Stupid Arguments & Recommendations

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]dankid wrote:
LOL. Its best to leave journal referenced evidence as well as real world evidence out of discussion. This is one guys recommendations. And although, there is nothing off the wall there, you could find dozens of studies refuting each point. As well as finding dozens that support each. There are no absolutes, its best to just understand the variables.
[/quote]

And yet over and over in your posts you show you don’t really understand the ‘variables’.

This one guy and his recommendations is actually a collective of Professors (Otto, Carpinelli, Winett etc) who have conducted extensive reviews of the dozens and dozens of studies you speak of, and generally there isn’t evidence to refute each point they’ve made…this is something where you really don’t have as big a grasp on the literature in this area as you seem to believe, and just nicely proved it for me.

However, if we are excluding both scientific and real world evidence, that doesn’t really leave much else does it…

22

[quote]Lock wrote:
Why the FUCK haven’t dankid been banned yet?[/quote]

Then we’d have to outsource for comedy.

23

[quote]Mad_Duck wrote:
Lock wrote:
Why the FUCK haven’t dankid been banned yet?

Then we’d have to outsource for comedy.[/quote]

LOL. Oh man that is funny.

24

once NP gets back from his vacation, we can think about that.

[quote]Lock wrote:
Why the FUCK haven’t dankid been banned yet? Please let X get his mod powers.[/quote]

25

GG im really dissapointed. These recommendations are pretty much complete crap. These are like the recommendations they give for the average population just to increase compliance. If we are going to talk about bodybuilding or at least trying to build a significant amount of muscle, then there are serious problems with 2,3,4,5 for sure.

Based on these recommendations, one could be led to believe that one sets of 3 reps, lasting 3 seconds, per exercise is all that is needed. And that there is no benefit of performing anything more, because “there hasn’t been research that suggests more is any better”. This is absolutely hilarious.

At least if you are going to try to bring “evidence” into the argument, do so with something that makes sense.

And you can rip on me all you want (because you are trying to impress your “alpha” friends) but im not the one that started these “stupid arguments”. I actually agreed that none of this matters that much, but the others made a much bigger deal of it.

26

[quote]dankid wrote:
GG im really dissapointed. These recommendations are pretty much complete crap. These are like the recommendations they give for the average population just to increase compliance. If we are going to talk about bodybuilding or at least trying to build a significant amount of muscle, then there are serious problems with 2,3,4,5 for sure.

Based on these recommendations, one could be led to believe that one sets of 3 reps, lasting 3 seconds, per exercise is all that is needed. And that there is no benefit of performing anything more, because “there hasn’t been research that suggests more is any better”. This is absolutely hilarious.

At least if you are going to try to bring “evidence” into the argument, do so with something that makes sense.

And you can rip on me all you want (because you are trying to impress your “alpha” friends) but im not the one that started these “stupid arguments”. I actually agreed that none of this matters that much, but the others made a much bigger deal of it.[/quote]

Why am I not shocked that you see what he wrote from the simpleton’s perspective?

27

[quote]angus_beef wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
angus_beef wrote:
What’s the relevance of this post ? Were you just being informative ?

Lol, did you read it?

He answers those questions, pretty early on in the post too.

Yes i did read it but still, everything stated is pretty much common sense. For instance working to a maximum set, essentially ramping. I’m new to bodybuilding and yet still i’ve done this instinctively from day one. I don’t understand why someone would use the same weight for all their working sets. It just makes no sense to me. [/quote]

I think you might be missing the bigger picture of what he is trying to say. I’m not insulting or attacking you, I’m just saying. You are not “wrong” just not seeing the big picture message he is trying to convey.

28

I’m not sure how many of you check CT’s section. In case you weren’t sure, CT has it figured out.

29

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
dankid wrote:
GG im really dissapointed. These recommendations are pretty much complete crap. These are like the recommendations they give for the average population just to increase compliance. If we are going to talk about bodybuilding or at least trying to build a significant amount of muscle, then there are serious problems with 2,3,4,5 for sure.

Based on these recommendations, one could be led to believe that one sets of 3 reps, lasting 3 seconds, per exercise is all that is needed. And that there is no benefit of performing anything more, because “there hasn’t been research that suggests more is any better”. This is absolutely hilarious.

At least if you are going to try to bring “evidence” into the argument, do so with something that makes sense.

