# Stuart McRobert



## Hougenie (Oct 5, 2012)

Hi folks,

Just thought it would be interesting to see what you think of Stuart McRoberts philosophies.

I have read "Beyond Brawn" and have to admit I wasnt expecting what I read, however, I think he has a point.

What do you think?

Anyone tried it?

Any success?

Cheers.


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

reading brawn means i now get paid for training peeps.. 

sounds OTT but it transformed training and eventually my life.

the more you understand the book the more you get out of it.


----------



## Hougenie (Oct 5, 2012)

Hi cal,

So I take it you've had some great results using these methods?

The advice in the book is a far cry from the standard advice out there...even for the natural! Do you see good results in your clients also?

I mean it does make perfect sense....getting stronger on the compounds has to mean getting bigger really. :thumb


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

hey bud, so far the basics ive learned from brawn has worked for every bodytype, gender and age.

ive had without blowing my own bugle too much great results in spite of having a spinal fusion a few years back and being unable to train hard for a good 18 months afters..

ive made every mistake out there before reading it and havent stopped gaining since i did, barring injury down time.

View attachment 4660


this is me with maybe 1 years decent training behind me post fusion.

i`d done a t bullet cycle 5 months before, kept ALL my gains and then trained naturally and continued growing.

its now 4 months on again and i havent stopped growing still training naturally.

some people can just grow-altho many more cant, i am one of those..

if brawn can help me and my stable of i suspect it can help anyone.

i get people regualrly coming to me saying that I`m theyre last chance...

theyre desperate for gains, tbh any signs of gains..

brawn was my last chance..

i was on incapacity benefit after 10 years of nites, due to stress and back pain (undiagnosed fusion needed) 10 stone with back fat, a back i could nt train legs with and the same desperation people come to me with cos i got nowhere training my ass off and then i`d try HARDER.

man did i drive myself into the ground, i aint the type to give up..

i`d make myself as sick as a dog from overtraining..

i took a leap of faith and to start with trained only every 5 th day!!!

bare bar partials with nothing on the bar, 2.5kg added every time i trained.

3 years later the day before my fusion 1x240kg (vids on you tube.. i can back up everything i say with real life evidence..not just hear say and self promotion)

a year after my fusion i pulled 255kg but then went on for some unrelated back probs and couldnt train for 5 months last year..

adapt and overcome dude..

if you need a proper chat sometime your most welcome to ring me for a free chat, i do that with afew of the guys on here..

just click on me banner..

take a leap of faith and ignore the derision and start gaining dude.


----------



## Hougenie (Oct 5, 2012)

Great post cal :thumb

I see people with chronic back pain every now and then and thats a great achievement.

Nutrition seems to be my major problem at the moment.....I posted my diet up in the bulking section and had some good input from andy chappell....guy has some great knowledge and results. Hard to believe Im around the same age as him when you see the size of him!!

Training is ok for now I think, doing a 2 on 1 off 2 on 2 off split, based around compounds. Im only doing sets of 5 on the compounds though and then higher reps (6-12) for supportive exercises.

Currently I weigh 76kg (not the 80 I thought previously....just bought scales :lol: ) and compounds are:

1. Deadlift 130kg 3x5

2. Squat 105kg 4x5

3. Bench (Always been sh1t at bench) 77.75kg 4x5

So think Im getting somewhere, but for sure would be making much better progress if my nutrition was sorted.

Thats a point actually, just to keep things on topic, I dont remember Stuart McRobert saying much about nutrition....do you?


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

nope..

if you can eat like a superstar consistently, you`ll get maximum results.

if you cant be consistent ive found adequate is more than enuff to get great gains.

my diet is laughed at by the nutrition junkies..

it works tho and works for everyone ive trained so far..

well i`ll qualify that, everyone who does theyre cardio (assuming they need fat loss) will get results from my adequate brawn/supersquats type diet.

i`m not eating to be on stage so dont feel the need to change anything for now.

by eating an adequate diet i can be consistent.

tortoise and the hare dude :wink:

people have been getting big and muscular for 1000`s of years, the basics dont change.


