DC Question...

[Tom Treutlein]

DC claims that you have to eat to get big, but also that as long as you increase in strength the size will come - end of story. Right?

So, isn't it possible to eat less calories than he's preaching, make the strength gains, and the size will come with it? I mean, if the rep ranges are in the right area, to disrupt the sacomeres of the muscle tissue then as long as you make strength gains, the muscle will HAVE TO adapt. It can't be the CNS completely in that rep range.

I think eating is important, but not as imperative as some people make it out to be. Example, 7000 calories a day. Not bashing the people who do this, but I just feel it may be unnecessary. Of course, I'm talking for someone who wants, let's say, 16" arms and to be 200 lbs, at maybe 12% BF

What do you guys think though, seriously?

 

[collegiateLifter]

at a certain level you need the extra calories to so that you can sufficently adapt and reach the next level.

BTW DC says that as long you are getting stronger and you don't restrict calories, the size will come....

 

[Bulldog_10]

DC doesn't know shit. And yes, you need to eat excess calories in order to put on weight.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Haha, not a fan of DC? How come, bulldog?

 

[Bulldog_10]

Haha, not a fan of DC? How come, bulldog?

I don't know...we had an argument way back when...and I realized he has no idea what he's talking about. He chooses a couple physiological principles and designs a whole program from them...not taking into account the many other principles he left out.

His ideas sound good in theory, but are seriously deficient in other areas. He reminds me of the companies that put out bullshit supplements. They find a relationship between two things, and exploit the hell out of it...they make the labels sound convinving, but anyone with any kind of scientific background can see right through it.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

I guess I have no scientific background then, haha. What's so bad about his program? What does he leave out, exactly? I ask because I'm honestly curious, too. I was buying into his program, and the people who say they've made results off of it, but I would like to hear what you have to say.

What type of routine would/do you follow? Is it that you're not a low-volume advocate, or you just don't like specific parts about his program?

 

[Bulldog_10]

I guess I have no scientific background then, haha. What's so bad about his program? What does he leave out, exactly? I ask because I'm honestly curious, too. I was buying into his program, and the people who say they've made results off of it, but I would like to hear what you have to say.

What type of routine would/do you follow? Is it that you're not a low-volume advocate, or you just don't like specific parts about his program?

Well he totally disregards the fact that the nervous system plays a huge role in the whole game. I'm definitely an advocate of low-volume training, but I also realize that variation is a key component of any training program.

I periodize my training schedule, start with hypertrophy, which has high volume (8-12 reps per set) and low intensity. Then move onto basic strength, which has high intensity (4-6 reps per set) and moderate/high volume. Then onto strength and power, which has very high intensity (2-3 reps per set) and low volume. Then onto peaking, which has very high intensity (1-3 reps per set) and very low volume.

Then I take a week or two for active recovery and start again.


Using the high intensity that DC advises all the time will take its toll on your body...I can almost guarantee you will overtrain.

I haven't seen DC's program in quite some time, this is just from memory...do you have a link to it? I'd get a good laugh at reading it over again. I last read it before taking about 10 exercise physiology classes and studying for the CSCS exam...so I'm sure I'll be even more skeptical about his theories now.


One thing though bro...don't let me talk you out of trying his program. It might work for some people, and you have to do what you believe in, or you're definitely not gonna make the gains you want. So give it a shot, and if you like it, stick with it. It's just not for me, and I would never suggest doing it, unless someone really wanted to try it.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Well, do you think his recommendations of eating so much food are adequate? I really don't think 2x bodyweight in protein is needed, but I want more opinions on that.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Well, do you think his recommendations of eating so much food are adequate? I really don't think 2x bodyweight in protein is needed, but I want more opinions on that.

What does he say? 2 grams per pound? If so, I agree, that's way too high.

2 grams per kilogram is more than enough (assuming you're not on a cycle).

 

[Tom Treutlein]

So roughly 1 gram per pound, is 2 grams per kilo. Nice, I've been doing that.

What about caloric intake? I usually try to stay 500 above maintenance. I figure my maintenance by multiplying my bodyweight by about 15. I'm fairly sedentary, so I don't think it'd be more than that.

 

[Bulldog_10]

So roughly 1 gram per pound, is 2 grams per kilo. Nice, I've been doing that.

What about caloric intake? I usually try to stay 500 above maintenance. I figure my maintenance by multiplying my bodyweight by about 15. I'm fairly sedentary, so I don't think it'd be more than that.

