A New Program Influenced by Poliquin, GoPro, etc...Come Check it out!

tenxyearsxgone · 08-19-2004, 02:05 PM

This is a program I just put together that has four phases. Phase I is Power, Phase II is Powerbuilding, Phase III is Hypertrohpy, and Phase IV is Active Recovery, or better yet (P), (PB), (H), (AR).

Sunday: Off
Monday: Legs
Tuesday: Chest
Wednesday: Off
Thursday: Back
Friday: Shoulders/Tri's/Bi's
Saturday: Off
Sunday: Repeat

This program is periodization program that focuses on strength and keeps a maintence of hypertrophy. I was tired of gaining muscle mass and not reaping strength benefits. I was as high as 195lbs and could max out on bench at 280lbs, after doing 4 weeks of a powerlifting routine i'm 180lbs and max out 310lbs so far... My current goal is to add some size, get up to about 200lbs of LBM, and be as strong and dense as HELL!!!

I also think this program could work for anyone who wants to gain muscle mass as a priority as you will see. I have not included a scheme for super-setting that would benefit those looking to lose weight as it is not the desire of this program, but i'm assured that GoPro could take this program and tailor it to just about anyones individual needs.

The (P) portion is done in approximately 85-90% of your 1RM. The (PB) portion is done in approximately 80-85% of your 1RM. The (H) portion is done in approximately 70-75% of your 1RM.

Someone looking to gain strength would follow a routine such as this...

Week 1/2 -- (P) (85%-90% of your 1RM)
Week 3/4 -- (PB) (80-85% of your 1RM)
Week 5/6 -- Repeat (P)
Week 7/8 -- (H) (70-75% of your 1RM)
Week 9 -- (AR) (Pyramid of Core Lift 10-8-6-4-10 ... will be explained)

**REPEAT**
A person looking to gain muscle mass/hypertophy in the mixture of myofibrillar/sarcoplasmic region would substitute the weeks of (P) with (H) and inturn put (P) where (H) is...get it?

Attached is an Example of the Workout...If you are more savy than I with Word/Excel Please feel free to setup it so that it looks more coherent...thank you..

TYG

LAM · 08-19-2004, 02:14 PM

IMO...the day after legs and back should be non-weight training days.

where are shoulders and traps in your routine ?

tenxyearsxgone · 08-19-2004, 02:23 PM

If you would like to utilized this program or any other program that demands you to know your 1RM...use this calculator on this site...

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/1rm.htm

Saturday Fever · 08-19-2004, 03:48 PM

Figure your 1RM by hitting a 1RM, don't guess.

I've said this before, I'll reiterate. Growing is all about diet. There is no evidence, anywhere (except the realm of pseudo-science) that says different rep ranges will induce better hypertrophy. If you eat right, and train, you will grow. The only variable is whether or not you're training correctly to induce strength gains. In this arena, there are vast stores of information from very great people on how to best achieve strength gains.

tenxyearsxgone · 08-19-2004, 04:19 PM

Hmm...Thanks SF i appreciate the good words of advice. Looking at the program what do you think of it?

I'm putting in a chart in Word form that is printable and used in conjunction with the workout...

tenxyearsxgone · 08-19-2004, 04:28 PM

ATTACHED: Week 9 -- Active Recovery . . . giving your body a lot less volume and time to regenerate itself...

**gopro** · 08-19-2004, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

Figure your 1RM by hitting a 1RM, don't guess.

I've said this before, I'll reiterate. Growing is all about diet. There is no evidence, anywhere (except the realm of pseudo-science) that says different rep ranges will induce better hypertrophy. If you eat right, and train, you will grow. The only variable is whether or not you're training correctly to induce strength gains. In this arena, there are vast stores of information from very great people on how to best achieve strength gains.

OH LORD

tenxyearsxgone · 08-19-2004, 11:06 PM

GOPRO! Whats up bro...i know you have something...well more than something to say!!! Check them files out and get back to us we're waiting patiently

. That goes for everyone else who reads this thread!

!

Saturday Fever · 08-20-2004, 12:02 AM

Yeah. Chime in with something useful.

**CowPimp** · 08-20-2004, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

Figure your 1RM by hitting a 1RM, don't guess.

I've said this before, I'll reiterate. Growing is all about diet. There is no evidence, anywhere (except the realm of pseudo-science) that says different rep ranges will induce better hypertrophy. If you eat right, and train, you will grow. The only variable is whether or not you're training correctly to induce strength gains. In this arena, there are vast stores of information from very great people on how to best achieve strength gains.

