Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Each body part...
- Thread starter pong21
- Start date
InTraining
New member
I've been doing 2x a week for a long time..always worked better for me than 1x per week..
Chest\Back Shoulders\Arms Legs(can't do them right now, but if I was able to, so right now just chest\back shoulders\arms)
I went to HST style frequency for a few weeks doing all upperbody on the same day but got burnt out, but still made some good gains..
Chest\Back Shoulders\Arms Legs(can't do them right now, but if I was able to, so right now just chest\back shoulders\arms)
I went to HST style frequency for a few weeks doing all upperbody on the same day but got burnt out, but still made some good gains..
Like anything else in life, if you want to get good at something - you have to do it with some regularity and once per week won't cut it. Granted you might have to cut out the majority of assistance work but most just apply it in a shotgun method anyway rather than targeting a real weakness. If the squat is the most productive exercise, it makes a lot of sense to get rid of leg curls/extensions and some other garbage to be able to hit it twice.
I generally squat 2-3x per week. Bench twice. Deadlift once (I use other variants pulls more often). Row twice. Then some other basic core work and some garbage. Nothing special. If I add some assistance work, it's 1 exercise or maybe 2 at the most and it gets trained multiple times per week until the job is done - then it's rotated out. This is the best way I've found for an experienced natural lifter to make good consistent gains. Drugged lifters are able to use lower dosages because the quality of the stimulus is higher and does not require an overload on the response/adaptation side to net the same benefit.
I generally squat 2-3x per week. Bench twice. Deadlift once (I use other variants pulls more often). Row twice. Then some other basic core work and some garbage. Nothing special. If I add some assistance work, it's 1 exercise or maybe 2 at the most and it gets trained multiple times per week until the job is done - then it's rotated out. This is the best way I've found for an experienced natural lifter to make good consistent gains. Drugged lifters are able to use lower dosages because the quality of the stimulus is higher and does not require an overload on the response/adaptation side to net the same benefit.
I assumed in that statement that the drugged lifters were training with good frequency (meaning not training a bodypart once per week) hence they could lower the dosage. The real issue is total volume. If you bench and squat on a given day's workout. Benching in the AM and squatting in the PM doubles the frequency (loosely for the sake of argument) but volume is still equal. The Bulgarian olympic lifters who have tested positive enough to allow us to assume drugs train with mutliple workouts per day all week long. They manage the volume though. So for a drugged lifter - it depends on the program but I'm more inclined to turn the volume nob if everything else is reasonable. Turning the intensity nob can really screw up a program unless you know exactly what you are doing. Once in a decent range (caveate) the frequency nob is largely related to volume so you can't turn it independently without some consideration for the cofactor. Long answer but that's how I look at it.6_pak said:
Madcow2 said:
I dont think that the dosage depends on the frequency or volume, but more to do with experience with the gear, meaning the more cycles, the higher the dosage. But of course there is an obvious relationship with increased volume,intensity, and frequency, when cycling, but i dont think that it will dictate the dosage. With my experience, changing your approach in your training wouldnt be a good idea, whether on or off, such as, train everything 2x a week, when you only train everything once when off. I think maybe adding an exercise in, or maybe adding another set to everything.
I'm not really saying that. I think we are missing each other.
The point I'm making is that most of the programs employed by BBers suck. The only reason that most of them are gaining is drugs. If they had a better program, they could use less drugs for the same result.
Once a natural lifter has a good program and chooses to use drugs he can tolerate additional volume over a period due to increased recovery.
Beyond that, there's no relationship to dosage whatsoever.
The point I'm making is that most of the programs employed by BBers suck. The only reason that most of them are gaining is drugs. If they had a better program, they could use less drugs for the same result.
Once a natural lifter has a good program and chooses to use drugs he can tolerate additional volume over a period due to increased recovery.
Beyond that, there's no relationship to dosage whatsoever.
Madcow2 said:
OK i agree, but then again, its all relative to the individual. You wouldnt happen to be a PL??? The biggest factor in a bb'ers routine isnt the weight, which is the case in pl, but rather the weight/tension to spurt muscle hypertrophy. I dont fully agree with the, using less drugs for the same result, comment. Genetics plays a big part in it. Drugs offer more than just to build muscles, such as increasing protein sythesis, being able to assimilate more food. This will make you bigger and it has nothing to do with your routine.
