# why do people ignore that the ONLY way to get bigger naturally is my gaining strength



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

so many people delude themselves into thinking their 'killer' workouts with 40 sets are going to make them bigger, even if they dont get stronger over time

i got sum bad newz...










11:41


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

I do lots of sets.....I've got bigger.


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

you can do 40 reps at 50kg, then go up to 40 reps at 60kg over time... you must have gained strength and or muscle mass... and done high volume at the same time?


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Hmmm sounds familiar :tt2: But WTF does Dorian know!

Hes Fkn king in my book. :thumb:


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

You're missing the point. Granted, if you get stronger over time, that'll ensure you keep getting bigger. Doesn't mean we should all be doing strength-based training though. Some people respond better to low reps, some higher. Some low volume, some high. The idea is to find what works and apply progressive overload over time.

I've seen you say on these forums before, somerhing along the lines of, we'll all get bigger if we get stronger, and low reps build strength. However, as stated by Dorian in the very video you referenced, and I quote at 12:10:

"If your workout poundages are getting stronger, within the rep range that builds muscle, i.e. 6-12 reps, you're gonna get bigger."


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

I do pyramid sets, but I train for strength, I'm not a bodybuilder. Having said that, if you can do 15 reps of 40kg a hand on dumbbell bench press, you're going to be bigger than if you can only do 15 reps of 30kg per hand.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> so many people delude themselves into thinking their 'killer' workouts with 40 sets are going to make them bigger, even if they dont get stronger over time
> 
> i got sum bad newz...


I get bigger and can lift fvck all mate


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

saxondale said:


> I get bigger and can lift fvck all mate


10 sets of 3 MacDonalds , twice a week? Assistance KFC for hypertrophy? Maybe a little icecream as a cool down set?


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

Its different for everyone.I have found recently that hitting max and trying to stay there for as many reps as possible is working for strength and aesthetics.


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

gearchange said:


> Its different for everyone.I have found recently that hitting max and trying to stay there for as many reps as possible is working for strength and aesthetics.


Not sure what you mean by this. Can you give an example?


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

> You're missing the point. Granted, if you get stronger over time, that'll ensure you keep getting bigger. Doesn't mean we should all be doing strength-based training though. Some people respond better to low reps, some higher. Some low volume, some high. The idea is to find what works and apply progressive overload over time.
> 
> I've seen you say on these forums before, somerhing along the lines of, we'll all get bigger if we get stronger, and low reps build strength. However, as stated by Dorian in the very video you referenced, and I quote at 12:10:
> 
> "If your workout poundages are getting stronger, within the rep range that builds muscle, i.e. 6-12 reps, you're gonna get bigger."


all routines are strength based

what routine doesnt try to get you stronger?

btw all rep ranges build muscle apart from the extremes (1RM and doing 50+reps per set), if you progressively ovearload


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

EpicSquats said:


> I do pyramid sets, but I train for strength, I'm not a bodybuilder. Having said that, *if you can do 15 reps of 40kg a hand on dumbbell bench press, you're going to be bigger than if you can only do 15 reps of 30kg per hand*.


its as simple as that, yet people actually believe the bull**** they read in these muscle mags and from broscientists...


----------



## tiny76 (Apr 27, 2010)

If the stronger you get the bigger you get why isn't the worlds strongest man the most muscular person on the planet. It's not all about how much weight you lift it's about how you tax that specific muscle group.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

WSM Has thing like technique body size and weight which all come into play. Its the final tonight. Now on Chanel 5

I bet its a great big bloke that wins it. lol :laugh:


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

tiny76 said:


> If the stronger you get the bigger you get why isn't the worlds strongest man the most muscular person on the planet. It's not all about how much weight you lift it's about how you tax that specific muscle group.


most bodybuilders are able to gain muscle even in caloric deficits because of the **** load of drugs they use

when you bring drugs into the mix, a lot changes


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

tiny76 said:


> If the stronger you get the bigger you get why isn't the worlds strongest man the most muscular person on the planet. It's not all about how much weight you lift it's about how you tax that specific muscle group.


Those strong men are always big as fvck though. In general it's true, the stronger you get the bigger you get. But technique also comes into it. A champion olympic weightlifter will have much better technique at clean and jerk than an amateur and will be able to lift more weight because of that as well as being strong.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

> WSM Has thing like technique body size and weight which all come into play. Its the final tonight. Now on Chanel 5
> 
> I bet its a great big bloke that wins it. lol :laugh:





EpicSquats said:


> Those strong men are always big as fvck though. In general it's true, the stronger you get the bigger you get. But technique also comes into it. A champion olympic weightlifter will have much better technique at clean and jerk than an amateur and will be able to lift more weight because of that as well as being strong.


Beat you to it LOL, very true all the same.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

An increase in the amount of weight you can lift, does not mean an increase in strength, in every case.

It just means a more synchronous recruitment of Motor Nerve Fibres.


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

Natty Steve said:


> Beat you to it LOL' date=' very true all the same.[/quote']
> 
> Beat you next time bro, lol.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> all routines are strength based
> 
> what routine doesnt try to get you stronger?
> 
> btw all rep ranges build muscle apart from the extremes (1RM and doing 50+reps per set), if you progressively ovearload


Granted, but there's a huge difference between using strength gains as a progressive overload tool to continue getting bigger, and training purely for strength or powerlifting. The whole 'just train to get stronger and you'll get bigger regardless' doesn't apply in the real world. We're all built differently, with different biomechanics and physiology, and we all respond to different things on varying levels. Anyone with a good amount of experience will tell you that, whereas a study done on untrained individuals that inevitably produces skewed and inconsistent results might tell you otherwise.


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

latblaster said:


> An increase in the amount of weight you can lift, does not mean an increase in strength, in every case.
> 
> It just means a more synchronous recruitment of Motor Nerve Fibres.


the **** did i just read?

so lifting heavier weights doesnt mean your getting stronger anymore?


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)




----------



## bartonz20let (Aug 13, 2010)

Straighthate said:


> the **** did i just read?
> 
> so lifting heavier weights doesnt mean your getting stronger anymore?


Above your comprehension??


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

I said:


> Granted' date=' but there's a huge difference between using strength gains as a progressive overload tool to continue getting bigger, and training purely for strength or powerlifting. The whole 'just train to get stronger and you'll get bigger regardless' doesn't apply in the real world. We're all built differently, with different biomechanics and physiology, and we all respond to different things on varying levels. Anyone with a good amount of experience will tell you that, whereas a study done on untrained individuals that inevitably produces skewed and inconsistent results might tell you otherwise.[/quote']
> 
> Sorry fella I disagree with your post.
> 
> Take joe soap for example, Joe does not train. His body has adapted to the everyday workload that Joe does. He then starts to lift moderate weights which puts his entire system under stress. Jo's body will adapt to the extra workload. There will be an increase muscle size to adapt.


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

I said:


> Granted' date=' but there's a huge difference between using strength gains as a progressive overload tool to continue getting bigger, and training purely for strength or powerlifting. The whole 'just train to get stronger and you'll get bigger regardless' doesn't apply in the real world. We're all built differently, with different biomechanics and physiology, and we all respond to different things on varying levels. Anyone with a good amount of experience will tell you that, whereas a study done on untrained individuals that inevitably produces skewed and inconsistent results might tell you otherwise.[/quote']
> 
> bio-mechanis do not play a role in hypetrophy, they only play a role in leverages
> 
> ...


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Has to be sustained & increasing load to lead to more....never mind, just read this:

Underlying Mechanisms and Physiology of Muscular Power : Strength & Conditioning Journal


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

> Sorry fella I disagree with your post.
> 
> Take joe soap for example, Joe does not train. His body has adapted to the everyday workload that Joe does. He then starts to lift moderate weights which puts his entire system under stress. Jo's body will adapt to the extra workload. There will be an increase muscle size to adapt.


There are several pathways to getting stronger. Neural factors and improved CNS firing are two that can occur without any gain in muscuar size. We shouldn't overlook the fact that most beginners will respond to pretty much anything in the first 6 months, after that though you have to start experimenting. Lost count of the amount of times I've seen someone say they've fixed a lagging bodypart by going through months of trial and error, trying different rep ranges or exercises, before they finally found something that works. If it was as simple as 'hit the entire body with compound movements, get stronger and everything will grow' then everybody would be perfectly proportioned with no lagging areas. That, of course, is very rare in reality.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> bio-mechanis do not play a role in hypetrophy, they only play a role in leverages
> 
> there isnt a single pro bodybuilder who doesnt try to get stronger as pointed out by the 2 examples in my OP
> 
> ronnie coleman stressed the importance of strength (he did powerlifting) 'everybody wanna be a bodybuilder, aint nobody wanna lift this heavy ass weight'


I feel like I've been round the same fúcking roundabout about 100 times :lol: Nobody is disputing the fact that you have to lift increasingly heavier weights, i.e. progressive overload, over time if you wish to continue getting bigger. As I've said though, getting stronger is only one component of getting bigger. See my other posts for full details.

Biomechanics have everything to do with hypertrophy. It's exactly why some people, like Dorian, may not build quad mass from squats and have had to settle for alternative movements, such as the leg press. As Dorian has stated, he could squat a lot of weight after a few years, but his quads were lagging. Everybody is shaped differently and so a movement for one person won't hit the muscle in the same way as it will for another person.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

EpicSquats said:


> 10 sets of 3 MacDonalds , twice a week? Assistance KFC for hypertrophy? Maybe a little icecream as a cool down set?


you know it


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

> Sorry fella I disagree with your post.
> 
> Take joe soap for example, Joe does not train. His body has adapted to the everyday workload that Joe does. He then starts to lift moderate weights which puts his entire system under stress. Jo's body will adapt to the extra workload. There will be an increase muscle size to adapt.


 @harrison180 get in here, you lift heavy objects daily for work - you should be the biggest dude on the forum then


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> ronnie coleman stressed the importance of strength (he did powerlifting) 'everybody wanna be a bodybuilder, aint nobody wanna lift this heavy ass weight'


I think you took that out of context - he meant putting the work in.


----------



## harrison180 (Aug 6, 2013)

saxondale said:


> @harrison180 get in here, you lift heavy objects daily for work - you should be the biggest dude on the forum then


I dunno about this. Can't make an opinion of it. I lift heavy furniture all day and got used to it but I've been on jobs with guys who go to the gym and are bigger than me and I can out do them carrying stuff. It's a weird one


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> the **** did i just read?
> 
> so lifting heavier weights doesnt mean your getting stronger anymore?


I'm pretty sure what he meant was, getting stronger doesn't mean the gains were of muscular strength, and could instead have been down to neorological adaption. When this is the case, the muscle has no reason to adapt by getting bigger. However, if you find an approach that best breaks down the target muscle and forces it to repair and grow when provided with adequate nutrition, and you combine that with increases in weight over time to force the body as a whole to keep adapting - yep, that's how you get big.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

saxondale said:


> @harrison180 get in here, you lift heavy objects daily for work - you should be the biggest dude on the forum then


Watchin WSM. They lift heavy as fk things for a living. They are all as big as fk .......! I rest my heavy case!!


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

> Watchin WSM. They lift heavy as fk things for a living. They are all as big as fk .......! I rest my heavy case!!


there big because they eat a lot of food and train all day, every day. My mate Morris was 20 stone, ie also big as fvck and weak as a baby, used to have to use two hands to lift his pint pot


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

saxondale said:


> there big because they eat a lot of food and train all day, every day. My mate Morris was 20 stone, ie also big as fvck and weak as a baby, used to have to use two hands to lift his pint pot


Ah they train! Lift heavy things..... There's a pattern starting to emerge here. Just cos ya big don't mean your strong. you could just be a big fatty....

A big muscle is a strong muscle. LOL :thumb:


----------



## NoGutsNoGloryy (Jan 7, 2013)

This thread is stupid. Obviously picking up something heavy... whether it's 1 rep or going to failure, you're still going to gain strength, this goes for both ends of the rep range. As long as you actually push yourself, then you'll gain weight/strength.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

> Ah they train! Lift heavy things..... There's a pattern starting to emerge here. Just cos ya big don't mean your strong. you could just be a big fatty....
> 
> A big muscle is a strong muscle. LOL :thumb:


see, just took us two to explain to everyone - big is not always strong, big is not always muscle.

some world class strongmen look good, all competing BB`ers look better.

