Do Competitive BB's Use O-Lifts?

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
i’m not confused about anything, sir. i follow modern bodybuilding, sure. and, i completely agree with you that the physiques displayed by modern bodybuilders far, far surpass those of bodybuilders from the golden era. i mean, even arnold himself, at his prime, would get laughed off the stage if he tried to compete in 2009. but the plain and simple fact of the matter is that exercise science has not changed much, if any, since the 50’s.

there are clearly other factors at work here. and, considering the number of folks i’ve witnessed doing “dexter jackson’s new and improved fantabulous arm workout” at my gym, you’d think, by your own rationale, that there would be alot more dudes walking around with bigger arms. and this, also, is clearly not the case. look, i know you’re an advanced bodybuilder… and also an intelligent guy. but you don’t really believe that the modern bodybuilding physique can be attributed to new scientific advances in how to perform 100 year old exercises do you?[/quote]

For some reason I find it very amusing that you are so polite as to call him “sir”, yet can’t find it in you to start a sentence with a capital letter. :stuck_out_tongue:

I think the last successful BBer to use the olympic lifts frequently was Sergio Oliva (he competed in Cuba before becoming a BBer). He did move away from the olympic lifts once he got more into BB though.

i’ll kill a few birds with one stone on this one: i totally agree about the comment on olympic lifting and it’s effect on the traps. i was actually just told the other day that my traps are abnormally well developed… i’ll give you one guess who can’t even remember the last time he did a proper “shrug”… and, it’s true, olympic lifting won’t do much for your lats… they aren’t siginificantly involved in the snatch or clean and jerk. and, regarding the inquiry about well developed bodybuilders who also olympic lifted…

try anyone from eugen sandow (the physique after which the olympia trophy is modeled), to jon grimek or tommy kono (old olympic weightlifters who also competed in, and won, bodybuilding titles), to mike mentzer or bertil fox (ibid), to the guys previously mentioned in this thread. no one is saying that in order to develop a physique to it’s highest caliber, one should just stick to 2, almost identical exercises… that’s absurd. but to assert that olympic weighlifting is useless in the pursuit of one’s aesthetic goals is even more absurd. everyone seems to take this stuff so personally… and, i guess i really do need to work on my grammar and syntax.

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
i’ll kill two birds with one stone on this one: i totally agree about the comment on olympic lifting and it’s effect on the traps. i was actually just told the other day that my traps are abnormally well developed… i’ll give you one guess who can’t even remember the last time he did a proper “shrug”… and, regarding the inquiry about well developed bodybuilders who also olympic lifted… try anyone from eugen sandow (the phsique after which the olympia trophy is modeled), to jon grimek or tommy kono (old olympic weightlifters who also competed in, and won, major bodybuilding titles), to mike mentzer or bertil fox (ibid), to the guys previously mentioned in this thread. no one is saying that in order to develop a physique to it’s highest caliber, one should just stick to 2, almost identical exercises… that’s absurd. but to assert that olympic weighlifting is useless in the pursuit of one’s aesthetic goals is even more absurd. everyone seems to take this stuff so personally…[/quote]

No one said it was useless. However, you get comments similar to, “[quote]my traps are abnormally well developed[/quote]” attributed to Olympic Lifts. I get comments similar to, “[quote]holy shit, what the fuck do you do for traps![/quote]” from doing shrugs and rows.

In other words, our goals are not exactly the same and the goal of most of those in bodybuilding isn’t to hear “your traps are abnormally well developed”.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
joe shumsky wrote:
i’ll kill two birds with one stone on this one: i totally agree about the comment on olympic lifting and it’s effect on the traps. i was actually just told the other day that my traps are abnormally well developed… i’ll give you one guess who can’t even remember the last time he did a proper “shrug”… and, regarding the inquiry about well developed bodybuilders who also olympic lifted… try anyone from eugen sandow (the phsique after which the olympia trophy is modeled), to jon grimek or tommy kono (old olympic weightlifters who also competed in, and won, major bodybuilding titles), to mike mentzer or bertil fox (ibid), to the guys previously mentioned in this thread. no one is saying that in order to develop a physique to it’s highest caliber, one should just stick to 2, almost identical exercises… that’s absurd. but to assert that olympic weighlifting is useless in the pursuit of one’s aesthetic goals is even more absurd. everyone seems to take this stuff so personally…

No one said it was useless. However, you get comments similar to, “my traps are abnormally well developed” attributed to Olympic Lifts. I get comments similar to, “holy shit, what the fuck do you do for traps!” from doing shrugs and rows.

