My 'Revelation' About Training

[quote]HunterKiller wrote:
OP: They are being really nice to you…

You missed the boat.

Broad sweeping categories are a bad idea.
Lumping everyone into two groups is even worse.

This is why Thibs so respected. From what I have gathered he is keenly aware that everyone is put together differently.

Everyones different. Some people need 30% protein, 40% carbs 30% fat. Some people need 10,000 calorie diets. Some need 70% protein 5% carbs 20%fat. Some people will have heart attacks if you give them a lot cholesterol. Some people will feel super awesome if you give them a lot of cholesterol. ect ect ect.

As with all things in life. You CANNOT know everything. You can always learn more. You will never know more then everyone else. If you think you know everything you will learn nothing. [/quote]

Ah isn’t that the truth. Nothing in life is black and white. It’s all grey…

[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Sabastian525 wrote:
Step 1: “Just get em’ strong”

Step 2: “Just get em’ lean and ripped”

There, fixed.

-Sab

Or, this makes about as much sense:

Step 1: Collect underpants

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit.[/quote]

Well played sir.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
This thread is about a revelation that occured to me. It is the two major types of clients and how to train them, in a nutshell. I hope you’ll like it.

Group 1: The Performance Oriented Crowd
Includes Pro Athletes, aspiring athletes, or dedicated recreational trainees

How to train them in a nutshell:
“Just get em’ strong”

Group 2: The Health/Aesthetics/No-clue-what-they-want crowd (i.e. everyone who doesn’t fall into group 1)[/u]

Includes housewives, coach potatoes, the terminally obese, weekend warriors, 99.8% of women, seniors, and all the types of people who usually buy personal training.

How to train them in a nutshell:
“Just get em’ lean and ripped”

You train the first group like powerlifters and the second group like bodybuilders.

Admittedly, I got the first method from strength coaches. However, the second part is my own. I think the two make a great pair. The first method works great on athletes, while the second method works great on everyone else.

And by bodybuilding training for normal people I mean doing lots of targetted isolation training on machines with high intensity intervals for fat loss.[/quote]

Seriously, Rename this post, I thought it was gonna be good and it ended up being sucky. You suck. To be honest though if this was a revelation to you, you must have been high or stoned. Don’t worry I have had this happen to me before. When your fucked up normal things that most people know may seem like groundbreaking ideas, it’s just because you are so high that your brain is regressed to that of a 6 year old. Everything seems new and wonderful. Go off the weed for a while and then come back and read this thread, you will realize that you are not one of the people who can function well while high.

This thread has made me realize something revolutionary. People fall into one of two groups, people who are functional while high, and people who act like asshats while high. to deal with people who are functional while high, do nothing, they are fine the way they are. For the people who are asshats while high, make fun of them because they are asshats and soon they will realize you are only trying to help. (seriously we do it out of love)

V

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
This thread is about a revelation that occured to me. It is the two major types of clients and how to train them, in a nutshell. I hope you’ll like it.

Group 1: The Performance Oriented Crowd
Includes Pro Athletes, aspiring athletes, or dedicated recreational trainees

How to train them in a nutshell:
“Just get em’ strong”

Group 2: The Health/Aesthetics/No-clue-what-they-want crowd (i.e. everyone who doesn’t fall into group 1)[/u]

Includes housewives, coach potatoes, the terminally obese, weekend warriors, 99.8% of women, seniors, and all the types of people who usually buy personal training.

How to train them in a nutshell:
“Just get em’ lean and ripped”

You train the first group like powerlifters and the second group like bodybuilders.

Admittedly, I got the first method from strength coaches. However, the second part is my own. I think the two make a great pair. The first method works great on athletes, while the second method works great on everyone else.

And by bodybuilding training for normal people I mean doing lots of targetted isolation training on machines with high intensity intervals for fat loss.

Seriously, Rename this post, I thought it was gonna be good and it ended up being sucky. You suck. To be honest though if this was a revelation to you, you must have been high or stoned. Don’t worry I have had this happen to me before. When your fucked up normal things that most people know may seem like groundbreaking ideas, it’s just because you are so high that your brain is regressed to that of a 6 year old. Everything seems new and wonderful. Go off the weed for a while and then come back and read this thread, you will realize that you are not one of the people who can function well while high.