AAS user will on average lift more, look bigger and be better defined than nattys


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

saxondale said:


> see, just took us two to explain to everyone - big is not always strong, big is not always muscle.
> 
> some world class strongmen look good, all competing BB`ers look better.
> 
> AAS user will on average lift more, look bigger and be better defined than nattys


Lol yeah takes some explaining....

As for who looks better depends on any one individuals taste/perspective so its subjective.

AAs users who know what they are doing I agree. However I don't think this is on average, there is a lot of people using who think its a magic drug which will transform them in a short space of time. Again its down to the individual.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Muscles dont know weight they only know intensity.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

banzi said:


> Muscles dont know weight they only know intensity.


Care to expand on this?


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

saxondale said:


> I think you took that out of context - he meant putting the work in.


No he said that after deadlifting 800 pounds and squatting 800 pounds


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

> Care to expand on this?


Your muscle responds to the amount of stress and intense effort you put on it, it doesn't recognise a 40lb dumbell as opposed to a 60lb dumbell.

If you stress a muscle it will grow regardless of the amount of weight.


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

You could lift lighter weights,do more reps with drop sets and paused sets. Slow the reps down etc. You don't need to lift big weights to get bigger. Time under tension.


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

banzi said:


> Your muscle responds to the amount of stress and intense effort you put on it, it doesn't recognise a 40lb dumbell as opposed to a 60lb dumbell.
> 
> If you stress a muscle it will grow regardless of the amount of weight.



View attachment 163673


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

Newperson said:


> View attachment 163673


It's true.


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

FelonE said:


> It's true.


How big you gonna get doing that?


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

Newperson said:


> How big you gonna get doing that?


How long is a piece of string? You're not getting it. You have to stress the muscle which you can do by lifting heavy weights, or by doing lighter weights for more reps etc. Either way you're working the muscle but using different techniques. The biggest person in the gym isn't necessarily the strongest.


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

FelonE said:


> How long is a piece of string? You're not getting it. You have to stress the muscle which you can do by lifting heavy weights, or by doing lighter weights for more reps etc. Either way you're working the muscle but using different techniques. The biggest person in the gym isn't necessarily the strongest.


Ronnie Coleman, dorian Yates, Arnold Schwarzenegger, all could have gotten the size they were using 40lbs Dumbbells?


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

banzi said:


> Your muscle responds to the amount of stress and intense effort you put on it, it doesn't recognise a 40lb dumbell as opposed to a 60lb dumbell.
> 
> If you stress a muscle it will grow regardless of the amount of weight.


Very well put. which will put more stress on a muscle, 40lb or 60lb doing the same amount of strict reps?

I agree there are different ways/methods of hitting the muscle, however the fundamentals remain the same.....


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

banzi said:


> Your muscle responds to the amount of stress and intense effort you put on it, it doesn't recognise a 40lb dumbell as opposed to a 60lb dumbell.
> 
> If you stress a muscle it will grow regardless of the amount of weight.


So using your logic you could use a pair of 1kg dumbbells for bench press, and as long as you stress the muscle, you'll get stronger.


----------



## bail (Mar 19, 2010)

Ive never seen Jay Cutler lift more than 3 plates

Guy at my gym (Ian wadleys cousin) in his 40s he's huge

Never seen him bench more than a plate aside

Steve Avery (also British champ in pretty much every cat)

Trains light

Intensity is not defined by poundage lifted, nor is progress

One can incease volume if strength plateaus vis versa also

And I'm strong on my lifts bench 140 x 20, 220 for couple

Squats 240 etc (pre hernia) and I say it's not only way to increase muscle mass


----------



## IronJohnDoe (Oct 17, 2013)

Straighthate said:


> so many people delude themselves into thinking their 'killer' workouts with 40 sets are going to make them bigger, even if they dont get stronger over time
> 
> i got sum bad newz...


I got 3 words for you:

German Volume Training.


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

Newperson said:


> Ronnie Coleman, dorian Yates, Arnold Schwarzenegger, all could have gotten the size they were using 40lbs Dumbbells?


Obviously not. Strength progresses with light weight high reps etc too.

Edit. They could of if they were progressing on reps etc.


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

A lot of people seem to be stuck in the the thinking that you have to lift heavy to gain.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

This is why marathon runners are soooo freakin big. :confused1: catabolic vs anabolic......

Come on gents these are the basics.....


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

FelonE said:


> A lot of people seem to be stuck in the the thinking that you have to lift heavy to gain.


There's more than one way to skin a cat. In bodybuilding there are lots of different techniques to build muscle.

But the one that has stood the test of time is a stronger muscle will be a bigger muscle.


----------



## Smoog (Dec 29, 2012)

I do sort of in-between light and heavy and I've not had many problems gaining really. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Can't believe I just f*cking said that lol.


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

Newperson said:


> There's more than one way to skin a cat. In bodybuilding there are lots of different techniques to build muscle.
> 
> But the one that has stood the test of time is a stronger muscle will be a bigger muscle.


Yes and you could get there doing a few heavy sets or alot of lighter sets. Total muscle stress could be the same. So if for example you do 3 sets of bench at 100kg, and 6 sets of 50kg. Has your muscle not lifted the same weight?


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

FelonE said:


> Yes and you could get there doing a few heavy sets or alot of lighter sets. Total muscle stress could be the same. So if for example you do 3 sets of bench at 100kg, and 6 sets of 50kg. Has your muscle not lifted the same weight?


In that case 15 sets of 40kg will yield the same result?

This will build huge pecs?


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

Newperson said:


> In that case 15 sets of 40kg will yield the same result?
> 
> This will build huge pecs?


Yes if the intensity is there.


----------



## dann19900 (Dec 29, 2012)

agree with felone and banzi(fuk). All tut otherwise nobody would do drop sets or rest pause. Lifting far less total weight than if you did a standard 4-5 sets but generally grow just aswell on average.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Newperson said:


> In that case 15 sets of 40kg will yield the same result?
> 
> This will build huge pecs?


Granted, 15 sets of one exercise is beyond the line and pointless. But programs like German Volume Training work for a reason - you'd be using around 50% of your 1RM, but you'd be doing 10 sets of 10 with that weight which is a huge stress to the muscle. It's a method of building muscle that has been tried and proven over decades by serious athletes. Obviously, doing something like 15 sets of 12 on one exercise with a sets-straight-across approach would mean using about 30% of your 1RM, which would be more metabolically demanding than actually stressing the muscle enough for it to grow. However, you can use lighter weights than a lot of people realise, and as long as you keep applying the progressive overload principle in a sensible way (e.g. strength and rep/weight increases) then it can be a long term strategy.

Most of the time I personally like to train low volume with heavyish weights in most cases. However, I know for a fact that this is not the only way to train, an indeed I enjoy a bit of pump-training like German Volume Training and I do gain from it. Just gets on my tits how you see far too many people saying "this/that wouldn't work, there is only one real approach" in regards to various aspects of bodybuilding, be it training or steroid use. How do they know? Because they actually tested it, or because that's what they've read/heard? You can bet your bollocks it's the latter. Every successful bodybuilder of the past has had their own way of doing things and brought something new to the table. Not saying we should all go to the gym and start trying every single approach in search of the magic routine of course, but far too many people are afraid to try something different it seems.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

dann19900 said:


> agree with felone and banzi(fuk). All tut otherwise nobody would do drop sets or rest pause. Lifting far less total weight than if you did a standard 4-5 sets but generally grow just aswell on average.


Yup, in my current training I've experimented with 2 straight worksets vs 1 workset + a dropset. The 1 set + dropset works inherently better for me without question, despite the weight drop and no change in reps, only a much shorter rest period thus requiring a much lighter weight. The muscle gets its growth stimulus and I've trained to absolute failure which will trigger a strength adaption, so it's therefore a very efficient method.


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

> Granted, 15 sets of one exercise is beyond the line and pointless. But programs like German Volume Training work for a reason - you'd be using around 50% of your 1RM, but you'd be doing 10 sets of 10 with that weight which is a huge stress to the muscle. It's a method of building muscle that has been tried and proven over decades by serious athletes. Obviously, doing something like 15 sets of 12 on one exercise with a sets-straight-across approach would mean using about 30% of your 1RM, which would be more metabolically demanding than actually stressing the muscle enough for it to grow. However, you can use lighter weights than a lot of people realise, and as long as you keep applying the progressive overload principle in a sensible way (e.g. strength and rep/weight increases) then it can be a long term strategy.
> 
> Most of the time I personally like to train low volume with heavyish weights in most cases. However, I know for a fact that this is not the only way to train, an indeed I enjoy a bit of pump-training like German Volume Training and I do gain from it. Just gets on my tits how you see far too many people saying "this/that wouldn't work, there is only one real approach" in regards to various aspects of bodybuilding, be it training or steroid use. How do they know? Because they actually tested it, or because that's what they've read/heard? You can bet your bollocks it's the latter. Every successful bodybuilder of the past has had their own way of doing things and brought something new to the table. Not saying we should all go to the gym and start trying every single approach in search of the magic routine of course, but far too many people are afraid to try something different it seems.


I agree GVT and other programs and techniques can also build muscle but getting stronger and lifting heavier weights is essential to growing huge muscle mass. I would also say steroids change things too. There's no way a natty would grow big just using intensity techniques.

Ifbb pro martin kjellstrom trained at my gym, he's form is absolutely disgusting, worse than some noobs, but he used huge weights and he's one of the biggest pro's around. I do not believe for a second that he could have got to the size he is using 60kg, 100kg etc, on the bench press, squat etc.

To get to that size you have to move big weights


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Newperson said:


> I agree GVT and other programs and techniques can also build muscle but getting stronger and lifting heavier weights is essential to growing huge muscle mass. I would also say steroids change things too. There's no way a natty would grow big just using intensity techniques.
> 
> Ifbb pro martin kjellstrom trained at my gym, he's form is absolutely disgusting, worse than some noobs, but he used huge weights and he's one of the biggest pro's around. I do not believe for a second that he could have got to the size he is using 60kg, 100kg etc, on the bench press, squat etc.
> 
> To get to that size you have to move big weights


I think you're misunderstanding what people are getting at here mate. Nobody is disputing the fact that you have to apply progressive overload - e.g. getting stronger - over time in order to keep growing. But increasing the loading paramaters of your workouts over time to force the body to keep adapting is only one component to growth. You need a growth stimulus to create growth, and progressive overload/increasingly larger loading parameters to keep growing. Now, some people's effective growth stimulus might be sets of triples for example, whereas others will need to go lighter to create the stimulus they need. Whatever method works, as long as the growth stimulus is created and the load is increased over time then you will keep gaining.


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

Everything you've just said is what I'm trying to get across.

What I don't agree with what's been said....Muscles dont know weight they only know intensity.....Your muscle responds to the amount of stress and intense effort you put on it, it doesn't recognise a 40lb dumbell as opposed to a 60lb dumbell.

If you stress a muscle it will grow regardless of the amount of weight.

If that were the case couldnt I just stick to 10kg Dumbbells and add a extra rep every workout in order to get a 60 inch chest?


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

Newperson said:


> If that were the case couldnt I just stick to 10kg Dumbbells and add a extra rep every workout in order to get a 60 inch chest?


I already said pretty much the same thing and got no reply. Of course weight does make a difference.


----------



## DaveW3000 (Mar 25, 2013)




----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Newperson said:


> No he said that after deadlifting 800 pounds and squatting 800 pounds


and he meant they`re not prepared to put the work in, its a phrase he uses often.


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

DaveW3000 said:


>


What he said in the top video is what I said. 3 x10 at 100kg and 6x5 at 50kg will produce very similar results,because you've lifted the same amount of weight.

The second video is good,saying if you do low reps/heavy and medium reps/medium weight the results will be similar but if you go too light and say for example do a 30 rep set the weight would be so light that the first however many reps wouldn't be effective because the muscle wouldn't be worked yet.

So basically as long as you don't go too light you can do lighter weight/higher reps or heavy weight less reps and results will basically be the same.

Job done lol.


