Nate Dogg wrote:
I never made good gains following any of Ian’s programs. I’m not saying they are bad programs (many rave about them), but I found that the volume of work was too low and the weights weren’t heavy enough until the later stages.
However, the best thing I learned from Ian King was the way he organizes training the body into movement patterns (horizontal pulling/pushing, vertical pulling/pushing, quad dominant, hip dominant, bis/tris, calves and abs). I’ve used that type of information when putting together my training programs and credit it to a lot of my success in the past few years.
Yeah Nate, that was my first impression of the programs I have seen of Coach King’s.
I may give it a try however. I guess it won’t hurt to experiment a little.
On the converse though, I have heard that Coach Poliquins routines are a little bit too heavy on volume for a “natural” athlete. I have had good success with them however.
I used a lot of Poliquin’s stuff back in the day (96-98), and I made okay progress. Some of his stuff was a bit high in volume, but I figured out later that it wasn’t the volume that killed me (Renegade Training had way more volume), but the fact that I was wasting too much time on little stuff (A day for arms/shoulders??? A waste for me.)
I’ve made better gains hitting the body more often and using upper/lower body splits or full-body routines using many more compound exercises, more sets, less reps and more weight (CW stuff, Westside, full-body workouts with varying rep ranges).