I have seen the same guys, out drinking most nights, eating crap, and still not having it take it’s toll on them.
I personally know guys who fall into this category.
Now, before anyone labels me a “hater” or whatever, I have a good deal of muscle on a large frame. If it were legal, I probably would not have to think that hard before losing my natural status. [/quote]
And I know natural guys who don’t sleep, eat 2-3 times a day, train a few times a week and party 3-4 nights a week and STILL gain muscle while keeping their abs. And I also know quite a few guys who have used AAS at some point in their lives and look like every other random shmoe in the gym. For someone who has not used AAS you are sure giving them a lot of credit. High testosterone levels don’t build slabs of muscle by itself. Fuel and stimulus is still absolutely essential.
Its posts like yours that it make it so obvious why Americans hate performance enhancing drugs. You feel like youre being cheated even though you aren’t in a competition.
[/quote]
I personally don’t hate performance enhancing drugs. I have seen the exact cases you mentioned though. The natural who could train hard and still party and the juicer who relied on his stuff for the edge. I know of one case in particular involving a hard gainer who initially was just big and fat while partying who later turned into big and ripped while partying. The only change was him going on a good cycle.
Just because I have not used AAS does not mean I know nothing about them. Maybe the guys I know who take them are more open in admitting it and discussing them. [/quote]
If you’re implying that I’m not admitting that AAS definitely work, you’re completely wrong. I know how well AAS work when used properly in conjuction with an adequate diet for ones goals and a good weight lifting program. I’d be curious to find out what happened to the guy you mentioned after he went off his cycle. He likely reverted back to his original self.
I feel confident assuming that because if he started off in such bad shape there must have been one or more things going wrong. Either a bad diet and/or bad training or horrible genetics for holding a decent amount of muscle in lean condition. The second thing cant be changed so someone using AAS will always start to drift back to “normal” when they come off. Having Diet and training well managed before during and after a cycle will go a long way for making permament changes in one’s physique.
The nutrient partitioning effects of various AAS are very real but they only occur while on cycle. So unless someone is on year round for many years the steroids aren’t doing much more than just amplifying the effects of what would happen anyway. It seems like your friend used AAS to take the easy way to his physique goals.
Unfortunately, people who do that never seem to grasp what changes needed to be made to diet and training and therefore rely on AAS to do all of the work instead of accelerating the gains that they should be making anyway.
They may be open enough to discuss them but if your knowledge isn’t up to par how do you know if what theyre saying is even accurate? [/quote]
I’m not implying that your saying AAS do not work.
I really have no idea what happened to him after he went off, if he went off. I have not seen him in years. He trained for years as a natural, so I doubt he lost most of his gains. I understand what you are saying about the maintaining of gains post cycle though.
As far as knowledge is concerned, I can say that I have read both of Author L Rea’s books and thought they were informative. Most of what I know is taken from them though, and not the users.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Thank you, X and Forbes.
It has always been desirable. I’m no physical/racial anthropologist, but from what I remember reading, the Ancient tribes took physique and physical capability very seriously. If you look at the depictions in sculpture and painting of the Romans, Germans, Celts, and Greeks, you’ll see lean and muscular bodies. Written descriptions also go over their physical appearance. But then again, physical culture was taken extremely seriously and physical activity was inherent in daily life; a great deal of daily life was sheer drudgery. Without modern technology, people were forced to hunt for food, take a walk to the community latrine to shit and piss, and attempt to ruthlessly mow down foreign invaders or some jagoff who made a pass at one’s woman. In Ancient Greece, a broke man could go from rags to riches in a day if he performed an outrageous physical feat. Shaving entire bodies isn’t new either. The Ancient Egyptians shaved their entire bodies for hygiene and appearance. [/quote]
I am well versed in history, and I can tell you that as far back as the ancient Greeks that physical appearance and physical prowess was very important. Our word gymnasium is a Greek word that means to exercise naked (thankfully my gym requires clothes). The Greeks of course invented the Olympic games. The carved statues of the ideal physiques which featured large muscles. They removed bodily hair for aesthetics. They apparently weren’t so big on shaving as they were on ripping hair out by the root (ouch!). The Romans, in contrast, pretty much invented fat society. They had professional athletes, their upper class was known to binge and purge on food so that they could enjoy more food, they moved the biggest meal of the day from midday to the evening so that they could recline at home and enjoy it more, and it became a status symbol in ancient Rome to be heavier set (this means you didn’t do manual labor).