And you can rip on me all you want (because you are trying to impress your “alpha” friends) but im not the one that started these “stupid arguments”. I actually agreed that none of this matters that much, but the others made a much bigger deal of it.

Why am I not shocked that you see what he wrote from the simpleton’s perspective?[/quote]

Dankid, if you are going to try to substantiate your retarted replies with an overabundance of big words to lend some credibility to your claims, try to spell disappoint correctly next time. Thanks bro.

30

I had a feeling some people would misinterpret #4.

One maximal set does not mean to do 1 set and only 1 set. It means 1 set WITH THE MOST WEIGHT POSSIBLE. Before that final set other sets with less weight should be done. The amount of sets to be done before the ‘maximal’ set should be based on the amount of volume one plans to do. Some people call this “ramping”.

31

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I had a feeling some people would misinterpret #4.

One maximal set does not mean to do 1 set and only 1 set. It means 1 set WITH THE MOST WEIGHT POSSIBLE. Before that final set other sets with less weight should be done. The amount of sets to be done before the ‘maximal’ set should be based on the amount of volume one plans to do. Some people call this “ramping”. [/quote]

Is it also called pyramiding?

32

[quote]bond james bond wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
I had a feeling some people would misinterpret #4.

One maximal set does not mean to do 1 set and only 1 set. It means 1 set WITH THE MOST WEIGHT POSSIBLE. Before that final set other sets with less weight should be done. The amount of sets to be done before the ‘maximal’ set should be based on the amount of volume one plans to do. Some people call this “ramping”.

Is it also called pyramiding?

[/quote]

IMO pyramiding is going back down the stack again ie: drop sets for “afterburn”
505, 605, 705, 605, 50*5 etc

33

I think more people call it ramping. CT has a good post on ramping that covers all the different types. But it is similar to pyramiding sometimes. For ex: you might ramp up to a max set of 5, but then wish to get more volume, so you gradually decrease the weight while performing a few extra sets of 5.

34

[quote]Mad_Duck wrote:
bond james bond wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
I had a feeling some people would misinterpret #4.

One maximal set does not mean to do 1 set and only 1 set. It means 1 set WITH THE MOST WEIGHT POSSIBLE. Before that final set other sets with less weight should be done. The amount of sets to be done before the ‘maximal’ set should be based on the amount of volume one plans to do. Some people call this “ramping”.

Is it also called pyramiding?

IMO pyramiding is going back down the stack again ie: drop sets for “afterburn”
505, 605, 705, 605, 50*5 etc[/quote]

That is great that this is your opinion, but for years pyramiding did not refer to going back down in weight. I will use “ramping” now simply because many of you have made this shit so complicated that entire different terminology has to be used…like “twitch rep” (Sorry CT, but that one still gets me).

35

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Mad_Duck wrote:
bond james bond wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
I had a feeling some people would misinterpret #4.

One maximal set does not mean to do 1 set and only 1 set. It means 1 set WITH THE MOST WEIGHT POSSIBLE. Before that final set other sets with less weight should be done. The amount of sets to be done before the ‘maximal’ set should be based on the amount of volume one plans to do. Some people call this “ramping”.

Is it also called pyramiding?

IMO pyramiding is going back down the stack again ie: drop sets for “afterburn”
505, 605, 705, 605, 50*5 etc

That is great that this is your opinion, but for years pyramiding did not refer to going back down in weight. I will use “ramping” now simply because many of you have made this shit so complicated that entire different terminology has to be used…like “twitch rep” (Sorry CT, but that one still gets me).[/quote]

This is funny. For years, I thought that’s what pyramiding was; going up in weight (ramping). Then I started reading posts on here in which people defined pyramiding as going up then down in weight.

I can see where this would be enough to cause you to develop a “twitch” or two PX.

36

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Mad_Duck wrote:
bond james bond wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
I had a feeling some people would misinterpret #4.

One maximal set does not mean to do 1 set and only 1 set. It means 1 set WITH THE MOST WEIGHT POSSIBLE. Before that final set other sets with less weight should be done. The amount of sets to be done before the ‘maximal’ set should be based on the amount of volume one plans to do. Some people call this “ramping”.

Is it also called pyramiding?

IMO pyramiding is going back down the stack again ie: drop sets for “afterburn”
505, 605, 705, 605, 50*5 etc

That is great that this is your opinion, but for years pyramiding did not refer to going back down in weight. I will use “ramping” now simply because many of you have made this shit so complicated that entire different terminology has to be used…like “twitch rep” (Sorry CT, but that one still gets me).

