Thread: Why Are You Training Like A Bodybuilder?

I no longer train in terms of conventional bodybuilding. I do a lot of calf work, but otherwise no isolation. I train purely compounds, all centered around my core lifts (squat, dead, bench, OH press, pullups, rows, cleans).

Now, I'm moving more into powerlifting.

At first I did BB'ing for the looks. Then, it was the challenge of achieving what the body doesn't want -- large amounts of lean muscle mass. I'm still interested in bb'ing as a science and art.

I'm not necessarily crusading against isolation movements and programming that is based a bit more on sarcoplasmic growth than myofibrillar growth/improving the neuromuscular connection. Frankly, movements promoting predominately sarcoplasmic growth are extremely important and is basically a foundation of bodybuilding.

Bodybuilding movements function very well upon a proper foundation. Although it is possible for a novice to become big and strong through poor periodization and a bunch of those isolations, a novice can take far better advantage of their "newbie gains" by properly periodizing their main lifts.

At a certain point, the body will stop readily responding to the main lifts. The biceps will stop growing from indirect pulling and the delts will stop responding from pressing an benching. At that point, isolation movements are a necessity to facilitate growth.

The issue is that we have 160 pound guys who are trying to slab on 30 pounds of muscle but aren't taking the most efficient paths towards promoting myofibrillar growth and improving neuromuscular connection.

To get big, one needs to get strong.

One is not going to get strong with programming that does not match their needs.

You don't see a lot of guys (if any)with small chests who bench 350. However, there are a ton of novices who post questions about how to increase their chest size and are met with responses about implementing flys and decline presses while they only bench 225.

To reiterate, bodybuilding programs are fantastic (including the curls, lateral raises, etc. ) when they are properly implemented in a chronological sense.

The quicker one gets strong, the easier it'll be to get big.

Even in your particular case, Phineas, there's no shame in direct calf work. If you want bigger calves (or biceps or delts or whatever), they'll require direct work at some point.

I want to say in advance i have no evidence to back any of this up. This is just stuff i've been mulling over in my head. It might be bullshit.

Something i've been thinking about lately is work vs perceived work, and it ties in with this pretty well. I think that with such high volumes (3-6 sets of 10-15 reps per exercise) the level of waste products and blood in the muscles actually stops them working as hard as they can.

For example, if i do a few sets of military press at 12 reps, my shoulders get tight from the pump, they burn because of hydrogen ions etc etc. I start to die around halfway through the fourth set. My muscles hurt so much that i stop working hard.

Now i don't have to tell you guys that gaining size isn't just about localized growth of bodyparts. Its also about the overall response from the body as a whole integrated system. Hormones, general adaptation, as well as localized hypertrophy.

Personally, i think heavier low rep training achieves this systemic growth response far more efficiently than higher rep training. For one thing, the reps are usually so low that waste products don't build up so acutely (better overall performance for the session), also achieves maximal fibre and neural recruitment because they're heavy weights, and since the reps ARE so low there is an explosive element in there too, and for another they require a lot more total body activation in terms of stability and nervous stimulations because they're heavier weights. Lighter weights just aren't a challenge to stabilize and don't require a huge neural effort to lift. This is doubly true for inherrantly smaller isolation exercises.

Going back to that waste product thing, i usually find when i train higher volume i have to reduce the weights in later sets, and/or i drop reps too. When i train heavier its not special to increase the weight every set for 5-6 sets, and often keeping the same number of reps every set. Each set seems incredibly tough at the time, but i can keep adding weight. This is obviously going to have a huge effect on muscle growth.

The last point is that this all boils down to the failure thing. Heavier training promotes increasing the weight every set and still ACHIEVING the correct number of reps, or at least stopping before failure so you can increase the weight next set. When you eventually max out or fail, thats it - exercise over. Typical volume/bodybuilding training promotes just the opposite - rep out untill you fail, do another set and fail again, do less weight, fail, waste products, huge stress response because at this point the body is shitting itself. I'm almost convinced that injuries are the ultimate result of this cycle.

Obviously i'm biased to some extent because for the most part i'm not a fan of bodybuilding past the "wow, freaky" shock aspect of it, but going by what has worked for me, my friends, my colleagues, people i've trained, people on this site, and people in my gym......well, the anecdotal evidence backing up heavier non-bodybuilding training is quite huge.