----------



## Hougenie (Oct 5, 2012)

Just out of interest....do you have an example of your nutrition?


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

3 shakes containing oats, soya,skimmed and hemp milk, 1 nana of increasing size as i slowly increase cals, 1 shake contains a yakult, organic peanut butter, sometimes flax seed powder too.

meat salad sarnie possibly with a slice of cheese, 3/4 pint of skimmed.

possibly a steak, mushy peas with a bit of mashed potato, or lentil or bean soup with added chicken is probably with 2 slices of soya bread.

nuts n milk before bed.

ive also walked the dogs for 30 mins 2x a day for 20 odd years..

do your cardio and you have a lot of leeway.


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

cutting or bulking i`d just change the proportions altho keep protein probly where it is.

i`m not getting ready for a contest, so i dont need contest prep food.


----------



## Hougenie (Oct 5, 2012)

I hear you mate.

Glad to see my approach to nutrition hasnt been a complete disaster up to now!

Well it appears nobody else has much to say on Stuart McRobert.. :lol:

Any other texts youd recommend?


----------



## Tom84 (Dec 12, 2005)

Been debated a few times mate.

Probably fair to say Cal is the biggest advocate of the methodologies on the board and I'm the biggest opponent 

http://www.musclechat.co.uk/general-health-sports-articles/37324-brawn-methodology.html

I'd debate it but it doesn't ever result in anything productive


----------



## Hougenie (Oct 5, 2012)

Hi Parky,

Well safe to say I never saw that thread :lol:

I see your more along the lines of "as long as your nutrition is good your training will work"??

I am interested to see what works for various people...Ive been weight training for about 3 years on and off and am nowhere near as good as I could be, and I tend to think my training is good but nutrition awful so this interests me!?

Glad you pitched in, was beginning to think I may as well phone cal for a chat about Mr McRobert :lol:


----------



## Tom84 (Dec 12, 2005)

The issue is that evidentially we don't value the same things.

I'm not interested in small control groups. If Cal or a few people he trains make gains using a particular methodology that doesn't interest me. I'm interested in the mechanics of physiology and dietetics, not that I profess a particularly comprehensive grasp of either - though I try my best as a layperson. To oversimplify you need to prove to me WHY it works. Otherwise you have no control over the factors in your results - and no real idea what's causing them.

Cal's argument would be that studies can be used to support all sorts of ideas and he's interested in results in the real world.

I do agree with a focus on the core compounds as exercises though - but I cannot possibly fathom how people could want to pick things up and put them down only to restrict their growth massively through not eating correctly. To paraphrase Andy 'you'll get better results with average training and a brilliant diet, than you will with an average diet and brilliant training.'

Bottom line is you should do both. Dietetics is hugely interesting to me and there are several things you can do which will have a guaranteed positive impact on your physique. Training is MUCH more hit and miss and what works for some people simply does not work for others. We just don't know enough about physiology IMO. Almost any progressive training system will work IMO, as long as you lift hard, lift heavy, lift consistently and focus on core compounds.

If the following exercises make up at least 75% of your programme (deadlift, squat, military press, bench press, cleans, incline press, bent over rows, t bar rows, chins, seated dumbell press, dips, decline press) and you are lifting hard and heavy doing them, then for me you are 90% of the way to optimal training.

Where 90% of people restrict their results is diet. Of course their are factors like rest/alcohol consumption etc... which you can also improve but they are lifestyle/work choices. With your diet unless you're Italian/Greek/Spanish you don't have much of an excuse IMO


----------



## AChappell (Jun 1, 2011)

Never read it, can't really comment. I know it has it's fair amount of critics though. You can literally find websites devoted to slagging him off.


----------



## Hougenie (Oct 5, 2012)

Parky,

I have to say that I agree with you that nutrition is more important than training (Ive discovered this myself, as I say my nutrition is not the best, however am working on this).

In reply to "Dietetics is hugely interesting to me and there are several things you can do which will have a guaranteed positive impact on your physique" I would be interested to read up on some of this and presume it is covered somewhere on this forum? (most things are :thumb )

I am medically trained but dont know a great deal about dietetics so would be keen to learn!