This is funny. For years, I thought that’s what pyramiding was; going up in weight (ramping). Then I started reading posts on here in which people defined pyramiding as going up then down in weight.

I can see where this would be enough to cause you to develop a “twitch” or two PX.[/quote]

I think you missed a key point… classic Pyramiding is going up in weight and down in reps. So if you think of a pyramid… each level up is more weight. Each level gets “shorter” because their are less reps.

Ramping… is going up in weight but not going down in reps. In fact, many like C_C will do the most reps on their last set with the most weight in order to conserve energy in the last set.

37

[quote]DJS wrote:
I think you missed a key point… classic Pyramiding is going up in weight and down in reps. So if you think of a pyramid… each level up is more weight. Each level gets “shorter” because their are less reps.

Ramping… is going up in weight but not going down in reps. In fact, many like C_C will do the most reps on their last set with the most weight in order to conserve energy in the last set.[/quote]

I had forgotten that point. Good call.

38

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Mad_Duck wrote:
bond james bond wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
I had a feeling some people would misinterpret #4.

One maximal set does not mean to do 1 set and only 1 set. It means 1 set WITH THE MOST WEIGHT POSSIBLE. Before that final set other sets with less weight should be done. The amount of sets to be done before the ‘maximal’ set should be based on the amount of volume one plans to do. Some people call this “ramping”.

Is it also called pyramiding?

IMO pyramiding is going back down the stack again ie: drop sets for “afterburn”
505, 605, 705, 605, 50*5 etc

That is great that this is your opinion, but for years pyramiding did not refer to going back down in weight. I will use “ramping” now simply because many of you have made this shit so complicated that entire different terminology has to be used…like “twitch rep” (Sorry CT, but that one still gets me).[/quote]

I agree. This shit is out of hand. I was emailed about this site by a trusted mentor, in my home State. I read around, and joined because of that ‘Best of T-Nation’ thread. It seems though that in only my 4th day checking this place out, sometimes it is more ‘confused and contradictory’ than ‘eclectic and universal’.

I am really turned off by the over complications, and nitpickery, over what this or that shit should be titled. Oh, and I wasted a bunch of time learning some lingo here…Like I never knew what this ‘TBT’ or ‘Staring Strength’ shit was until I found the forums…

I am here to be helpful, and in turn be helped, but I don’t know sometimes I think there are too many, deaf people that have there backs turned, oh and they are most likely asleep too…

39

[quote]Antares wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Mad_Duck wrote:
bond james bond wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
I had a feeling some people would misinterpret #4.

One maximal set does not mean to do 1 set and only 1 set. It means 1 set WITH THE MOST WEIGHT POSSIBLE. Before that final set other sets with less weight should be done. The amount of sets to be done before the ‘maximal’ set should be based on the amount of volume one plans to do. Some people call this “ramping”.

Is it also called pyramiding?

IMO pyramiding is going back down the stack again ie: drop sets for “afterburn”
505, 605, 705, 605, 50*5 etc

That is great that this is your opinion, but for years pyramiding did not refer to going back down in weight. I will use “ramping” now simply because many of you have made this shit so complicated that entire different terminology has to be used…like “twitch rep” (Sorry CT, but that one still gets me).

I agree. This shit is out of hand. I was emailed about this site by a trusted mentor, in my home State. I read around, and joined because of that ‘Best of T-Nation’ thread. It seems though that in only my 4th day checking this place out, sometimes it is more ‘confused and contradictory’ than ‘eclectic and universal’.

I am really turned off by the over complications, and nitpickery, over what this or that shit should be titled. Oh, and I wasted a bunch of time learning some lingo here…Like I never knew what this ‘TBT’ or ‘Staring Strength’ shit was until I found the forums…

I am here to be helpful, and in turn be helped, but I don’t know sometimes I think there are too many, deaf people that have there backs turned, oh and they are most likely asleep too…[/quote]

Exactly. I still don’t get all caught up in many of these terms being thrown around…and would actually advise most newbs to avoid getting into it as well.

The biggest factors for progress are strength progression, food intake and insane consistency.

No one ever needed a Phd to get bigger than everyone else in the gym. They needed the basic genetic material and a shit load of drive.

40

[quote]Professor X wrote:
They needed the basic genetic material and a shit load of drive.[/quote]

A shitload of Metabolic Drive?