----------



## sneeky_dave (Apr 2, 2013)

FelonE said:


> What he said in the top video is what I said. 3 x10 at 100kg and 6x5 at 50kg will produce very similar results,because you've lifted the same amount of weight.
> 
> The second video is good,saying if you do low reps/heavy and medium reps/medium weight the results will be similar but if you go too light and say for example do a 30 rep set the weight would be so light that the first however many reps wouldn't be effective because the muscle wouldn't be worked yet.
> 
> ...


The weights you mention aren't the same mate....... 3000kg and 1500kg


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

sneeky_dave said:


> The weights you mention aren't the same mate....... 3000kg and 1500kg


You get what I mean though. Couldn't be ****d to actually work out the actual numbers lol


----------



## ah24 (Jun 25, 2006)

I think most on here actually miss probably one of the biggest factors..

What do you ENJOY and what do you BELIEVE works?

This whole intensity Vs volume debate has been and will go on for ages. More recently, studies seem to lean toward volume as the biggest key in hypertrophy. But, then anecdotally you can look at Dorian et al.

At the end of the day BOTH systems will work. In an ideal world, you'd incorporate BOTH - through properly structured periodisation.

However, if you really enjoy lifting heavy sh1t and hate training with endless sets..... what do you think you're going to give your all to? The training you love or training you're told to do?

This clicked with me, when I had one of my colleagues put me through some fancy high volume training using spread sheets, recording loads used, % of this and that etc. On paper, all the science was there - and it was working well for him too as well as his clients.

However, when I started it I just didn't look forward to my sessions. They became boring but I felt I 'had' to do it as this is what the research was pointing toward.

Results weren't great..

As soon as I went back to what I enjoy doing - moderate volume and low-moderate reps - my training sessions were 10x more productive as I was enjoying it so putting more effort in!

The same applied to him, he truly believe in volume work and loves being in the gym for 1-2hours - so when he trained, he put his all into those sessions.... and guess what? He grew too..

Essentially what I'm trying to put across is that, in my opinion:

1) Both systems work via different mechanisms

2) In an ideal world and if everything was 'optimal' you'd plan your training in such a way that you get a bit of both (think DUP / PHAT training or block periodisation)

3) Failing the above, go for what YOU think works and what you enjoy... I'd rather you train with 100% intensity with a sub-optimal training system, than half-ass your workouts with a system that you're told to do


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

sneeky_dave said:


> The weights you mention aren't the same mate....... 3000kg and 1500kg


3x10 at 100kg

6x10 at 50kg for example


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

saxondale said:


> and he meant they`re not prepared to put the work in, its a phrase he uses often.


Ronnie Coleman Works Legs PART 2 2013 - YouTube


----------



## ah24 (Jun 25, 2006)

I think most on here actually miss probably one of the biggest factors..

What do you ENJOY and what do you BELIEVE works?

This whole intensity Vs volume debate has been and will go on for ages. More recently, studies seem to lean toward volume as the biggest key in hypertrophy. But, then anecdotally you can look at Dorian et al.

At the end of the day BOTH systems will work. In an ideal world, you'd incorporate BOTH - through properly structured periodisation.

However, if you really enjoy lifting heavy sh1t and hate training with endless sets..... what do you think you're going to give your all to? The training you love or training you're told to do?

This clicked with me, when I had one of my colleagues put me through some fancy high volume training using spread sheets, recording loads used, % of this and that etc. On paper, all the science was there - and it was working well for him too as well as his clients.

However, when I started it I just didn't look forward to my sessions. They became boring but I felt I 'had' to do it as this is what the research was pointing toward.

Results weren't great..

As soon as I went back to what I enjoy doing - moderate volume and low-moderate reps - my training sessions were 10x more productive as I was enjoying it so putting more effort in!

The same applied to him, he truly believe in volume work and loves being in the gym for 1-2hours - so when he trained, he put his all into those sessions.... and guess what? He grew too..

Essentially what I'm trying to put across is that, in my opinion:

1) Both systems work via different mechanisms

2) In an ideal world and if everything was 'optimal' you'd plan your training in such a way that you get a bit of both (think DUP / PHAT training or block periodisation)

3) Failing the above, go for what YOU think works and what you enjoy... I'd rather you train with 100% intensity with a sub-optimal training system, than half-ass your workouts with a system that you're told to do


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

most people dont know how to make a muscle fail with out adding weight, so ofc its the simplest way to get there. but if you didnt go up in weight and stuck at 10 reps of 100kg on bench, it eventually got easy, you add a drop set and you fail, the muscle will adapt and grow to compensate and do what it needs to. after the drop set becomes easy you could add another drop set and fail, same thing will happen.

strength is a far to generic term and you cant really argue over it since it covers nearly everything, from 1 reps, to 50 reps, more muscle fiber means more muscular endurance too as there is more to work with meaning longer "failure" times on lighter weights.

if your a pure strength trainer, try some HIIT training with weights and you'll find the same effort and failure ina different way


----------



## Lean&amp;Mean&amp;Clean (May 9, 2008)

another variable that should be made constant is the time under tension, meaning how many seconds it takes you to do the negative,hold the contraction and the positive side of the movement. You can use the same weight,but if you lift it slower it becomes more taxing to the muscle and you really feel the burn and the way it is working.

I do agree with progressive overload though. Still seems kinda confusing to me though,unfortunately my lifts have gone down lately..


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

DaveW3000 said:


>


repped for actually posting a video made by a scientist instead of spewing broscience bull****


----------



## gearchange (Mar 19, 2010)

EpicSquats said:


> Not sure what you mean by this. Can you give an example?


I have been pyramiding up to 180k 1rm. But recently I have just warmed up and gone straight to 160k an done all my sets there ,It has made me so much stronger. I will be trying for 200k in the new year.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Newperson said:


> Everything you've just said is what I'm trying to get across.
> 
> What I don't agree with what's been said....Muscles dont know weight they only know intensity.....Your muscle responds to the amount of stress and intense effort you put on it, it doesn't recognise a 40lb dumbell as opposed to a 60lb dumbell.
> 
> ...


I think maybe you misunderstand what they're saying. What you said there is all correct, but I assume they were talking in terms of, 8 reps to failure is 8 reps to failure. So if you benched with 100kg, using leverage with your hips and legs, and you trained 8 reps to failure; OR, you knocked down the weight to about 90kg, used no extra leverage, just isolating the target muscles as much as possible and focussing on using your pecs to move the weight, and you failed at 8 reps. The weight in the second scenario was lighter, but you can bet your bollocks your chest will grow better. I think that's what they were getting at. But yeah, I believe we've established that once you go beyond a certain amount of reps or sets it becomes more about muscular endurance, and the amount of trauma caused to the muscle isn't significant enough to force it to grow - it'd be silly to argue otherwise. You're not gonna put any mass on with those little pink dumbbells in the corner when you're strong enough to work with 40s.

My approach under my regular training regime is to attempt to increase how many reps to failure I can perform at a given weight as the weeks go by, then when the reps get too high, increase the weight and start over. Though this is a secondary goal, and muscle stimulation is the priority, always. The progressive overload is merely a tool to ensure continued growth, as I'm certain is the case with many bodybuilders worldwide :thumbup1:


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

I said:


> I think maybe you misunderstand what they're saying. What you said there is all correct' date=' but I assume they were talking in terms of, 8 reps to failure is 8 reps to failure. So if you benched with 100kg, using leverage with your hips and legs, and you trained 8 reps to failure; OR, you knocked down the weight to about 90kg, used no extra leverage, just isolating the target muscles as much as possible and focussing on using your pecs to move the weight, and you failed at 8 reps. The weight in the second scenario was lighter, but you can bet your bollocks your chest will grow better. I [i']think that's what they were getting at. But yeah, I believe we've established that once you go beyond a certain amount of reps or sets it becomes more about muscular endurance, and the amount of trauma caused to the muscle isn't significant enough to force it to grow - it'd be silly to argue otherwise. You're not gonna put any mass on with those little pink dumbbells in the corner when you're strong enough to work with 40s.
> 
> My approach under my regular training regime is to attempt to increase how many reps to failure I can perform at a given weight as the weeks go by, then when the reps get too high, increase the weight and start over. Though this is a secondary goal, and muscle stimulation is the priority, always. The progressive overload is merely a tool to ensure continued growth, as I'm certain is the case with many bodybuilders worldwide :thumbup1:


Likewise, I could say using the 100KG with powerlifting form could induce better growth, because your using a heavier weight. Using a lighter weight will not necessarily make your chest grow better, just because you can 'focus' better, doesnt mean you are putting greater stress on your muscles. Either way, as long as you are getting stronger (adding weight, or reps until you max out your rep range) you will get bigger, with proper form.

I think people get way too caught up in the bull**** 'theories' made by idiots who think they know about how the body works. Scientists spend years studying this **** and they still dont have it figured out, so why on earth meatheads think they have got **** figured out is beyond me. I would go as far as saying bodybuilding is one of few endeavours where the profesionals know very little about what they are doing. Most pro bodybuilders train like idiots, retarded form (benching with protracted shoulders, half rep squats). Just take a look at Branch Warren training. The guy struggles to bench 315 despite being juiced to the gills, and has been injured a bunch of times. Injures are far more common in bodybuilding than in powerlifting, despite the fact that powerlifters always train heavier.

Powerlifters are living proof that progressive overload is all you need, they train at the opposite end of the spectrum (low reps) compared to bodybuilders, yet carry pretty much the same muscle mass.

The upperhand that bodybuilders have is more symmetry and leaness which creates the illusion that they have more muscle than powerlifters, along with a **** load of site enhancement and other drugs.

Dan Green looks like a bodybuilder, yet he doesnt train like one at all. This nullifies your argument about lighter weights being better.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> Likewise, I could say using the 100KG with powerlifting form could induce better growth, because your using a heavier weight. Using a lighter weight will not necessarily make your chest grow better, just because you can 'focus' better, doesnt mean you are putting greater stress on your muscles. Either way, as long as you are getting stronger (adding weight, or reps until you max out your rep range) you will get bigger, with proper form.
> 
> I think people get way too caught up in the bull**** 'theories' made by idiots who think they know about how the body works. Scientists spend years studying this **** and they still dont have it figured out, so why on earth meatheads think they have got **** figured out is beyond me. I would go as far as saying bodybuilding is one of few endeavours where the profesionals know very little about what they are doing. Most pro bodybuilders train like idiots, retarded form (benching with protracted shoulders, half rep squats). Just take a look at Branch Warren training. The guy struggles to bench 315 despite being juiced to the gills, and has been injured a bunch of times. Injures are far more common in bodybuilding than in powerlifting, despite the fact that powerlifters always train heavier.
> 
> ...


He is the exception to the rule

Most powerlifters and weightlifters have way less developed muscle than bodybuilders.


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> Likewise, I could say using the 100KG with powerlifting form could induce better growth, because your using a heavier weight. Using a lighter weight will not necessarily make your chest grow better, just because you can 'focus' better, doesnt mean you are putting greater stress on your muscles. Either way, as long as you are getting stronger (adding weight, or reps until you max out your rep range) you will get bigger, with proper form.
> 
> I think people get way too caught up in the bull**** 'theories' made by idiots who think they know about how the body works. Scientists spend years studying this **** and they still dont have it figured out, so why on earth meatheads think they have got **** figured out is beyond me. I would go as far as saying bodybuilding is one of few endeavours where the profesionals know very little about what they are doing. Most pro bodybuilders train like idiots, retarded form (benching with protracted shoulders, half rep squats). Just take a look at Branch Warren training. The guy struggles to bench 315 despite being juiced to the gills, and has been injured a bunch of times. Injures are far more common in bodybuilding than in powerlifting, despite the fact that powerlifters always train heavier.
> 
> ...


thats a guy who clearly cars what he looks like thought and has put in the effort to stay lean, its like 1 in 100 or sumint in the PL world. compared to nearly 100% of BB. if i trained for PL with the intention of staying lean like him then i;d get bigger and look lean like him, but id just be stronger in certain lifts. if i trained like a BB and and did the same with diet and goals, id still end up looking like him


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

banzi said:


> He is the exception to the rule
> 
> Most powerlifters and weightlifters have way less developed muscle than bodybuilders.


No they dont, they have less symmetry and more bodyfat, this creates the illusion that they have less mass.

For the record, Jason Blaha has almost the same FFMI as Serge Nubret, yet he look like **** compared to Nubret.





































