Volume training. Super sets & drops to failure....

[Tadow]

You can't only target one fiber type, that's a complete fallacy.

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=13;t=21

So to sit here saying you "kill one type of fiber" and then proceed to "kill the other" with a set of lighter reps is moronic.

And tadow, no, everyone isn't so different that the basic principles of physiology don't apply to them. There are universal rules to everything. Everyone is different, so does gravity not apply to you, but it does to me? No. So why is it different with physiology? Calories in vs. calories out applies to everyone as well, in terms of weight gain and weight loss. And when it comes to lifting, progressive load and microtrauma to muscles also applies, and more progressive load is possible with movements such as heavy presses while causing more microtrauma which is why (surprise, surprise!) they're ideal for building muscle.

Shit like flys and cables don't leave a lot of room for progressive loading. And your reason for doing them, patsfan, is to "sculpt" and "stretch". Okay, you can't sculpt a muscle. You can NOT change it's shape. You can make it bigger, or it can get smaller. The shape is determined by genetics. That's it. You can't develop different parts of the muscle. That doesn't happen.

As for stretching, okay, that's fine. You don't need to "stretch" that much though. Too many sets. And I don't see why you'd stretch during a training session. It's actually been shown to decrease performance. You'd be best off doing that on an off day for active recovery, in order to get blood flowing into the area.

needtogetas, get the fuck off the training boards. Seriously, you're like a fucking little parasite. Go sit on C&C and do your own little thing, because here you're lacking some of the most basic knowledge and fundamentals of lifting and you can't even begin to contest with anyone.

I find it interesting that you know better than I do, after my 10 years of experience lifting, what program gives me the best results.

Most of your post I agree with. But you are claiming to have found the "Holy Grail" of bodybuilding, if you will. Yes, calories in calories out applies to everyone but you are oversimplifying the issue. Yes, if I consume less calories than I burn, I will lose weight. But if I consume too few calories, my metabolism will slow itself down, making weight loss increasingly difficult. For some people, this will happen more rapidly than to others, do you not agree?

The human body is the most complex machine in existence, and as is quite obvious from walking down the street, not all human bodies are the same, or react to stresses in the same manner. You could put me on Ronnie Coleman's diet, workout, and juice plan, and I would never look like him.

The funny thing about science is that people who are knowledgeable about current theories and understanding always think that they have all the answers. But guess what? In 20 years the information in your post will be old hat, and there will be new theories and new understanding that make that obsolete.

All I was suggesting to the OP was to not listen to the hype that is on all of these boards about the "wonder workout" that works for every single person on earth. I was suggesting that he experiment and find out what works best for him. Because whether you like it or not, YOUR workout plan and methodology is NOT the most efficient for EVERYONE ELSE on the planet.

Keep an open mind.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

I never claimed to have found any holy grail of bodybuilding. What I did say was that there are basic rules that will apply to everyone. For example, people will say that what works best for them is trainin a bodypart once a week. In terms of hypertrophy, this simply will not be true. Walking down the street and seeing different people doesn't change the basic rules that apply to everyone. One of those is this: The muscle doesn't need 7 days to recover from a bout of training, and is much better served by more frequent loading, even at the cost of dropping pointless exercises like flys, cable crossovers, or pullovers.

 

[Tadow]

I never claimed to have found any holy grail of bodybuilding. What I did say was that there are basic rules that will apply to everyone. For example, people will say that what works best for them is trainin a bodypart once a week. In terms of hypertrophy, this simply will not be true. Walking down the street and seeing different people doesn't change the basic rules that apply to everyone. One of those is this: The muscle doesn't need 7 days to recover from a bout of training, and is much better served by more frequent loading, even at the cost of dropping pointless exercises like flys, cable crossovers, or pullovers.

Agreed Tom - for MOST people, muscles do not need a full week to recover. But you would be naive to try to extend that claim to include every person on the planet. Everyone recovers at a different rate, just as everyone's body has a different genetic potential for growth.

I have read a lot of your posts Tom and I do believe that you help a lot of people on this board. But surely you can agree when I suggest to the OP to find what works for him.

 

[Guinness5.0]

In 20 years the information in your post will be old hat, and there will be new theories and new understanding that make that obsolete.

if it's true today, it'll be true twenty years from now as well.

Keep an open mind

Hmm... Do you think it's outside the realm of possiblity that you're being close-minded in thinking that people MUST be so different that some basic, fundamental rules don't apply to all of us (physiologically speaking)?

 

[Tadow]

if it's true today, it'll be true twenty years from now as well.



Hmm... Do you think it's outside the realm of possiblity that you're being close-minded in thinking that people MUST be so different that some basic, fundamental rules don't apply to all of us (physiologically speaking)?

Actually, take a look at what scientists BELIEVED was true 50 years ago, and then tell me again that "If it's true today it'll be true twenty years from now." You actually might get a laugh out of some of the things that science held true in the past.

And as for me being closed minded - I already stated that what Tom said was probably true for about 95% of the population. So I'm not trying to force anyone to try anything just to be different. I'm just saying each person should find what works best for them.

Peace, brothers.

 

[Guinness5.0]

Actually, take a look at what scientists BELIEVED was true 50 years ago, and then tell me again that "If it's true today it'll be true twenty years from now." You actually might get a laugh out of some of the things that science held true in the past.

And as for me being closed minded - I already stated that what Tom said was probably true for about 95% of the population. So I'm not trying to force anyone to try anything just to be different. I'm just saying each person should find what works best for them.

Peace, brothers.

Gotcha. I see what you mean. However it does seem that most people are quick to stray from the basics and make things complicated when it is extremely counterproductive to do so.
Also, the original poster mentioned "sculpting" and "shaping" which are indeed fallacies. This could have been pointed out in a more tactful manner but the fact remains that there is a lack of understanding by most trainees of what will work for damn near everyone if they'd just do it.

 

[Guinness5.0]

Gotcha. I see what you mean. However it does seem that most people are quick to stray from the basics and make things complicated when it is extremely counterproductive to do so.
Also, the original poster mentioned "sculpting" and "shaping" which are indeed fallacies. This could have been pointed out in a more tactful manner but the fact remains that there is a lack of understanding by most trainees of what will work for damn near everyone if they'd just do it.

bump this

 

[Tweakle]

there's nothing set in stone, and what works for you now might not work another 25lbs down the line...

maximising frequency at the expense of volume works, but so can maximising volume with reduced intensity... or more intensity and less volume... or more volume and intensity but at a lower frequency.

all I've learned is that I still have a LOT to learn

 

[guldukat]

all I've learned is that I still have a LOT to learn

You and me both