Can you point me in the right direction?

Cheers


----------



## Tom84 (Dec 12, 2005)

Just have a read of the diet and training section and without sounding sycophantic search Andy's posts - he's currently studying for a PhD and thus obviously has a masters and undergrad in various areas of nutrition.

Have a read of the diet stickies and any topics you're interested in use the search function.

If you can't find anything give me a shout and I'll happily try and answer


----------



## Hougenie (Oct 5, 2012)

Cheers Parky,

Sounds like some bed time reading to me.

You may have just opened yourself up to a host of questions!!http://www.musclechat.co.uk/images/smilies/animated/blabla.gif ha.


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

i could win the classic class, a male client could win another class, a female client could win a chick class (ive just taken on my most gifted chick ever) attribute it to reading brawn and still face the same rhetoric.

makes me laugh brawn covers every style of training out there, *dorians blood n guts* even *GVT* in a modified way... the author specifically says he doesnt promote one style over another, but is hated with a venom purely cos he likes his *rest.*

he likes his rest cos you cant train naturally as well on gear based routines.

prior to steroids people trained less..

simple as that, with the arrival of steroids came increased training days due to greater recovery.

these routines are now mainstream.

*are gyms full of adonis`s?*

brawn simply modifies gear based routines into something that will work better.

how many people train differently on gear to when they train naturally?

then cant figure out why they only make significant gains on cycle, then claiming natural training is just for maintanence when theyre still well under the genetic limits(being over weight aside as the scales dont discriminate between fat and muscle)

now then i would do a 4 day split, its a routine ive pondered, but one of those workouts would involve only 1-3 sets of squats and thats it, the others would comprise of only 2-3 exercises max.. it would take blood n guts style to a new level!

can you imagine the insane intensity and weight you could build up to knowing thats all you had to do for the entire workout, leaving absolutely nothing in the tank and pouring the lot into the most productive exercise you can do.

too radiCAL?

well you dont know till you try?

fcuk me ive trained 6x aweek on bullets last year and made it work, but only cos it was for 3 weeks and i needed a week off..

and *as usual i kept my gains.. again*.. cos i backed off training to its usual level.. *my food did the job.. same as it did the job 50 years ago..* (lol when i was a boy)

injuries and ops permitting ive improved my physique every 3-6 months for the last 6 years without fail and will continue to do so for some time yet.

i`m still waiting for brawn to put me wrong its a bit like the bible, heavily down to interpretation as to what you get out of it and the meaning you give to what you read..

one mans epiphany is anothers meh..


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

excerpt from pm i received from a dude asking diet advice from me..

"my copy of "beyond brawn" has just arrived and is so far an awesome read, although I'd never admit it on here at the fear of being stoned to death haha"

(hope you dont mind me posting that up bud)


----------



## Hougenie (Oct 5, 2012)

Cal,

You seem keen on trying different training styles etc, how long would you use one for before saying it was good/bad?

Im really not sure about taking it to the levels of 1-3 sets of squats and thats it though, you ever tried that?

Also when reading about blood and guts there are a sh1t load of "warm up sets" which come pretty close in poundage to the working set....I dont buy the whole 1 working set sales pitch. Im not convinced either that knowing all you were doing was two sets of squats would make any difference, as the main goal of most gym goers is to improve on the compounds. Knowing , for example, I had leg press or whatever to still complete wouldnt make me go easy on squats as these are the main exercise of leg day. Same applies for bench/deads. If Im spent after squats and have to reduce the weight on leg press etc then so be it.

Just some thoughts :thumb


----------



## Tom84 (Dec 12, 2005)

TheCrazyCal said:


> excerpt from pm i received from a dude asking diet advice from me..
> 
> "my copy of "beyond brawn" has just arrived and is so far an awesome read, although I'd never admit it on here at the fear of being stoned to death haha"
> 
> (hope you dont mind me posting that up bud)


Yeah this thread has been a positively hideous McRobert bashing...