Tom Treutlein
New member
Try something like the BFS routine, or the WSB method.
Here's an example:
http://www.fortifiediron.net/invision/index.php?showtopic=3989&st=0&p=69541&#entry69541
Pretty basic stuff. It's based on this excellent thread which is a series of topics written by one of the best strength coaches in the US:
http://forum.mesomorphosis.com/showthread.php?t=12
http://www.fortifiediron.net/invision/index.php?showtopic=3989&st=0&p=69541&#entry69541
Pretty basic stuff. It's based on this excellent thread which is a series of topics written by one of the best strength coaches in the US:
http://forum.mesomorphosis.com/showthread.php?t=12
We could go round and round on this.6_pak said:
Hold the lifter constant, hold the genetics constant (both of which are fairly easy to do since your program only affects your body), assume the diet provides an excess of calories, protein and nutrients to sustain growth. The quality of the program is a large determiner of success and the general consensus among just about every strength and conditioning coach and researcher in the world (talking world level T&F, OL, PL, and just about anything else at Div1, Pro, and Olympic levels) is that the majority of the programs employed by BBers (even at the top) are a joke. And we aren't talking about pure 1RM strength either, plenty of coaches need to bulk their athletes and add LBM (football for one which is the original source of the program I linked above). A better program (stimulus) will provide better gains (response) holding all constant.
Allowing the dosage to vary (directly linked to response abliet not linear with diminishing incremental returns beyond threshhold range) within a non-extreme range because I can see a rebuttle with 10mg of test vs. 1 gram coming, one could theoretically obtain equivalent gains between a good program with 600mg of test compared to a bad program and 600+X mg of test. So the X can be taken for additional gains or dropped for equivalent gains based solely on the quality of the stimulus.
Although the biggest factor for BBers is not the weight used or ability to increase 1RM, getting stronger most assuredly is directly related to increased muscle size. Show me a BBer who can bench 315 for 5 sets of 5, let him train for a year and come back and bench 405 for 5 sets of 5 and I will show you a much improved BBer (or squat/dead which are supperior for LBM to the bench). The purpose of a muscle is to generate force. Force = Mass X Acceleration. The mass part plays a big portion (we won't even get into the acceleration part but this is fairly essential to maximal recruitment of muscle fibers and from the equation plays a very significant role also and as a rule is totally ignored by all but the smallest fragment of BBers). If your workouts don't require increased force output your body will not adapt (or define it as Work = Force X Distance but it's still there). You could argue that they could use the same weight and get extra reps or do more sets but beyond certain ranges (which are fairly narrow) this won't assist in the hypertrophy one is looking for - mass needs to be increased and that means progressively adding weight to the bar.
Last edited:
InTraining
New member
Madcow2, while I agree with a lot of what you post I have to take issue with what you said in regards to bodybuilding. I agree that most programs BBers follow are pointless(1x per week per muscle group, 20 sets per muscle group etc) but one thing that surprised me was your post on exercise selection and progressive resistance.
I'm talking from a 100% growth standpoint. Since I BB I have found that weight really doesn't matter that much. Yes, I still progressively increase the weight but I don't focus TOTALLY on it (AST comes to mind here).
While on the subject of AST many people that do the program report great strength gains and very little to no mass gains. Assuming they are eating and sleeping correctly, getting advocate recovery etc. something must be amiss here?
I'm talking from a 100% growth standpoint. Since I BB I have found that weight really doesn't matter that much. Yes, I still progressively increase the weight but I don't focus TOTALLY on it (AST comes to mind here).
While on the subject of AST many people that do the program report great strength gains and very little to no mass gains. Assuming they are eating and sleeping correctly, getting advocate recovery etc. something must be amiss here?
Cool. I really didn't want to talk about drugs anymore and for whatever reason I don't think the other poster and I were on the same wavelength - either that or the wavelength kept changing post to post.