This thread has made me realize something revolutionary. People fall into one of two groups, people who are functional while high, and people who act like asshats while high. to deal with people who are functional while high, do nothing, they are fine the way they are. For the people who are asshats while high, make fun of them because they are asshats and soon they will realize you are only trying to help. (seriously we do it out of love)

V[/quote]

lmao, awesome

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Group 2: The Health/Aesthetics/No-clue-what-they-want crowd (i.e. everyone who doesn’t fall into group 1)

Includes housewives, coach potatoes, the terminally obese, weekend warriors, 99.8% of women, seniors, and all the types of people who usually buy personal training.

How to train them in a nutshell:
“Just get em’ lean and ripped”[/quote]
Just to throw a stick into the bike spokes, I’d say that the majority of senior citizens would improve their quality of life and be more functional (a legit term in this context) by focusing on basic strength-building, rather than “doing lots of targetted isolation training on machines with high intensity intervals for fat loss.”

Dare I ask… in your mind, what would a “powerlifter’s workout” look like, and what would a “bodybuilder’s workout” look like?

That’s like saying “I cook eggs for breakfast and make sandwiches for lunch.” There are so many variations of eggs, sandwiches, powerlifting workouts, and bodybuilding workouts, that it’s almost counter-productive to be so vague.

[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
How about for Group 1: The Performance Oriented Crowd:

Improve performance?[/quote]

Strength translates into increased performance, if we’re talking about most field sports.

[quote]Sabastian525 wrote:
Step 1: “Just get em’ strong”

Step 2: “Just get em’ lean and ripped”

There, fixed.[/quote]

Negative, thumbs down.

No fat housewive wants to learn how to do the big three lifts. They need to develop their mind-muscle connection (which is usually severely lacking) and learn how to target specific muscle groups by using machines. They don’t need to squat 200 lbs, 100 lbs, or even 40 lbs. They’ll be able to do bodyweight squats just fine once they lose their excess blubber.

[quote]HunterKiller wrote:
OP: They are being really nice to you…

You missed the boat.

Broad sweeping categories are a bad idea.
Lumping everyone into two groups is even worse.[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with it if the generalizations are fundamentally accurate. The authors on this site do it all the time and no one complains.

[quote]HunterKiller wrote:
This is why Thibs so respected. From what I have gathered he is keenly aware that everyone is put together differently.

Everyones different. Some people need 30% protein, 40% carbs 30% fat. Some people need 10,000 calorie diets. Some need 70% protein 5% carbs 20%fat. Some people will have heart attacks if you give them a lot cholesterol. Some people will feel super awesome if you give them a lot of cholesterol. ect ect ect.

As with all things in life. You CANNOT know everything. You can always learn more. You will never know more then everyone else. If you think you know everything you will learn nothing. [/quote]

Gosh, I’m afraid YOU missed the boat.

Haven’t you ever read a Westside article where they say, “shut the fuck up and train”?

Well, this article was meant to be interpreted in exactly the same context as that. It is about establishing BASIC RULES which are widely applicable to all people.

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
Ah isn’t that the truth. Nothing in life is black and white. It’s all grey…[/quote]

Bullshit. That’s a pussy way of thinking.

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Just to throw a stick into the bike spokes, I’d say that the majority of senior citizens would improve their quality of life and be more functional (a legit term in this context) by focusing on basic strength-building, rather than “doing lots of targetted isolation training on machines with high intensity intervals for fat loss.”[/quote]

Training senior citizens is a thankless task. Listen, if you don’t know how to walk properly and you aren’t 9 months old, you need a doctor or physical therapist, not to waste my time and knowledge as a PT. I haven’t spent years studying the mechanisms of muscular hypertrophy to work with people who will never squat more than 5 lbs. There are people who deliberately sign up for this type of work. Nurses and Physician’s assistants. I’m not one of them. I put tons of effort into making my clients improve and, as such, I want to work with clients who are actually capable of improving.

However, I can agree with you that functional is a legit term in this context.

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Dare I ask… in your mind, what would a “powerlifter’s workout” look like, and what would a “bodybuilder’s workout” look like?

That’s like saying “I cook eggs for breakfast and make sandwiches for lunch.” There are so many variations of eggs, sandwiches, powerlifting workouts, and bodybuilding workouts, that it’s almost counter-productive to be so vague.[/quote]

It’s not vague at all, you are simply over-analyzing it.

I’m sure you’re aware of the fundamental differences between bodybuilding and powerlifting. Or, at least, bodybuilding and performance oriented training. Here they are:

Bodybuilders train muscles. Athletes train movements.