Although certain rep ranges aren't necessarily better for gaining muscle mass, I do think varied rep ranges are important for gaining muscle mass. When I try to stick with a specific rep range, like 4-6, then my gains stagnate even with my diet in check. Once I started using periodization techniques, I was able to break past certain plateaus.

Bodybuilding is about preventing your body from reaching homeostasis and forcing it to adapt to the demands you put on it by inducing hypertrophy. Strength training is about maximizing neuromuscular efficiency. Surely both goals aren't pursued optimally through exactly the same training methods.

Saturday Fever · 08-20-2004, 12:19 AM

Well, take this as me asking you to think and answer, and not insultingly. If your body reaches homeostasis, why will it not grow?

If you follow my workouts at all, You'll notice that while my diet is consistent, my training increases everytime. Admittedly, I am at the moment, on a cuycle of steroids. But my gains were consistent, if not as large, before I ever turned to a needle. In the time I have been on this forum, I have increased my bench, unshirted, from 245 to 290. Shorted I have gone from 360 to 375. My squat has gone from 540 to 555. My deadlift has gone from 545 to 620. And yet I currently weigh 3 pounds less than when I joined.

Two years ago in April I followed a powerlifting routine but I ate 45 calories per day per pound of bodyweight. I went from 196 to 241 in 5 months. Did I get stronger? Of course. Did I get bigger? Much. Did I look like a bodybuilder? No. Why?

Because while bodybuilders look to have much more muscle, they achieve that look by being dehydrated and taking extreme diets. Ask P-funk if you need verification. He very recently vastly transformed his appearance and competed.

And what makes a bodybuilder grow or shrink? Routine or diet? If you ate 3000 calories a day for the rest of your life, and paid Gopro for his routine advice, would you grow until you stopped using his paid-for routine? Absolutely not. Your growth is entirely dependant on diet. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I challenge anyone to eat a static number of calories, and never cease growing.

I also challenge someone to eat a static number of calories per day, and never cease geting stronger. Ask P-funk if a bodybuilding diet and a powerlifting routine would have yielded similar results for him. Then ask him if a shitty diet and a bodybuilding routine would have yielded similar results.

Ask Robert DiMaggio if he would have the physique he has today if he never focused on diet.

End result, you will learn to agree with me because I'm speaking to what is fact.

**CowPimp** · 08-20-2004, 12:54 AM

As I said in my previous post, "When I try to stick with a specific rep range, like 4-6, then my gains stagnate even with my diet in check. Once I started using periodization techniques, I was able to break past certain plateaus."

I do believe diet is more important. I never argued otherwise. However, as long as diet is not your limiting factor, I believe there are optimal ways of training for hypertrophy and optimal ways of training for strength.

Training can just as easily be a limiting factor. If you are eating enough food, yet you are just gaining a bunch of fat instead of muscle mass, then the problem may lie in your training routine.

You are intelligent, yet you are biased just like the rest of us. You don't know for a fact that diet is the one and only factor when it comes to bodybuilding. I don't know for a fact that it isn't the one and only factor. Mine, and other people's, personal experiences with a change in routine sparking results is proof enough to me that training does make some kind of difference.

End result, you should tone down the arrogance a little and realize that you don't know everything.

**gopro** · 08-20-2004, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

Yeah. Chime in with something useful.

Yes, if everyone did 1 rep per set, but ate well and got stronger at doing 1 rep they would grow like a weed. Please. This is so silly that it is beyond reason. Obviously diet has alot to do with growth as even if you took steroids and did not eat at least a slight calorie surplus you wouldn't put on much weight. However, all things being equal with diet, there is no way, no how, no chance, that you can say that certain rep ranges do not affect hypertrophy and muscle growth (through more than just one mechanism) than others. SNF simply saw my name and Poliquin's name and had to try and chime in his so-called superior opinion based soley on the few "training God's" mantras that he follows. Thats ok, he is still very young and has so much to learn. Maybe after training for 15-20 years and utilizing basically every training program known to man, if he ever leaves the one methodology he knows (even briefly), he will find out there is more than just westside.

tenxyearsxgone · 08-20-2004, 08:12 AM

I don't see how rep ranges do not play an integral part of training and the effects it has upon a trainee.

A person who eats 3000 calories a day and trains in the 3-5 rep range will most certainly increase their ability to handle heavier weight and creat a more dense appearance.

