WOW
[quote]tap_u_out wrote:
I’ve never said I was a bad motherfucker.[/quote]
Well you’re sure as shit trying to convince everyone that you are by the way you’re acting.
Compete in BB’ing or in MMA? Cos I do neither. I’m a rugby player. I have a passing interest in BB’ing and powerlifting but I’m become a big follower of strongmen competitions and would consider competing in a few competitions someday.
A wannabe BB’er…? Fuck no. If I wanted to be a bodybuilder I’d train to look like one. But I don’t want to, so I don’t train like one.
I think the entire train for stength vs train for size thing came with the sarcoplasmic vs sarcomeric hypertrophy crap. Authors, on this ite especially, tried to make us believe that high rep bodybuilding muscle were made of sarcoplasm, which is some kind of uncontractable goo. And that low rep real-world training made sarcomeric muscle that were hard. That coupled with the slow twith vs fast twitch talk all the time. (Slow twitch being weak and unfunctional, and of course targeted through bodybuilding training) But a lot of it came through this very site, so it is not strange to encounter many people here who think like that.
Trextacy,
You can join our club too. We’re gonna be bad.
LOL
every damn two weeks I read the same people say the same things and have the same debate over and over again
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I think the entire train for stength vs train for size thing came with the sarcoplasmic vs sarcomeric hypertrophy crap. Authors, on this ite especially, tried to make us believe that high rep bodybuilding muscle were made of sarcoplasm, which is some kind of uncontractable goo. And that low rep real-world training made sarcomeric muscle that were hard. That coupled with the slow twith vs fast twitch talk all the time. (Slow twitch being weak and unfunctional, and of course targeted through bodybuilding training) But a lot of it came through this very site, so it is not strange to encounter many people here who think like that.
[/quote]
Ya, but the “knowledgeable” posters in this thread aren’t even arguing about rep ranges. They are arguing more about their mentality and how hardcore one percieves themselves to be.
Mainly, when you see prof X. or counting beans enter a thread, you know its been hi-jacked and is now a clusterfuck.
Seriously, if you look at the ARGUMENTS and support for the arguements of the people in this thread and not the people behind the arguments, you’ll see that myself and a few others have made MUCH BETTER arguments against Brick’s tomfoolery. We use logic and reasoning, and he uses “all the pros this way” which is based off his observation, which is very limited, and his conclusion is very debatable.
Then X comes in, and has nothing to offer other than to try to make himself bigger, or SEEM successful, by belittling everyone else.
I will give Brick credit where it is deserved. You were on the right track with this thread, but you didn’t lay your arguments out thoughtfully at all.
It should be more like:
“If your TOP priority is to be a bodybuilder, then why are you doing all this other confounding crap, like MMA, and running, etc. etc.”
ANYTHING beyond that though regarding strength vs. bodybuilding is gonna be train wreck, because as I posted in a past response, they are BOTH REQUIREMENTS of eachother.
Think about this, some kid comes to you and wants training advice, it would probably play out like this:
Kid: “I want bigger arms”
Me: “Ok what have you been doing and how much do you weight?”
Kid: “Im 5’11 165lbs. Ive been doing 5x5 on bench with 185, and 3x10 on pullups with BW, but my arms are still only 13 And my chest and lats seem to be growing more than my arms. Should I switch to a bodybuilding routine?”
Me: "No, heres what you need to do.
Get your bench up to 250 for 5x5, pullups get to where you can do 3x10 with a lot of weight, maybe shoot for +80 lbs. Add in 1 MAYBE 2 isolation exercises for your triceps and biceps, and get stronger at these moves. And most of all start eating enough to gain weight. Shoot for 220+."
You see, its that simple. For his “bodybuilding goal” all he needs to do is eat more, and get STRONGER on the lifts that use the arm musculature. Nowhere in there should there be a discussion about whether he should follow a bodybuilding routine or a strength routine. That would be idiotic.
Another example supporting my whole stance is POWERBUILDING.
So… At least if you guys are gonna claim to be geniuses that know it all, offer up an argument. Explain why EVERYONE READING THIS can not use 531 for bodybuilding purposes.
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
LOL
every damn two weeks I read the same people say the same things and have the same debate over and over again[/quote]
Ya i think its about time for a chinup vs. bicep curl debate.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If a trainee just wants to pack on size, things like Westside, smolov, 5/3/1, est. are every bit as valid as any â??bbing training templateâ??. I would even argue that for the â??want to look good nakedâ?? crowd who will never be developed enough to distinguish between heads of the bicep itâ??s equally valid. If they actual have the sport specific goals of bbing, then yes, I would assume bbing training would be the best idea, but that is a hell of leap from there to â??train X way for sizeâ??.