Dave Tate weighs almost as much as Arnold in his prime here. He looks smaller because his insertions suck.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> No they dont, they have less symmetry and more bodyfat, this creates the illusion that they have less mass.
> 
> *For the record, Jason Blaha has almost the same FFMI as Serge Nubret, yet he look like **** compared to Nubret.*
> 
> ...


FFS just because Jason Blaha says something doesnt make it true. 

You have picked a selection of muscular powerlifters.

I will wager all those guys do volume in their routines, Im not going to waste my time posting pictures of loads of poorly muscled fat powerlifters, there are many to choose from you can find yourself.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> Likewise, I could say using the 100KG with powerlifting form could induce better growth, because your using a heavier weight. *Using a lighter weight will not necessarily make your chest grow better, just because you can 'focus' better, doesnt mean you are putting greater stress on your muscles*. Either way, as long as you are getting stronger (adding weight, or reps until you max out your rep range) you will get bigger, with proper form.
> 
> I think people get way too caught up in the bull**** 'theories' made by idiots who think they know about how the body works. Scientists spend years studying this **** and they still dont have it figured out, so why on earth meatheads think they have got **** figured out is beyond me. I would go as far as saying bodybuilding is one of few endeavours where the profesionals know very little about what they are doing. Most pro bodybuilders train like idiots, retarded form (benching with protracted shoulders, half rep squats). Just take a look at Branch Warren training. The guy struggles to bench 315 despite being juiced to the gills, and has been injured a bunch of times. Injures are far more common in bodybuilding than in powerlifting, despite the fact that powerlifters always train heavier.
> 
> ...


That makes no sense whatsoever. Simply going heavier and moving as much weight as you can suing leverage, means that you're taking a lot of stress OFF of the chest, not putting more on it. Bodybuilders tend to try and eliminate the use of other assisting muscles as much as possible, which calls for a lower weight but means that the target muscle is put under a lot more stress. Common sense really.

Exactly, nobody has figured out everything and never will, too many variables. However, bodybuilders have been using the principles of maximising muscle stress and focussing on muscle stimulation as opposed to simply shifting as much weight as possible, for decades. The knowledge has been passed down from generation to generation, and it is still passed down because it clearly works. You can't put up a video and an image of two bodybuilders (Nasser and Dorian) to quote them (if slightly out of context as well), yet when people remind you that they both prioritised maximum muscle stimulation over anything else you decide that you want to disagree with them all of a sudden. They either know what they're talking about or they don't, which is it? Those "meat heads" will always be bigger, in better conditioned and better proportioned than a powerlifter of the same height and strength levels, and there's a good reason for that.

Granted, it'd be silly to suggest that if you can bench 200+ kilos then there's the possibility that you'll look like a twig - just because there's a lesser amount of stimulation in the pecs, shoulders and arms when using leverage, doesn't mean there isn't any at all. But the lesser amount means that a powerlifter will take a lot longer to gain the same muscularity that a bodybuilder would. Most powerlifters are miles stronger than even the biggest bodybuilders, yet the bodybuilders are just as big or bigger, think that's point proven right there. And let's not bring drugs into it, powerlifters are on all sorts.

Dan Green definitely puts some focus on bodybuilding, that's common knowledge I thought. Sure, he's predominantly a powerlifter, but you'd be a fool to say he doesn't follow any kind of bodybuilding philosophies.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> For the record, Jason Blaha has almost the same FFMI as Serge Nubret, yet he look like **** compared to Nubret.


Ahhh, I see, you're one of those... Blaha followers  No wonder nothing you say makes any sense :lol: Jason SAYS that, but...



















...something doesn't quite seem right. I'd get Blaha to try recalculating that.


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

I said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever. Simply going heavier and moving as much weight as you can suing leverage' date=' means that you're taking a lot of stress OFF of the chest, not putting more on it. [b']Bodybuilders tend to try and eliminate the use of other assisting muscles as much as possible, which calls for a lower weight but means that the target muscle is put under a lot more stress. Common sense really.
> 
> Exactly, nobody has figured out everything and never will, too many variables. However, bodybuilders have been using the principles of maximising muscle stress and focussing on muscle stimulation as opposed to simply shifting as much weight as possible, for decades. The knowledge has been passed down from generation to generation, and it is still passed down because it clearly works. You can't put up a video and an image of two bodybuilders (Nasser and Dorian) to quote them (if slightly out of context as well), yet when people remind you that they both prioritised maximum muscle stimulation over anything else you decide that you want to disagree with them all of a sudden. They either know what they're talking about or they don't, which is it? Those "meat heads" will always be bigger, in better conditioned and better proportioned than a powerlifter of the same height and strength levels, and there's a good reason for that.
> 
> ...


That is wrong, the human body is made to work in a synergistic fashion. Ever wondered why your meant to squeeze the bar as hard as you can whether you are benching or curling?

There is a splashover effect that makes the target and stabiliser muscles contract harder when you do this.

All you have to do is take a look at every single Mr. Oly in history. All of their training centres around big heavy compounds and getting as strong as possible, whether its Ronnie, Dorian or Arnold. When you watch videos of them doing these compounds, they dont 'eliminate the use of other assiting muscles'. The whole point of a compound lift is to stimulate as many muscle groups as possible, not just one muscle grup. By your logic the way they perform these compound exercises are inferior for muscle growth, as there is less direct 'emphasis' on the specific muscle groups. This is wrong though, as the examples I have provided support this. Do you think Ronnie got that big by focusing on the 'squeeze' and doing lighter weights?


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

The videos matey put up have already explained it, even citing tests that prove it. How are people still arguing it?


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

> Ahhh, I see, you're one of those... Blaha followers  No wonder nothing you say makes any sense :lol: Jason SAYS that, but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Old picture of Blaha.

His current FFMI is around 25, Serge's is 25.6.

1:30, both people have similiar FFMI readings, yet Serge's insertions and the drugs hes on makes him look far bigger.






Frank Zane is around 190lbs here. Does this not prove to you how much drugs and genetics make you look bigger than you are?


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> That is wrong, the human body is made to work in a synergistic fashion. Ever wondered why your meant to squeeze the bar as hard as you can whether you are benching or curling?
> 
> There is a splashover effect that makes the target and stabiliser muscles contract harder when you do this.
> 
> All you have to do is take a look at every single Mr. Oly in history. All of their training centres around big heavy compounds and getting as strong as possible, whether its Ronnie, *Dorian* or Arnold. When you watch videos of them doing these compounds, *they dont 'eliminate the use of other assiting muscles'*. The whole point of a compound lift is to stimulate as many muscle groups as possible, not just one muscle grup. By your logic the way they perform these compound exercises are inferior for muscle growth, as there is less direct 'emphasis' on the specific muscle groups. This is wrong though, as the examples I have provided support this. Do you think Ronnie got that big by focusing on the 'squeeze' and doing lighter weights?


That's it. I'm done here. Dorian is possibly THE biggest advocate ever of isolating the target muscle as much as possible, even on compound movements. I've been following Dorian's training philosophies very closely for over a year now. I've watched every video he's made, read everything he's ever written, read every interview of his I can find. I know his ideas on things as well as anyone - and these ideas include lowering the weight to focus more on stimulation of the target muscle; pre-fatiguing certain muscles, which would mean significantly lowering the weight on the following compound movements, which should by your logic mean less muscle stimulation but he believes there would be maximum amounts; or using the movements that best build muscle, whether it be a compound, isolation or machine exercise. Granted, compounds work a number of muscle groups, so provide a base of muscularity. Most of them also work on a plane that the target muscle was supposed to work on, so therefore would allow the muscle to contract efficiently and build muscle. But, involving as many muscles as possible in the bench press somehow sends some kind of message to the chest that it needs to get bigger??? I just... how even... But, yeah, as I said, I'll leave you to it. I've repeated myself so many times in this thread, and frankly the notion that you're using Dorian yates to back up your points, when I know for a fact that if he was in this thread now he'd disagree with every single thing you've said... making me scratch my head :laugh: Have fun with your powerlifting mate :thumb:

P.S - An article for you here, written by Dorian Yates himself, about benching and chest training. In the article he mentions that it's *not* all about how much weight you can move at all; how the flat bench press is a staple powerlifting exercise, but isn't best for bodybuilders because *it involves other muscles too much*; and how his chest routine involves only one freeweight compound exercise. This all is in agreement with everything I've said. I'm of course not saying that isolations are better than compounds or that compounds have no use, that'd be ridiculous - I use several compounds such as bench variants, squats, OHP variants, chins and deadlift variants, but I also use isolations because they're effective.

Dorian Yates' Expert Advice on Building a Huge Chest | FLEX Online

Oh, and also - you also mentioned Arnold in your point that you should train to move as much weight as possible and use compound exercises. Arnold had one of the most well-developed chests of all time, and you know what exercise he attributed to that? Dumbbell flyes, an isolation movement. Don't believe me, go read Education of a Bodybuilder :thumbup1: He did flyes, concentrating on getting a good stretch at the bottom of the movement, and a quality contraction, as he believed that THAT is what builds muscle, not just shifting as much weight as you can on the biggest compound you can find.

"Remember, bodybuilding is supposed to be about quality, not quantity. If you concentrate on quality in your training, the quantity will soon follow." -Dorian Yates


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

> That's it. I'm done here. Dorian is possibly THE biggest advocate ever of isolating the target muscle as much as possible, even on compound movements. I've been following Dorian's training philosophies very closely for over a year now. I've watched every video he's made, read everything he's ever written, read every interview of his I can find. I know his ideas on things as well as anyone - and these ideas include lowering the weight to focus more on stimulation of the target muscle; pre-fatiguing certain muscles, which would mean significantly lowering the weight on the following compound movements, which should by your logic mean less muscle stimulation but he believes there would be maximum amounts; or using the movements that best build muscle, whether it be a compound, isolation or machine exercise. Granted, compounds work a number of muscle groups, so provide a base of muscularity. Most of them also work on a plane that the target muscle was supposed to work on, so therefore would allow the muscle to contract efficiently and build muscle. But, involving as many muscles as possible in the bench press somehow sends some kind of message to the chest that it needs to get bigger??? I just... how even... But, yeah, as I said, I'll leave you to it. I've repeated myself so many times in this thread, and frankly the notion that you're using Dorian yates to back up your points, when I know for a fact that if he was in this thread now he'd disagree with every single thing you've said... making me scratch my head :laugh: Have fun with your powerlifting mate :thumb:
> 
> P.S - An article for you here, written by Dorian Yates himself, about benching and chest training. In the article he mentions that it's *not* all about how much weight you can move at all; how the flat bench press is a staple powerlifting exercise, but isn't best for bodybuilders because *it involves other muscles too much*; and how his chest routine involves only one freeweight compound exercise. This all is in agreement with everything I've said. I'm of course not saying that isolations are better than compounds or that compounds have no use, that'd be ridiculous - I use several compounds such as bench variants, squats, OHP variants, chins and deadlift variants, but I also use isolations because they're effective.
> 
> ...


I said their training centered around heavy compounds with the addition of isolation exercises. If you have watched Blood & Guts you would know every bodypart workout had a heavy compound exercise followed by a few isolations. Why would you do a compound lift, but try to remove the use of additional muscles other than the one you are targeting? That makes no sense, otherwise they would only ever do isolations if they wanted to get huge muscles.

If you could only bench press or do dumbbell flys, im pretty sure the person who only bench presses would have a bigger chest. Alas, you would be a fool to do only compounds or only isolations. They are both tools in the box. Isolations are for bringing up lagging bodyparts, if the compounds are not working for them as well as other muscles are.

I dont think anyone built a huge body with just isolations.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> I said their training centered around heavy compounds with the addition of isolation exercises. If you have watched Blood & Guts you would know every bodypart workout had a heavy compound exercise followed by a few isolations. Why would you do a compound lift, but try to remove the use of additional muscles other than the one you are targeting? That makes no sense, otherwise they would only ever do isolations if they wanted to get huge muscles.
> 
> If you could only bench press or do dumbbell flys, im pretty sure the person who only bench presses would have a bigger chest. Alas, you would be a fool to do only compounds or only isolations. They are both tools in the box. Isolations are for bringing up lagging bodyparts, if the compounds are not working for them as well as other muscles are.
> 
> I dont think anyone built a huge body with just isolations.