----------



## justheretosnoop (Jun 15, 2012)

Parky said:


> Yeah this thread has been a positively hideous McRobert bashing...


I'm just shocked you felt you had to PM Cal in the first place!


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

some people feel they shouted down i guess..


----------



## AChappell (Jun 1, 2011)

I don't think I've ever said a bad word about the guy, I've never read anything he's written. Parky is the biggest opponent of his philosophy, I can't think of anyone else though has a bad word to say.


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

I'm pretty sure you havent andy..

Soz if my rantings sounded as if they were aimed at you...

I've been rather pleased about the couple of ideas I've interested you with, my

understanding if training is ever evolving, but of course has its roots in brawn... Which simply paraphrases much of the literature from back in the day..

i`m as interested in understanding how your training clearly works so well for you when it didnt for me, as i am in reading brawn again and discovering a whole new layer of info i hadnt "gotten" before.

tbh i think i think i understand why it leaves most people cold the same as super squats probly would.

twice a week is herasy altho its not written in stone and higher frequency is discussed with example cycles, the workouts arent what people want to hear..

hougenie..

everyone wants cut legs so they do theyre post squat extensions faithfully and post with glee how they can barely walk..

well i got cut quads from singles on deads.

havent done an extension in years.

i will when i can squat 140 if i need to tho, then i`ll have options.

so far ive used routines straight out of brawn.. so for me purposes i know theyre good, altho some variations i`m finding work better than others..

none in the book dont work.

get the interpretation wrong and they will tho..

when i squat i squat so hard (for me and weight is relative) i couldnt do anything afters, 3 sets done.

this allows more weight to be added ea\ch week easier, and i assume its hard enuff already..

you can only force the adaption process so much.

however i`m currently squatting for 2 sets of 10 then sldl 2x10 after that, so only hitting lower back 1x a week, cos of the pairing i dropped down to 2 working sets only.

in time it will go down to 1 working set..

now for me i`m not squatting any more, my fusion doesnt like it, gutted cos i`d just pb`d.

however one of my clients on here is at same postion (jim) and will be doing this very thing.. ie 1 set to the death for 10.

it will have taken him i`d guess 6 months to prepare himself for this hell set.

a while back everyone was blood n guts this and that, i was smiling to myself at the time cos i knew it wouldnt last and no one stuck with it..

you cant just go from 3 sets to 1 over nite and feel like youve given your life and soul to 1 set..

it takes time to build up that intensity.

currently all who are squatting and deading except jim have had to drop back on sldl to maintain form and on next exercises.

i think it can take 3-6 months to tell if a new routine is working for you..

again 3 weeks into a routine and i read how the postee knowingly says he feels his rear delts are really feeling the benefits of his new stylee..

righto..

hougenie i`m naturally upper body heavy and have focussed all my efforts into correcting this for the last 6-7? years and ive only ever done 20 single deadlifts or 2-3x10 on squats, with some single usual rest pause deadlifting too..

i focussed on my legs inspite of having to work round my back.. cant squat? then find a fcuking way.. no time for dudes who whinge about back pain with them.. modify the movement till you can work it hard and for long periods even if theyre partials..

partials just means more weight, but done from, for the individual an injury free rom..

as it goes ive decided i need to go back to trap bar dead/squats to recreate these conditions for myself.. bit of a bugger, i couldnt squat post op, ive given it a bloody good go since then over 2 years but its time to get realistic.

if jim sees this he might answer whether he fancies any more legworks after his 2-3 sets..

i`m gonna be taking some updated pics of him soon when he`s been training 6 months, he`s filling out nicely..

View attachment 4671


----------



## Tom84 (Dec 12, 2005)

TheCrazyCal said:


> some people feel they shouted down i guess..


Stones... Glass houses. I don't see brawn advocates flocking from here in droves... In fact I always try to be as courteous as possible.


----------



## mightymariner (Mar 16, 2010)

I enjoyed some progress with the deadlift focussed routine in Brawn. I went from 3x10 with 120k to 180k x15.

It took 6 months to the 15 reps with that weight backing down twice to keep momentum.