In other words, our goals are not exactly the same and the goal of most of those in bodybuilding isn’t to hear “your traps are abnormally well developed”.[/quote]

BUHAHAHAHA Professor X never fails shit that was funny

touche, professor x. like i said, i’ve seen your old avatar (i know you’re an animal.) i’m not sure what, if any, “supplements” you’ve taken or are taking, but i’d go so far as to say that you’re what vince gironda would have called a genetic superior or, simply put, a natural. if what you’re doing is working, and it obviously is, i wouldn’t expect you, or anyone else, to change it up.

but olympic weightlifting exercises have been used for quite some time… both in pursuit of strength and physique. it’s in the history books, man. you mean to tell me you don’t see, at least a little, irony in the fact that joe blow gym-goer will recommend deadlifts and squats to someone interested in putting on size and, in the next breath, will staunchly advise against a movement that is the combination of the two, and then some? c’mon, now…

Interesting thoughts, but exercise science has moved on considerably in the last 50-100 years.

Sure, something like a clean is incredibly dynamic for upper traps, and does seem to elicit DOMS following a workout. But this leads to questions about whether simply being sore is a stimulus for change (no). This is simply a plyometric type movement (a hard one sure, but still plyometric). Based on this premise, why not do clap push-ups for the chest and split squat jumps to hypertrophy the chest/legs respectively? The reality is that this is not the right stimulus to achieve mass building gains.

Dude, most oly lifters (aside from superheavies who carry too much fat to tell) I’ve seen during the olympics have the arm development similar to many track and field athletes. In other words it isn’t impressive from a bodybuilding standpoint.

Also I’m willing to bet that in general power lifters carry more muscle mass than oly-lifters. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has noticed this which probably explains why you’ll see bodybuilders bench,dead, and squat instead of snatch and clean&jerk.

Had a nice post written out but computer turned off and I didn’t submit it…

edit: no, there it is so I must have clicked the button before power went off…ignore me, just like O-lifts for hypertrophy.

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
i’m not sure what, if any, “supplements” you’ve taken or are taking, [/quote]

and how is this relative to this otherwise semi-productive conversation?

People need to get the fuck over AAS already. I know people that have done them, and still couldn’t hold the prof’s jock.

Honestly considering how ignorant the general population is to them, anyone making gains in the gym is accused. Shoot I’ve had people ask me if I have, which is a total joke, but now I have to wonder what my employers & clients think. And it’s bullshit like you stated above that perpetuates that train of thought.

UGH. Why does everyone have to bring this shit up all the fucking time? Why does it have to be a caveat of training conversations?

(Sorry had a bad workout today, still annoyed.)

i respectfully disagree about exercise science moving forward considerably over the past 50 or so years… i’ve done alot of research on the topic… the original york courses, for instance, appear eerily similar to many total body type programs that have been gaining notoriety as of late. similarly, the routines described in vince gironda’s “unleashing the wild physique” read like many body part split routines you’d find in flex, musclemag, or what have you. true, the body’s anatomy, physiology, and biochemical pathways might be better understood in 2009 than they were in 1959… but doms is still a mystery, as is the exact mechanism through which muscular hypertrophy even occurs… and this is what we’re all here talking about!

regarding olympic weightlifting and arm development, obviously bodybuilders will usually take the cake, here. arm size is exaggerated almost to the point of absurdity in pro bodybuilding… as you know, it’s not at all uncommon for a bodybuilder to have one or more days in his/her routine specifically dealing with this one area. it’s not uncommon in amateur and/or recreational bodybuiling for a person’s arms to be as big/bigger than a person’s legs. this is obviously a gross training oversight and, at least in my opinion, doesn’t really add to the “total package” that a serious bodybuilder is trying to create. perhaps the reason many feel that olympic weightlifters have “small” arms is because they are, in fact, simply proportionate to the rest of the body… just a thought.

and, i know… the nerve of me! to think that anabolic steroids and bodybuilding are somehow connected… what’s next? are you gonna tell me that all the pros are using them? and then are you gonna try to tell me that right around the time ziegler introduced dbol that it was then that we saw physiques really start to change? and then, as if this weren’t already enough, are you gonna imply that whether or not a person is on steroids is going to somehow effect the outcome of his training efforts? blasphemy! seriously, not that anyone reading this thread is guilty of this, but failing to recognize the role that anabolics play in pro bodybuilding is just plain ignorant… or simply delusional.

i should probably close by saying that, despite what you may think, i am not anti steroid. in fact, i have no problem with them whatsoever. i recognize their appeal, prevelance, and utility and, frankly, find it ridiculous that when someone claims to have gained over 100 lbs. of lean body mass that more people don’t scratch their heads and go “hmm, i’ve been lifting for years now… why haven’t i gained 100 lbs. of lean muscle yet?” is this really the mentality here? really?

i mean, seriously?

[quote] wrote:
[/quote]

So exercise science hasn’t moved forward and you cite commercial training programs rather than advances in the types of programs used in the research??

Hell, there wasn’t even any research till the 80’s showing that training even 5x per week on one muscle group could actually be an effective intervention for some individuals! That’s not even getting into the periodization models that have been tested over the recent years.

And we don’t know about DOMS? Really?

So we don’t know about the z-line disruption that occurs after acute eccentric exercise which alleviates over a short period of time corresponding to the decreased pain symptom reporting?

So we don’t know about how certain enzymes and cytokines that are provoked following resistance exercise stimulate pain pathways, and that these substances have been specifically measured following resistance training, interval training, and various continuous aerobic modes?

So we don’t know about how our nociceptive pain pathways are regulated by the presence/absence of various circulating substances…

Far out, stink that we don’t really know any of this stuff…

like i said, we do know alot more about the various biochemical cascades that occur as a result of training… but we still seem unable to unite this information into an unarguable, scientifically sound (and by that, i mean exact, precise and repeatable) cohesive strategy for hypertrophy’s sake. any quick perusal of these forums will yield multiple threads debating over topics such as: full body vs. splits, compound vs. isolation, olympic lifting vs. powerlifting vs. bodybuilding… if we really “knew” anything about this stuff, wouldn’t you think that these conflicting viewpoints, so obviously polar opposite in nature, would cease to be a topic of discussion?

i mean, it’s easy to cite a study or studies (most of which, coincidentally, always seem to use the untrained for some reason) where a certain exercise or protocol or prescription yields a certain result… but, in order for something to be considered “true”, in the “scientific” sense of the word, anyway, it must be a constant. i.e. it must work for 99.9% of the people, 99.9% of the time. and, obviously, this is certainly not the case in bodybuilding… in this thing of our’s. even today’s article about the dark side of bodybuilding adds fuel to this fire. the “hot topics of bodybuilding debate”, if you will, that i mentioned above are anything but new… people have been having these same conversations since the 1940s!

for anyone who’s counting, that brings us to a whopping 70 years of what really amounts to simple trail and error, speculation, and experimentation… my point, with all of this, is that i believe that we’re still a long way from truly understanding how all of this works. just my opinion.

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:

i should probably close by saying that, despite what you may think, i am not anti steroid. in fact, i have no problem with them whatsoever. i recognize their appeal, prevelance, and utility and, frankly, find it ridiculous that when someone claims to have gained over 100 lbs. of lean body mass that more people don’t scratch their heads and go “hmm, i’ve been lifting for years now… why haven’t i gained 100 lbs. of lean muscle yet?” is this really the mentality here? really?

i mean, seriously?
[/quote]

a) your words and perceived attitude completely contradict your first sentence in the above.

b) Simple fact is, you don’t get it, and you probably never will. Unfortunately most of the population is just like this. I will try and explain:

Do I think it is possible for someone to gain 100lbs of lean mass in say 10 years natural? Absolutely.

Do I think many will do it? Absolutely not.

Simply put, too many people are too weak to put the kind of effort it takes to accomplish such a difficult feat. There are very few people that are willing to try that hard in the gym and with fork and spoon to get anywhere near that. Shit look around man, go to Walmart and tell me 60%+ of the people in there aren’t motivated enough by their vile obesity to put the fucking cake down, let alone get off there ass, drive 35 miles to the nearest gym with power after an ice storm, only to find out the fucking DB only go up to 80lbs. Very few people have the determination, drive, and sheer guts to even attempt to enjoy life, let alone make something out of it.

How many people do you know work 9am till 3am, drive home 40mins, and then spend the next 30 prepping breakfast for the next day, because fuck if I’m gonna lose pounds from not eating? Not many. How many people you know haul 90lbs bails of shingles up two story ladders for 12 hours a day, and still go bang out 315 for reps after work? Not many. How many people you know were squatting & benching pregnant enough to make your jaw drop? Not many.

c) What you think when someone has bigger traps then you: Ah shucks, he must do da roids man, I work hard as can be.

d) What I think when someone has bigger traps than me: Damn, good job. I wonder what he does for traps. Did I work hard enough? Did those missed meals and missed workouts set me back that far? SHIT! I could have gone harder obviously, I’m a total bitch pussy. Wife, man the protein, I’m going to do some more fucking shrugs.

with all due respect (and why i’m bothering with “respect” at this point is a little beyond me), i think that it is you, sir, who “don’t get it”. to make a long story short, your argument is deeply (and fundamentally) flawed. first of all, i haven’t seen many/any “natural” bodybuilders competing at 250 lbs. and single digit bodyfat… have you? in fact, many of the obviously gifted, let’s just say “un-natural” pro bodybuilders, the most recent and noteable of which being dexter jackson, don’t even compete at those numbers.

second, in all honesty, i’m not sure you know or understand the mechanism through which anabolic steroids actually work. each and every person has a certain “hormonal window”, if you will, when it comes to body composition. to clarify, a person can only hold so much muscle and so little fat simultaneously, with only their natural hormonal cocktail present in the system. this simple, yet painfully overlooked fact, is the reason why people get hopelessly caught up in the seemingly endless bulk/cut cycle… i.e. they find that in order to put on any considerable muscle, they have to add fat. and, conversely, when they want to remove appreciable amounts of fat, they can’t do it without also losing some muscle. naturally, the scope of this “window” is going to vary for people across the spectrum of the population. and it is the fact that this “window” exists that accounts for the widespread use of anabolics in the game as we know it today. the use of steroids “opens” up this window, so to speak, and creates a situation in which a person can hold a higher level of muscle with a simultaneous lower level of bodyfat than could be achieved naturally. this, my friend, is why people take steroids.

third, my “100 lb.” remark was just used as an example. obviously, and anyone who’s been lifting awhile will tell you this, it’s not “easy” to add lean muscle mass once a person gets past the beginner stage… natural or not. if it were, for instance, i’m sure dexter would have gladly competed at 250 vs. 233 or what have you… but, here’s the thing: at least currently, he couldn’t. do i think it’s possible to add 100 lbs. of lean muscle naturally? of course it’s possible… anything is. but, if it were plausible, i think we’d see more natural bodybuilders at that level. and, i know you seem to think that you’re the hardest training, most disciplined, and most nutritionally conscious person on planet earth, but i think it’s a safe bet that professionl bodybuilders, natural or otherwise, can match you for intensity, drive, and determination.

fourth, and this is perhaps the most crucial issue here, not only in this thread, but on this board and in the, for lack of a better word, bodybuilding community as a whole: when discussing the achievements of bodybuilders and using these achievements as measuring sticks of the utility of bodybuilding methods, it is the distance a person has brought their physique that counts (where they started from relative to where they are now)… not simply where they are now! the one thing i’ve noticed so many here overlook is the plain and simple fact that people are different. for example, if hypothetical subject a started at 150 lbs. and worked himself into a lean 180… and hypothetical subject b started at 180 lbs. and worked himself into a lean 200… the general consensus seems to be this: praise the bigger guy and his methods, and more or less dismiss the smaller guy’s accomplishments altogether… without noticing, apparently, that the smaller guy was at a 30 lb. disadvantage to begin with and, not that this is even remotely important, but he actually built more muscle. do you follow me?

fifth and finally, i find it truly sad that some people here can’t seem to have articulate, thoughtful, adult conversation about something we’re all obviously interested in without succumbing to an apparently insurmountable urge to turn every thread, every question, every post, into a gradeschool penis measuring contest. i know that we’re passionate about these topics, but some of the disrespect i’ve observed (and received) is simply unacceptable… and wouldn’t even be tolerated on other internet sites, let alone in the real world.

good night.

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
with all due respect (and why i’m bothering with “respect” at this point is a little beyond me), …

fifth and finally, i find it truly sad that some people here can’t seem to have articulate, thoughtful, adult conversation about something we’re all obviously interested in without succumbing to an apparently insurmountable urge to turn every thread, every question, every post, into a gradeschool penis measuring contest. i know that we’re passionate about these topics, but some of the disrespect i’ve observed (and received) is simply unacceptable… and wouldn’t even be tolerated on other internet sites, let alone in the real world.

good night. [/quote]

I wouldn’t mind a penis measuring contest, but pictures and a scale would be required.

Respect, and the perception of disrespect, is irrelevant in the internet forum context and you should have left that emotion at the door (or the computer on button, your choice).

This is about what you can back up without having to resort to who you are and what you do in the “real world”. That’s what makes this such a unique environment to learn and participate in.

And speaking of disrespect, saying that a particular research field hasn’t really moved forward in the last 100 years could easily be considered disrespectful to many individuals in that particular area. I digress from the point I wanted to make…

So, your comment about being unable to find “natural” individuals with low body fat who are around 250 pounds is rather naive. I have personally been involved in testing with athletes in various contact sports (rugby union, rugby league) who weigh in the range of 220-275lbs, who have single digit body fat, train with weights 3-5x per week, could transition into bodybuilding if they wanted, and more importantly for you, are tested for illegal performance enhancers on a regular basis. These guys are natural. And I’m quite sure that there are many others who easily contradict you. Actually my training partner is one of these guys, who has single digit body fat (8%) and weighs 260lbs.

Isn’t it disrespectful to assume that guys on this site are all juicing if they’re single digit bodyfat and up around 240+ lbs ???

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
to make a long story short, your argument is deeply (and fundamentally) flawed.[/quote]

Do you even understand the “argument” I’m trying to make?

completely irrelevant

Or to hit a baseball farther, tackle someone better, snatch more weight in the Olympics, again completely irrelevant.

Fair enough.

I never said I was the bomb shizzel. Don’t put words in my mouth. I used examples of people I know that bust their hump. Trust me, I’m well aware of how much harder a lot of people work than I do at this point. And gee guess what, they are a shit ton bigger than I am. But the point is, I’m not sitting here assuming they take AAS because they are bigger than I am.

One obviously benchmarks one’s self against other people. It is human nature. But to excuse yourself by instantly assuming they “supplement” (to use your wording) because they achieved more than you, in and of itself is ignorant. Someone would be better served to look themselves in the mirror and seriously question their own efforts & methods rather than jump the roid train and feel all warm and squishy inside.

In today’s society calling someone a steroid user is like ironing a scarlet letter to their chest. You have no right to convict someone in the court of public opinion because they achieved more than you.

You don’t pay much attention do you. Progress is applauded here, overwhelmingly so. But in the end, it’s about how you look now. You seem to bring the stage up a lot, so will I. If you have two guys, A & B. Guy A is a ripped 235 & perfectly symmetrical, but started lifting at 185. Guy B is also 235, but slightly softer and shaped like a box, BUT hey now, he started at 160. So… Who wins the trophy?

I have zero desire to know the size of your penis. But even if I won, I’m sure it would be because of steroids.

Joe Shumsky, enough already! Write a book.

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:

fifth and finally, i find it truly sad that some people here can’t seem to have articulate, thoughtful, adult conversation about something we’re all obviously interested in without succumbing to an apparently insurmountable urge to turn every thread, every question, every post, into a gradeschool penis measuring contest
[/quote]

Get used to it unfortunately, is all i can say to you.

gentlemen, i’m speechless… well, almost. i’ll keep it relatively short and sweet here by simply saying that i never “accused” anyone of anything. and, even if i did, i repeat, I HAVE NO BEEF WITH STEROID USE WHATSOEVER… but, having no beef with them and acknowledging that THEY DO PLAY A HUGE ROLE IN PROFESSIONAL BODYBUILDING AND ATHLETICS are two totally different things. this seems to be lost on some of you but, unfortunately, it doesn’t make it false.

i mean, i think it’s great that you know some “natural” rugby players with such impressive stats… and, kudos to your training partner as well… but i fail to see how using obviously gifted professional athletes as your “statistically randomized” sample of what is possible/plausible physique-wise lends any credence to your argument whatsoever. newsflash, these types of stats are rare IN GYMS… let alone in the population as a whole. of course there are going to be examples of extremely well-built men and women in sports… that’s probably why they’re IN SPORTS.

and, i have to say, i’m curious about this: how many people visiting this site, reading these articles, and starting and responding to these threads are 250+ lbs. with single digit bodyfat? my guess is not many… if any. people with these types of physiques don’t need to read articles and ask questions about new training ideas… because their old training ideas, however sound, outdated, haphazard or otherwise, are serving them just fine.

and, not that this makes me an expert by any stretch, but i believe that a bachelor’s degree in exercise science, at the very least, qualifies me to have an opinion on the matter.

godspeed, gentlemen.

end thread.