A Monetized, Quality Bodybuilding Blog

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Protoculture wrote:
Unless you personally train tons of people, I would approach the blog as “your personal journey in bodybuilding”.

As for topics I would

  • Frequently repeating the basics.
  • Frequently repeating the basics.
  • Frequently repeating the basics.
  • Helping beginners cut through trends in the fitness industry (which are more market based than anything else)
  • Discussing issues that confused you at some point (ex: I just recently learned that there probably isn’t that much of a difference between “high volume” and “high intensity” programs. Just the former counts their warm up sets and the later do not.)

etc…

If you do train people, get their consent and post progress pictures, before and afters, focus on basic problems they’ve encountered and how they’ve surpassed them.

Thanks for the ideas. I would push the basics.

But I would want this blog to follow the sport as well. And also, to have interviews with people in the bodybuilding world: competitors, judges, contest-prep advisors, and so on. I believe that there is not much new under the sun. But people do really are entertained by what goes on behind the scenes. That is not boring - to most, I believe. I have heard people on this site requesting more interviews with BBers doing their thing and articles really pertaining to this sport and lifestyle. CT has the best articles for this on the entire site. He is my favorite author here for this sole reason.

[/quote]

Hm, if you manage to provide adequate coverage of many events (not just the top stuff), then count me in as a reader…

Interviews like the one we had here with Lee Priest would be cool, too.

Sounds like a good idea to me… Why not just go ahead, start it and see where it goes?

Good luck.

I’d be interested in what you’ve got so far… post or PM me a link when it goes up.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Bricknyce wrote:
Protoculture wrote:
derek wrote:

Very interesting point about the volume/intensity subject. Seems right on.

Like I said, I just learned of this recently from a T-Cell thread.

I always considered myself a low-volume guy, because I’m only able to perform a few balls-to-the-wall sets for the same body part in one session without burning out quickly thereafter.

One of two things always happened when I tried to follow traditional high volume training:

i) After the first set (which I had already warmed up to thinking it was supposed to be with my max weight) I would be so wrecked that the reps in the following sets would drop dramatically. Needless to say I was wasted from all the sets to failure I performed.

ii) I’d lower the weight to some ridiculous amount just to finish the prescribed sets/reps. Of course I wouldn’t get much results because I was using pussy weights by my standards.

Two undesirable results because I didn’t realize that all the other guys promoting this system were actually ramping up in weights (ie: warming up).

So if their 10RM for the back squat was 495lbs it would look like this:

495 x 40% = 200# x 10 reps for set 1
495 x 60% = 300# x 10 reps for set 2
495 x 80% = 400# x 10 reps for set 3
495 x 100% = 495# x 10 reps for set 4

Voila! 4 sets completed while being able to maintain intensity (defined as %1RM)!!!

So simple… man I’m stupid …

PS: Sorry for the thread hijack

The thing is that the high volume crowd states that you should stop two reps short of failure, or in Charles Staley’s advice, stop the set when your speed slows down, which can be quite a few reps before failure.

I find such training quite unenjoyable and absolute drudgery! Always holding back and loafing around a gym in what seems to be an endless workout is no fun to me.

I do not go to all-out death set failure on the big basic exercises like bench press, squats, rows, and chinups. I stop when I feel the next rep will be done in bad form. I do take the easier, isolation exercises to failure as its safe and not going to burn me out.

I do agree with Dorian, Dante, Alwyn Cosgrove, Jason Ferrugia, and Ian King in that if you are able to complete a prescribed amount of sets greater than 2 with the same weight, then its almost definite that you were not pulling out all the stops in your first 1 to 2 sets - you really weren’t taking it to the limit.

So, I and they ask: “what is the point of all this high volume shit?!”

When I lowered my work sets to 1 to 2 per exercise, my physique took off.

Dorian made his biggest transformation from '92 to '93. This is the year that he lowered his work sets to 1 and decided to really push the food, to bulk up. If you see old photos of when he won the NOC, he was considerably lighter, though did look like a Greek god.

Would you consider, say… Levrone a high volume guy, by any chance?

[/quote]

I am not sure. The last time I saw videos of Levrone training were when I was 21 years old, 8 years ago. Plus the videos had been in circulation for some time before I watched them.

I do not remember his training style much but I remember he was VERY strong. He did chinups with ease at a high bodyweight and flat bench pressed 500 pounds for reps. He was enormous at his peak.

You get my PM? Minus the P since I’m asking in an open forum…

Bricknyce,

the actual writing of the blog will be the easy part.

The REALLY tough part will be getting traffic.

So, be prepared for a period of a few months when it seems you’re doing this for nothing.

Your real competition will be with expert marketers, not expert bodybuilders. They know how to get traffic, but less than nothing about bodybuilding.

Cremaster,

You are right. Thank you.

Ponce,

What I meant was that I do not want the blog to only be about “gaining mass”, which is so prevalent in nearly all of the exercise and bodybuilding blogs that I have seen.