But I really think that most of you are grossly overestimating the number of people who are actually dedicated to the actual goals of BBing. I donâ??t know anyone thatâ??s really and truly pursuing the goals of BBing who doesnâ??t train â??like a BBerâ??. I think what most of you guys are talking about are people who both work out and call themselves BBers while actually they â??just want to look good nakedâ??. Which really makes most of this thread a moot point because the people youâ??re discussing donâ??t exist.
[/quote]
I think this is the source of the disagreement right here. We all have different interpretations of the phrase “I want to gain size.” It’s what I alluded to in my prior posts. When BBers hear someone say “I want to gain size,” they interpret this phrase through their own perspective, which is “I want to gain as much size as possible, as much as a competitive BBer.” This is a perfectly valid interpretation. But the reality is that people use the phrase “I want to gain size” to also mean “I want to gain strength,” “I want to look good naked,” or “I want to improve in a sport.”
So, one phrase can stand for several different goals. I’ll give you an example. I played around in endurance sports for a bit and I still visit a triathlon site. We get the following request a lot: “I want to gain some size during the off-season.” Now, it’s clear that this guy doesn’t want to give up triathlons and become a BBer. He just wants to look good naked, possibly use strength training to improve triathlon performance. It’s also clear that they will be doing some tri training in the off-season, so they can’t devote hours to weight training. For this individual, a basic strength program like 5/3/1 or possibly a Waterbury program is the appropriate choice.
Bottom line is that when someone says “I want to gain size,” we need to ask “Why?”
Wow Dankid, you’re SWOLE. YOU are the one we should be looking to for training advice. Hahahahaha.
-Humble Herald to He Who May not be Named.
.
The Great Sage.
[quote]dankid wrote:
[quote]Francois1 wrote:
I think the entire train for stength vs train for size thing came with the sarcoplasmic vs sarcomeric hypertrophy crap. Authors, on this ite especially, tried to make us believe that high rep bodybuilding muscle were made of sarcoplasm, which is some kind of uncontractable goo. And that low rep real-world training made sarcomeric muscle that were hard. That coupled with the slow twith vs fast twitch talk all the time. (Slow twitch being weak and unfunctional, and of course targeted through bodybuilding training) But a lot of it came through this very site, so it is not strange to encounter many people here who think like that.
[/quote]
Ya, but the “knowledgeable” posters in this thread aren’t even arguing about rep ranges. They are arguing more about their mentality and how hardcore one percieves themselves to be.
Mainly, when you see prof X. or counting beans enter a thread, you know its been hi-jacked and is now a clusterfuck.
Seriously, if you look at the ARGUMENTS and support for the arguements of the people in this thread and not the people behind the arguments, you’ll see that myself and a few others have made MUCH BETTER arguments against Brick’s tomfoolery. We use logic and reasoning, and he uses “all the pros this way” which is based off his observation, which is very limited, and his conclusion is very debatable.
Then X comes in, and has nothing to offer other than to try to make himself bigger, or SEEM successful, by belittling everyone else.
I will give Brick credit where it is deserved. You were on the right track with this thread, but you didn’t lay your arguments out thoughtfully at all.
It should be more like:
“If your TOP priority is to be a bodybuilder, then why are you doing all this other confounding crap, like MMA, and running, etc. etc.”
ANYTHING beyond that though regarding strength vs. bodybuilding is gonna be train wreck, because as I posted in a past response, they are BOTH REQUIREMENTS of eachother.
Think about this, some kid comes to you and wants training advice, it would probably play out like this:
Kid: “I want bigger arms”
Me: “Ok what have you been doing and how much do you weight?”
Kid: “Im 5’11 165lbs. Ive been doing 5x5 on bench with 185, and 3x10 on pullups with BW, but my arms are still only 13 And my chest and lats seem to be growing more than my arms. Should I switch to a bodybuilding routine?”
Me: "No, heres what you need to do.
Get your bench up to 250 for 5x5, pullups get to where you can do 3x10 with a lot of weight, maybe shoot for +80 lbs. Add in 1 MAYBE 2 isolation exercises for your triceps and biceps, and get stronger at these moves. And most of all start eating enough to gain weight. Shoot for 220+."
You see, its that simple. For his “bodybuilding goal” all he needs to do is eat more, and get STRONGER on the lifts that use the arm musculature. Nowhere in there should there be a discussion about whether he should follow a bodybuilding routine or a strength routine. That would be idiotic.
Another example supporting my whole stance is POWERBUILDING.
So… At least if you guys are gonna claim to be geniuses that know it all, offer up an argument. Explain why EVERYONE READING THIS can not use 531 for bodybuilding purposes. [/quote]
Don’t give credit unless someone earns it.
The one guy on here that I think, despite an excessive use of profanity, deserves credit would be that Professor X guy. That guy is the real deal. Yet, funny enough, you never see him starting a forum on how to train.
[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
Wow Dankid, you’re SWOLE. YOU are the one we should be looking to for training advice. Hahahahaha.