To find your maintenance, just find out how many cals you're eating when you're neither gaining nor losing weight. The calculations are ok, but it's more personalized if you do it the other way.

Eating 500 cals above maintenance is perfect, that puts you in a 3500 calorie positive energy balance...it takes 2500 cals to add on a pound of muscle, and considering it's not 100% efficient, 3500 cals is perfect for adding a pound or so per week.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Can I keep fat gain nil or very minimal at that level, then? I really don't want to deal with cutting/bulking and such. Since I have no ideals of being a bodybuilder, just an above-average bodied person, I figure it's possible to go through this all without cycles like that, which seem kind of unhealthy to me.

What would I do to keep fat off?

 

[Bulldog_10]

To keep fat off, just throw in some cardio. Find your maintenance with the cardio, and add 500 more cals to that...and you should be able to pack on some good mass, and the cardio (along with the increases in muscle mass) will make you more efficient at keeping the fat off. More muscle burns more calories, and more cardio moves fat stores closer to the mitochondria...making you a fat burning machine!

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Very nice - so what kind of cardio are we talking? HIIT? Brisk walks on the bike trails? What kind of duration and frequency?

Thanks for the help, by the by man.

 

[Dieharder]

um dc advises a 4 week high intensity followed by a 2 week cruising perdiod bulldog. not to flame, but i think his program is one of the best out there

 

[Debaser]

Well he totally disregards the fact that the nervous system plays a huge role in the whole game. I'm definitely an advocate of low-volume training, but I also realize that variation is a key component of any training program.

You have to define variation better. His program includes lots of variation. Also, I have been doing damn near the same exercises and types of routines for my entire training career. While that's only been 2 years thus far, my progress hasn't slowed. Please explain what exactly you mean by variety, because there are many guys that have done the same program for years on end yet are incredibly big and strong.

I periodize my training schedule, start with hypertrophy, which has high volume (8-12 reps per set) and low intensity. Then move onto basic strength, which has high intensity (4-6 reps per set) and moderate/high volume. Then onto strength and power, which has very high intensity (2-3 reps per set) and low volume. Then onto peaking, which has very high intensity (1-3 reps per set) and very low volume.

For someone that seems knowledgeable in other areas, you need to reevaluate your ideas on hypertrophy, and what causes it. You take Poliquin as gospel, as if he's done a shred of scientific research on muscle tissue growth. The man is a trainer.

Then I take a week or two for active recovery and start again.


Using the high intensity that DC advises all the time will take its toll on your body...I can almost guarantee you will overtrain.

For badmouthing DC, and saying he's full of shit, at least get your goddamned facts straight before you make yourself out to be an idiot. DC advises the same thing (1-2 weeks off or at low intensity). I'd like you to point out where he said to train at full intensity "all the time," because he in fact says the exact opposite.

I haven't seen DC's program in quite some time, this is just from memory...do you have a link to it? I'd get a good laugh at reading it over again. I last read it before taking about 10 exercise physiology classes and studying for the CSCS exam...so I'm sure I'll be even more skeptical about his theories now.

You can be very skeptical of his theories. As much so as I am of yours, many of which are groundless or are based on very specious reasoning. While you're taking your exercise physiology classes he is turning guys into monsters left and right and causing hundreds to make the gains of their life, with his program that "might work for some people." News flash: I have yet to hear of anyone that correctly applied the training/diet and didn't make astounding gains.

 

[Bulldog_10]

Where do I start?

Ok, first off...I'm going by memory here, so I don't know exactly what DC's program consists of. Sure, he can turn people into "mass monsters," how hard is that really? I can take anyone dedicated to gaining weight, have them eat double their protein requirement, and double their caloric requirement, take them in the gym and have them do deads, squats, dips, chins, and bench in any rep scheme they want...and they're gonna grow. And eventually attain this monster status. Doesn't mean I know shit about shit. The real test, IMHO, is whether this translates into them being able to put the newly acquired monster status to any use, other than pushing around metal in the gym of course.



I need to reevaluate my ideas on hypertrophy and what causes it? Please explain what causes hypertrophy then...I'd love to hear it. I take what I've learned as gospel, poliquin is just someone who I agree with on alot of things...and yes, he's just a lowly trainer, who just happens to train some of the world's best athletes. But then again, DC turns people into mass monsters...so I can see why you give him more credence than someone like poliquin.