I do not think I have much to add to the bag of tips and tricks in the bodybuilding world, if we could even consider methods around today as “tricks”.

Of course, I wouldn’t mind speaking of varioius techniques, I would like the majority of it to be interviews, product and book reviews, coverage of contests, my experiences and observations, the whole lifestyle, and so on.

I think layman fits because NEARLY ALL of us are that, laymen. We take this very seriously and some of us have above average or very good development.

We eat six meals per day, eat very little junk food, have little vices (ie: drugs, wrecklessness, drinking, criminality, etc), and rarely miss workouts.

But nearly all of us do not compete - and if we did, wouldnt be in major contests, will never win a major title, will never be in magazine photographs, and will never, EVER be able to quit our full time jobs and simply live off of endorsements and appearances.

However, the ideas for names you gave me are pretty good.

[quote]Protoculture wrote:
Unless you personally train tons of people, I would approach the blog as “your personal journey in bodybuilding”.

As for topics I would

  • Frequently repeating the basics.
  • Frequently repeating the basics.
  • Frequently repeating the basics.
  • Helping beginners cut through trends in the fitness industry (which are more market based than anything else)
  • Discussing issues that confused you at some point (ex: I just recently learned that there probably isn’t that much of a difference between “high volume” and “high intensity” programs. Just the former counts their warm up sets and the later do not.)

etc…

If you do train people, get their consent and post progress pictures, before and afters, focus on basic problems they’ve encountered and how they’ve surpassed them.[/quote]

Frequently repeating the basics would be great if you were personal training and looking to get the best results with your clients.

Frequently repeating the basics is NOT the way to monetize a blog about bodybuilding.

Trends are “market based” for a reason – because they make money.

Making money is about getting people excited, and that’s rarely done by pushing the basics. I would be shocked if a blog that pushed the basics pulled in loads of traffic and got people clicking on ads.

Anderson,

I am in agreement. That is why I don’t want it to be a site on “gaining mass”. How many information products are out there on this topic. I mean, I can list perhaps a dozen by heart, most of which have the same content as T-Nation, NOTHING NEW!

I have some experience lifting, about 12 years with the last four being very serious. When I see training articles on T-Nation, at this point, I mostly do not even click on them. However, when I (USED TO) see the “Dead Pool” articles, the old “If They Had the Balls” articles, roundtable discussions, product reviews, and interviews, I would be and still am very excited.

Things have to be sensational in order for peole to be entertained by them.

Wasn’t the Dead Pool about predicting which bodybuilder was gonna die first?

Yes.

[quote]derek wrote:
Protoculture wrote:
Unless you personally train tons of people, I would approach the blog as “your personal journey in bodybuilding”.

As for topics I would

  • Frequently repeating the basics.
  • Frequently repeating the basics.
  • Frequently repeating the basics.
  • Helping beginners cut through trends in the fitness industry (which are more market based than anything else)
  • Discussing issues that confused you at some point (ex: I just recently learned that there probably isn’t that much of a difference between “high volume” and “high intensity” programs. Just the former counts their warm up sets and the later do not.)

etc…

If you do train people, get their consent and post progress pictures, before and afters, focus on basic problems they’ve encountered and how they’ve surpassed them.

I came back to type a better, more comprehensive reply and you did it better than I could have! Good job.

Very interesting point about the volume/intensity subject. Seems right on.

I’d like to see a cutting sense of humor. And the main thrust of your blog (IMO) should be–as we discuss here often–that what we see working in the gym, over decades with thousands of bodybuilders trumps double-blind scientifc studies all day long.
[/quote]

That is why very few guys get big in the gym because a thousand average guys are basing their training regimen on what a few genetically gifted guys are doing. Unlike the gymlore method, science looks at what works for most everyone, not just a select few.

Science tends to not focus on how to become a massive bodybuilder though which is the issue. Where do you look in pubmed on how to make a lean 275 lb off season bodybuilder out of a 185 beginner? It took scientists decades to admit that steroids were more than a placebo… at least in this hobby of ours the gym lore is ahead of the science world the vast majority of the time.

The main reason very few guys get big is because they are inconsistent and don’t stick with it long term.

[quote]Scott M wrote:
Science tends to not focus on how to become a massive bodybuilder though which is the issue. Where do you look in pubmed on how to make a lean 275 lb off season bodybuilder out of a 185 beginner? It took scientists decades to admit that steroids were more than a placebo… at least in this hobby of ours the gym lore is ahead of the science world the vast majority of the time.

The main reason very few guys get big is because they are inconsistent and don’t stick with it long term.[/quote]

And because they follow the usual fads and completely misinterpret bb training…

If you really want to make money, blog about meeting girls (even if it’s not true, little white lies never hurt) while lifting. Talk about how your at the bodybuilding drug scenes but managed not to use anything.

The killer is you need to have a real feel good story. Something like you smashed your pinky 5 years ago and the doctor said you couldn’t lift weights for 2 years, but you miraculously started back in a year. The first day you could barely do pinky curls, but after a year you could bench 2.5 times your weight.