[quote]snewbold wrote:
Chad Waterbury is some what vindicated, on this board by virtue of the “Perfect Rep Scheme” principles being similar to his own (other than the fact that Waterbury would never be on board with splits).
I loved Waterbury’s book for the most part, but he is one of those guys that makes it sound as if the second you lift more than 3 days a week, your CNS is going to go into overdrive and that overtraining is a foregone conclusion. We know that’s not the case.
That being said, I generally do a 5 day split for most the year, but whenever I hit a wall on any of the majory body part lifts (for me, those being squat, deadlift and bench), I turn to TBT for about 4-6 weeks and I’ve always broken down those walls using his program, then I go back to the 5 day split again.
Although I suppose that anytime you hit a wall and you drastically switch training programs, as long as the new program is a tried-and-true solid program you will see progress.
[/quote]
He’s not against training more than 3 days per week. Some of his articles detailed workouts that had 6 sessions per week and two-a-days - schemes that would overtrain you in a hurry - much more so than any split routine that average bodybuilders follow.
If anything, four full-body sessions per week would have you overtrained far more easily than 4 bodypart workouts.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
I wonder what the first argument on this site was about.[/quote]
It was actually just the question where is Chad Waterbury
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
[quote]snewbold wrote:
Chad Waterbury is some what vindicated, on this board by virtue of the “Perfect Rep Scheme” principles being similar to his own (other than the fact that Waterbury would never be on board with splits).
I loved Waterbury’s book for the most part, but he is one of those guys that makes it sound as if the second you lift more than 3 days a week, your CNS is going to go into overdrive and that overtraining is a foregone conclusion. We know that’s not the case.
That being said, I generally do a 5 day split for most the year, but whenever I hit a wall on any of the majory body part lifts (for me, those being squat, deadlift and bench), I turn to TBT for about 4-6 weeks and I’ve always broken down those walls using his program, then I go back to the 5 day split again.
Although I suppose that anytime you hit a wall and you drastically switch training programs, as long as the new program is a tried-and-true solid program you will see progress.
[/quote]
He’s not against training more than 3 days per week. Some of his articles detailed workouts that had 6 sessions per week and two-a-days - schemes that would overtrain you in a hurry - much more so than any split routine that average bodybuilders follow.
If anything, four full-body sessions per week would have you overtrained far more easily than 4 bodypart workouts. [/quote]
Not necessarily. Olympic weightlifters typically always train 5 to 6 days a week and twice a day. Christian Thibadeau trains 6 days a week 3 times a day. I’ve personally trained 5 days a week without feeling fatigued or drained. They were short sessions, lower volume, and low reps. Waterbury does seem to be overly dogmatic at times about fullbody training.
There are of course a vareity of ways to train. When I did 5 days a week I was off for the summer. With a typical work schedule I would say it would most likely wipe me out, but I’ve never tried it. Of course Olympic weightlifters are elite athletes so they could do it a lot more than the average Joe.
[quote]snewbold wrote:
Chad Waterbury is some what vindicated, on this board by virtue of the “Perfect Rep Scheme” principles being similar to his own (other than the fact that Waterbury would never be on board with splits).
I loved Waterbury’s book for the most part, but he is one of those guys that makes it sound as if the second you lift more than 3 days a week, your CNS is going to go into overdrive and that overtraining is a foregone conclusion. We know that’s not the case.
That being said, I generally do a 5 day split for most the year, but whenever I hit a wall on any of the majory body part lifts (for me, those being squat, deadlift and bench), I turn to TBT for about 4-6 weeks and I’ve always broken down those walls using his program, then I go back to the 5 day split again.
Although I suppose that anytime you hit a wall and you drastically switch training programs, as long as the new program is a tried-and-true solid program you will see progress.