Bodybuilders train to failure. Soreness is the goal. Athletes stop short of failure. Soreness is to be avoided.

Bodybuilders isolate to the furthest extent possible. Athletes integrate to the further extent possible.

Bodybuilders use machines and isolation movements. Athletes use free weights and compounds.

Bodybuilders care about appearance first, function second (if at all). Athletes, the other way around.

Bodypart splits vs Full Body

Hey, most revelations have to do with SIMPLE STUFF.

How many times do you need to hear Alwyn Cosgrove or someone similar tell you to focus on the BIG things before the small ones?

This article is an extension of that philosophy.

It is not “stupid”. YOU are stupid for expecting it to be something more than it is.

The most important things are always simple.

If “just get em’ strong” was a valid contribution when it was posted elsewhere on this site, then surely my contribution is equally valid.

There really are two fundamental types of trainees, and thus, two fundamental training styles. This is news. This is useful information that can be taken and applied. It was worth posting.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
HoratioSandoval wrote:
How about for Group 1: The Performance Oriented Crowd:

Improve performance?

Strength translates into increased performance, if we’re talking about most field sports.

Sabastian525 wrote:
Step 1: “Just get em’ strong”

Step 2: “Just get em’ lean and ripped”

There, fixed.

Negative, thumbs down.

No fat housewive wants to learn how to do the big three lifts. They need to develop their mind-muscle connection (which is usually severely lacking) and learn how to target specific muscle groups by using machines. They don’t need to squat 200 lbs, 100 lbs, or even 40 lbs. They’ll be able to do bodyweight squats just fine once they lose their excess blubber.

HunterKiller wrote:
OP: They are being really nice to you…

You missed the boat.

Broad sweeping categories are a bad idea.
Lumping everyone into two groups is even worse.

There is nothing wrong with it if the generalizations are fundamentally accurate. The authors on this site do it all the time and no one complains.

HunterKiller wrote:
This is why Thibs so respected. From what I have gathered he is keenly aware that everyone is put together differently.

Everyones different. Some people need 30% protein, 40% carbs 30% fat. Some people need 10,000 calorie diets. Some need 70% protein 5% carbs 20%fat. Some people will have heart attacks if you give them a lot cholesterol. Some people will feel super awesome if you give them a lot of cholesterol. ect ect ect.

As with all things in life. You CANNOT know everything. You can always learn more. You will never know more then everyone else. If you think you know everything you will learn nothing.

Gosh, I’m afraid YOU missed the boat.

Haven’t you ever read a Westside article where they say, “shut the fuck up and train”?

Well, this article was meant to be interpreted in exactly the same context as that. It is about establishing BASIC RULES which are widely applicable to all people.

That One Guy wrote:
Ah isn’t that the truth. Nothing in life is black and white. It’s all grey…

Bullshit. That’s a pussy way of thinking.

Chris Colucci wrote:
Just to throw a stick into the bike spokes, I’d say that the majority of senior citizens would improve their quality of life and be more functional (a legit term in this context) by focusing on basic strength-building, rather than “doing lots of targetted isolation training on machines with high intensity intervals for fat loss.”

Training senior citizens is a thankless task. Listen, if you don’t know how to walk properly and you aren’t 9 months old, you need a doctor or physical therapist, not to waste my time and knowledge as a PT. I haven’t spent years studying the mechanisms of muscular hypertrophy to work with people who will never squat more than 5 lbs. There are people who deliberately sign up for this type of work. Nurses and Physician’s assistants. I’m not one of them. I put tons of effort into making my clients improve and, as such, I want to work with clients who are actually capable of improving.

However, I can agree with you that functional is a legit term in this context.

Chris Colucci wrote:
Dare I ask… in your mind, what would a “powerlifter’s workout” look like, and what would a “bodybuilder’s workout” look like?

That’s like saying “I cook eggs for breakfast and make sandwiches for lunch.” There are so many variations of eggs, sandwiches, powerlifting workouts, and bodybuilding workouts, that it’s almost counter-productive to be so vague.

It’s not vague at all, you are simply over-analyzing it.

I’m sure you’re aware of the fundamental differences between bodybuilding and powerlifting. Or, at least, bodybuilding and performance oriented training. Here they are:

Bodybuilders train muscles. Athletes train movements.

Bodybuilders train to failure. Soreness is the goal. Athletes stop short of failure. Soreness is to be avoided.