A good program has to create the stimulus (need) for additional muscle. You can go for a while on total volume by increasing several factors affecting total volume for the work done. Eventually though, you must alter the mass otherwise you get out of the viable range for hypertrophy. I'm not saying you need to live and breath pushing the weights up workout to workout at all (and I don't advocate that for a PL/OL either) but over longer durations you will need to be increasing the weights (mass). A 315x3 squater can rep 225 fairly easily. He could make gains by increasing his 225 reps/number of sets/frequency of performing said routine to increase the workload and get an adaptive response. However, you can only do this so long until you are soon well outside of a hypertrophy inducing workout. You'll also notice that the lifter's best triple may not increase at all from this work. Eventually to keep making progress, he's going to have to become a 400x3 squatter and increases his easy rep weight alongside it. Obviously you don't hammer at 225 forever until you give in and bump up the weight out of frustration, you do this systematically over time on a good training cycle so that progress stays optimal. While a BBer isn't focused primarily on a 1RM or even on best 5, nevertheless weight/mass has a strong direct correlation with their progress over time and is easy to track and quantify over time - hence calculating loads becomes possible and we can draw conclusions based upon data that really help in planning future training rather than some subjective type log with comments like "Kicked ass" in it.
As far as exercise selection, you can certainly get creative but I don't favor much assistance work in a plain vanilla workout and any that gets included should have a purpose (plain vanilla is an excellent IMO and most people end up with far worse results shooting for an exotic flavor before first acclimating themselves to vanilla and understanding exactly how vanilla works best - worry about making ice cream first, once you can do that, then see if you want to try a different flavor). There is way way too much shotgun assistance work loaded into BBer programs and most of it eats up valuable/limited recuperative capacity. The exercises here are the basic 5x5 from Bill Starr adapted by Johnsmith182 on Meso. They work. They get people really big really fast (gains primarily start to show up after the deload though so weak 6ish) and make them strong at the most important functional exercises. Using this program on an athlete close to a weight class limit is a major problem because it forces fairly severe diet curtailment. It's a good implementation of dual factor theory and an excellent foundation for strength and size which I think more people need - too many people wasting time on little tweaks without first building significant foundations (exotic cherry is a great flavor but if you end up screwing up the ice cream itself it's worthless). It's easy to see how the loading/deloading works and the results are stellar. Plus it is 3 days a week and takes minimal time (good for sports, work, family life). It's about as close to perfect as I can think of. Any dual factor based program is going to be solid, HST comes to mind, but I happen to favor ones arranged like this. My life can get fairly complicated so I appreciate the KISS principle.
A good program has to create the stimulus (need) for additional muscle. You can go for a while on total volume by increasing several factors affecting total volume for the work done. Eventually though, you must alter the mass otherwise you get out of the viable range for hypertrophy. I'm not saying you need to live and breath pushing the weights up workout to workout at all (and I don't advocate that for a PL/OL either) but over longer durations you will need to be increasing the weights (mass). A 315x3 squater can rep 225 fairly easily. He could make gains by increasing his 225 reps/number of sets/frequency of performing said routine to increase the workload and get an adaptive response. However, you can only do this so long until you are soon well outside of a hypertrophy inducing workout. You'll also notice that the lifter's best triple may not increase at all from this work. Eventually to keep making progress, he's going to have to become a 400x3 squatter and increases his easy rep weight alongside it. Obviously you don't hammer at 225 forever until you give in and bump up the weight out of frustration, you do this systematically over time on a good training cycle so that progress stays optimal. While a BBer isn't focused primarily on a 1RM or even on best 5, nevertheless weight/mass has a strong direct correlation with their progress over time and is easy to track and quantify over time - hence calculating loads becomes possible and we can draw conclusions based upon data that really help in planning future training rather than some subjective type log with comments like "Kicked ass" in it.