[/quote]
Chad is definitely dogmatic about his training principles in regards to fullbody training. It’s funny because two of his most popular original articles were ABBH and BBB. I used and liked both, but I like to switch it up between upper/lower splits and fullbody. Every time I try the typical 4-5 day splits I wind up over fatigued, sore joints, and usually smaller and weaker than when I started. I bought both of his books but definitely liked Muscle Revolution better than Huge in a Hurry. Huge in a Hurry seemed to be haphazardly put together and was really just the same concept over and over. I like his 25 rep method, and there was nothing really new in the book other than throwing in some rest/pause sets.
I do like that fact though that even CT who has trained and competed as a bodybuilder now says his programs like HSS-100 were garbage, and everytime he used them he was overtrained and deflated. When I asked him if he would recommend programs like that anymore he said for the past several months he has never gone above 5 reps per set, focusing on heavy lifts and has gotten the best gains of his life. So I guess that was basically a no. Erick Minor is another former bodybuilder that advocates HIIT, throws in powerlifting principles, and doesn’t believe in a ton of isolation work.
In contrast you have guys like Clay Hyght and Scott Abel who push more traditional bodybuilding routines. Just goes to show there is more than one way to skin a cat.
I found CW, but who is the guy in back on the left? Is that Nat Turner or Fred Sanford?
From this:
I guess it’s: Sri Yukteswar Giri (guru)
I had no idea.
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
From this:
I guess it’s: Sri Yukteswar Giri (guru)
I had no idea. [/quote]
You know that Bret Hart put together his wrestling look (at least his jacket and sunglasses) based on the Sgt. Pepper album? I wonder if he knew Fred Sanford.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
[quote]snewbold wrote:
Chad Waterbury is some what vindicated, on this board by virtue of the “Perfect Rep Scheme” principles being similar to his own (other than the fact that Waterbury would never be on board with splits).
I loved Waterbury’s book for the most part, but he is one of those guys that makes it sound as if the second you lift more than 3 days a week, your CNS is going to go into overdrive and that overtraining is a foregone conclusion. We know that’s not the case.
That being said, I generally do a 5 day split for most the year, but whenever I hit a wall on any of the majory body part lifts (for me, those being squat, deadlift and bench), I turn to TBT for about 4-6 weeks and I’ve always broken down those walls using his program, then I go back to the 5 day split again.
Although I suppose that anytime you hit a wall and you drastically switch training programs, as long as the new program is a tried-and-true solid program you will see progress.
[/quote]
He’s not against training more than 3 days per week. Some of his articles detailed workouts that had 6 sessions per week and two-a-days - schemes that would overtrain you in a hurry - much more so than any split routine that average bodybuilders follow.
If anything, four full-body sessions per week would have you overtrained far more easily than 4 bodypart workouts. [/quote]
Not necessarily. Olympic weightlifters typically always train 5 to 6 days a week and twice a day. Christian Thibadeau trains 6 days a week 3 times a day. I’ve personally trained 5 days a week without feeling fatigued or drained. They were short sessions, lower volume, and low reps. Waterbury does seem to be overly dogmatic at times about fullbody training.
[/quote]
What isn’t necessarily. I say that it’s easier overtrain with full body workouts and you say it’s not so because Olympic lifters and CT train with them. What’s your point?
I said it’s EASIER to overtrain - not a rule that you WILL overtrain with full-body workouts! Full-body workouts serve their purpose in specific situations (muscle maintenance, strength and conditioning, general fitness, time-pressed circumstances). I used them when I did the Rapid Fat Loss Diet and in my first two years of training at certain times.
It’s far easier to overtrain from a workout consisting of squats, lunges, bench presses, rows done in an hour than it is to overtrain in a workout consisting of isolation and compound exercises for 1 to 3 muscle groups!
That’s why before, in one of my posts, I wanted to see who could put up at least decent numbers in exercises like squats, bench presses, stiff-legged deadlifts–all in one workout–without feeling absolutely DESTROYED!