Do guest appearances, say in your blog your going to be at burger king or something and show up.

Then offer to race Usain Bolt, wrestle Fedor, and dunk on LeBron. The key is not to do it, but instead have slow motion clips of you sprinting, dunking and shadow wrestling. At the end of each clip you have to be talking loud swearing nobody can touch you.

In no time you will be rolling in dough.

[quote]Scott M wrote:
Science tends to not focus on how to become a massive bodybuilder though which is the issue. Where do you look in pubmed on how to make a lean 275 lb off season bodybuilder out of a 185 beginner? It took scientists decades to admit that steroids were more than a placebo… at least in this hobby of ours the gym lore is ahead of the science world the vast majority of the time.

The main reason very few guys get big is because they are inconsistent and don’t stick with it long term.[/quote]

No, science tends to focus on WHY instead of HOW. Most scientists know that you cannot apply HOW to everyone equality, but if you understand the WHY you can apply it to anyone.

True, science is also blinded by self-interest and bias, just like the gym-lore. Yet, with gym-lore most of the big guys really have no idea to the WHY they were able to get big, just the HOW. And for most the HOW is not enough.

Yet, most people want hero’s and charismatic leaders, not the facts. People will ignore the facts of many studies in favor of anything, no matter how crazy, that comes from someone they admire. And presto - thousands of gyms with millions of people training and maybe 20 who actually get big from that advice.

You do the math!

I know arsefluff has a very popular blog. You should consider PM’ing him.

http://wwwneilmctcom.blogspot.com/

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

True, science is also blinded by self-interest and bias, just like the gym-lore. Yet, with gym-lore most of the big guys really have no idea to the WHY they were able to get big, just the HOW. And for most the HOW is not enough.

[/quote]

I’m sure curiosity does get to certain people but not everyone needs to know why weight lifting cause micro trauma and X amino acid facilitates this process of protein synthesis… most don’t care.

If we took 10 guys who said they wanted to become as large as their genetics allowed naturally and randomly assigned them to either be trained by a big gym rat(let’s say 5’9 245 fairly lean) with little to no education in the field or someone who had gotten a PhD in exercise science but little to no experience bodybuilding… who’s camp do you think would end up bigger a year-2 years,5 years down the road?

[quote]Scott M wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

True, science is also blinded by self-interest and bias, just like the gym-lore. Yet, with gym-lore most of the big guys really have no idea to the WHY they were able to get big, just the HOW. And for most the HOW is not enough.

I’m sure curiosity does get to certain people but not everyone needs to know why weight lifting cause micro trauma and X amino acid facilitates this process of protein synthesis… most don’t care.

If we took 10 guys who said they wanted to become as large as their genetics allowed naturally and randomly assigned them to either be trained by a big gym rat(let’s say 5’9 245 fairly lean) with little to no education in the field or someone who had gotten a PhD in exercise science but little to no experience bodybuilding… who’s camp do you think would end up bigger a year-2 years,5 years down the road? [/quote]

I don’t know, but that would be a very interesting study.

Or blog entry :slight_smile: My money is on the gym rat obviously.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
No, science tends to focus on WHY instead of HOW. Most scientists know that you cannot apply HOW to everyone equality, but if you understand the WHY you can apply it to anyone.

True, science is also blinded by self-interest and bias, just like the gym-lore. Yet, with gym-lore most of the big guys really have no idea to the WHY they were able to get big, just the HOW. And for most the HOW is not enough.

Yet, most people want hero’s and charismatic leaders, not the facts. People will ignore the facts of many studies in favor of anything, no matter how crazy, that comes from someone they admire. And presto - thousands of gyms with millions of people training and maybe 20 who actually get big from that advice.

You do the math!
[/quote]

I disagree. I think that how is enough for anyone. People don’t fail because there is a lack of information on how to build big muscles (in fact it’s probably the other extreme). You could tell 200 people exactly how to get big (I don’t care if you used anecdotal evidence, or scientific evidence to base that on) and most of them will still fail.

Most people fail because they simply aren’t willing to put in the consistency and effort to see results, not because they don’t understand on a cellular level the processes of protein synthesis, lypolysis, or exactly what amino acid triggers growth. Those things can all help, but they’re far less important in terms of success than actually doing what they need to do.

Science is indeed useful. The problem comes when scientists start telling successful BB’ers that what they did (successfully mind you) to reach their goals was wrong, especially when they are basing what they say on 12 week studies performed on previously untrained subjects, or lab rats.

Like you said, science can tell us why what works works. But the people in the trenches (the actual coaches and successful BB’ers around the world) will always be ahead of the scientific community, and will likely be credited with actually discovering what works.

The sport of BB’ing (from Sandow on, and quite possibly even before that) is the single largest, most extensive, most comprehensive and unforgiving scientific study of what builds muscles that will ever be conducted.