Seriously though. He trained twice a day, 5 days a week. Same body part both workouts. Heavy lifts in the morning, isolation work in the afternoon. Cardio was low intensity work.
He was actually able to gain strength during his diet, right until 3 weeks out. So he basically gained strength from 12 weeks out to 3 weeks out. If I remember correctly his bench went from 405 to 440 and his squat/deadlift from 570 to 630.
Man, I have some good books and magazines from the late 1890’s up to the 1940’s, and it’s amazing to see that a lot of what is in those publications is now being pimped as the newest thing in training.
It’s true that a lot of what is new today was written about and used 70 or more years ago.
Although some things may not be used anymore, most of it is. As CT mentioned, I have magazines and books that show the floor press as well. This was before someone designed the flat bench for benching. That’s one example of many.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Seriously though. He trained twice a day, 5 days a week. Same body part both workouts. Heavy lifts in the morning, isolation work in the afternoon.
[/quote]
I’ve heard that works for quite a few at that level even though those like Lee Haney and others would do the larger body part in the morning (like chest) and then come back in the afternoon to either hit a few more sets for chest but to mainly focus on triceps or some other smaller muscle group.
Seeing people like that is motivation to me. I would listen to what has worked for him long before I would listen to someone who has simply read some articles that they claim equals the best way to train.
You don’t look like that with minimal gym time. I think the false idea has been spread that people like that aren’t strong and don’t actually train hard.
I am not sure how they arrive at conclusions like that…
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
Man, I have some good books and magazines from the late 1890’s up to the 1940’s, and it’s amazing to see that a lot of what is in those publications is now being pimped as the newest thing in training.
It’s true that a lot of what is new today was written about and used 70 or more years ago.
Although some things may not be used anymore, most of it is. As CT mentioned, I have magazines and books that show the floor press as well. This was before someone designed the flat bench for benching. That’s one example of many.[/quote]
Isometrics also come to mind. Bob Hoffman wrote 3 books about them in the 50s or 60s; although he was simply ‘‘stealing’’ Dr. John Ziegler’s work and claiming it as is… Dr. Z is famous for introducing dianabol to weightlifters but he also did a lot of in-the-trenches research on isometrics and electrostimulation.
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
Man, I have some good books and magazines from the late 1890’s up to the 1940’s, and it’s amazing to see that a lot of what is in those publications is now being pimped as the newest thing in training.
It’s true that a lot of what is new today was written about and used 70 or more years ago.
Although some things may not be used anymore, most of it is. As CT mentioned, I have magazines and books that show the floor press as well. This was before someone designed the flat bench for benching. That’s one example of many.[/quote]
The thing is, the bodybuilding scene is about progression. If you don’t see a lot of lifters doing some of those older movements anymore, it would be a little off to come to the conclusion that they are missing out.
People know what works now because gyms have literally been the science labs of bodybuilding (often 10-20 years ahead of the general public). They know what works because it has been tried time and time again.
I would like to see that mentality get way more credit than it does.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You are talking out of your ass. Where are these elite trainers on this forum who are now putting the best to shame?
Was this an attempt at more theory?
Guess what, we’ve had enough.
Well, here is one of my athletes who won his pro card this weekend (Isreal overall champ). He may not be putting the best to shame, but since I’ve been training him his competition weight has increased by 22lbs with better condition. Next year he will come in another 15lbs or so heavier.
Awesome.
Tell me…full body routine 3 times a week built all of that?[/quote]
BWHAHHAAA nice one
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’ve heard that works for quite a few at that level even though those like Lee Haney and others would do the larger body part in the morning (like chest) and then come back in the afternoon to either hit a few more sets for chest but to mainly focus on triceps or some other smaller muscle group.
Seeing people like that is motivation to me. I would listen to what has worked for him long before I would listen to someone who has simply read some articles that they claim equals the best way to train.
You don’t look like that with minimal gym time. I think the false idea has been spread that people like that aren’t strong and don’t actually train hard.
I am not sure how they arrive at conclusions like that…[/quote]
I was reading an old interview with Lee Priest and that is basically what he said. Lee is a high volume (20-30 sets/bodypart) AND heavy weights guy. In the interview he mention how most of the top champs built their physique by working out a lot, doing very high volume of work.
Arnold (and everybody who trained at Gold’s during that time since they copied him), Haney, Vic Richards, the Babarians, etc.
Heck, when I ‘‘prescribe’’ 16 sets per bodypart, some throw the overtraining brick at me 
Anyway, I like dividing the volume for a muscle into 2 daily sessions especially when dieting for a show. Simply put, you do not have the same energy during that time.
So I prefer to do 2 exercises in the morning, very heavy, rest 5-6 hours, get 2-3 meals in then come back for 2-3 isolation exercises. That way you are fresher for more of the sets and the quality of training is higher.