In short, i honestly thing a large basis in heavy, low-rep training with a moderate element of volume/higher rep localized hypertrophy work is optimal if you want maximum size. In this case, periodization of these two elements is absolutely essential.

Time for some milk.

I completely agree with you. I have always been more interested in powerlifting, olympic lifting, and athletics.

But to me, programs designed with strength in mind are more focused, better founded on research (e.g. Prilepin's table), and well-periodized.

I never responded with more growth than when I was doing Westside. I believe this was due to the huge amount of posterior chain work that a Westside template demands and the large relative weights that my body was forced to lift during that time. Even guys at Westside will do isolation movements with small ranges of motion, but those guys are putting in so much work to improve the biggest muscles of their body. It's no surprise that they're all huge.

In short, lift heavy, do lots of PC work, periodize your training, and eat a lot of food. That's the best way to grow IMO.

Originally Posted by gtbmed

It's no surprise that they're all huge.

This is the crux of the matter. I would wager that despite the huge popularity of bodybuilding, there are more "huge" people in powerlifting and strongman than there are in bodybuilding. Especially when you get out of the elite and into the average joe territory.

Originally Posted by Gazhole

I want to say in advance i have no evidence to back any of this up. This is just stuff i've been mulling over in my head. It might be bullshit.

Something i've been thinking about lately is work vs perceived work, and it ties in with this pretty well. I think that with such high volumes (3-6 sets of 10-15 reps per exercise) the level of waste products and blood in the muscles actually stops them working as hard as they can.

For example, if i do a few sets of military press at 12 reps, my shoulders get tight from the pump, they burn because of hydrogen ions etc etc. I start to die around halfway through the fourth set. My muscles hurt so much that i stop working hard.

Now i don't have to tell you guys that gaining size isn't just about localized growth of bodyparts. Its also about the overall response from the body as a whole integrated system. Hormones, general adaptation, as well as localized hypertrophy.

Personally, i think heavier low rep training achieves this systemic growth response far more efficiently than higher rep training. For one thing, the reps are usually so low that waste products don't build up so acutely (better overall performance for the session), also achieves maximal fibre and neural recruitment because they're heavy weights, and since the reps ARE so low there is an explosive element in there too, and for another they require a lot more total body activation in terms of stability and nervous stimulations because they're heavier weights. Lighter weights just aren't a challenge to stabilize and don't require a huge neural effort to lift. This is doubly true for inherrantly smaller isolation exercises.

Going back to that waste product thing, i usually find when i train higher volume i have to reduce the weights in later sets, and/or i drop reps too. When i train heavier its not special to increase the weight every set for 5-6 sets, and often keeping the same number of reps every set. Each set seems incredibly tough at the time, but i can keep adding weight. This is obviously going to have a huge effect on muscle growth.

The last point is that this all boils down to the failure thing. Heavier training promotes increasing the weight every set and still ACHIEVING the correct number of reps, or at least stopping before failure so you can increase the weight next set. When you eventually max out or fail, thats it - exercise over. Typical volume/bodybuilding training promotes just the opposite - rep out untill you fail, do another set and fail again, do less weight, fail, waste products, huge stress response because at this point the body is shitting itself. I'm almost convinced that injuries are the ultimate result of this cycle.

Obviously i'm biased to some extent because for the most part i'm not a fan of bodybuilding past the "wow, freaky" shock aspect of it, but going by what has worked for me, my friends, my colleagues, people i've trained, people on this site, and people in my gym......well, the anecdotal evidence backing up heavier non-bodybuilding training is quite huge.

In short, i honestly thing a large basis in heavy, low-rep training with a moderate element of volume/higher rep localized hypertrophy work is optimal if you want maximum size. In this case, periodization of these two elements is absolutely essential.

Time for some milk.

I agree. Time for some milk.

Oh, I realized I actually fucked up my main point.