The same person who eats 3000 calories a day and trains in the 8-10 rep rang will most certainly increase the size of muscle fibers FT-B and be able to handle slightly heavier weight in those rep ranges that will NOT correlate to their ability to handle heavier weight in the lower rep ranges as they have not trained their CNS in accordance with their differing muscle fibers.

How do i know this? Besides reading about it...i am that guy that did both and saw both. I am currently 10lbs lighter then i was 6 months ago. 6 months ago i was doing a traditional 8-10 rep range training routine where i ate 3000 calories a day. I was 195lbs, had 17 1/2" arms. Now i'm 180lbs, i can put up about 30% heavier weight, my arms are 16 3/4" and i still eat just as much if not MORE.

But aside from this healthy conversation on muscle fibers and their ability to hypertrophy or not hypertrophy from different %'s of your 1 RM, could we PLEASE focus on the program i have laid out in my attachments and original post? Thanks in advance for all critiques, questions, comments, and advice!!!!

http://www.cyberiron.com/tom/vs.html
http://www.weighttrainersunited.com/hypertrophy.html
http://www.coachr.org/fiber.htm

Saturday Fever · 08-20-2004, 10:38 AM

Well, it's really simple. If what you know is more precise than what I know, cite your backing. It's simple. Show me, in a context that can be proven, why you're right and I'm not. Everything that is true can be proven, that's what makes it true. So show your proof. The so-called "training Gods" that I follow didn't wake up one day and say, "This is how it works." They studied. They're doctors. They know anatomy. They know physiology. They know kinesiology. They combined that with THOUSANDS of research subjects in the form of human beings from all walks of life. They took the textbook, applied it to real life, and got answers. They got proof.

If all you're going to do is quote these bullshit articles that use words like "homeostasis" or talk about "myofibrillar hypertrophy versus sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" then do us all a favor. Go to Barnes & Noble and get a book on anatomy and physiology and learn just how homeostasis works in the human body. Read for yourself how full of shit these authors are. Then go get a physiology text that deals with the muscular system and learn about actin, myosin and sarcoplasm.

Anyone can write an article and use words most people won't understand. And anyone can pass that article off, using those words, in a way that makes it seem like, "Gosh this guy really did his homework and he says he's been lifting weights for 13 years so he must know his shit!" But in the end, with a little homework of your own, you can discredit practically everything these jackasses say.

**gopro** · 08-20-2004, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saturday Fever

Well, it's really simple. If what you know is more precise than what I know, cite your backing. It's simple. Show me, in a context that can be proven, why you're right and I'm not. Everything that is true can be proven, that's what makes it true. So show your proof. The so-called "training Gods" that I follow didn't wake up one day and say, "This is how it works." They studied. They're doctors. They know anatomy. They know physiology. They know kinesiology. They combined that with THOUSANDS of research subjects in the form of human beings from all walks of life. They took the textbook, applied it to real life, and got answers. They got proof.

If all you're going to do is quote these bullshit articles that use words like "homeostasis" or talk about "myofibrillar hypertrophy versus sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" then do us all a favor. Go to Barnes & Noble and get a book on anatomy and physiology and learn just how homeostasis works in the human body. Read for yourself how full of shit these authors are. Then go get a physiology text that deals with the muscular system and learn about actin, myosin and sarcoplasm.

Anyone can write an article and use words most people won't understand. And anyone can pass that article off, using those words, in a way that makes it seem like, "Gosh this guy really did his homework and he says he's been lifting weights for 13 years so he must know his shit!" But in the end, with a little homework of your own, you can discredit practically everything these jackasses say.

Answer my question genius...two people...same genetics...same diet...one does 3 sets of 1 rep to failure...one does 3 sets of 8 reps to failure...you honestly believe they will have the same muscle growth response...if your answer is yes, please never ever coach anyone in bodybuilding b/c they will want their money back very quickly.

Saturday Fever · 08-20-2004, 12:27 PM

OK, and while I answer, you answer why they wouldn't.

There are two types of hypertrophy, no doubt. As discovered and defined by Nikitov and Samoilov, there is sarcomere hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. The first is an increase in the size of the contractile components (actin and myosin filaments, see the sliding filament theory of muscle contraction), while the latter is growth of the structures supporting and surrounding the contractile components (the sarcoplasmic reticulum and sarcoplasm).

In plain english, when a muscle contracts, what is happening is that myosin and actin filaments are being pulled together. As they come together they form a "stack". A great working example of this can be seen when someone flexes their bicep and it "peaks." These filaments are surrounded, and held together, by the sarcoplasmic reticulum and sarcoplasm.

So, to your question, regarding what I assume would be identical twins with identical DNA, and whether or not they would develop the same. Assuming all things constant, environment, form used while lifting, identical routine layout, etc. The only difference in the way the twins workout is that TwinA works in a 6-10 rep range, while TwinB works in the 1-3 rep range.

Now let's employ the hypertrophy formula:

Quote:

1: The fundamental stimulus to increase in all strength and tissue hypertrophy quite simply is physical loading.

2: The physical loading must not exceed the mechanical strength of the tissues involved to ensure safety and efficiency.

3: Increase in strength and hypertrophy is not instantaneous, but occurs predominantly during a certain recovery period after loading.

4: All muscle groups and other tissues do not hypertrophy or strengthen at the same rate or to the same degree.

5: Strength and hypertrophy is minimal unless a certain minimal threshold load is imposed regularly.

6: The minimal threshold is not fixed, but increases with level of adaptation and level of experience, which ensures that rate of progress slows down or ceases.

7: The concept of tension time on its own is rather meaningless, since loading even for very prolonged periods may have no effects of strength and hypertrophy if the tension does not exceed this minimum threshold

8: The effects of tension on tissue depend not only on the magnitude or duration of the tension, but the way in which the tension is produced or maintained. For example, one can use high or low Rates of Tension Development, and one can increase tension by use of a large, slowly accelerated load or a smaller, rapidly accelerated load (in accordance with Newton II: Force = Mass x Acceleration).

9: Long periods of muscle 'time under tension' as imposed by cyclical activities such as endurance running, cycling and swimming are not known generally to produce significant increases in strength or hypertrophy.

10: Continued increase in strength and hypertrophy is a consequence of
progressive gradual increase in loading (principle of progressive overload).

11: Changes in strength and hypertrophy are not linear or continuous, something that is emerging from research into ‘non-linear dynamics’ (NLD) or ‘chaotic’ processes. For example, a 10% increase in load does not necessarily produce a 10% increase in strength or size. Some changes may be delayed, diminished or very pronounced at certain stages.

12: Muscles rarely are able to produce 100% of their maximum potential, due to a variety of reasons such as protective inhibition by certain reflexes and mental motivation.

13: Increase in strength and hypertrophy may or may not be associated with some form of fatigue; muscle strength and hypertrophy can also depend on working periodically to the point of non-fatiguing 1RM failure.

14: It is difficult to distinguish between the limitations imposed by short-term fatigue and those imposed by reflex inhibition of maximal force production, fear of pain or injury, or lack of motivation.

15: Fatigue is not a single discrete factor, but a multifaceted process involving phenomena such as central and peripheral fatigue, slow and fast fatigue, and short-term and long-term fatigue.

15: Muscle tension is not constant during any movement, but varies between zero and a certain maximum as joint angles change

16: Muscle tension is not produced under the same conditions throughout any movement, but changes between concentric, eccentric and isometric modes of action

18: Muscles comprise smaller groups of fibers which exhibit different rates of fatigue, fatigue-resistance and ability to generate force (e.g. so-called slow and fast twitch fibers).

19: All muscle tension and patterns of muscle recruitment are a consequence of nervous activity, so that increase in strength and hypertrophy ultimately are the result of specific patterns of nervous excitation.

20: Increase in strength is not necessarily associated with increase in hypertrophy or vice versa.

21: Strength and hypertrophy diminish if physical loading is not imposed regularly at certain intervals.

22: Strength and hypertrophy increase may be stimulated by active muscle contraction, passive stretching, vibrational oscillation or external electrical stimulation.

23. Loaded flexibility exercises can also enhance hypertrophy and strength
of muscles and connective tissues.

24: Mental factors can also play a vital role in stimulating progress; there should not only be "concentration curls", but every exercise should be done with intense concentration.

25: It is not necessarily quantity of exercise which determines best results; quality of each exercise is often of equal or greater importance.

26. Muscle hypertrophy and strength are determined not only by what happens during exercise, but in the rest or restoration periods between exercises and training sessions.

27. Intermittent ballistic and explosive methods of training (of optimal intensity to ensure safety of the individual) may also increase strength and hypertrophy because they can increase muscle tension above that produced by normal voluntary methods - many weightlifters train predominantly in this way and still develop impressive muscularity and exceptional strength.

So, in theory because there are not thousands of willing identical twins to use for validation purposes, yes the twins would develop the same. And that s the basis of making a theory a fact. Theoretically, things work. But until you prove it, it is just a theory. However, as is consistent with most things science, when practice is applied to theory, I'm sure it would be easy to demonstrate that the twins would, in fact, develop the same.

tenxyearsxgone · 08-20-2004, 12:36 PM

I'm so lost...i'll be honest I am. If rep ranges and percentages of your 1RM do not affect your rate of growth in different forms of hypertrophy why would powerlifters vary their training from bodybuilders and the most obvious difference is REP RANGE? Why wouldn't powerlifters all workout with 70-80% of their 1RM all the time? Why wouldn't bodybuilders always lift at 90% or more of their 1RM all of the time? There is definately scientific reasons behind it. There has to be. Personally I know i grow larger from a 6-8 rep range, and get stronger from a 1-5 rep range. Obviously its different for everyone based on your genetic make up and what muscle fibers dominate your body, which you could find out through a muscle biopsy or other generic means. I'm not sure i Understand your argument SF, which does not mean you are wrong and I am right. However, maybe through discussion we can come to a reasonable conclusion on both of our points and understand each other. Thats all...no flaming or ridiculing needed.

Then after we figure that out...could we put some energy to critiquing my routine

thanks . . .

Saturday Fever · 08-20-2004, 12:45 PM

Quote:

If rep ranges and percentages of your 1RM do not affect your rate of growth in different forms of hypertrophy why would powerlifters vary their training from bodybuilders and the most obvious difference is REP RANGE? Why wouldn't powerlifters all workout with 70-80% of their 1RM all the time? Why wouldn't bodybuilders always lift at 90% or more of their 1RM all of the time? There is definately scientific reasons behind it.

Simply because your CNS cannot handle a consistent loading like that. You can't enter the gym every day and work every single lift in the 90-100% intensity range because your CNS would simply refuse. See the point above about inhibiting yourself for fear of injury, subconsiously. This is why a powerlifter trains as much as he can at such a high intensity level, but drops down to finish his/her accessory work.

Take my routine for example. My first lift is done at about 80%. Then I ramp up on the second lift and hit 100%. Then I ramp way down and work around 60-70% and sometimes as low as 50%.

Quote:

1: The fundamental stimulus to increase in all strength and tissue hypertrophy quite simply is physical loading.

2: The physical loading must not exceed the mechanical strength of the tissues involved to ensure safety and efficiency.

5: Strength and hypertrophy is minimal unless a certain minimal threshold load is imposed regularly.

6: The minimal threshold is not fixed, but increases with level of adaptation and level of experience, which ensures that rate of progress slows down or ceases.

7: The concept of tension time on its own is rather meaningless, since loading even for very prolonged periods may have no effects of strength and hypertrophy if the tension does not exceed this minimum threshold

So I will tax my muscles and my CNS in the pursuit of strength, and I finish by applying a very small load to the accessory muscles. Is this small load enough to induce hypertrophy? Sure. And while we know that size and strength do not have a direct correlation, we also know that a bigger muscle has more potential to produce strength. 6-8 reps is fine for hypertrophy. But it is in no way superior to sets of 1-3.

**gopro** · 08-20-2004, 12:58 PM

I guess thats why powerlifters are generally carrying as much muscle mass as bodybuilders...oh wait, they don't.

Yes, you can site your two favorite trainers and you can post up your fancy studies with fancy language (of course if I posted studies from others you would discount them as being written by full of shit authors) to make everyone THINK you have a clue, but in reality you do not. You are just a stubborn, well read, brainwashed, thinks his IQ is higher than everyone elses, arrogant, child that will only ever know what his narrow minded attitude will allow. If you really were that savvy about your training you wouldn't even need the steroid cycle that you are currently on. I have worked and trained with powerlifters, weightlifters, and scores of others that use different methodologies to achieve different results for the better part of my life and guess what? Different methodologies DO IN FACT PRODUCE DIFFERENT RESULTS...hypertrophy, power, endurance, speed...all are optimized using different training protocols.

I know types like you very very well. You are so brainwashed and overly sure of yourself (and for NO GOOD REASON), that if GOD himself appeared on earth and told you something that you disagreed with, you would ask him for a study to prove it.

NOTE TO ALL: Everything that you have learned about bodybuilding training...even if you have been at it for 10, 15, 20 + years and have been very successful is probably all wrong. SNF has all the answers and can set you straight! HE is a guru because he has learned THE REAL FACTS...THE ONLY FACTS...from his gurus. Stop what you are doing and listen to SNF...he has more knowledge than all of us collectively on this board. We are all just fools following unproven principals and we are just blind sheep and conformists to ideas with no basis in fact. I just can't believe that I have been training myself and hundreds and hundreds of others incorrectly all these years, with ideas that really are not effective at all! Its so damn simple! Eat quality calories...eat more calories than you expend...and train in basically any rep range, and as long as you get stronger you will grow optimally! I have seen the light!

tenxyearsxgone · 08-20-2004, 01:07 PM

so no 1 wants to constructively criticize me and help me refine my program

...boo hoo...

Saturday Fever · 08-20-2004, 01:16 PM

Once again, you sidestep the issue and get insulting. You asked me to answer a question. Now YOU answer it. You actually step up to a challenge instead of acting like YOU are so high and mighty.

In fact, answer an old question of mine. Which Westside members did you workout with in the past?

And as to the extremely ridiculous point about powerlifters not carrying as much muscle mass as bodybuilders, you know as well as I do that if top level powerlifters went on crash bodybuilding diets and dehydration runs, they'd be just as large. Maybe not Ronnie Coleman large, but then he uses Westside, so what exactly are we getting at?

However, if you'd like to see massive powerlifters, who would dwarf bodybuilders of the same weight, take a look at Ruggiera, Miller, Tate, Vogelpohl, Brandenberg and Ladnier. Picture those guys on bodybuilding crash diets and dehydration. They'd dwarf any bodybuilder in the same weight class.

08-19-2004, 02:14 PM	#2
LAM Gym ratt/Part-time pimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 7,384 Photos: 2	IMO...the day after legs and back should be non-weight training days. where are shoulders and traps in your routine ?
	Dumbest statement made in the Anabolic Zone for Nov TBD ----------------------------------------------------- What you talking about Willis ?

08-19-2004, 02:23 PM	#3
tenxyearsxgone Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: long island Posts: 370	If you would like to utilized this program or any other program that demands you to know your 1RM...use this calculator on this site... http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/1rm.htm
	Squat: 5x5: 295lbs Bench: 1x4: 275 Dead: 1x1: 475

08-19-2004, 03:48 PM	#4
Saturday Fever Pimp Gimp Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: California Posts: 2,142 Photos: 4	Figure your 1RM by hitting a 1RM, don't guess. I've said this before, I'll reiterate. Growing is all about diet. There is no evidence, anywhere (except the realm of pseudo-science) that says different rep ranges will induce better hypertrophy. If you eat right, and train, you will grow. The only variable is whether or not you're training correctly to induce strength gains. In this arena, there are vast stores of information from very great people on how to best achieve strength gains.
	yay.

08-19-2004, 11:06 PM	#8
tenxyearsxgone Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: long island Posts: 370	GOPRO! Whats up bro...i know you have something...well more than something to say!!! Check them files out and get back to us we're waiting patiently . That goes for everyone else who reads this thread! !
	Squat: 5x5: 295lbs Bench: 1x4: 275 Dead: 1x1: 475

08-20-2004, 12:02 AM	#9
Saturday Fever Pimp Gimp Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: California Posts: 2,142 Photos: 4	Yeah. Chime in with something useful.
	yay.

08-20-2004, 12:19 AM	#11
Saturday Fever Pimp Gimp Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: California Posts: 2,142 Photos: 4	Well, take this as me asking you to think and answer, and not insultingly. If your body reaches homeostasis, why will it not grow? If you follow my workouts at all, You'll notice that while my diet is consistent, my training increases everytime. Admittedly, I am at the moment, on a cuycle of steroids. But my gains were consistent, if not as large, before I ever turned to a needle. In the time I have been on this forum, I have increased my bench, unshirted, from 245 to 290. Shorted I have gone from 360 to 375. My squat has gone from 540 to 555. My deadlift has gone from 545 to 620. And yet I currently weigh 3 pounds less than when I joined. Two years ago in April I followed a powerlifting routine but I ate 45 calories per day per pound of bodyweight. I went from 196 to 241 in 5 months. Did I get stronger? Of course. Did I get bigger? Much. Did I look like a bodybuilder? No. Why? Because while bodybuilders look to have much more muscle, they achieve that look by being dehydrated and taking extreme diets. Ask P-funk if you need verification. He very recently vastly transformed his appearance and competed. And what makes a bodybuilder grow or shrink? Routine or diet? If you ate 3000 calories a day for the rest of your life, and paid Gopro for his routine advice, would you grow until you stopped using his paid-for routine? Absolutely not. Your growth is entirely dependant on diet. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. I challenge anyone to eat a static number of calories, and never cease growing. I also challenge someone to eat a static number of calories per day, and never cease geting stronger. Ask P-funk if a bodybuilding diet and a powerlifting routine would have yielded similar results for him. Then ask him if a shitty diet and a bodybuilding routine would have yielded similar results. Ask Robert DiMaggio if he would have the physique he has today if he never focused on diet. End result, you will learn to agree with me because I'm speaking to what is fact.
	yay.

08-20-2004, 12:54 AM	#12
CowPimp Fueled by Testosterone Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Silver Spring, MD Posts: 15,405	As I said in my previous post, "When I try to stick with a specific rep range, like 4-6, then my gains stagnate even with my diet in check. Once I started using periodization techniques, I was able to break past certain plateaus." I do believe diet is more important. I never argued otherwise. However, as long as diet is not your limiting factor, I believe there are optimal ways of training for hypertrophy and optimal ways of training for strength. Training can just as easily be a limiting factor. If you are eating enough food, yet you are just gaining a bunch of fat instead of muscle mass, then the problem may lie in your training routine. You are intelligent, yet you are biased just like the rest of us. You don't know for a fact that diet is the one and only factor when it comes to bodybuilding. I don't know for a fact that it isn't the one and only factor. Mine, and other people's, personal experiences with a change in routine sparking results is proof enough to me that training does make some kind of difference. End result, you should tone down the arrogance a little and realize that you don't know everything.
	The only time it's bad to feel the burn is when you're peeing... CowPimp Picks Up Heavy Shit MySpace YouTube Videos

08-20-2004, 08:12 AM	#14
tenxyearsxgone Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: long island Posts: 370	I don't see how rep ranges do not play an integral part of training and the effects it has upon a trainee. A person who eats 3000 calories a day and trains in the 3-5 rep range will most certainly increase their ability to handle heavier weight and creat a more dense appearance. The same person who eats 3000 calories a day and trains in the 8-10 rep rang will most certainly increase the size of muscle fibers FT-B and be able to handle slightly heavier weight in those rep ranges that will NOT correlate to their ability to handle heavier weight in the lower rep ranges as they have not trained their CNS in accordance with their differing muscle fibers. How do i know this? Besides reading about it...i am that guy that did both and saw both. I am currently 10lbs lighter then i was 6 months ago. 6 months ago i was doing a traditional 8-10 rep range training routine where i ate 3000 calories a day. I was 195lbs, had 17 1/2" arms. Now i'm 180lbs, i can put up about 30% heavier weight, my arms are 16 3/4" and i still eat just as much if not MORE. But aside from this healthy conversation on muscle fibers and their ability to hypertrophy or not hypertrophy from different %'s of your 1 RM, could we PLEASE focus on the program i have laid out in my attachments and original post? Thanks in advance for all critiques, questions, comments, and advice!!!! http://www.cyberiron.com/tom/vs.html http://www.weighttrainersunited.com/hypertrophy.html http://www.coachr.org/fiber.htm
	Squat: 5x5: 295lbs Bench: 1x4: 275 Dead: 1x1: 475

08-20-2004, 10:38 AM	#15
Saturday Fever Pimp Gimp Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: California Posts: 2,142 Photos: 4	Well, it's really simple. If what you know is more precise than what I know, cite your backing. It's simple. Show me, in a context that can be proven, why you're right and I'm not. Everything that is true can be proven, that's what makes it true. So show your proof. The so-called "training Gods" that I follow didn't wake up one day and say, "This is how it works." They studied. They're doctors. They know anatomy. They know physiology. They know kinesiology. They combined that with THOUSANDS of research subjects in the form of human beings from all walks of life. They took the textbook, applied it to real life, and got answers. They got proof. If all you're going to do is quote these bullshit articles that use words like "homeostasis" or talk about "myofibrillar hypertrophy versus sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" then do us all a favor. Go to Barnes & Noble and get a book on anatomy and physiology and learn just how homeostasis works in the human body. Read for yourself how full of shit these authors are. Then go get a physiology text that deals with the muscular system and learn about actin, myosin and sarcoplasm. Anyone can write an article and use words most people won't understand. And anyone can pass that article off, using those words, in a way that makes it seem like, "Gosh this guy really did his homework and he says he's been lifting weights for 13 years so he must know his shit!" But in the end, with a little homework of your own, you can discredit practically everything these jackasses say.
	yay.

08-20-2004, 12:36 PM	#18
tenxyearsxgone Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: long island Posts: 370	I'm so lost...i'll be honest I am. If rep ranges and percentages of your 1RM do not affect your rate of growth in different forms of hypertrophy why would powerlifters vary their training from bodybuilders and the most obvious difference is REP RANGE? Why wouldn't powerlifters all workout with 70-80% of their 1RM all the time? Why wouldn't bodybuilders always lift at 90% or more of their 1RM all of the time? There is definately scientific reasons behind it. There has to be. Personally I know i grow larger from a 6-8 rep range, and get stronger from a 1-5 rep range. Obviously its different for everyone based on your genetic make up and what muscle fibers dominate your body, which you could find out through a muscle biopsy or other generic means. I'm not sure i Understand your argument SF, which does not mean you are wrong and I am right. However, maybe through discussion we can come to a reasonable conclusion on both of our points and understand each other. Thats all...no flaming or ridiculing needed. Then after we figure that out...could we put some energy to critiquing my routine thanks . . .
	Squat: 5x5: 295lbs Bench: 1x4: 275 Dead: 1x1: 475

08-20-2004, 12:58 PM	#20
gopro NGA/IFPA Pro Bodybuilder Moderator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Ft. Lauderdale Florida Posts: 10,504	I guess thats why powerlifters are generally carrying as much muscle mass as bodybuilders...oh wait, they don't. Yes, you can site your two favorite trainers and you can post up your fancy studies with fancy language (of course if I posted studies from others you would discount them as being written by full of shit authors) to make everyone THINK you have a clue, but in reality you do not. You are just a stubborn, well read, brainwashed, thinks his IQ is higher than everyone elses, arrogant, child that will only ever know what his narrow minded attitude will allow. If you really were that savvy about your training you wouldn't even need the steroid cycle that you are currently on. I have worked and trained with powerlifters, weightlifters, and scores of others that use different methodologies to achieve different results for the better part of my life and guess what? Different methodologies DO IN FACT PRODUCE DIFFERENT RESULTS...hypertrophy, power, endurance, speed...all are optimized using different training protocols. I know types like you very very well. You are so brainwashed and overly sure of yourself (and for NO GOOD REASON), that if GOD himself appeared on earth and told you something that you disagreed with, you would ask him for a study to prove it. NOTE TO ALL: Everything that you have learned about bodybuilding training...even if you have been at it for 10, 15, 20 + years and have been very successful is probably all wrong. SNF has all the answers and can set you straight! HE is a guru because he has learned THE REAL FACTS...THE ONLY FACTS...from his gurus. Stop what you are doing and listen to SNF...he has more knowledge than all of us collectively on this board. We are all just fools following unproven principals and we are just blind sheep and conformists to ideas with no basis in fact. I just can't believe that I have been training myself and hundreds and hundreds of others incorrectly all these years, with ideas that really are not effective at all! Its so damn simple! Eat quality calories...eat more calories than you expend...and train in basically any rep range, and as long as you get stronger you will grow optimally! I have seen the light!
	Monthly columnist for Muscular Development and Ironman magazines. VPX Sponsored Athlete/Board Rep www.prrstraining.com Time to GROW Without Plateau! Personal Training Gopro is available for online personal training, dietary guidance, and contest prep coaching. Send me a PM or e-mail if interested. Thank you.

08-20-2004, 01:07 PM	#21
tenxyearsxgone Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: long island Posts: 370	so no 1 wants to constructively criticize me and help me refine my program ...boo hoo...
	Squat: 5x5: 295lbs Bench: 1x4: 275 Dead: 1x1: 475

08-20-2004, 01:16 PM	#22
Saturday Fever Pimp Gimp Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: California Posts: 2,142 Photos: 4	Once again, you sidestep the issue and get insulting. You asked me to answer a question. Now YOU answer it. You actually step up to a challenge instead of acting like YOU are so high and mighty. In fact, answer an old question of mine. Which Westside members did you workout with in the past? And as to the extremely ridiculous point about powerlifters not carrying as much muscle mass as bodybuilders, you know as well as I do that if top level powerlifters went on crash bodybuilding diets and dehydration runs, they'd be just as large. Maybe not Ronnie Coleman large, but then he uses Westside, so what exactly are we getting at? However, if you'd like to see massive powerlifters, who would dwarf bodybuilders of the same weight, take a look at Ruggiera, Miller, Tate, Vogelpohl, Brandenberg and Ladnier. Picture those guys on bodybuilding crash diets and dehydration. They'd dwarf any bodybuilder in the same weight class.