I really wasn't going to reply to you again, but anyone reading the above would get the wrong idea about what Dorian teaches, so I must correct you. Yes, of COURSE I've seen Blood & Guts, and I'm assuming you're talking about the video guides rather than the original training videos from his Olympia days... aaand once again, you cited a source that contradicts what you're saying, several times 

Go watch the series again.

In the back training video, he does pullovers - an isolation - FIRST. Why? Because this fatigues the back, putting the biceps in a stronger position, meaning they have less involvement in the following compound movements, meaning more lat isolation during the compound movements. He also says in the same video, whilst explaining the deadlift, that he doesn't go all the way down to the floor with the weight, because the bottom part of the ift is all quads and glutes, which is a different day - this is back day, not leg day or bicep day, and that's why you try and isolate the target muscle as much as possible, as well as to maintain maximum stress on it as I've already said. If you're using other muscles to HELP the back muscles, how is that putting more stress on them? I don't see why it's such a hard concept to understand...

Similar scenario during the leg day - he does leg extensions before anything else, for the same reasons as above, to limit involvement of other muscles during the following exercises, which would mean lowering the weight significantly on them. He also goes on to do nothing but machine exercises for quads. So there goes your theory that he'd use a compound exercise for every muscle if he could only pick one. He's also said before that if he could only choose one lat exercise, it'd be machine pullovers, btw.

In the chest video, when Kris asks him why he does no pre-fatigue exercises for the chest, he says because they all also use the front delts so wouldn't help him to isolate his chest in the later pressing movements. Again, another example that there is a definite effort to isolate the target muscle as much as possible, even during compound movements. They're picked because of the plane of movement is effective for building muscle, NOT because they also use other muscles. As I've already said, I'm not pushing aside compound movements in any shape or form, I use several of them and they work. But as I just said, a bodybuilder picks a movement because it works the target muscle effectively, not because it uses more muscles or because it allows you to shift the most weight. If you were training a full body routine, then yes, obviously you'd be looking to choose all the biggest bang-for-buck exercises. But on a split routine, everything changes.

I could go on and on with examples here, but I think I've said enough to rest my case.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Newperson said:


> Ronnie Coleman Works Legs PART 2 2013 - YouTube


and what? not watched the video, dont need to - it`s a phrase he uses regularly, I remember seeing him say it while stood in his kitchen cooking his chicken - and we know you wouldnt be saying his chicken is 800lbs.

would you?


----------



## DaveW3000 (Mar 25, 2013)

FelonE said:


> The videos matey put up have already explained it, even citing tests that prove it. How are people still arguing it?


lol cheers bud :thumb: Still interesting to see how the thread plays out.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

FFMI?

whats that stand for guys?


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

DaveW3000 said:


> lol cheers bud :thumb: Still interesting to see how the thread plays out.


Probably end in some hair pulling and smudged make up lol


----------



## DaveW3000 (Mar 25, 2013)

saxondale said:


> FFMI?
> 
> whats that stand for guys?


fat free mass index


----------



## DaveW3000 (Mar 25, 2013)

FelonE said:


> Probably end in some hair pulling and smudged make up lol


Hope so! lol


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

DaveW3000 said:


> fat free mass index


cheers - is that like a guesstimate figure then?


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

> I really wasn't going to reply to you again, but anyone reading the above would get the wrong idea about what Dorian teaches, so I must correct you. Yes, of COURSE I've seen Blood & Guts, and I'm assuming you're talking about the video guides rather than the original training videos from his Olympia days... aaand once again, you cited a source that contradicts what you're saying, several times
> 
> Go watch the series again.
> 
> ...


Doesnt make sense. Pullovers put very little stress on the biceps, if anything that means they are able to work better on other exercises, which would help him left more weight and take stress off his lats by your logic. This contradicts your argument that he his trying to fatigue his biceps to reduce their involvement in other lifts.

He does stiff-legged deadlifts if i remember rightly, which are your lower back and lats. There is no need to do the bottom half of the lift for him on back day.

He does hack squats, which are a compound lift, do you not understand the definition of a compound lift? There goes your argument about him not doing a compound exercise for leg day...


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

saxondale said:


> FFMI?
> 
> whats that stand for guys?


fat free mass index


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

saxondale said:


> cheers - is that like a guesstimate figure then?


if they are guessing their measurements yes, if they measure them properly, no

Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic st... - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> if they are guessing their measurements yes, if they measure them properly, no


at the risk of starting something - I assume its mass minus body fat?


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

saxondale said:


> and what? not watched the video, dont need to - it`s a phrase he uses regularly, I remember seeing him say it while stood in his kitchen cooking his chicken - and we know you wouldnt be saying his chicken is 800lbs.
> 
> Everybody wanna be a bodybuilder but ain't nobody wanna eat No heavy ass chicken?
> 
> would you?


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> Doesnt make sense. Pullovers put very little stress on the biceps, if anything that means they are able to work better on other exercises, which would help him left more weight and take stress off his lats by your logic. This contradicts your argument that he his trying to fatigue his biceps to reduce their involvement in other lifts.
> 
> He does stiff-legged deadlifts if i remember rightly, which are your lower back and lats. There is no need to do the bottom half of the lift for him on back day.
> 
> He does hack squats, which are a compound lift, do you not understand the definition of a compound lift? There goes your argument about him not doing a compound exercise for leg day...


still legs are for lower and lats. mate you have no clue about training. and a hack is a isolated squat


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

Basically my best tip for workouts is muscle confusion.

When I hit the rack I try to make as much noise as possible, knocking the weights together, kicking my water bottle, anything that will confuse my muscles.

The next thing I do is grunt and scream as I'm lifting, this creates brain confusion and in turn creates muscle confusion.


----------



## bartonz20let (Aug 13, 2010)

I work with a boxer who has just turned pro, his fight weight is 9st, I'd be apprehensive to call him weak tbh.

Strength, power and size are not necessarily linked in a linear fashion imo.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Newperson said:


> Everybody wanna be a bodybuilder but ain't nobody wanna eat No heavy ass chicken?


thats him - lol


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

Boshlop said:


> still legs are for lower and lats. mate you have no clue about training. and a hack is a isolated squat


Lats lol


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

Dorian going light.....! LOL :laugh:


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> Doesnt make sense. Pullovers put very little stress on the biceps, if anything that means they are able to work better on other exercises, which would help him left more weight and take stress off his lats by your logic. This contradicts your argument that he his trying to fatigue his biceps to reduce their involvement in other lifts.
> 
> He does stiff-legged deadlifts if i remember rightly, which are your lower back and lats. There is no need to do the bottom half of the lift for him on back day.
> 
> He does hack squats, which are a compound lift, do you not understand the definition of a compound lift? There goes your argument about him not doing a compound exercise for leg day...


No, no and no.

Where TF did I say that he's trying to fatigue his biceps??? I said that he's trying to fatigue the lats and involve the biceps as minimally as possible, the complete opposite of what you suggested I said. Correct, lat pullovers put no stress on the biceps whatsoever. This means, that when you go on to do other lifts that involve the biceps, the lats have been weakened, thus meaning that the lats will fail before the biceps and therefore have been worked to their maximum capacity for that exercise. Pre-fatiguing is a simple and generally well understood concept, though with your Blaha-powerlifting-is-all-that-matters mindstate I'm not too surprised you weren't aware, although if you've supposedly watched some Dorian Yates videos then this concept should have been familiar to you as he explains it in several videos 

Yup, he does stiff-legged deadlifts on LEG day. Stiff legged deadlifts are predominantly a hamstring exercise if done correctly. The lower back and glutes are also involved, the lats minimally but not much at all. And again here, we have another example of pre-fatiguing - he does his leg curls before he does SLDLs, in order to weaken the hamstrings so that they become the weak link in the chain on the SLDLs and they're subsequently taken to failure.

Well, not really. There are three main categories - compounds, isolations, and machines. The piece of equipment is called a hack squat *machine*. It is not a freeweight exercise, so it doesn't fall under the compound category. It's a machine exercise. You could of course say that it's a compound-machine exercise since more than one joint is involved, but could you ever consider it a true compound exercise? Absolutely not, it's a fixed ROM machine.

Anyways, I'm bored of this debate now. All you seem to be doing is misunderstanding what everyone's saying to you, and despite being corrected on everything you've said by several people, with evidence, you just won't admit when you're wrong. So I won't waste my time anymore trying to change your mind any more. What I will say is this - I'm not sure of your goals, but if they're bodybuilding oriented, I seriously recommend opening your mind a bit mate. I very rarely have a full on debate with people on forums, but your ignorance compelled me to reply. Go and watch Dorian's videos a lot more closely. Listen carefully to what he's saying. It seems that you've got his entire philosophy on training completely wrong in every sense. As I said, I've been following his methods for over a year now, applying them all to my training and they've been working tremendously. I'm as familiar with them all as it's possible to be and I'm more than happy to discuss them with people obviously. In fact, there must be quite a few people on here aware that I'm such a big DY enthusiast because I've had numerous discussions, on the boards or via PM, with people looking to get into HIT and asking me all sorts of questions about it. Dorian could hire me as a deputy HIT consultant and I think I'd do a damn good job :lol: But I hate to have to correct someone on so many misconceptions that they have about DY's philosophies, particularly when you keep misinterpreting what I've said, pretty much like you've misinterpreted everything Dorian has said :laugh: So yeah, that's all I can say to you mate, do yourself a favour and **** Blaha and his ignorant, unfounded ideas off out of it and follow guys like Dorian who have actually been there, got all sorts of accolades, built one of the greatest physiques of all time and obviously have a tonne of knowledge. Just don't completely misunderstand what's being said like you obviously have been so far


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

> Dorian going light.....! LOL :laugh:


Nobody said Dorian messes about with light weights, at all mate. He chucks up some pretty mental poundages, as you should be doing after several years of HIT. However, I said he does things that would cause him to use lesser weights than what he could handle otherwise, such as pre-fatiguing or tweaks to form that make it more strict and/or muscle focussed rather than simply getting the weight up.


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

> No, no and no.
> 
> Where TF did I say that he's trying to fatigue his biceps??? I said that he's trying to fatigue the lats and involve the biceps as minimally as possible, the complete opposite of what you suggested I said. Correct, lat pullovers put no stress on the biceps whatsoever. This means, that when you go on to do other lifts that involve the biceps, the lats have been weakened, thus meaning that the lats will fail before the biceps and therefore have been worked to their maximum capacity for that exercise. Pre-fatiguing is a simple and generally well understood concept, though with your Blaha-powerlifting-is-all-that-matters mindstate I'm not too surprised you weren't aware, although if you've supposedly watched some Dorian Yates videos then this concept should have been familiar to you as he explains it in several videos
> 
> ...


Romanian deadlifts are a hamstring and glute exercise

stiff legged deadlifts are for your back ffs

hack squats are a compound, they are a multi joint movement

i cant believe im arguing with somebody who doesnt even understand the functions of basic exercises, or understands proper terminology

you may be an armchair 'expert' on Dorians training, but that doesnt mean your an authority on what works best for the general populus. The guy was a genetic freak, you cant use his training style to justify his results. His training was not revolutionary otherwise every pro bodybuilder today would be using his training protocols but they dont do they? He did HIT for a few months at the most, then went back to volume and repeated the cycle. He built his original Mr Olympia winning body off of volume training anyway. There is nothing special about the training of Mr Olympias, they can grow off anything as shown by the wide range of training styles.

If you have watched the Bostin loyd vids, where he goes into detail about drug stacks, and the sheer volume of PED's needed for a national level bodybuilder, let alone a Mr Olympia, you would know that training is least important compared to drugs and genetics. Its 'chemical warfare' as he stated.


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> Romanian deadlifts are a hamstring and glute exercise
> 
> stiff legged deadlifts are for your back ffs
> 
> ...


a stiff leg dead lift again is not back, if its on your back your doing it wrong. a extension is the only real direct target for your lower back.

and a hack squat again is a isolation on the quads by shifting the center of gravity behind you and removing the ability to use the back and gluts to help.

when i do a pec fly more than just my shoulder joint moves, is that a compound exercise because of that?