First, I just want to define some terms that may help bring clarification. I might have unintentionally interchanged isolation and accessory work in my past posts, but whatever, I'll chock it up to poor editing and clarify it now. When I refer to assistance work, I'm referring to movements that aid in the building (directly contributing to the improvement) of the main lifts. This may include dumbbell bench presses, dips, pull/chinups, rows, direct tricep work (pulldowns, skull crushers, etc.), hamstring/lower back work (good mornings, GHRs,reverse hyperextensions, etc.), quad work (lunges, split squats, front squats, leg press) or abs (ab wheels, isometric holds, captain's chair work).

Isolation works refers to movements that either are not preferred 'main lift building' movements or simply are used to improve aesthetics. They include stuff like direct bicep work, shoulder work, shrugs, calf work etc.

Regarding the bolded portion of my first post:

The meaning that I was trying to convey was that nearly all novice and intermediate lifters should primarily focus their efforts on powerlifting principles (i.e focusing on increasing the main lifts through proper periodization and assistance work) before implementing bodybuilding/isolation work .

As mentioned earlier, at some point, one will see diminishing returns from systemic work and will need to employ isolation work in order to achieve further growth. This is why there are plenty of 'light' guys that can squat very high numbers and why 1000lb squaters don't necessarily have 300 pounds of lean body mass.

With practicality in mind, one can employ some isolation work from the beginning of their lifting career --- after all the necessary main lift/accessory work is in --- but it mustn't impede recovery or result in overtraining. One can probably get away with some bicep or calf work sprinkled here and there.

However, premature use of the isolation work may make it difficult to determine how responsive one is to a movement. Premature use being defined by implementing isolation work before the body stops responding to powerlifting movements (i.e main lifts + accessory). Of course, our culture demands instant, maximum response and a large portion of novices seem to put little value towards a long term understanding of their body and would rather see maximum results as soon as possible.

In regard to my statement regarding gauging responsiveness, here's Matt Kroczaleski discussing some very interesting points that tie in a lot of the concepts in this thread:

While I agree with just about everything posted here, you are all missing WHY guys begin lifting in the first place. The same reason guys pick up a guitar for the first time. They want to get laid. They don`t want to know about science and why they should lift this way as opposed to that way. Or why form is as important(or MORE important) than weight or reps. They just want big arms, chest and shoulders. A lot don`t even do legs until a coach or another guy in the gym mentions it.

Originally Posted by Caretaker

While I agree with just about everything posted here, you are all missing WHY guys begin lifting in the first place. The same reason guys pick up a guitar for the first time. They want to get laid. They don`t want to know about science and why they should lift this way as opposed to that way. Or why form is as important(or MORE important) than weight or reps. They just want big arms, chest and shoulders. A lot don`t even do legs until a coach or another guy in the gym mentions it.

I was a competitive powerlifter for many years, and had no trouble getting laid. And I'm one ugly S.O.B, so if I can do it, anyone can. Most women want MEN, not some banana-hammock wearing wanker with a fake tan and all his hair shaved off.

Also, if you want big arms, chest and shoulders, lift heavy and hard with compound exercises. Anyone with no legs will get laughed out of any decent powerlifting gym. Can't pull or squat without legs! (End of rant).

Originally Posted by Caretaker

you are all missing WHY guys begin lifting in the first place. [redacted because a big cock and/or money (literally or figuratively) should be enough to get a random lay from a 'ten' without all the effort of lifting weights]They don`t want to know about science and why they should lift this way as opposed to that way. Or why form is as important(or MORE important) than weight or reps. They just want big arms, chest and shoulders. A lot don`t even do legs until a coach or another guy in the gym mentions it.

Not only are we not missing that concept, but it's the center of the conversation -- the most effective way to get bigger. The issue about understanding your body is just details that a very large percentage of people won't have to deal with anyways.

Aside from that, you don't need to care why you should periodize or why you shouldn't do tricep kickbacks. The important thing is that you do the work that those who do care about the details recommend should be done.

I'm glad you agree with the principles though, it's nice to have another one join the club.

Originally Posted by MDR

I was a competitive powerlifter for many years, and had no trouble getting laid. And I'm one ugly S.O.B, so if I can do it, anyone can. Most women want MEN, not some banana-hammock wearing wanker with a fake tan and all his hair shaved off.

Also, if you want big arms, chest and shoulders, lift heavy and hard with compound exercises. Anyone with no legs will get laughed out of any decent powerlifting gym. Can't pull or squat without legs! (End of rant).