As I wrote, show me how long you can survive by performing workouts consisting of squats with 400+ pounds, stiff-legged deadlifts with 300+ pounds, and chins with 25+ pounds added (all reasonable numbers) for natural lifters. I bet dollars to doughnuts that NONE or VERY few of the TBT lovers can do that long term (more than a months, or even weeks) without feeling like a tired lop of shit! And that’s IF you people are are capable of putting up those numbers! Because if you were, reasoning and the signals your body is giving you would have you saying to yourself in a hurry, “Shit, I can’t even survive these workouts anymore. I gotta split the body up.”
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
[quote]snewbold wrote:
Chad Waterbury is some what vindicated, on this board by virtue of the “Perfect Rep Scheme” principles being similar to his own (other than the fact that Waterbury would never be on board with splits).
I loved Waterbury’s book for the most part, but he is one of those guys that makes it sound as if the second you lift more than 3 days a week, your CNS is going to go into overdrive and that overtraining is a foregone conclusion. We know that’s not the case.
That being said, I generally do a 5 day split for most the year, but whenever I hit a wall on any of the majory body part lifts (for me, those being squat, deadlift and bench), I turn to TBT for about 4-6 weeks and I’ve always broken down those walls using his program, then I go back to the 5 day split again.
Although I suppose that anytime you hit a wall and you drastically switch training programs, as long as the new program is a tried-and-true solid program you will see progress.
[/quote]
He’s not against training more than 3 days per week. Some of his articles detailed workouts that had 6 sessions per week and two-a-days - schemes that would overtrain you in a hurry - much more so than any split routine that average bodybuilders follow.
If anything, four full-body sessions per week would have you overtrained far more easily than 4 bodypart workouts. [/quote]
Not necessarily. Olympic weightlifters typically always train 5 to 6 days a week and twice a day. Christian Thibadeau trains 6 days a week 3 times a day. I’ve personally trained 5 days a week without feeling fatigued or drained. They were short sessions, lower volume, and low reps. Waterbury does seem to be overly dogmatic at times about fullbody training.
[/quote]
What isn’t necessarily. I say that it’s easier overtrain with full body workouts and you say it’s not so because Olympic lifters and CT train with them. What’s your point?
I said it’s EASIER to overtrain - not a rule that you WILL overtrain with full-body workouts! Full-body workouts serve their purpose in specific situations (muscle maintenance, strength and conditioning, general fitness, time-pressed circumstances). I used them when I did the Rapid Fat Loss Diet and in my first two years of training at certain times.
It’s far easier to overtrain from a workout consisting of squats, lunges, bench presses, rows done in an hour than it is to overtrain in a workout consisting of isolation and compound exercises for 1 to 3 muscle groups!
That’s why before, in one of my posts, I wanted to see who could put up at least decent numbers in exercises like squats, bench presses, stiff-legged deadlifts–all in one workout–without feeling absolutely DESTROYED!
As I wrote, show me how long you can survive by performing workouts consisting of squats with 400+ pounds, stiff-legged deadlifts with 300+ pounds, and chins with 25+ pounds added (all reasonable numbers) for natural lifters. I bet dollars to doughnuts that NONE or VERY few of the TBT lovers can do that long term (more than a months, or even weeks) without feeling like a tired lop of shit! And that’s IF you people are are capable of putting up those numbers! Because if you were, reasoning and the signals your body is giving you would have you saying to yourself in a hurry, “Shit, I can’t even survive these workouts anymore. I gotta split the body up.” [/quote]
Ok, well, I’m always willing to listen to any advice especially if it has been proven to get good results. I usually use fullbody during the busy season due to lack of days I can spend in the gym, but I’m willing to try anything. Especially seeing as how I’ve lost about 15 pounds or so in the last 6 months after some injury issues. So let’s say I could manage to squeeze in 4 days training at about 35-40 minutes a day. What would you recommend?
I can’t see finishing any decent workout for 2 muscle groups in a session lasting only 35 to 40 minutes if you have a thorough warmup and some stretching beforehand. I’m talking about a whole session consisting of a 5 to 10 minute cardio warmup, some stretching of tight muscles or mobility drills, and lifting. It usually lasts me an hour to 75 minutes. Perhaps you can do it faster.
What do I recommend? The same stuff all people do who follow a split routine. Check my “Bodybuilding Bible” thread.