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

Boshlop said:


> a stiff leg dead lift again is not back, if its on your back your doing it wrong. a extension is the only real direct target for your lower back.
> 
> and a hack squat again is a isolation on the quads by shifting the center of gravity behind you and removing the ability to use the back and gluts to help.
> 
> when i do a pec fly more than just my shoulder joint moves, is that a compound exercise because of that?


stiff legged deadlifts are for your back, there is lumbar extension and the legs are locked.

hack squats are a compound, i cant believe your arguing that hack squats completely prevent your glutes from working. Its impossible to incapacitate the glutes when there is thigh extension, as the very role of the glutes is to facilitate hip extension, which is what happens in a hack squat.

no, your splitting hairs, a pec fly is not a compound, the bending of the arm is minimal and is necessary to perform the lift without injuring yourself.

by your logic, the pec fly would be a pec and bicep exercise...


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> stiff legged deadlifts are for your back, there is lumbar extension and the legs are locked.
> 
> hack squats are a compound, i cant believe your arguing that hack squats completely prevent your glutes from working. Its impossible to incapacitate the glutes when there is thigh extension
> 
> ...


i would love to see you do any form of dead or squat, cos if your back is moving enough to get extension during the exercise your gonna **** yourself up. your lower back straightens your spine, you glutes are the main muscle that straighten you from the hips.

well there si thigh extension on a leg extension?

and flies arent isolation either?!


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

Boshlop said:


> i would love to see you do any form of dead or squat, cos if your back is moving enough to get extension during the exercise your gonna **** yourself up. your lower back straightens your spine, you glutes are the main muscle that straighten you from the hips.
> 
> well there si thigh extension on a leg extension?
> 
> and flies arent isolation either?!


your meant to extend your lumbar in the deadlift and squat, try doing heavy deadlifts with a rounded lower back (lumbar flexion) and get back to me...

there is no thigh extension in the leg extension as your thighs are locked in place, there is only knee extension


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> your meant to extend your lumbar in the deadlift and squat, try doing heavy deadlifts with a rounded lower back (lumbar flexion) and get back to me...
> 
> there is no thigh extension in the leg extension as your thighs are locked in place, there is only knee extension


you extend it and LOCK it, it doesnt move, it supports your body, if it doesnt move it cant be targeted directly.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Boshlop said:


> i would love to see you do any form of dead or squat, cos if your back is moving enough to get extension during the exercise your gonna **** yourself up. your lower back straightens your spine, you glutes are the main muscle that straighten you from the hips.
> 
> well there si thigh extension on a leg extension?
> 
> and flies arent isolation either?!


You're wasting your time on him mate. I think he's an elaborate troll tbh. Either that, or a genuine idiot. One minute trying to cite Dorian Yates to backup everything he's saying, then when I've corrected him on everything and he realises that he was completely wrong, he says that Dorian's training ideas are irrelevant anyway. He also seems to have a complete lack of ability to correctly process/understand information :laugh:


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

I said:


> You're wasting your time on him mate. I think he's an elaborate troll tbh. Either that' date=' or a genuine idiot. One minute trying to cite Dorian Yates to backup everything he's saying, then when I've corrected him on everything and he realises that he was completely wrong, he says that Dorian's training ideas are irrelevant anyway. He also seems to have a complete lack of ability to correctly process/understand information :laugh:[/quote']
> 
> i cited him to say that progressive overload (which he stressed in that video) is most important to gaining size, not his training 'philosophy'. He trained to get stronger, same as every other pro bodybuilder. You guys seem to think that all the minutiae such as their exercsise selection and pre-fatigueing are what made them huge. No, progressive overload and strength made them huge, along with a ****load of drugs and unqiue genetics.


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

Boshlop said:


> you extend it and LOCK it, it doesnt move, it supports your body, if it doesnt move it cant be targeted directly.


you dont make any sense.

everyone knows the deadlift is an excellent lower back exercise, your spine does move in the deadlift, anyone that tries to argue that your not meant to pull with your back in a deadlift is retarded


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> i cited him to say that progressive overload (which he stressed in that video) is most important to gaining size, not his training 'philosophy'. He trained to get stronger, same as every other pro bodybuilder. You guys seem to think that all the minutiae such as their exercsise selection and pre-fatigueing are what made them huge. No, progressive overload and strength made them huge, along with a ****load of drugs and unqiue genetics.


But nobody ever argued that progressive overload isn't needed to gain :death: You also said that he doesn't do this or that, and everything you said about his ideas was wrong, so I corrected you. Simple as that. I'll tell you now, there's not a single Mr Olympia that didn't focus on the more minute details of bodybuilding. It's all well and good to just focus on compounds, lift heavy (and even then, you still go for more of a "bodybuilding form" rather than just shifting weight) and so on in the early stages, to build a nice base. But after a couple or few years when you really start taking shape, your gains slow down, you start noticing imbalances/disproportions etc, then yes, focus on details starts to become a necessity if you wish to maximise your potential. It seems to me that, based on your ideas, you're still pretty new to training and have yet to have gotten to the stage where you need to switch things up a bit, or indeed probably haven't noticed that certain approaches may or may not work for you in terms of building muscle, because you probably haven't built much where you're so wrapped up in simply upping your numbers.


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> you dont make any sense.
> 
> everyone knows the deadlift is an excellent lower back exercise, your spine does move in the deadlift, anyone that tries to argue that your not meant to pull with your back in a deadlift is retarded


your back doesnt move in the way the back muscle work. it pivots at the hips, which is controlled mainly by the glues and hams, in any DL or squat, the fact it has to work isometrically makes it work, but it isnt a direct lower back exercise, its an assisting muscle.


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

I like Dorian but he should have been a bit clearer on what he was saying. Its not just to do with how many reps/sets you are doing really, its all about progression. maxing out at 15 reps of 20kg and then progressing to 15 x 25kg or 20 x 20kg is still progression.

Doing 6-8 reps or 15-20 reps doesn't make too much difference as long as you are destroying that muscle and getting that pump.


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

Boshlop said:


> your back doesnt move in the way the back muscle work. it pivots at the hips, which is controlled mainly by the glues and hams, in any DL or squat, the fact it has to work isometrically makes it work, but it isnt a direct lower back exercise, its an assisting muscle.


indeed... deadlifts are not good mornings.


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

funkdocta said:


> I like Dorian but he should have been a bit clearer on what he was saying. Its not just to do with how many reps/sets you are doing really, its all about progression. maxing out at 15 reps of 20kg and then progressing to 15 x 25kg or 20 x 20kg is still progression.
> 
> Doing 6-8 reps or 15-20 reps doesn't make too much difference as long as you are destroying that muscle and getting that pump.


i say this to my clients "muscles dont know how to count, so dont obsess with some magical number" great way to explain it if someone doesnt understand reps and sets


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

I said:


> But nobody ever argued that progressive overload isn't needed to gain :death: You also said that he doesn't do this or that' date=' and everything you said about his ideas was wrong, so I corrected you. Simple as that. I'll tell you now, there's not a single Mr Olympia that didn't focus on the more minute details of bodybuilding. It's all well and good to just focus on compounds, lift heavy (and even then, you still go for more of a "bodybuilding form" rather than just shifting weight) and so on in the early stages, to build a nice base. But after a couple or few years when you really start taking shape, your gains slow down, you start noticing imbalances/disproportions etc, then yes, focus on details starts to become a necessity if you wish to maximise your potential. It seems to me that, based on your ideas, you're still pretty new to training and have yet to have gotten to the stage where you need to switch things up a bit, or indeed probably haven't noticed that certain approaches may or may not work for you in terms of building muscle, because you probably haven't built much where you're so wrapped up in simply upping your numbers.[/quote']
> 
> i never said its all about compounds, altough all their training is based off of heavy compounds, with the addition of isolations to bring up lagging bodyparts as necessary. My argument was it was all about progressive overload. Yates even says in the video about progressive overload, same as Ronnie.
> 
> ...


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

Boshlop said:


> your back doesnt move in the way the back muscle work. it pivots at the hips, which is controlled mainly by the glues and hams, in any DL or squat, the fact it has to work isometrically makes it work, but it isnt a direct lower back exercise, its an assisting muscle.


i never said the deadlift was a back exercise, its a compound where the lower back is a secondary muscle group...


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> i never said the deadlift was a back exercise, its a compound where the lower back is a secondary stabiliser...


in ANY DL or squat, this includes, stiff, romanian, standard, goblet. my point was no BB exercise is be targeted at the lower back


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

Boshlop said:


> in ANY DL or squat, this includes, stiff, romanian, standard, goblet. my point was no BB exercise is be targeted at the lower back


what about hyperextensions then...


----------



## Boshlop (Apr 1, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> what about hyperextensions then...


on a HE machine where your legs are locked allowing for actual controlled movement/bending of the spine, then yes, but anything free standing the lower back becomes a support muscle and should be locked and extended

ill edit this, rack pulls, if done properly are more direct to lower back since you dont have the leg power to drive through


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

Fvck me you two still going lol


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

Boshlop said:


> on a HE machine where your legs are locked allowing for actual controlled movement/bending of the spine, then yes, but anything free standing the lower back becomes a support muscle and should be locked and extended


there is stll partial ROM of your back when doing deadlifts, the lower back plays a huge role in deadlifting. deadlfits dont target your lower back as much as hyperextensions, but they still work your lower back pretty damn hard.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> i never said its all about compounds, altough all their training is based off of heavy compounds, with the addition of isolations to bring up lagging bodyparts as necessary. My argument was it was all about progressive overload. Yates even says in the video about progressive overload, same as Ronnie.
> 
> the compounds give them the overall size, the isolations give them symmetry. There is a reason Yates ditched hammer curls and only did 2 calf exercises (seated and standing calf raise) a week, more work was not necessary for those bodyparts.
> 
> isolations were chosen specifically, not just for the sake of doing more work. He still strived to get stronger on these isolations.


Yes, Dorian and Ronnie of course would have both said that progressive overload is important. Every bodybuilder will tell you that, the concept of overload is a very basic bodybuilding principle. However, as I've already said, you're taking what they're saying out of context. NONE of them have ever said that progressive overload is the only thing that matters. FFS I even linked you to an article that Dorian Yates wrote, in which he clearly states that increasing the weight on the bar is only a part of what makes a large physique. You also keep mentioning drugs, which is silly when powerlifters are on all sorts. If more weight = more size, and powerlifters and bodybuilders are both on PEDs, then by your logic the powerlifters should all be considerably larger than the biggest bodybuilders. Not the case, clearly.

Isolations are obviously meant for more than just symmetry. A movement doesn't just stop building muscle just because only one muscle or one joint is involved. Isolations work to hit a muscle that, because of your biomechanics, you might have trouble working effectively with compounds because other muscles are assisting and taking stress off of it. I've said all this already and provided several examples. If isolations were being used purely for symmetry, then all the isolation movements we're doing would be unilateral and only on the smaller side. Someone like Dorian only did a small amount of work on muscles like quads and biceps because they're the smallest muscles and don't need a lot of work, simple as that. And as Dorian has said on several occasions, it's not about whether the exercise is a freeweight or machine exercise, or whether it's an isolation or compound - if it works, then do it. As I've already said with various examples, he's said that there are various machine or isolation exercises he would pick over the big compound movements if he were to choose one exercise per muscle.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

FelonE said:


> Fvck me you two still going lol


Yup, still trying to get him to understand some pretty ****ing simple concepts :lol: but I think I'm wasting my time. I'm gonna start calling him Terminator. Not because he's bad-ass, or big - but because his brain is set to read-only.


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

> Yes, Dorian and Ronnie of course would have both said that progressive overload is important. Every bodybuilder will tell you that, the concept of overload is a very basic bodybuilding principle. However, as I've already said, you're taking what they're saying out of context. NONE of them have ever said that progressive overload is the only thing that matters. FFS I even linked you to an article that Dorian Yates wrote, in which he clearly states that increasing the weight on the bar is only a part of what makes a large physique. You also keep mentioning drugs, which is silly when powerlifters are on all sorts. If more weight = more size, and powerlifters and bodybuilders are both on PEDs, then by your logic the powerlifters should all be considerably larger than the biggest bodybuilders. Not the case, clearly.
> 
> Isolations are obviously meant for more than just symmetry. A movement doesn't just stop building muscle just because only one muscle or one joint is involved. Isolations work to hit a muscle that, because of your biomechanics, you might have trouble working effectively with compounds because other muscles are assisting and taking stress off of it. I've said all this already and provided several examples. If isolations were being used purely for symmetry, then all the isolation movements we're doing would be unilateral and only on the smaller side. Someone like Dorian only did a small amount of work on muscles like quads and biceps because they're the smallest muscles and don't need a lot of work, simple as that. And as Dorian has said on several occasions, it's not about whether the exercise is a freeweight or machine exercise, or whether it's an isolation or compound - if it works, then do it. As I've already said with various examples, he's said that there are various machine or isolation exercises he would pick over the big compound movements if he were to choose one exercise per muscle.


ive already posted photos of massive powerlifters, some as big as arnold in his prime whilst lean (Dave Tate), Dave looked 'fat' when he was powerlifting, but when he got shredded he was the same size as arnold. and even bigger than arnold (eric lilliebridge)

the 'quality' Yates talks about is form, there is no point getting stronger if your form is degrading.

if you think dorians advice applies to the genetically norm, you are deluded.

he was the strongest in his entire prison before he started lifting properly, he is not a scientist, he doesnt know what works for everyone, he only knows what worked best for himself, otherwise Coleman would have been bigger if he did HIT.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> ive already posted photos of massive powerlifters, some as big as arnold in his prime whilst lean (Dave Tate), Dave looked 'fat' when he was powerlifting, but when he got shredded he was the same size as arnold. and even bigger than arnold (eric lilliebridge)
> 
> the 'quality' Yates talks about is form, there is no point getting stronger if your form is degrading.
> 
> ...


And as I've already said, if they're so much stronger than guys like Arnold, and they're on drugs too, then by your logic they should be a lot bigger than him, not just the same size. It's also likely taken them over a decade to get that big, Arnold got that big in about 5 years because he trained under bodybuilding principles after a couple of years of power training.

Exactly - but he's not just talking about making sure you don't injure yourelf, he's talking about making sure that every set works the target muscle maximally. This means limitting the use of assisting muscles in order to stress the target muscle as muchas possible. AGAIN, this is something I've gone over several times, with several practical examples by the man himself.

Same could be said for everyone though. You like to listen to all the bollocks that Blaha talks - not only is he not a scientist, but he's not big either. His ideas by your logic would be useless. Besides, as I said above, if his ideas aren't relevant, then why have you attempted to use them to back up your points so much, and completely failed at it in the process? You can't just pick what things you like the sound of and basically say 'see, Dorian knows what he's talking about' and then later on say that what he says isn't relevant to anyone but him.


----------



## Arnold999 (Sep 8, 2014)

But why weight lifter have less muscle but much stronger than bodybuilder ? I think increasing weight is good way to build muscle but its not the only way there's many other technique to build muscle and the easiest inject 1000 test weekely


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Arnold999 said:


> But why weight lifter have less muscle but much stronger than bodybuilder ? I think increasing weight is good way to build muscle but its not the only way there's many other technique to build muscle and the easiest inject 1000 test weekely


Exactly what I and everyone else have been saying mate, seems to be only one person in here who doesn't get such a simple concept :whistling: If you take two natural lifters of similar genetics - say a couple of identical twins - and have one training under powerlifting principles and the other one training like a bodybuilder. The one training under bodybuilding principles will get bigger at a much quicker rate than the one training like a powerlifter, you can pretty much guarantee that.


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

I said:


> *And as I've already said' date= if they're so much stronger than guys like Arnold, and they're on drugs too, then by your logic they should be a lot bigger than him, not just the same size*. It's also likely taken them over a decade to get that big, Arnold got that big in about 5 years because he trained under bodybuilding principles after a couple of years of power training.
> 
> Exactly - but he's not just talking about making sure you don't injure yourelf, he's talking about making sure that every set works the target muscle maximally. This means limitting the use of assisting muscles in order to stress the target muscle as muchas possible. AGAIN, this is something I've gone over several times, with several practical examples by the man himself.
> 
> Same could be said for everyone though. You like to listen to all the bollocks that Blaha talks - not only is he not a scientist, but he's not big either. His ideas by your logic would be useless. Besides, as I said above, if his ideas aren't relevant, then why have you attempted to use them to back up your points so much, and completely failed at it in the process? You can't just pick what things you like the sound of and basically say 'see, Dorian knows what he's talking about' and then later on say that what he says isn't relevant to anyone but him.


some of them are bigger than arnold, there is only so much muscle the body can hold, even with drugs, this limits their ability to endlessly gain large amounts of mass no matter how strong they get. We are talking about people who are maxing out the potential of the human body, you really think its possible to be able to dwarf someone the size of arnold? Probably not unless they can bench 200KG more than him, but that will never happen. You are not looking at this argument in a rational manor.

arnold started juicing in his teens, and had been lifting for 8 years before he won his first olympia, eric lillliebridge is the world record holder in powerlifting has been training for 11 years, and has more muscle mass than arnold ever had in his prime.

Blaha works and talks with with Phd holders who bodybuild such eric helms etc, and marc lobliner, his advice is mainly objective, its not his opinion, its from bodybuilders who actual do scientific studies.


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

Arnold999 said:


> But why weight lifter have less muscle but much stronger than bodybuilder ? I think increasing weight is good way to build muscle but its not the only way there's many other technique to build muscle and the easiest inject 1000 test weekely


they dont have less muscle than bodybuilders, ive given a load of photos


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

I said:


> Exactly what I and everyone else have been saying mate' date=' seems to be only one person in here who doesn't get such a simple concept :whistling: If you take two natural lifters of similar genetics - say a couple of identical twins - and have one training under powerlifting principles and the other one training like a bodybuilder. The one training under bodybuilding principles will get bigger at a much quicker rate than the one training like a powerlifter, [b']you can pretty much guarantee that.


show me a case of this in the real world, ive provided a load of photos disproving your theory


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> they dont have less muscle than bodybuilders, ive given a load of photos


loads of photos of a select few that look good, have loads of muscle etc but they are the exception to the rule mate, really, seriously, they are the exception.

you have more than enough examples on UK-M to show you it`s the opposite


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> some of them are bigger than arnold, there is only so much muscle the body can hold, even with drugs, this limits their ability to endlessly gain large amounts of mass no matter how strong they get. We are talking about people who are maxing out the potential of the human body, you really think its possible to be able to dwarf someone the size of arnold? Probably not unless they can bench 200KG more than him, but that will never happen. You are not looking at this argument in a rational manor.
> 
> arnold started juicing in his teens, and had been lifting for 8 years before he won his first olympia, eric lillliebridge is the world record holder in powerlifting has been training for 11 years, and has more muscle mass than arnold ever had in his prime.
> 
> Blaha works and talks with with Phd holders eric helms etc, and marc lobliner


I don't see any that are bigger than Arnold. Maybe their legs were a bit bigger or might have had a bit of a thicker back, definitely a bigger waist. But not bigger overall. Eric's legs are definitely bigger than Arnolds, but that's not saying too much when your consider that the difference between a bodybuilding squat and a powerlifting squat is minimal, as well as the fact that Arnold has pretty poor leg genetics. Eric's legs clearly respond well to lower rep training, so he got some really good size. His gut is also way bigger than Arnold's, but his upper body as a whole isn't. Also, the ones that actualy look good are an exception. They respond well to that style of training because it suits their biomechanics. These are rare individuals, and even then it still takes them considerably longer to reach such a size than it would for a bodybuilder.

Yup, might have took 8 years of training for Arnold to win the Olympia, but within 5 years he was almost as big as possible. He famously lost a contest to Frank Zane because he was too big and unconditioned. So he had to spend a few years working on his flaws and getting in a better condition so he could win the Olympia, all the size was pretty much there. He started training at 15 years old, and this is him by the time he was 18:










Juice obviously, but even when powerlifters start using gear it still takes them up to a decade to get that big. If they ever get that kind of muscularity, which as has been said is rare.

Ohhh, so he talks to people with PhDs. So does Dorian, he has a lot of them working for his supplememnt companies for example. That must mean that what he says is applicable all of a sudden then, yeah?


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> show me a case of this in the real world, ive provided a load of photos disproving your theory


See above.


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

> I don't see any that are bigger than Arnold. Maybe their legs were a bit bigger or might have had a bit of a thicker back, definitely a bigger waist. But not bigger overall. Eric's legs are definitely bigger than Arnolds, but that's not saying too much when your consider that the difference between a bodybuilding squat and a powerlifting squat is minimal, as well as the fact that Arnold has pretty poor leg genetics. Eric's legs clearly respond well to lower rep training, so he got some really good size. His gut is also way bigger than Arnold's, but his upper body as a whole isn't.
> 
> Yup, might have took 8 years of training for Arnold to win the Olympia, but within 5 years he was almost as big as possible. He famously lost a contest to Frank Zane because he was too big and unconditioned. So he had to spend a few years working on his flaws and getting in a better condition so he could win the Olympia, all the size was pretty much there. He started training at 15 years old, and this is him by the time he was 18:
> 
> ...


you dont have to have a PhD to work in the supplement industry, it is largely unregulated and there is very little/no research into producing new products.

there is a big difference between a 'bodybuilding squat' (not even sure if there is such thing in the real world) and a powerlifting squat.

what bodybuilders squat low bar? arnold never squatted low bar.

im pretty sure if eric leaned out, he would look bigger than arnold. you are forgetting that being lean creates an illusion of being bigger, considering arnold was always leaner than eric, its no surprise he appears bigger, although in reality he may not be bigger. ive always shown you how much of a difference insertions can make in making you look bigger than you are. check that photo of serge nubret and eric helms, they both have the same stats yet surge looks far bigger

eric has been training for roughly as long as arnold has in his prime here, yet he is the same size at least, if not bigger than arnold










arnold in 1976


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> you dont have to have a PhD to work in the supplement industry, it is largely unregulated and there is very little/no research into producing new products.
> 
> there is a big difference between a 'bodybuilding squat' (not even sure if there is such thing in the real world) and a powerlifting squat.
> 
> ...


mate - your comparing jockeys and rugby players - it`s that different between the two disciplines.

some powerlifters look muscular, all bodybuilder do - it`s that simple


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

saxondale said:


> mate - your comparing jockeys and rugby players - it`s that different between the two disciplines.
> 
> some powerlifters look muscular, all bodybuilder do - it`s that simple


what powerlifter doesnt look muscular?


----------



## PHMG (Jun 15, 2010)

tiny76 said:


> If the stronger you get the bigger you get why isn't the worlds strongest man the most muscular person on the planet. It's not all about how much weight you lift it's about how you tax that specific muscle group.


They probably are, it's just layers of fat over the muscle. Just huge guys but the muscle shape and insertions mean it isn't always pleasing on the eye or view as the idealistic physique.

Take Phil heath. Huge to use. Put him next to a wsm contender in decent shape and they make heath look like us.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> you dont have to have a PhD to work in the supplement industry, it is largely unregulated and there is very little/no research into producing new products.
> 
> there is a big difference between a 'bodybuilding squat' (not even sure if there is such thing in the real world) and a powerlifting squat.
> 
> ...


That guy is at least 40lb over being anything near ripped.

His love handles will be huge.

Bigger than Arnold, struth.

And if you mention Jason Blaha in another post I will troll you off this forum forever.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> what powerlifter doesnt look muscular?


99% of them.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Straighthate said:


> what powerlifter doesnt look muscular?


my mate jamie?

View attachment 163761


or this guy?

View attachment 163762


loads more if you want them


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

banzi said:


> 99% of them.


my god you are a spastic, how is it possible to confude olympic weightlifting with powerlifting?


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> you dont have to have a PhD to work in the supplement industry, it is largely unregulated and there is very little/no research into producing new products.
> 
> there is a big difference between a *'bodybuilding squat' (not even sure if there is such thing in the real world)* and a powerlifting squat.
> 
> ...


Many bodybuilders train hybrid squats. Arnold did for example. It's pretty high bar, but there's a lot of sitting back that still goes on. Bodybuilders take the choice to go with more sitting back because it suits their biomechanics, whereas powerlifters always sit back because it's the done thing. If their biomechanics suit the movement, and they're the sort to respond well to low reps, they'll build big muscles from it.