BTW, I meant 5 times a week, not 4.
DAY 1. Chest
DAY 2. Back
DAY 3. Shoulders
DAY 4. Legs
DAY 5. Arms
Not a split I use a lot of time, for a pre-contest bodybuilder I like it since it keeps the workouts relatively short so that quality can be maintained.
In the off-season I like either:
DAY 1. Chest/Biceps
DAY 2. Legs
DAY 3. Back/Triceps
DAY 4. OFF
DAY 5. Shoulders/Traps
DAY 6. OFF
DAY 7. Repeat
or
DAY 1. Chest/Back
DAY 2. Legs
DAY 3. OFF
DAY 4. Arms
DAY 5. OFF
DAY 6. Shoulders
DAY 7. OFF
[quote]Professor X wrote:
People know what works now because gyms have literally been the science labs of bodybuilding (often 10-20 years ahead of the general public). They know what works because it has been tried time and time again.
I would like to see that mentality get way more credit than it does.[/quote]
I will paraphrase Arthur Jones who said that there are two capital mistakes people who are interested in training make: a) assuming that knowledge is everything and b) assuming that experience is everything.
In other words you have to have a blend of both.
BTW, this is why I love to read what guys from the 50-80s did. Back then they had no internet, very little media and public interest. So guys who try stuff on their own; if it worked they kept it in, if it didn’t they threw it out. They were not concerned about ‘‘fitting in’’, ‘‘looking cool’’ or being ‘‘cutting edge’’.
Now there is so much information floating around that people are fed the (often wrong) answers and they forget how to experiment for themselves.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
Man, I have some good books and magazines from the late 1890’s up to the 1940’s, and it’s amazing to see that a lot of what is in those publications is now being pimped as the newest thing in training.
It’s true that a lot of what is new today was written about and used 70 or more years ago.
Although some things may not be used anymore, most of it is. As CT mentioned, I have magazines and books that show the floor press as well. This was before someone designed the flat bench for benching. That’s one example of many.
The thing is, the bodybuilding scene is about progression. If you don’t see a lot of lifters doing some of those older movements anymore, it would be a little off to come to the conclusion that they are missing out.
People know what works now because gyms have literally been the science labs of bodybuilding (often 10-20 years ahead of the general public). They know what works because it has been tried time and time again.
I would like to see that mentality get way more credit than it does.[/quote]
Well going with the progression thing, you can see that better equipment has been developed since the early 1900’s (Hammer Strength, Leg Press stations, etc.). This would mean that bodybuilders can get better results using things that are available now that were not available then.
No need to do a barbell hack squat, when you can use a hack squat machine, leg press or some Hammer Strength equipment if it works better.
Now, I’m not a bodybuilder, so I enjoy using some of these old school movements in my training, and I also train at home, so I don’t have Hammer Strength machines or a Leg Press, etc.
So it’s also a matter of necessity and what I have to work with. But still, many things from the early days (especially related to nutrition) are not much different than today.
This thread needs to be stickied.
One last thing before I leave (I am on my honeymoon after all!).
I always said this:
‘‘Provided that you do not exceed your capacity to recover, the more you train the more you’ll gain’’
Now, some people have better recovery capacities than other, but most are simply afraid to do a high amount of work for fear of overtraining (which, as I mentioned in an old article, is an very rare occurance) or are not taking the proper means to recover better.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You are talking out of your ass. Where are these elite trainers on this forum who are now putting the best to shame?
Was this an attempt at more theory?
Guess what, we’ve had enough.
Well, here is one of my athletes who won his pro card this weekend (Isreal overall champ). He may not be putting the best to shame, but since I’ve been training him his competition weight has increased by 22lbs with better condition. Next year he will come in another 15lbs or so heavier.[/quote]
And I take it, an Olympic athlete.
Did he medal?
[quote]mahwah wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You are talking out of your ass. Where are these elite trainers on this forum who are now putting the best to shame?
Was this an attempt at more theory?
Guess what, we’ve had enough.
Well, here is one of my athletes who won his pro card this weekend (Isreal overall champ). He may not be putting the best to shame, but since I’ve been training him his competition weight has increased by 22lbs with better condition. Next year he will come in another 15lbs or so heavier.
And I take it, an Olympic athlete.
Did he medal?[/quote]
He is a bodybuilder. The 5 rings tattoo is from his ‘‘former life’’ as an olympic lifter.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
How much new stuff do you really expect there to be?
With an article 4 days/wk you can’t expect ground breaking new research every day.
[/quote]
i guess It feels like its become hollywood to me. Mostly things feel well looked over with a formula in mind prior to release. Not much gets made anymore that pushes the envelope of cinema (its business driven). Much feels the same way around here. Im not saying its flex magazine, but sometimes I feel pretty empty after our reads.
Who remembers the first time you did 1-6, GBC, GVT, isometric deadlfits w a RACK, stretched hipflexors between sets, WHO brought the PW0 nutrition and made it better?
But if one has the opportunity to get info closer to Poliquin , One will usually find ground breaking research and application to be be occurring.
IMO we will really never know even fifty percent of what Poliquin is really doing. HE is like JESUS, everybody just kind of gets his words passed down and twisted.
Haha CT if I was your wife (which would be awkward) I think I would kill you for even thinking about work while on the honeymoon. Go have some fun, seriously.
[quote]MISCONCEPTION wrote:
Who remembers the first time you did 1-6, GBC, GVT, isometric deadlfits w a RACK, stretched hipflexors between sets, WHO brought the PW0 nutrition and made it better?
[/quote]
Not me. I was never one of the ones here worrying about which program came out next…which is probably why you are just now figuring out that there isn’t much new info being published. It was never all that new to begin with.
The more experienced you become, the LESS interesting the next new fad becomes.
When I was 16 years old, I believed nearly every ad in every magazine. Now, I don’t even look at ads. I couldn’t tell you what MuscleFleck is selling or how great NOS is…because it doesn’t mean anything to me.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
super saiyan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…If you want to be like one of the best, follow what the best did.
Maybe. But what if you don’t want to be like the best, but better than the best? The best of the best. What then? Is it better to follow the best if better techniques than what the best are using can be used to my betterment to get the better of the best, who are better than the rest and considered the best, but not the potential best?
You won’t be better than the best unless you can at the very least get close to them first.
I’m sorry, but I must have missed the loads of really big bodybuilders on this forum who are all as strong as the average NPC heavy weight competitor. Therefore, what fucking better technique have you seen that is producing lifters who make the best seem like they need more work?
The biggest and strongest people on this site seem to be the ones who DON’T look for the shiniest and newest routine all of the time. They are the ones who MADE what they are doing work and figured out their own bodies quickly. They have also likely been training nearly the same for several years.
You are talking out of your ass. Where are these elite trainers on this forum who are now putting the best to shame?
Was this an attempt at more theory?
Guess what, we’ve had enough.[/quote]
Uh, actually, that incoherent babble I wrote was meant to be funny. I guess I should have added a smiley face after my comment.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
super saiyan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…If you want to be like one of the best, follow what the best did.
Maybe. But what if you don’t want to be like the best, but better than the best? The best of the best. What then? Is it better to follow the best if better techniques than what the best are using can be used to my betterment to get the better of the best, who are better than the rest and considered the best, but not the potential best?
You won’t be better than the best unless you can at the very least get close to them first.
I’m sorry, but I must have missed the loads of really big bodybuilders on this forum who are all as strong as the average NPC heavy weight competitor. Therefore, what fucking better technique have you seen that is producing lifters who make the best seem like they need more work?
The biggest and strongest people on this site seem to be the ones who DON’T look for the shiniest and newest routine all of the time. They are the ones who MADE what they are doing work and figured out their own bodies quickly. They have also likely been training nearly the same for several years.
You are talking out of your ass. Where are these elite trainers on this forum who are now putting the best to shame?
Was this an attempt at more theory?
Guess what, we’ve had enough.
Uh, actually, that incoherent babble I wrote was meant to be funny. I guess I should have added a smiley face after my comment. [/quote]
Yes.
You should have.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
super saiyan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
super saiyan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…If you want to be like one of the best, follow what the best did.
Maybe. But what if you don’t want to be like the best, but better than the best? The best of the best. What then? Is it better to follow the best if better techniques than what the best are using can be used to my betterment to get the better of the best, who are better than the rest and considered the best, but not the potential best?
You won’t be better than the best unless you can at the very least get close to them first.
I’m sorry, but I must have missed the loads of really big bodybuilders on this forum who are all as strong as the average NPC heavy weight competitor. Therefore, what fucking better technique have you seen that is producing lifters who make the best seem like they need more work?
The biggest and strongest people on this site seem to be the ones who DON’T look for the shiniest and newest routine all of the time. They are the ones who MADE what they are doing work and figured out their own bodies quickly. They have also likely been training nearly the same for several years.
You are talking out of your ass. Where are these elite trainers on this forum who are now putting the best to shame?
Was this an attempt at more theory?
Guess what, we’ve had enough.
Uh, actually, that incoherent babble I wrote was meant to be funny. I guess I should have added a smiley face after my comment.
Yes.
You should have.[/quote]
Geez X, I’m disappointed that you thought I was really that stupid. I thought we were friends. At least that’s what it says on My T-page.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Geez X, I’m disappointed that you thought I was really that stupid. I thought we were friends. At least that’s what it says on My T-page.[/quote]
Look, there is way too much stupid running around this forum for anyone to notice log in names anymore.