-Humble Herald to He Who May not be Named.[/quote]
Haha why even watch drama on TV when you can read these forums all day about people taking personal cheap shots at each other (yes I do agree with listening to people who have walked the walk)
Those pictures are dated 5 years back tho. Anything new from Dan?
Honestly, this thread is pretty much in the crapper now.
Agree to disagree
Related to thread topic: there is a thread in the T-Cell with shitloads of posts in it called “The Saga of Muscle through Strength”.
This thread and the premise is meaningless.
[quote]toolshed wrote:
[quote]Mr.Purple wrote:
Wow Dankid, you’re SWOLE. YOU are the one we should be looking to for training advice. Hahahahaha.
-Humble Herald to He Who May not be Named.[/quote]
Haha why even watch drama on TV when you can read these forums all day about people taking personal cheap shots at each other (yes I do agree with listening to people who have walked the walk)
Those pictures are dated 5 years back tho. Anything new from Dan?[/quote]
He is currently 200lb at 20% at 5’11.
Hey Dan, put up your current pics of a skinny fat 200 pounds.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]LazyElemental wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
[quote]GuerillaZen wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
[quote]LazyElemental wrote:
[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:
For me, strength increases have always come with a corresponding increase in size, and vice versa. Maybe I’m doing something wrong.[/quote]
Same here, I guess we’re just weird! [/quote]
Or maybe you both completely missed the point… Now, the topic is somewhat misleading, so no biggie… Still, it helps if one reads through the thread before posting.
[/quote]
C_C, with all due respect, I believe it is actually you and Bonez who have missed the point of these gentlemen in this case. They are pretty much agreeing with everyone who is not a moron, but using sarcasm as their catalyst.[/quote]
I hope you’re right.
[/quote]
GZ nailed my intentions, so your hope was not in vain[/quote]
Then I completely missed that also. Its tough to hide sarcastic posts among so many similar posts that aren;t sarcastic. Anyway, exuse my mental deficiencies comment. [/quote]
Ok, I guess I should have been more direct. Obviously a routine geared primarily for strength is not the best approach for hypertrophy gains. I normally train in the 6-8 rep range and am constantly trying to increase the weight used. This, in turn, results in size increases for me. I didn’t mean to infer that training for a new 1/RM would result in increased muscle size.
Thats hilarious Mr. Purple that you’d pull up pictures of me from 5 years ago in some sort of stalkerish way to try to discredit me. If anything those pictures would show my success as ive now built myself up to 210+ lbs.
And no, I wont post any recent pictures at the moment, because who knows what stalkers like Purple will do with them.
[quote]dankid wrote:
Think about this, some kid comes to you and wants training advice, it would probably play out like this:
Kid: “I want bigger arms”
Me: “Ok what have you been doing and how much do you weight?”
Kid: “Im 5’11 165lbs. Ive been doing 5x5 on bench with 185, and 3x10 on pullups with BW, but my arms are still only 13 And my chest and lats seem to be growing more than my arms. Should I switch to a bodybuilding routine?”
Me: "No, heres what you need to do.
Get your bench up to 250 for 5x5, pullups get to where you can do 3x10 with a lot of weight, maybe shoot for +80 lbs. Add in 1 MAYBE 2 isolation exercises for your triceps and biceps, and get stronger at these moves. And most of all start eating enough to gain weight. Shoot for 220+."
You see, its that simple. For his “bodybuilding goal” all he needs to do is eat more, and get STRONGER on the lifts that use the arm musculature. Nowhere in there should there be a discussion about whether he should follow a bodybuilding routine or a strength routine. That would be idiotic.
[/quote]
Do people ask you questions like this often?
I wonder because your answer to your own rhetorical question pretty much sucked.
You don’t suggest to someone that they increase their lifts in such a nebulous manner when they are asking a question about volume.
Now here is what I tell him (because I am actually doing this right now with a kid at work).
Volume builds Volume!
First, use a volumetric increase to reach a targeted quantity. Then Add Weight. Then keep pushing (or pulling) that weight until you have met the volume target.
Or any of the mountain of volume building techniques which will also include a weight progression when the rep requirement has been met.
And at a 185lbs. bench press, no there should not be a discussion of power lifting or body building. There should be a discussion of volume and weight progression, and ways to do it.
Nor should there be some arbitrary number chosen by you to describe when he has reached a goal that involves size, not weight.
You rail against the people around here who have experience while at the same time you fuck up your own hypothetical answers to your own hypothetical questions.
Now go get a fucking clue as to what the factors are that should be manipulated to reach a goal, and learn to manipulate them wrapping your keyboard flailing fingers around a fucking bar.
[quote]trextacy wrote:
Related to thread topic: there is a thread in the T-Cell with shitloads of posts in it called “The Saga of Muscle through Strength”.
This thread and the premise is meaningless.[/quote]
You sure feel compelled to contribute though.