Right you are. Most women want men, but a lot of these guys are young ans so are the girls they are after. I too have a powerlifting backround and I mentioned the guitar thing as another example. I always had mor of a powerlifting/football frame than a bodybuilder frame but I was also a semi pro guitar player for many years. And the banana hammock wearing(like that term!!! LOL) David Lee Roth body types got 80% of the women.

Originally Posted by Caretaker

Right you are. Most women want men, but a lot of these guys are young ans so are the girls they are after. I too have a powerlifting backround and I mentioned the guitar thing as another example. I always had mor of a powerlifting/football frame than a bodybuilder frame but I was also a semi pro guitar player for many years. And the banana hammock wearing(like that term!!! LOL) David Lee Roth body types got 80% of the women.

David Lee Roth? You must be my age. Isn't he about 65 these days? In that vein, I'm almost 44, so I am not the guy to ask what young girls like these days. Probably not old bearded bald fucks like me. Good thing I'm married, I guess. I actually get a kick out of bodybuilding and the art and aesthetics of the sport. But I'd rather be big, strong and powerful any day.

Originally Posted by MDR

David Lee Roth? You must be my age. Isn't he about 65 these days? In that vein, I'm almost 44, so I am not the guy to ask what young girls like these days. Probably not old bearded bald fucks like me. Good thing I'm married, I guess. I actually get a kick out of bodybuilding and the art and aesthetics of the sport. But I'd rather be big, strong and powerful any day.

....I`m 46, still long hair but balding and a full beard.

Originally Posted by Caretaker

....I`m 46, still long hair but balding and a full beard.

See, you are a member of the club! Like it or not! By the way, I have all the old Van Halen albums on vinyl. Thanks for bringing back my youth, even if only for a minute.

Those albums are probably older than I am but I do have the full beard. Hopefully that gets me an honorary spot.

Originally Posted by Marat

Those albums are probably older than I am but I do have the full beard. Hopefully that gets me an honorary spot.

Nope. LOL. I`ve had the full beard since I was 15. The records too.

Originally Posted by Marat

Those albums are probably older than I am but I do have the full beard. Hopefully that gets me an honorary spot.

Without a doubt.

<<-- eastern european, even my mother has a beard. i was basically born with one, old man.

Originally Posted by Marat

<<-- eastern european, even my mother has a beard. i was basically born with one, old man.

I understand-I'm Scandinavian, so I was born very pale with a full beard.

I agree with this post, except... I completely disagree that a beginner should start out with a 5/3/1 or 5x5 type of routine. They simply lack the experience in lifting to handle that type of weight. Results will likey be discouragement from an enormous amount of DOMs or even worse injury. I also don't believe a strength/power type of routine is even necessary for a begginer since almost any type of routine will surely bring on strength and muscle gains. A beginner would be far better served doing a basic push/pull routine, where he/she could progess in weight as they progess in experience. This will not only help their form in the basic compound lifts but also their confidence. Which they'll need both for a more intense routine such as a 5x5, 5/3/1, or HIT program

Haha, I'm very amused by this post. Such great points. I am in college and I try to tell people in the gym doing 10 sets of side laterals, then cable laterals, and then every type of curl you can imagine is a huge waste of time.

I tell them to squat and pull,l but no one listens. And, yes you will often hear CURLS FOR THE GURLS!! haha, they just don't get it. I'm a sophmore and many of them look the exact same as they did last year! I get annoyed when I hit plateaus, but they don't seem to mind. I came in last year with no real workout experience, one of the smallest guys in the gym. I read up on this site and valued leg training and know I'm one of the biggest. Obviously, there are exceptions the athletes have strength coaches so they know what there doing but other than it's just all about the gun show. I think bodybuilding should only be for people that are approaching their genetic limit or at a very high level of fitness.