Bodybuilders isolate to the furthest extent possible. Athletes integrate to the further extent possible.

Bodybuilders use machines and isolation movements. Athletes use free weights and compounds.

Bodybuilders care about appearance first, function second (if at all). Athletes, the other way around.

Bodypart splits vs Full Body[/quote]

You will never squat, bench, or deadlift big weights doing tbt, you WILL innevitably not be able to recover from it. Popular splits for strength are upper/lower and pull/push/legs with some lower rep compound movements and some higher rep isolation or machine work. The only way this differs from bodybuilding is that they sometimes split it up more than that and can opt to go lower reps on some lifts or use moderate/high for everything.

pressing, pulling and squatting 3x a week isn’t any more “functional” than doing each once a week with a higher volume.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Bodybuilders train to failure. Soreness is the goal. [/quote]

May I learn at your feet?

Rarely have I found such wisdom.

_

Fucking retarded.

I’m sure that all of your fat housewife clients will stay fat under your lousy guidance.

Grats, you’ll always have a job because your clients will never improve.

Lovely.

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
Fucking retarded.

I’m sure that all of your fat housewife clients will stay fat under your lousy guidance.

Grats, you’ll always have a job because your clients will never improve.

Lovely.[/quote]

What is your problem? Quit whining.

There are tons of idiot trainers out there. I happen to be one of the few good ones. And that means I am committed to making my clients see results. I would not bother posting here, otherwise.

Why wouldn’t my clients improve? My techniques for body recomposition are taken directly from pro bodybuilders, who are the undisputed experts at this.

Like Dave Tate, I believe in that if you want to get somewhere, you listen to the people who got there first - not “guru’s”.

I’m not a guru. I practice what I preach and when it comes to body recomp and training for aesthetics, I know that pro bodybuilders are the REAL authority. Not powerlifters. Not strongmen. Not Olympic lifters. Not internet “stength coaches”. BODYBUILDERS.

I think your hatred of machine isolation training is completely blinding you to reality. Like it or not, machines WORK - they DO something. If I take someone to failure on a set of machine curls, their biceps are practically guaranteed to be sore the next day. This is true for both the elite athlete as well as the housewife. With compounds, on the other hand, there are no guarantees of anything.

Anyone who thinks the average person is better off starting with free weights has obviously never had to train someone at a commercial gym. Let me clue you in:

  • It can take weeks or months just for them to get the form down on the bodyweight variation of the exercise. As soon as you try to add any weight, all hell breaks lose again and you have to start from square 1.

  • People do not pay any fucking attention. They space out. They get bored. They jabber between and during sets. They don’t check their form in the mirror, as instructed. They don’t set themselves up properly, as instructed. They have zero mind-muscle connection. Isolation training is the fastest way of correcting this.

  • Because free weight exercises are inherently “harder” to do than their machine counterparts, this gives people the impression that they are getting more from doing less. This is exactly why mainstream trainers (NOT me) have their idiot clients doing 1-legged curls while standing on airex pads and the clients actually think they are doing something because the exercise is “hard”.

The lesson: Clients don’t understand the difference between technical complexity and training intensity. For them, hard is hard. Since the goal is to get them to reach a high intensity as soon as possible, you want to use the simplest exercises you can. And those would be machines, obviously.

Sit them the fuck down, adjust the machine properly, tell them exactly where they should be feeling the exercise, and have them rep out until they hit failure, or at least get a decent pump. THIS is how you get housewives to develop a mind-muscle connection. THIS is how you start producing results from the very first workout - not the 10th or the 20th.

In the real world, if we had a competition to see who could get an average fatass into shape the fastest, I would crush anyone who tried to teach their client how to do the big 3 or gave them free weights from the start. I mean, it wouldn’t even be close.

I hate to break it to you, but there are only two choices for the mainstream: Either train like bodybuilders with machines, or do “functional” bullshit on bosu balls. Heavy compound lifts do not ever enter the picture. Not a single training organization endorses this. They are ALL aboard the functional bandwagon.

So stop whining, will you? Stop hating bodybuilding. Stop hating machines and isolation training, ya dumbarse.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
May I learn at your feet?