As far as exercise selection, you can certainly get creative but I don't favor much assistance work in a plain vanilla workout and any that gets included should have a purpose (plain vanilla is an excellent IMO and most people end up with far worse results shooting for an exotic flavor before first acclimating themselves to vanilla and understanding exactly how vanilla works best - worry about making ice cream first, once you can do that, then see if you want to try a different flavor). There is way way too much shotgun assistance work loaded into BBer programs and most of it eats up valuable/limited recuperative capacity. The exercises here are the basic 5x5 from Bill Starr adapted by Johnsmith182 on Meso. They work. They get people really big really fast (gains primarily start to show up after the deload though so weak 6ish) and make them strong at the most important functional exercises. Using this program on an athlete close to a weight class limit is a major problem because it forces fairly severe diet curtailment. It's a good implementation of dual factor theory and an excellent foundation for strength and size which I think more people need - too many people wasting time on little tweaks without first building significant foundations (exotic cherry is a great flavor but if you end up screwing up the ice cream itself it's worthless). It's easy to see how the loading/deloading works and the results are stellar. Plus it is 3 days a week and takes minimal time (good for sports, work, family life). It's about as close to perfect as I can think of. Any dual factor based program is going to be solid, HST comes to mind, but I happen to favor ones arranged like this. My life can get fairly complicated so I appreciate the KISS principle.
InTraining
New member
Thanks for the response!
One of the posts in link #2 is very surprising( I think it's called "eating") the author claims that training is more important than eating\sleeping? Am I reading that wrong?
One of the posts in link #2 is very surprising( I think it's called "eating") the author claims that training is more important than eating\sleeping? Am I reading that wrong?
Madcow2 said:
I understand your point here and outside of all the "constants", i agree that a good training style will sustain better results than than a bad routine-- thats obvious. But you have to realize that these "constants", as you put it, are not constants at all. These variables, genetics,diet,training,recovery, and yes,even drugs, are what differentiate the results of individuals. Your implying that if 2 subjects ate the same, got the same number of hours of sleep/night, took the same mg of drugs, trained the same, Everything exactly the same, they will produce close to the same results. I dont agree, and, man, we could argue about this all day i think.
I also agree about the ice cream analogy in your last post. I see guys doing cable crossovers all day long, but struggle with 135 on flatbench. Pathetic. Cables are imployed for shaping, cutting, striating the muscle, If theres no muscle there to begin with, then its impossible to. But as a BBer, i have to do these routines,i.e. curls, cables, etc... not just your core lifts, as PL do. But dont get me wrong, bbers must use these lifts, and when bulking i use basically the same priciples as pl as far as reps- no more than 5,6. Thats where a bber and PL's routine differ and to argue which is better, well , i just dont have enough time too, as it would take the rest of the yr. with NO solution in sight. I will leave it at that. PEACE BRO!!!
Not at all. First, there is an assumption that you are going to get a reasonable amount of sleep and rest your body. You can't be living the equivalent of hell week for the SEALs. Second, satisfying the dietary requirements to support growth is fairly simple. Consume more calories that you require, provide yourself with an adequate supply of quality protein at reasonable intervals, and make sure your diet has enough balance so you don't get overly deficient.
Basic stuff. Training is the key. Plenty of guys satisfy all the rest/food requirements and don't grow or condsider themselves "hardgainers" - look at the anabolic board (where everyone also says "I want to do XYZ...diet and training are perfect." It's crazy when I see some 165 lbs kid counting egg whites and going through radical diet efforts to get bigger and stronger. Generally his program blows and he's heard way too much "it's 90% diet stuff". He needs to eat a lot and he needs to lift right. It doesn't even really have to be clean or healthy. McDonalds/Burgerking works wonders - can't eat it all the time but you need to get the calories. Hell, in college the $1.99 BK Double Whopper was a great mid-day meal. Granted I wasn't 6% body fat, which is unhealthy and unwise for athletes as well as being hard enough to maintain that you are unlikely to be able to grow more than marginally, but 10-12% isn't too shabby and the majority of my diet was decent - lots of vegtables, good protein throughout the day, carbs let me grow - no rocket science need be applied and the truth is that most athletes at the elite level don't put anywhere near the amount of effort into it that the 165lbs "hardgainer" kid is. The difference is that the athletes have a coach who designs good programs and the kid goes to the gym, reads magazines, and emulates what he sees - which as a rule tends to be total garbage.