Originally Posted by PushAndPull

I agree with this post, except... I completely disagree that a beginner should start out with a 5/3/1 or 5x5 type of routine. They simply lack the experience in lifting to handle that type of weight. Results will likey be discouragement from an enormous amount of DOMs or even worse injury. I also don't believe a strength/power type of routine is even necessary for a begginer since almost any type of routine will surely bring on strength and muscle gains. A beginner would be far better served doing a basic push/pull routine, where he/she could progess in weight as they progess in experience. This will not only help their form in the basic compound lifts but also their confidence. Which they'll need both for a more intense routine such as a 5x5, 5/3/1, or HIT program

I don't think 5/3/1 is the ideal program for a noob. The reason is that you are not working the movements often enough to improve your form and master them. It is a great, well-designed system, but I think it's better suited to those who are experienced with the lifts involved.

That said, 5x5 or Rippetoe's Starting Strength are incredible for beginners. In fact I'd probably recommend Starting Strength to almost every beginner, regardless of goals, because it teaches you the most important lifts, teaches you periodization, and teaches you how to design a proper program.

Originally Posted by PushAndPull

I completely disagree that a beginner should start out with a 5/3/1 or 5x5 type of routine. They simply lack the experience in lifting to handle that type of weight.

Speaking for nearly all strength programs, the intensities are selected based on their training 1RM. The weights are not fixed.

Here's a Q&A directly from 5/3/1:
Question: Is this program for advanced or beginner lifters?
Answer: I’ve used this program with both beginning and advanced lifters. Steady, slow progression will never go out of fashion, and neither will the big exercises. The trick is to teach beginners correct form at the start. For advanced lifters, the most important thing is to remember long term goals, and not basing unrealistic maxes on what you did four years ago.

Originally Posted by PushAndPull

Results will likey be discouragement from an enormous amount of DOMs or

Any new resistance change will result in DOMS. Advanced lifters experiences DOMS when making changes too.

Originally Posted by PushAndPull

even worse injury.

I cannot interpret your message behind that concept. Proper programming implies sufficient warmup and appropriate intensities. Additionally, proper form is expected. Anybody will get hurt if any one of those variables is improperly addressed.

Originally Posted by PushAndPull

I also don't believe a strength/power type of routine is even necessary for a begginer since almost any type of routine will surely bring on strength and muscle gains.

The strength/power type of routine establishes a proper foundation with all the necessary programming variables accounted for (i.e movement selection, rep range, intensity, volume). By properly setting those variables, the novice ensures they are in the position to steadily progress in strength by using eliminating extraneous movements and periodization methods with intensities established by coaches that are renowned across a variety of disciplines.
Additionally, any sort of resistance training will bring on strength and muscle gains. The most well constructed programming will bring upon the greatest gains -- that is not my thought, that is the consensus of those aforementioned coaches.

Originally Posted by PushAndPull

A beginner would be far better served doing a basic push/pull routine, where he/she could progess in weight as they progess in experience.

Can you please elaborate further on this idea? Although I see whispers of periodization every know and then, the typical push/pull routine that we see here lacks that critical element of proper programming. Doing so contributes to premature plateaus as well as injury and overtraining. Those three concepts are a result of the same thing -- spending too much time with too high of a weight relative to their 1RM. For example, when someone is recommended 5x5 for the major lifts and 3x8 for their accessories/isolations the typical expectation is for them to work with as heavy of a weight that allows them to properly do the movement within that rep range. However, that much volume spent at such a high intensity is counterproductive towards strength gains and therefore size gains. Again, that is not my thought - that is the conclusion after years of trial and error by the founders of training whose principles are taught today. Additionally, appropriate ways of controlling progression include monitoring load increases as well as ability to recover. The amount of time spent training does not necessarily indicate that one will get stronger or recover predictability.

Originally Posted by PushAndPull

This will not only help their form in the basic compound lifts but also their confidence. Which they'll need both for a more intense routine such as a 5x5, 5/3/1, or HIT program

I do not see how the push/pull routine is more constructive to proper form than a strength routine. A novice should be taught form before they pick up any equipment anyways. I'm aware that that's a mild idealization but the reality is that trainees typically mimic those around them and most people's form is laughable. The total years spent training does not necessitate an improvement in form -- if one is not properly taught proper form, they are probably more likely in ingrain poor habits and create compensations than to perform the lifts more efficiently. Especially with Starting Strength, the book describes form in such incredible detail that even a brief skimming would put the trainee ahead of most of their peers.

Additionally, although I cannot speak for HIT, I'm not sure what makes 5/3/1 or Starting Strength or 5x5 intense in the sense that beginners should not do it.