I cannot be that focussed any more as I never know what equipment I will have available or I would still follow BRAWN.


----------



## JGSPT1989 (Jan 7, 2012)

> I don't see brawn advocates flocking from here in droves


Maybe people haven't heard of it, I hadn't before reading your brawn methologdy + this thread. or maybe cuz if they've already been training and having results aren't willing to try it cuz "if it ain't broke don't fix it" just because people aren't following it doesn't mean it won't work. I'm gunna read the book and I'm gunna use it totally naturally and see what happens, best way for me to see for myself whether it works or not, I'll even keep a journal. That will prove to me wether it works, but what will it take for you?


----------



## Hougenie (Oct 5, 2012)

I think it's a bit unfair to say people are shouted down, I'm new to the forum and have asked some pretty basic questions and all I have received is useful info! I would be keen to follow your journal JG as I say I've read brawn but never followed the routines and to be honest I think currently no matter what I did I would have similar results as my nutrition is pants!:yuck:


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

well stick around hougenie 

wait till you say something deemed controversial or non mainstream.

so you think brawn wouldnt work altho you havent tried it.. because your diet is crap..

sort your diet and try it..

i doubt many routines will work if your diet is crap..

you dont need the diet of a competitor to make a basic routine work.

my diet could be improved but its certainly not hindering me.

nice to see the "brawnamaniacs" popping up lol.

parky, peter mandelson was also very polite  and extremely articulate.

i`m not so articulate so i just stick pics up.

hougenie, i`m not sure why you so interested in brawn tbh.


----------



## Hougenie (Oct 5, 2012)

Cal,

As i said, I read it and found it quite interesting (not mainstream) and wanted to know what people thought of it....hence why I started this thread. I wanted to see if anyone liked it/had used it. If the case was several people had tried it and found it was crap then that would put me off trying it. As it is....several people say it has worked so I will give it a go at some stage. Also I said myself that no matter what I did i prob wouldnt gain until nutrition sorted out so that is my main goal at the moment. Sort nutrition, finish current training cycle and then try something new when I stop gaining on that which may well be something from brawn.

Anyhoo isnt the whole point of a forum to gain advice and for folks to express differing opinions?

A debate (heated or not) is surely a good thing, providing there is some evidence behind the argument and not just someone saying something is rubbish just because they never gave it a good go!


----------



## Tom84 (Dec 12, 2005)

Hougenie said:


> Cal,
> 
> As i said, I read it and found it quite interesting (not mainstream) and wanted to know what people thought of it....hence why I started this thread. I wanted to see if anyone liked it/had used it. If the case was several people had tried it and found it was crap then that would put me off trying it. As it is....several people say it has worked so I will give it a go at some stage. Also I said myself that no matter what I did i prob wouldnt gain until nutrition sorted out so that is my main goal at the moment. Sort nutrition, finish current training cycle and then try something new when I stop gaining on that which may well be something from brawn.
> 
> ...


I think people vastly confuse the difference between disagreeing and shouting down. If I do shout people down considering this thread had 8/9 pro Brawn posts before I posted, and 10 or so since, I'm doing quite the horrific job in my mini autocracy.


----------



## Tom84 (Dec 12, 2005)

JGSPT1989 said:


> Maybe people haven't heard of it, I hadn't before reading your brawn methologdy + this thread. or maybe cuz if they've already been training and having results aren't willing to try it cuz "if it ain't broke don't fix it" just because people aren't following it doesn't mean it won't work. I'm gunna read the book and I'm gunna use it totally naturally and see what happens, best way for me to see for myself whether it works or not, I'll even keep a journal. That will prove to me wether it works, but what will it take for you?


You misunderstand me. I was simply saying that no Brawn advocate here is at all stifled, let alone are they leaving the board. Anyone who felt stifled or part stifled (Fled, Phil, Smudge, Frankie, Michelle, Yanny, Ben) largely don't post here anymore and all cited Cal to one extent or another either shouting them down or having personal issues. The idea that I shout people down is to me at least absurd considering I'm exceptionally open to new ideas and evidence. I know Andy has changed my mind on issues, so has Doug, so have old posts from PScarb.

