- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,673
millionman said:PA, mad props on the progress. I bet that took a while. How many years did it take to get over 200 lbs?
>reached 190lb after 2 years following an abbrieviated version of Randall Strossen super squats routine,1x20 breathing squat,2x15 bentover row,2x12 bench press twice a week,cycling poundages.
Over the next few years i got close to the 200lb mark using various routines.
Started using low dose aas about 2 years ago at 31 and got up to 210lb,off cycle still maintain about 203lbs,aiming more for conditioning now rather than size.
The only problem with using Arnold, Yates, and Coleman is they are #1 Genetically gifted, #2 they utilized steroids and Growth Hormone (Coleman especially). The combination of superior genetics and steroids allows these men to train with higher volumes than the regular natural trainee. Arnold is known for his arm workouts with Franco where they would do as many as 50 sets of barbell curls simply handing the bar back and forth. Coleman uses heavy compund movements but he is also capable of deadlifting 800 X 3, and his volume varies significantly depending on the phase he's in. Yates is one of my all time favorites, but he too used higher volumes than a natural trainee should.
> I used them as examples of how there is no definate way to train,they all used different types of volume yet made progress,i wasn't suggesting a natural should follow there work load.
If you have noticed there are a lot of "professional" bodybuilders who don't workout properly, merely throwing weights around and they can grow because of their genetics and their insane drug use.
>Sorry but i disagree with you there,ive trained in a gym that had several top amatuers and a couple of pros and yes they can make it look like they are throwing the weights about but they are doing what works,i have seen the intensity these guys put in,also once a certain amount of mass is reached it is often impossible to do movements in text book form.
Also to say the result they get are simply from genetics and drug use is slightly nieve,i no plenty of lads some of which use sili amounts of gear and yet look nothing.
For proper facilitation of hypertrophy you would usually use a total number of reps between 36-50 reps. If you were attempting to hypertrophy the tissue while also increasing maximal strength the total number is 24-36 reps total. A total volume of 8 sets of three reps falls into the maximal strength w hypertrophy and this volume is not too high to achieve the goals that CYC has set for himself. He is trying to add a bit of mass while also gaining strength.
>Nice theory were did you here that,from personal experiance and as well as seeing others train i no it is flawed.
5X5 is a good program, but is simple a guideline along which goal you have set at the time you are utilizing it. For the above parameters you could use 6 X 4, 3 X 8, 5 X 5, 8 X 3, 2 X 12 and see a similar response from the body. The only difference with each set of numbers is the load on each, as your 8 X 3 would be your heaviest working poundages while 2 X 12 would be your lightest but would still find benefits in the area of concern; that being hypertrophy with maximal strength. Using these types of rep ranges would also allow a trainee to train more often in the week.
>Yes any of those rep ranges would work,i used the 5x5 simply as an example of how people latch onto an idea and then think its the magic solution.
The old tyme guys were awesome, and get much respect from me. If you want to get into some cool reading look up a book called the Ultimate Keys to Progress which is a book derived from the old Strength and Health magazines from the 60's and 70's. Each article was written by John Mccallum, and he covers everything from hip-belt squats to 20 rep breathing squats. There's a lot that science has proven over the last 30-40 years (mainly Russian) that verified what guys like Grimek, Pearl, and Reeves did in the gym. In some instances these guys just did what they thought would work best, and that was lift increasingly heavier weights for lower number of reps, and when that stops working move to something a bit different. They did a lot of heavy compound movements and were brutally strong. This is a difference from majority of the "gym" patrons today as they use machines and have no idea how to train at all, and they get tired of not making progress because they don't understand program design and they're scared of lifting heavy weights. CYC is learning his way around, and from what I have seen of his workouts and from talking with him he's doing pretty well, and is willing to learn and adapt to new ideas. This is a good thing, as it shows his willingness to think a bit differently. Remember most people can't design their own programs and a shocking number of people don't even know what a Russian Twist is. As far as his program goes it is sound for the time being as it meets his current goals and he's not over training. He's got a long way to go, but so do I, but it's a whole lot of fun trying to put it all together.
>Ive got a hip belt and its a good piece of kit,gets a bit uncomfortable once you get up to the 300lb mark.
Personaly i couldn't handle the workload in CYC routine even on a cycle,also the signs of overtraining can be very subtle.
Don't see why its shocking that people don't no what a russian twist is,its simply one of many core stability movements,how many people no what a turkish getup is
Sorry for the delay replying to this post mm.