And please, nothing i say is groundless. How much research has gone into proving the DC method more effective than anything else? There have been 17 research projects comparing the plan that I laid out to other training programs. There are also 2 published papers on it, I'll see if I can find them tomorrow, or when i get a chance. If DC's method is so superior, why the fuck is he still a nobody in the scientific world?

You can go ahead and do what you wish...I'll do what I wish...but please do not insult me and say my theories are baseless. And rank on me taking classes all you want, we all start somewhere, and right now I'm gaining more knowledge than most will ever have. I still have yet to see any credentials from "DogCrapp."

I'm going to sleep...I can't stand arguing this shit again...

 

[Debaser]

You don't get it. Many people DO only want success in the gym. They don't train for a sport, they only train to get bigger and stronger. DC's realm is bodybuilding. Not sprinting, not javelin-throwing, not football, or anything else. Is it really that hard for you to absorb?

 

[Bulldog_10]

You don't get it. Many people DO only want success in the gym. They don't train for a sport, they only train to get bigger and stronger. DC's realm is bodybuilding. Not sprinting, not javelin-throwing, not football, or anything else. Is it really that hard for you to absorb?

No...I understand that people want to just get big (I don't really understand why, but that's a different story). But why not get big and still be able to do other things? If you want to just get huge and not be able to play with your kids later in life, that's fine by me...but I think people like that have something seriously wrong with their priorities. It's possible to get huge, look good, and be somewhat athletic...and it takes a whole hell of a lot more knowledge to be able to do that. So this is why I say DC doesn't know shit. Of course, he knows the basics, eat alot, train hard, and grow. Who doesn't know that? But I, personally, like to apply more that just those basic principles when designing programs.

I guess we'll never agree on this...so fuck it...it's pretty useless talking about it. But does ANYONE have a link to DC's website? I've been trying to find it..not working.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Try the training methods sticky at the top of the page. DC stuff in there, not sure if it's what you're looking for. Anyway, Bulldog, why do you feel that your idea of "periodizing" your training would do so much good, and help one to be athletic and be able to do other things in life, while DC's would not?

 

[Bulldog_10]

Try the training methods sticky at the top of the page. DC stuff in there, not sure if it's what you're looking for. Anyway, Bulldog, why do you feel that your idea of "periodizing" your training would do so much good, and help one to be athletic and be able to do other things in life, while DC's would not?

My method (well, ok, it's not MINE) has been proven time and time again. If you're continuously pushing heavier and heavier weights, using slow tempo (which I think I remember DC doing...again, not sure)...that's all you'll be able to do. Whereas if you change your rep schemes, lifting tempo, intensity, volume, etc...you'll be a much more well-rounded athlete as opposed to just being big.

Tom, I don't know if you've read about periodization, but if not, I strongly recommend reading some articles on it. I'm sure you'll learn alot, even if you don't end up applying it to your training program...it is based on solid facts. If you can find "weight training: A Specific Approach" give it a read. I forget who wrote it, but I remember being impressed. Also, "Essentials of strength training and conditioning" is pretty good...and it lays out specific examples of programs for a few different kinds of athletes.

I'll see if I can find any good online articles you can read about this stuff, then make the decision on your own. Like I said, the best way to train is to train with a program you believe in...so you gotta read all the information and make your own choice.

 

[guldukat]

Bulldog,

I'll understand if you're tired of discussing this, but when you say Dante's full of it, you know you're liable to get some responses!

Anyway, you've said several things I don't understand. One is the idea that being big and doing everyday things is mutually exclusive:

If you want to just get huge and not be able to play with your kids later in life, that's fine by me...

Why the dichotomy?

More importantly, if it's being huge that interferes with these activities (I don't know why you can't still play with kids?), why single out DC training? It'd seem your beef is with bodybuilding modalities in general, not just his.

(Let's also be realistic: most guys, no matter how they train or what they take, will never be Ronnie Coleman huge. When you say "huge," that's a very relative thing...huge for my frame and height might not unduly hinder me in doing everyday things.)

That brings me to the second thing I don't get--why you keep bringing up priorities. Bodybuilding's about growth. These "other things" a bodybuilder "should be concerned about" are red herrings.

It's only fair to judge DC in context, and that doesn't include these other things you've (with all respects) vaguely alluded to. If those things really deserve a bodybuilder's serious consideration, please be specific in explaining what they are and why they're so important.