It would take some evidence over and above anecdotal evidence. Stuart McRobert is hated so violently as he makes assertions without any facts. He literally backs up his assertions with more of his own assertions. The whole book to me is an horrendous psychological exercise in self defeatism. I literally learned absolutely nothing from reading it. I was told some things with no evidence, so I have no idea if they are true or not. It would take some physiology or some actual data as opposed to control groups of one (hey look at my pictures etc...) which ranks evidentially with me alongside well I can deadlift x so do my routine.


----------



## Tom84 (Dec 12, 2005)

This sums it up

10 Reasons Stuart McRobert can go **** himself....

1) STUART MCROBERT IS TERRIFIED OF HIS OWN ****ING SHADOW.

His entire training philosophy, from his Brawn books, to Lose Fat, Get Fit, to his myriad articles, centers around the central premise of fear. McRobert is afraid of overtraining. He's afraid of "dangerous exercises". He's afraid of injury. He's afraid of cameras (has anyone EVER seen a picture of this "guru"?) He's probably afraid of a litany of other things as well, but I've no interest in enumerating the lot of them. The main problem with this first point, other than the glaring issue of the fact that he's a massive, bloody vagina, is the fact that he's been able to spread his disgusting tripe all over bookstores and the Internet for going on 20 years, leaving a pile of slack-jawed pussies, lowered testosterone levels, and heightened serum cortisol levels in his wake. As such, he can go **** himself.

2) HE'S COMPLETELY PREOCCUPIED WITH GENETICS.

McRobert has espoused that everyone train within their genetic potential for the entirety of his career. There are some obvious problems with this approach- namely, it automatically sets arbitrary limits and assumes failure, fails to give an adequate standard by which one could gauge one's level of genetic fitness for bodybuilding, predicates his approach on a system of somatotyping that was abandoned and ridiculed by every single accredited person in the medical community decades ago, and apparently never heard of the idea that ontogenic adaptation and evolution occurs. Thus, he's either willfully ignorant of reality, or is deliberately utilizing the public forum he has built to deliberately mislead people. He should begin ****ing himself, stat.

3) HE COINED THE TERM "HARDGAINER."

Though he coined this term, he at no point demonstrated conclusively a manner by which one could objectively determine one's self to be one, thereby creating legions of pasty-faced *******s who will blather on about being hardgainers simply because they've never trained hard a day in their lives, their diets suck ****, they don't squat or deadlift, and they think a workout routine consists of milling about Nautilus equipment for 45 minutes a day, three times a week. McRobert and his legions of hardgainers can go **** themselves- they're pussies though, so it won't be the epic, Max Hardcore ****ing they deserve.

4) HE ESPOUSES SAFE TRAINING.

What the **** should be safe about training? If one's life is not in imminent peril, where's one's motivation to lift a given weight? Furthermore, what the **** is fun about being safe? What kid likes to wear a helmet when he rides a bike? What person likes to drive at or below the posted speed limit? What person likes watered-down alcohol? What person wants to box their friends wearing adequate protective gear? I'll tell you who- desperately boring, testosterone-deficient, slack-jawed pussies who fear innovation, vibrance, and anything interesting, and who wouldn't know a good time if ten topless, big-tittied sluts in micro-mini jean skirts awakened them from a dead sleep with the promise of 6 weeks of nonstop oral pleasure and drunken fisticuffs. The type of person who's favorite color is beige and thinks that Barry Manilow is acceptable music to fuel a lifting session. You know who doesn't like safe training? Anyone who wants to win a lifting competition, succeed in life, snap necks and cash checks, bend a chick over the counter at Denny's in front of a bevy of startled onlookers and then smile for the camera phones clicking away while wondering the name of the chick he's penetrating. Angry, misanthropic, tattooed and goateed people who think that Godsmack is easy-listening music and who could total elite without gear, half asleep, and recovering from the flu, that's who. Both safety and Stuart McRobert can go **** themselves.