For example, Westside uses techniques such as 'accommodating resistance' (bands and chains) that isn't necessary for beginners. It is a template created for intermediate to advanced lifters.

However, SS and 5/3/1 are specifically intended to be used by anyone. Especially Starting Strength -- the purpose of the routine is to teach lifters who never lifted a weight before. It's not atypical for lifters get into a 400+ pound raw, unassisted squat before needing to move beyond linear periodization.

Originally Posted by gtbmed

I don't think 5/3/1 is the ideal program for a noob. The reason is that you are not working the movements often enough to improve your form and master them.

I'm aware that my post containing the rebuttle to this argument came up after you posted this statement. Nonetheless, I'll reiterate/clarify.

Form improves with time if the lifter is first taught how the proper form in the first place. Resources for learning proper form are scarce. The most common way of learning form is through mimicking other lifters or through getting advice from training partners. Unfortunately, the vast majority of lifters have crap form. That concept of most lifters, even with years of experience, having poor form is consistent across a very large amount of coaches -- hardly (never) have a read that a reputable coach has been satisfied with the state of the lifting public's ability to perform a rep with the greatest reasonable efficiency.

The more common case is that lifters are getting better at developing compensations that allow them to still get stronger. Unfortunately, these compensations fall apart at higher weights.

Form is learned and solidified using extremely light weight. Only when a load is applied is the efficiency of the load tested. Even a novice trainee can move the bar around all day (hyperbole) without it significantly affecting their recovery -- and if 45lbs is too much, they can use a PVC pipe.

All in all, although 5/3/1 does not go over proper form, it is assumed (and probably explicitly stated) that proper form should be learned. This is standard across all routines, not just strength-based programs.

Originally Posted by Caretaker

[Lifters] don`t want to know about science and why they should lift this way as opposed to that way. Or why form is as important(or MORE important) than weight or reps. They just want big arms, chest and shoulders.

Originally Posted by gtbmed

I don't think 5/3/1 is the ideal program for a noob.

That said, 5x5 or Rippetoe's Starting Strength are incredible for beginners. In fact I'd probably recommend Starting Strength to almost every beginner, regardless of goals, because it teaches you the most important lifts, teaches you periodization, and teaches you how to design a proper program.

Caretaker's post (accidently) illustrates why 5/3/1 is fantastic. Instead of learning about periodization and detailed explanations on coaching lifts, 5/3/1 simply puts out the end result for those not so interested in studying.

Both are great reads and, bottom line, get the job done. I personally prefer the Starting Strength book and program over 5/3/1 because of the detail. Nonetheless, dollar bills aside, I'd think that Wendler would have no qualms about recommending Rippetoe's Starting Strength and vice versa.

As a side note: they've actually recently become friendly with each other while Wendler was out pimping 5/3/1. Rippetoe enjoyed Wendler's approach to training. Wendler now sits in on Rippetoe's "round table discussions" every now and then too.

I think both programs are excellent. They're the kind of programs that not only give a new lifter a solid base level, but can be used by intermediate and advanced lifters to great effect too in most cases.

Originally Posted by cshea2

Haha, I'm very amused by this post. Such great points. I am in college and I try to tell people in the gym doing 10 sets of side laterals, then cable laterals, and then every type of curl you can imagine is a huge waste of time.

I tell them to squat and pull,l but no one listens. And, yes you will often hear CURLS FOR THE GURLS!! haha, they just don't get it. I'm a sophmore and many of them look the exact same as they did last year! I get annoyed when I hit plateaus, but they don't seem to mind. I came in last year with no real workout experience, one of the smallest guys in the gym. I read up on this site and valued leg training and know I'm one of the biggest. Obviously, there are exceptions the athletes have strength coaches so they know what there doing but other than it's just all about the gun show. I think bodybuilding should only be for people that are approaching their genetic limit or at a very high level of fitness.

And no doubt the "bros" think you're on gear because nobody could possibly outgrow them without it.

I pretty much agree with every post on here! With that being said I think we tend to over complicate this whole weight training process. Go "heavy", use as many compound movements as possible, rest, & diet. It's pretty much, that simple. Regardless if your BBing, PLing, or training for strength.

Flathead