And as I keep telling you, Arnold reached that size a hell of a lot quicker. So, they'd been training for the same length of time, probably using drugs for the same length of time... yet in that time period, it took Eric all that time to build that kind of mass, whereas it only took Arnold a few years and the rest was spent scuplting and focussing on proportion and symmetry. I rest my case, Arnold got bigger much quicker.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> my god you are a spastic, how is it possible to confude olympic weightlifting with powerlifting?


My bad of course they train totally differently. :whistling:

So you think these guys are fat or are they muscular as powerlifters?


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

banzi said:


> My bad of course they train totally differently. :whistling:
> 
> So you think these guys are fat or are they muscular as powerlifters?


the fact theat you are hinting that oly and powerlifters have similar training styles shows you know nothing about what your talking about


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> the fact theat you are hinting that oly and powerlifters have similar training styles shows you know nothing about what your talking about


I know stiff legged deadlifts dont primarily hit my lats.


----------



## The-Real-Deal (Dec 5, 2014)

People are comparing chalk with cheese in this thread, power-lifters body, builders and even weight lifters ffs...Weight lifting is a rather technical sport. Technique is the greatest asset a weightlifter has. Which he uses to move the weight from A to B. This is done with the leased effort/fuss. I'm not saying they are not strong or don't look muscular. However their bodies adapt to their sport. Momentum is a tool used, ducking under the bar and locking out to allow the big engines (legs) to push the weight up. A lot of these techniques can be used in power-lifting too. Bodybuilding is quite the opposite. In BB we want to work every muscle to its maximum potential including to failure in some cases. The muscle is worked in strict form with a weight which stresses that muscle or muscles to a given rep range. The reason for this is to achieve hypertrophy (a posh word for growth). Once the target rep range is achieved the weight, time under tension or range should be increased to stimulate more growth (progression).

There is one thing which these sports have in common which is, to become bigger and stronger the muscle needs to be stressed with greater force for the muscle to grow. If you use the same weight, with the same rep range, with the same time under tension, same calorific intake, blah blah blah. You *will *stand still, plateau call it what you will.

A big muscle is a strong muscle. Simples....


----------



## SelflessSelfie (May 25, 2014)

Just for a bit of personal experience.

When I was a relative n00b to lifting I lifted in Lower rep ranges and focused on moving as much weight as possible, I grew, until I got injured, injuries that still bother me today.

Now I train a little smarter, controlling the weight through the movement, focusing on the contraction and the stretch of the muscle and using drop sets and super sets to go beyond failure. I'm growing now, and i suffer less aches and pains.

If you actually know how to lift you can take x weight that you get 8 reps from before failure, half that weight and lift in a controlled, slow fashion and still hit failure at 8 reps and arguably hit the target muscle more.

Stop getting hung up on what other people do and develop your own knowledge of what works for you.... Jesus...

Thanks @I'mNotAPervert! I'm going to read up on the Dorian stuff now. You have me interested in the pre exhaustion stuff, going to look into it and incorporate it into my own workouts. Kai Greene uses pre exhaustion too doesn't he?


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

SelflessSelfie said:


> Just for a bit of personal experience.
> 
> When I was a relative n00b to lifting I lifted in Lower rep ranges and focused on moving as much weight as possible, I grew, until I got injured, injuries that still bother me today.
> 
> ...


Exactly mate :thumbup1: I definitely don't use pre-exhaustion as much as Dorian does, though I do like to pre-fatigue my lats occasionally and I'd always pre-fatigue hammies. Can't speak for Kai's training tbh, only seen a few of his videos. But yeah, I think anyone could learn a thing or two from Dorian if they did a bit of reading/watching (and actually took in the info, unlike a certain someone in this thread :whistling: ). If you actually train his style of training, the volume is low so you have to train to balls-to-the-wall failure on all your worksets to make it effective, but after you've watched a few of his videos you'll gather that anyway  I like to use this video to demonstrate what failure means


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

> Exactly mate :thumbup1: I definitely don't use pre-exhaustion as much as Dorian does, though I do like to pre-fatigue my lats occasionally and I'd always pre-fatigue hammies. Can't speak for Kai's training tbh, only seen a few of his videos. But yeah, I think anyone could learn a thing or two from Dorian if they did a bit of reading/watching (and actually took in the info, unlike a certain someone in this thread :whistling: ). If you actually train his style of training, the volume is low so you have to train to balls-to-the-wall failure on all your worksets to make it effective, but after you've watched a few of his videos you'll gather that anyway  I like to use this video to demonstrate what failure means


lol, ive watched all of dorians webcam seminars, blood and guts dvd aswell as the mike mentzer seminars and radio interviews

your an armchair 'expert' on HIT, and it is most certainly not the definitive bodybuilding program you fantasize about

the fact that dorian had several serious injuries does testament to this

you need to stop glorifying the training methods of pro bodybuilders, there is a host of different training methods mr olympias use so it is clear one approach is not superior to others, if HIT is so good, why hasnt any other mr olympia used it since dorian?


----------



## Theo1991 (Dec 19, 2014)

FelonE said:


> I do lots of sets.....I've got bigger.


:laugh: this!


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> lol, ive watched all of dorians webcam seminars, blood and guts dvd aswell as the mike mentzer seminars and radio interviews
> 
> your an armchair 'expert' on HIT, and it is most certainly not the definitive bodybuilding program you fantasize about
> 
> ...


Thought you'd ****ed off mate, zzzzzzz......

Great, so you've watched them.... try turning the volume up next time 

I'm not glorifying anything. It's a good training method, that I've been using for the past year and been getting great gains from (which makes me more than an armchair expert I believe), so naturally I'm gonna recommend it to others. I'm certainly not the only member of this forum to be currently using it and touting its effectiveness. Granted, it's not any better than any other proven method of training, but I've tried several and I've found it to work best for me.

Oh, and if you've really watched his videos, you'd know that all of his injuries occured during his cutting phases, during which he tended to follow different, more traditional methods of training.


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

Boshlop said:


> i say this to my clients "muscles dont know how to count, so dont obsess with some magical number" great way to explain it if someone doesnt understand reps and sets


You don't care for this then?

View attachment 163820


----------



## Straighthate (Dec 22, 2014)

> Thought you'd ****ed off mate, zzzzzzz......
> 
> Great, so you've watched them.... try turning the volume up next time
> 
> ...


he was rowing 405 when he tore his bicep, which is the same weight he uses in the blood and guts video where he is bulking. so its safe to assume he wasnt cutting

as for the tricep injury in 1997: 'it was an injury that could have been prevented if I'd only not stubbornly insisted on continuing *my usual balls-to-the-wall training*'


----------



## WilsonR6 (Feb 14, 2012)

Combination of both all day long

I swap between sets of 8, 10/8/6/4 and sets of 4-6

All I know is your body adapts, so if you never let it adapt logic tells me it'll keep growing provided you eat a surplus

And fuel it with drugs!


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Straighthate said:


> he was rowing 405 when he tore his bicep, which is the same weight he uses in the blood and guts video where he is bulking. so its safe to assume he wasnt cutting
> 
> as for the tricep injury in 1997: 'it was an injury that could have been prevented if I'd only not stubbornly insisted on continuing *my usual balls-to-the-wall training*'


If you're losing strength whilst cutting, especially with the array of drugs that Dorian would have been losing,then you're doing it wrong. So there's no real reason why he would have had to drop his poundages.

Yup, he states that he still trained too hard for a cutting phase, and that's why he got injured. Never said he carried on using HIT though, and in fact he's said otherwise several times.

Here's a video of him in training during his prep for the 1996 Olympia - it's not HIT. He's still training heavy and to failure, but there's none of the one-set-taken-beyond failure type stuff that makes HIT what it is. He's using a more traditional multi-set approach here, no assisted reps or anything at the end of his worksets, just straight sets to positive failure only.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Newperson said:


> You don't care for this then?
> 
> View attachment 163820


You do realise this is taken from a book by a man who sells a 5x5 routine.

Its not backed up by emg or body pod style tracking.


----------



## Newperson (Dec 12, 2014)

simonthepieman said:


> You do realise this is taken from a book by a man who sells a 5x5 routine.
> 
> Its not backed up by emg or body pod style tracking.


Yeah I actually chose the wrong one. Was looking for a russian one, couldn't find it.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

it's also worth bearing in mind it's not a case of strength v volume it's a case of progressive over load v adaption too.

for example someone who has been training an aeon in at 4 x 10 reps, would probably gain more mass by spend a little time switching to 5 x 5 reps. And likewise someone who been gringing out 5 x 5 for marginal strength gains, could gain more strength by switching to 4 x 10 for a period of time.

Lifters are very odd people at time with binary thinking


----------



## Ragingagain (Sep 4, 2010)

Im assuming the op has never come across powerlifters. Lol


----------



## Ragingagain (Sep 4, 2010)

Getting stronger is a good way to get bigger, and that's how I used to do it. But the fact is there are other ways.


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

After training on and off for 17 years theres one thing that I can say with absolute certainty, there is no ONLY way of doing anything in this game.

rather than searching for the one thing that everyone should do, you should be looking for the thing that works for you and being consistent with it.

actually no - I take that back. . . the ONLY way to get bigger is to be consistent with what you do.


----------



## muscular nerd (Jul 10, 2014)

how come i see people who can bench lots of poundage or squat heavy, and yet don't have big chests or thick quads! the heavy loads don't appear to be giving them size at all?! maybe the bodybuilding wisdom of "pump sets" and "8-12" reps for size actually has some merit to it? or maybe it's a consistency issue with these people?


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

muscular nerd said:



> how come i see people who can bench lots of poundage or squat heavy, and yet don't have big chests or thick quads! the heavy loads don't appear to be giving them size at all?! maybe the bodybuilding wisdom of "pump sets" and "8-12" reps for size actually has some merit to it? or maybe it's a consistency issue with these people?


as someone on the net once said (Vic Costa I think) - "it`s called pumping iron for a reason" you need reps and weight, many people fall into the trap of only doing one of them.


----------



## muscular nerd (Jul 10, 2014)

andyboro said:


> After training on and off for 17 years theres one thing that I can say with absolute certainty, there is no ONLY way of doing anything in this game.
> 
> rather than searching for the one thing that everyone should do, you should be looking for the thing that works for you and being consistent with it.
> 
> actually no - I take that back. . . the ONLY way to get bigger is to be consistent with what you do.


well said. all pro bodybuillders train differently and they ARE ALL HUGE! and they all use insane amounts of gear! i think it's best to ignore the lot of it and stop even thinking about "the golden program".


----------



## muscular nerd (Jul 10, 2014)

saxondale said:


> as someone on the net once said (Vic Costa I think) - "it`s called pumping iron for a reason" you need reps and weight, many people fall into the trap of only doing one of them.


this is true. lifting with the ego and not ever focusing on getting quality reps out could be the reason.


----------



## Benchbum (Apr 20, 2011)

muscular nerd said:


> well said. all pro bodybuillders train differently and they ARE ALL HUGE! and they all use insane amounts of gear! i think it's best to ignore the lot of it and stop even thinking about "the golden program".


This


----------



## armor king (Sep 29, 2013)

What iv found from actually doing them doing something very quick like 1 rep snatches dont do anything for size wheres 1 reo bench really does put a lot of size on me


----------



## Jamieson (Jul 11, 2014)

Any progressive weight training programme or method, be it HIT, GMT, Reverse Pyramid or whatever, will work as long as Frequency/vol/Intensity are structured to match the individual's genetic make up, i.e., body structure, exercise tolerance, recovery ability etc.

I use HIT because it works for me and I've never made any real progress when trying higher volume routines. Whether someone uses HIT or not is irrelevant but I do feel most folk would benefit from concentrating on getting stronger in the big lifts as opposed to regularly switching between the latest bro split they've read about in FHM or Phil's latest 'Mr O's chest blast' in Flex. The word 'Stronger' is surprisingly open to interpretation in BB and will mean different things to different people, I view getting stronger as simply lifting more weight or doing more reps with he same weight but in a prescribed rep range of 5-8, not doing singles or 2/3 etc, so maybe the 'concentrate on getting stronger' adage should be caveated with 'in a hypertrophy generating rep range (or TUT if you measure things that way)'.

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth.


----------