Satisfying food/rest requirements are fairly simple. Getting the body to adapt over the long term by putting on LBM is a bit more tricky beyond the novice level. Muscle is expensive from a caloric standpoint and the humans who had the genetics to hold unnecessary lean body mass died out quickly in a famine a few million years ago - slight exaggeration but it's the truth.
Basic stuff. Training is the key. Plenty of guys satisfy all the rest/food requirements and don't grow or condsider themselves "hardgainers" - look at the anabolic board (where everyone also says "I want to do XYZ...diet and training are perfect." It's crazy when I see some 165 lbs kid counting egg whites and going through radical diet efforts to get bigger and stronger. Generally his program blows and he's heard way too much "it's 90% diet stuff". He needs to eat a lot and he needs to lift right. It doesn't even really have to be clean or healthy. McDonalds/Burgerking works wonders - can't eat it all the time but you need to get the calories. Hell, in college the $1.99 BK Double Whopper was a great mid-day meal. Granted I wasn't 6% body fat, which is unhealthy and unwise for athletes as well as being hard enough to maintain that you are unlikely to be able to grow more than marginally, but 10-12% isn't too shabby and the majority of my diet was decent - lots of vegtables, good protein throughout the day, carbs let me grow - no rocket science need be applied and the truth is that most athletes at the elite level don't put anywhere near the amount of effort into it that the 165lbs "hardgainer" kid is. The difference is that the athletes have a coach who designs good programs and the kid goes to the gym, reads magazines, and emulates what he sees - which as a rule tends to be total garbage.
Satisfying food/rest requirements are fairly simple. Getting the body to adapt over the long term by putting on LBM is a bit more tricky beyond the novice level. Muscle is expensive from a caloric standpoint and the humans who had the genetics to hold unnecessary lean body mass died out quickly in a famine a few million years ago - slight exaggeration but it's the truth.
Ahh - I think we are nearly on the same page now. I couldn't figure it out before.6_pak said:
When I say constant I mean the same athlete will get better results from a good program. The same athelte at the same point in his life on a good program will require less drugs to obtain the same amount of gains from a bad program.
You can hardly ever cross compare individuals, it's generally useless to do so, and I'm not asking that you do - I'm asking that you don't. If I begin training tomorrow to gain 10 lbs I can use less drugs if I have a good training program. To get that same 10 lbs with a crap program, I'd need to increase the dosage (proxy for response) by X because I will be using a worse stimulus (training) and require stronger response (more drugs).
It's all about a single case. The case can be applied to any single trainee and hold true. What you can't do is make gain/dosage/regimine comparisons between individuals at this degree of accuracy. You can only point to a single person and compare against themselves.
Hence, if I am looking at:
Case 1: John Smith, Bad Training, Excellent Diet and he gains 20lbs off 1 gram of test over 10 weeks.
I can safely say that in:
Case 2: John Smith, Excellent Training, Excellent Diet, would have either gained more than 20 lbs or could have used a lower dosage to gain the same 20lbs over the exact same period.
Another example is a training program that moves you 2 steps left for every 1 forward. To go 5 paces forward I need 1 gram per week (applying a multiuple of 5 I move 10 left/5 forward). A better program moves 2.5 paces forward and none to the side thus I only need only 200mg and I can go 5 paces forward and none to the side - - - - (caveate - numbers are totally pulled out of my ass to make the point, I believe the math works though - I have to run - take care man!).
EDIT:
okay - I missed this:
This is wrong. No such thing as shaping, cutting, or striating a muscle. Shape of a muscle is genetics - it is unchangeable. Cutting is related to body fat levels and even cables can not perform the magical spot reduction. Striating...not sure exactly what it is but I imagine low body fat, large muscle the fibers become visible. Pump some blood in there (no correlation to gains/progress) and striations become visible. Cables don't serve any of these purposes other than pumping some blood - although BBers say they do. From basic knowledge of physiology and anatomy, you can grow a muscle or allow it to shrink. Resistance training can be employed to grow it. Resistance training can not shape, cut, or striate. This is the 100% truth and is widely accepted even in the BBing community. If anyone tells you otherwise run like hell.6_pak said:
Last edited:
