Search results

Go look at the journals by the following members on WBB: Belial, chris mason, LATMAN, The_Chicken_Daddy, Paul Stagg, El Pietro, heathj, just_a_pup, MonStar, and PowerManDL There are different goals involved for most, but I don't think you'll find that they "suck" by any measure.

Hypertrophy is the cause of the strength deficit, actually. Ideally, any form of power and/or explosiveness training will work to reduce this factor; Anything from ballistic reps at 55-65% of your max to heavy singles at 90-95% of your max will work. Main criteria is to 1) make your training...

I'm not seeing any extreme upper chest development.

One problem I see with doing HIIT with low glycogen levels is that HIIT is *fueled* by glycogen-- Once you get around that little roadblock, its all good.

Black rocks keep away white tigers. I don't have any science to prove it, but I always have black rocks around me and I've never seen a white tiger, so it must be true. You can say what you want, but you'll never change my mind because I've got 22 years of empirical evidence to prove it.

I agree about the depth issue. All too often I see people doing "knee bends" then claiming that they have depth. One thing I've use to help are just plain pause squats-- I've been squatting long enough know that I know my depth when I reach it, so I just put a 3-second pause there and blow it...

Static holds. Load up a barbell and hold the fucker till it drops out of your hand.

Endurance cardio isn't the best for fat loss; that much I agree with. But short periods (I'm talking 20, 30 minutes MAX) can be beneficial. Consider: 1) Aerobic work can increase capillarization in the involved muscle groups. More blood isn't a bad thing. 2) On the same note, it will also...

LOL

Of course its not that simple. ;) I was just noting that on the average, assuming the same rep range (5-10), more weight will mean a bigger muscle. Now, if you want me to make it *complicated*, that I can do also. :D

Heavier weight = more growth.

Well, to be absolutely honest, I don't see that it *wouldn't* work. The only thing I'd have to say is that the set volume looks a little high for my tastes; other than that, I can't really see anything "wrong" per se with it. My preference while hypertrophy training was/is to combine the...

Originally posted by gopro Generally I make "power" week slightly lower in reps, however, when I train a female and we are talking about legs, I go a little higher. I have found this to be more effective. Ok, that makes a bit more sense now. You must also remember that what I call power week...

Deadlifts

Sure. I don't know you're exercise preferences and such, but here's an example you can use for a guideline: Monday- Legs Squat SLDL Leg Press Calves Wednesday- Pull Pullups BB Row Close-grip Pulldown Possibly another row Bicep work Friday- Push BP Dips Overhead Press of some sort Tricep work...

For three days, you can't go wrong with a push-pull-legs split, assuming "bodybuilding ideals" are the goal.

That's a very good question H Man. Personally, I'd say stick with a given goal for at least 4-6 weeks before changing. Doing low reps followed by high reps in a staggered fashion like that "confuses" the body alright- but it also limits the efficacy of any approach. If you're going to try...

Again I repeat: Have the powerlifters of the world been informed?

So I can't have a civil debate without you taking it personally?

Is this ONLY for three weeks? If those sets are anywhere close to failure, I know *I* wouldn't want to do it for more than one week-- that's an awful lot of work. Secondly, why do you describe sets of 8-10 as "power" work? It becomes even more confusing when the next week only involves rep...