The last thing is I think it's rather unfair to reduce Dante's training to "eat a lot, train hard." Don't straw man the method bro; it's a bit more involved than that, and even if it was simplistic, why is that necessarily bad?

Eh, anyway, some food for thought *shrugs*
-Sean

 

[Bulldog_10]

Guld, I hear ya man. And I don't necessarily mean to disparage DC or his training methods...but his methods lack the scientific foundations that so many other programs incorporate into their routines. Again, I don't know DC's program in depth, and don't really care to. But how much more in depth is it than just eat alot and lift heavy? I remember he was big on "deep fascia stretching" which I feel is an absolute joke. It's just a catch phrase that came out one day, and sounds cool, so he jumped on it.

And I also realize that I took things to extemes with the whole playing with your kids quote...I definitely know it doesn't get that bad...but there is a continuum there. I'd rather take a little longer to gain the mass while retaining the many other abilities that SHOULD go into "bodybuilding." My idea of bodybuilding is to build a better body, aesthetically AND functionally...if you just want to get big, go for it...but if you want to actually build a better body, go with something more scientifically based. Honestly, I think it's assinine for anyone who's not competing for money to just want to get big, at the expense of health, but I suppose that's not for me to judge (and i don't mean to offend anyone by that statement, just my personal opinions).

I'm gonna look over DC's thoughts on training and see exactly what i like/dislike about it. I realize I'm being hard on the program, but that's because I REALLY don't believe in it...I'm not just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Anyways Guld, you bring up some good points, and you've got me thinking...Karma to ya for that.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Well, what type of program out there is scientifically based, in your eyes, that will build an aesthetically AND functional body man?

 

[Bulldog_10]

Well, what type of program out there is scientifically based, in your eyes, that will build an aesthetically AND functional body man?

The one I gave you dude...it's been proven over and over...as i said. It's based on Selye's general adaptation syndrome (from the 1930's) and Matveyev's periodization principle.

Programs similar to this are supported by most strength and conditioning associations, including the NSCA and ACSM. It's hard to argue with something they support, considering the amount of knowledge that has been accumulated through the years by those associations.

 

[Bulldog_10]

I'm reading through DC's program right now...and one thing I don't like is that he assumes that everyone else trains each body part once per week. I also hit each body part twice per week. And three sets has been proven to be more effective than one...many studies done on it, however, I don't know what he means by warm-up sets...More to come...

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Warm-up sets, enough to do until you feel ready to go balls to the wall on one set. I think those warm-ups kind of account for more than just that, if you do them 3-5 sets at a time, allowing your muscles to fatigue.

 

[Dieharder]

i think that you are making things too complicated right now. Building a functional man
!?!? come on now. my grandfather is a functional lean man that couldnt lift a barbell if he tried. Eating big and training hard are 2 of the many principles of dc's training, and he has even said himself that his method isnt concerned with aesthetics, but building a big, solid foundation of muscle, and worrying about cutting and being "aesthetic" once you have that foundation. If you are looking for a more indepth look at his program, i have a condensed version on my comp that i could send you (since animals site is now not open to visitors)

 

[Bulldog_10]

i think that you are making things too complicated right now. Building a functional man
!?!? come on now. my grandfather is a functional lean man that couldnt lift a barbell if he tried. Eating big and training hard are 2 of the many principles of dc's training, and he has even said himself that his method isnt concerned with aesthetics, but building a big, solid foundation of muscle, and worrying about cutting and being "aesthetic" once you have that foundation. If you are looking for a more indepth look at his program, i have a condensed version on my comp that i could send you (since animals site is now not open to visitors)

I didn't meam aesthetic as being cut...I meant looking big. And sure, send me whatever you have...is it any different from the link in the sticky?

 

[Dieharder]

yeah its basically a compilation of posts from the cycling for pennies thread, with some of the bullshit cut out. ill send it to you when i get a chance

 

[Bulldog_10]

yeah its basically a compilation of posts from the cycling for pennies thread, with some of the bullshit cut out. ill send it to you when i get a chance

Thanks bro...no rush

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Could you send my way too, DieHarder? I'd appreciate it very much.

 

[guldukat]

Bulldog,

I hear ya too!

Thanks for the clarification, bro. Karma back at ya for a gentlemanly discussion

-Sean