5) HE'S EVIDENTLY NEVER HEARD OF THE BULGARIAN OLYMPIC WEIGHTLIFTING TEAM.

McRobert posted a "Ten Commandments" online, ostensibly to further **** with the hearts and minds of bodybuilding aficionados everywhere, in which three of his commandments are "Weight train no more than three times a week", "Don't skimp on warmup sets", and "Do no more than 20 work sets per workout (not per body part, per workout!)." Bereft of explanation, these statements hardly require any, as any attempt at elucidation would only highlight further his myriad shortcomings and illogic. As anyone who lifts knows the Bulgarians are all brutally strong, Olympic Gold medal snatching, muscular mother****ers from a nation so ****-poor and awful that in spite of the fact that it's located right next to the über-****hole Turkey, its population is actually decreasing as its population goes anywhere else. The Bulgarians are hardly known for being a physically powerful people, yet in spite of their seeming genetic shortfall, they've amassed huge numbers of Olympic medals by virtue of the fact that they train harder than everyone. Bulgarians train 6 days a week, for 6 to 8 hours a day, most of which is 85% of their one rep max or greater. Thus, they're doing "unsafe" exercises with hideously "unsafe" weights, for exponentially greater amounts of time than the wise Mr. McRobert suggests. Furthermore, according to Leo Costa, they barely warm up at all. Thus, they are living proof that McRobert is a *****, and he should go **** himself.

6) HE HAS HORRIFYINGLY LOW STANDARDS.

He thinks that a man of average height (which we'll assume is 5'10"), at ""just" 190 pounds and 10% bodyfat will drop the jaws of almost everyone," and that such a physique "would have won you big contests 40+ years ago." This statement is patently absurd, for a wide variety of reasons. First, bodybuilders of the 1980s and 1990s were, by and large, well over 190 lbs, with the exception of perhaps Flavio Baccianini. He was practically a ****ing midget however, so that hardly counts. Second, 10% bodyfat, for anyone under 280 lbs, is hardly impressive. Thus, McRobert sets the bar low and encourages his trainees to aim lower, due to their genetics. Stuart McRobert and genetics can go **** themselves.

7) HIS DIET ADVICE BLOWS.

McRobert advocates the consumption of less than one gram of protein per pound of bodyweight. Given that most paleolithic dieting authors, who are hardly bodybuilding enthusiasts, advocate protein consumption in excess of this, McRobert is an ass. If humans in the wild readily consume up to 65% (according to Loren Codain) of their daily calories in the form of protein, it stands to reason that modern trainees should do, at the very least, the same. Apparently, McRobert thinks that he knows better, in spite of the fact that he couldn't match any Paleolithic human in any contest of strength or endurance. I'm sure there's a bisexual Paleolithic man somewhere on the planet who wouldn't mind helping ol' Stu go **** himself.

8) HE ESPOUSES AMUSINGLY INFREQUENT TRAINING.

McRobert actually typed the following words: "While it seems to be easier, at least for some people, to build strength on infrequent training schedules where a given exercise or bodypart is trained less often than once a week, many people seem to need a bit more frequency-twice every 7-10 days or so per bodypart, though not necessarily the same frequency for each area-in order to produce muscle growth." That just happened. Who get better at something by doing less of it? The answer: NO-****ING-ONE. If you think HIT is the answer, it's because you're less of a man than RuPaul and you think that training might give you ugly, big muscles. You shouldn't be reading this site- you should be on an anorexic-friendly site wherein everyone cheers you on while you starve yourself. No one has ever gotten better or bigger by doing less of anything, unless you're a circus fat man or you were doing way too much of the wrong ****ing thing, and you started doing the right thing. McRobert and infrequent training advocates can go **** themselves ever 7-10 days. ****ing retards.

9) HE THINKS YOU'RE AS BIG A ***** AS HE IS.

McRobert recommends you eschew singles, doubles, and triples, because you might get hurt! God for****ingbid you get stronger, but you might hurt yourself in the process. Apparently having never even heard of the stock market, or being a sole advocate of low risk/low yield mutual funds, McRobert thinks that lifting like the biggest ***** of all time will make you slightly stronger, very slowly. While he's very slowly getting stronger, he can very slowly ease his own **** into his ass and go **** himself. No ****ing risk, no goddamned reward. Go big, or get the **** out of the gym and let the men handle the lifting.

10) HE CLAIMS YOU SHOULD ONLY DEADLIFT WITH A FLAT BACK.

Oh yeah? Ever seen Andy Bolton dead 1000+? I have, and the very last thing that was employed was a flat back. Certainly, in training, it's something to which one should aspire, but when you're busting ass, Brooks Kubik and Andy Bolton both agree- GET THE ****ING WEIGHT OFF THE GROUND, AND **** YOUR LOWER BACK. McRobert and his *****-ass lower back can go **** themselves.

If you found this article offensive, feel free to go **** yourself. You probably lack the mental acuity to understand the points I've made, the courage to anally rape yourself, or the strength to take yourself by force, but I still wholeheartedly encourage you to **** yourself good and hard. Just be careful to make it an abbreviated session, as you wouldn't want to overtrain.

Jamie Lewis is a professional ******* who maintains the wildly popular strength training and nutrition blog "ChAoS and PAIN" at chaosandpain.blogspot.com whenever he's not at the gym throwing around massive weights or standing in the mall mocking the mentally and physically deficient.


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

i asked paul kelso what stuart looks like..

not getting what i meant he said dark wavy hair medium height and build lol..

obviously the author of that diatribe (well beyond worthy of what i come up with) doesnt train naturally and has the lower back of a rhino.

conversely theres obviously something up with me as i can barely train 3x a week and recover.

can a 45 year old man train as often as a young stud of 21??? and get the same results???

without going over old ground cos as andy c is always saying, ive dealt with that and moving on.. stuey has only amalgamated training styles and info from the pre steroid area and aims his book at natural trainers, he doesnt claim to be the author of a faddy new train style.

i wasnt and arent a hardgainer.. righto.. so i dotn know my own mind and ive no clue about my own training and how much i have to fight for every 1/4lb of muscle, just the same as someone has to fight to lose a 1/4lb of fat if theyre opposite to me..

i have put a label on myself but i dont ***** and whinge about it and say poor me.. you get on with it and lift more weight or just religeously get your arse out there and do your cardio..

whther you doing gear or not focussing on fat loss or whatever.. the one constant you need is consistency..

thats the bottom line and altho brawn drills that home in every chapter, thats the kind of gold that no one wants to hear..

anyhoo works for me and so far albeit with tweaking has worked with everyone ive helped train so far..


----------



## Hougenie (Oct 5, 2012)

Parky said:


> This sums it up
> 
> 10 Reasons Stuart McRobert can go **** himself....
> 
> ...


----------



## crazycal1 (Sep 21, 2005)

Hougenie said:


> Parky said:
> 
> 
> > This sums it up
> ...


----------



## AChappell (Jun 1, 2011)

Hougenie said:


> Parky said:
> 
> 
> > This sums it up
> ...


----------



## AChappell (Jun 1, 2011)

TheCrazyCal said:


> Hougenie said:
> 
> 
> > lots of dudes come here asking to get theyre diet tweaked, which is then tweaked by the diet guys..
> ...


----------



## Tom84 (Dec 12, 2005)

No I'm not a hard gainer - it's a totally useless non defined term and just an excuse. Probably the worst limiting belief in bodybuilding. And yes you're mistaken I have said I'm not bothered (implies I'm not that interested in the outcome) rather than I don't bother (which implies I don't train them). If I was bothered I'd train them twice a week and they'd catch the rest of my legs up in no time.

Having genetic variations doesn't imply anything like being a hard gainer. A disproportionate spread of muscle doesn't imply all muscle is hard to gain. My point is that the term is not defined and is framed in the negative. Explain physiologically what a hard gainer is? An ectomorph? Why not call it - a guy who can't put on fat? Why not frame it in the positive?

Anyway dude with the best will in the world you haven't posted a single fact and I'm bored. I'll reply if someone actually posts something useful


----------