Rarely have I found such wisdom.[/quote]

You may. Soreness = microtrauma = hypertrophy

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
You will never squat, bench, or deadlift big weights doing tbt, you WILL innevitably not be able to recover from it. Popular splits for strength are upper/lower and pull/push/legs with some lower rep compound movements and some higher rep isolation or machine work. The only way this differs from bodybuilding is that they sometimes split it up more than that and can opt to go lower reps on some lifts or use moderate/high for everything.

pressing, pulling and squatting 3x a week isn’t any more “functional” than doing each once a week with a higher volume.
[/quote]

If it’s split up any more than upper/lower, then I don’t consider it TBT anymore. Athletes can have splits, too. They just make them according to movements, as you said, rather than muscle groups.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Bodybuilders train to failure. Soreness is the goal.

May I learn at your feet?

Rarely have I found such wisdom.
[/quote]

Wow OP you have gotten the attention and been mocked by Bill Roberts.

If you didn’t have over 1,000 posts I would assume you’re a troll, your just a dangerously misguided person.

Out of everyone who has posted so far, let’s count the number who have directly addressed my claims.

First page:
waylanderxx
tribunaldude
aussie101
Chris Colucci

Second page:
zephead4747

The people listed above deserves props for at least trying.

Hint: If I was even half the idiot that you all seem to think I am, then a few more of you would have posted really good refutations of my claims by now.

As far as I’m concerned, if you critize me without even attempting to refute my argument, you’re bolstering my case.

28 replies not including my own and only 5 attempted refutations. Sad.

You can keep telling me that “I don’t get it” but I will ignore you because the numbers say otherwise.

Really ?

So why dont you hit your clients on the legs with a baseball bat ??

Should do the soreness bit very fast !

Good grief, i think you have ALOT more reading to do… open your mind to the fact that you dont know very much.

Once you do that you can begin learning PROPERLY

[quote]HunterKiller wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Bodybuilders train to failure. Soreness is the goal.

May I learn at your feet?

Rarely have I found such wisdom.

Wow OP you have gotten the attention and been mocked by Bill Roberts.

If you didn’t have over 1,000 posts I would assume you’re a troll, your just a dangerously misguided person. [/quote]

He IS a troll.

I’m amazed that you guys take him seriously?
My congratulations to you, NP, you always manage this feat for some reason.
What do you do to make them forget your previous escapades over and over again? Soviet mind-control tech ?

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Out of everyone who has posted so far, let’s count the number who have directly addressed my claims.

First page:
waylanderxx
tribunaldude
aussie101
Chris Colucci

Second page:
zephead4747

The people listed above deserves props for at least trying.

Hint: If I was even half the idiot that you all seem to think I am, then a few more of you would have posted really good refutations of my claims by now.

As far as I’m concerned, if you critize me without even attempting to refute my argument, you’re bolstering my case.

28 replies not including my own and only 5 attempted refutations. Sad.

You can keep telling me that “I don’t get it” but I will ignore you because the numbers say otherwise.[/quote]

Your “claims” are not claims. Your just stating the obvious and completely oversimplifying as if you’ve seen the light and your here to show us all the way. You need to realize that in life, and especially training thing ARE usually in a gray area. Sure performance training for athletes and training for size for bodybuilders makes sense, but the methods are VERY VERY similar. And no, isolation movements are not the key to size, while compounds are the key to performance. This statement alone shows your serious lack of intelligence and the fact that YOU really just dont get it.

I suggest you spend less time having these revealations and more time reading the articles on here and reading books too. So dont get me wrong. Im not saying your completely wrong in your “revealation”, but thats like saying, “to be a good doctor, all you gotta do is cure everyone”. Or “to be a good lawyer, make sure none of your people are convicted”. Recognizing someone’s goals is a very crucial part of training, but actually getting them the results they want, or think they want is much more than this.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
HunterKiller wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Bodybuilders train to failure. Soreness is the goal.

May I learn at your feet?

Rarely have I found such wisdom.

Wow OP you have gotten the attention and been mocked by Bill Roberts.

If you didn’t have over 1,000 posts I would assume you’re a troll, your just a dangerously misguided person.

He IS a troll.

I’m amazed that you guys take him seriously?
My congratulations to you, NP, you always manage this feat for some reason.
What do you do to make them forget your previous escapades over and over again? Soviet mind-control tech ?
[/quote]

I think the board is filled with too many clueless people who actually think he might have a point…which is very sad.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

You may. Soreness = microtrauma = hypertrophy

[/quote]

Wrong! Soreness can just as easily result from a build up of lactic acid. It can’t be used as an accurate indicator of growth.

Unfortunately after this thread I will forever dislike looking at the visage of Vladimir Putin.