[quote]johnflower wrote:
I’m very interested in lifts that have good transfer to other activities, i.e. power cleans improve vertical jump, squats improve sprint times etc. I believe this focus builds an aesthetically pleasing body. Aesthetics are governed by criteria; I like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. A body that is fit for hunting & gathering, building shelter, and defence is a good looking body.[/quote]
You state this at the beginning diatribe, yet, the bent press is far less functional than many other lifts that you exclude, such as bench press, pullups, and rows. Climbing to escape someone requires pullups, as is scaling fences. If a heavy object falls on you, the bench press will certainly aid you in getting said object off of you better than the bent press. Rows are also much more functional for strength to pick up items.
[/quote]
I especially agree with pullups and rows. Also getting a funny visual on something falling and bent pressing it off.lol
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I’m not referring to competitive bodybuilding, but for hypertrophy in any optimal sense as the goal.[/quote]
I’m looking for a mix of hypertrophy, strength, power, and anaerobic endurance. Showmanship and transfer to the world out of the gym are also important to me. This means using lifts, and programming, which are suboptimal for someone interested only in size.
I consider myself to be a beginner. I consider an intermediate lifter to be one who can squat double bodyweight (ATG), DL triples, Press & Bent Press single.
I accept this. Fat is not muscle! Neurological efficiency and better technique is not size either.
I suspect that my statement “strength = size” has thrown you a little. The rep ranges and sets I use are (hopefully) good for both hypertrophy and strength (but not optimal for either). Specifically I’m striving for getting stronger in a given rep range, and as a result I expect to get stronger.
I train 6 days a week. Alternating workout A and B. The first workout of the week is heavy, the second is light, and the last is moderate. I change the weight every set, putting the weight up if the reps decrease, and down if they increase. Every 4th to 6th week, I back off the weight for an active rest. I then add weight each week with an aim to progress at the end of each cycle. Light days I focus on form.
Workout A Morning
One Arm Snatch 5 x 30kg
Bent Press 2 x 47.5kg
One Arm Press 12 - 8 - 10 - 6
Push Press 6 - 5 - 4 - 3
Clean & Press 3 - 3 - 3
Farmers Walks 3 x (up to 10) this is done in my garage which has a walkable rep length of 8m.
Two Arm Waiter Walks as a drop set with dumbbells. Doing as many reps of the garage with each weight as I can, for up to 80m per set. I do this over a range of five dumbbells, from heavy to light
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Your fascination with old school approaches is respectable, as guys like Colucci and myself are big fans of the history of the sport, but, realize that much of what the forefathers of weight training believed has since been corrected, improved upon, or even understood and disregarded for better options.[/quote]
I agree that just because something is old doesn’t men it is good. I’m also aware that sometimes exercise selection can be about fashion. E.g. the Press became markedly less popular after 1972… yet it is an excellent lift. There are a number of records which have not been broken for many decades, even a century in Arthur Saxon’s case. Just because it is new doesn’t mean that it is good either. Bosu balls for instance. So I’m looking at many sources and experimenting.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Throwing out guys like Grimeck to support one exercise[quote]
Cherry picking. Anyone trying to argue will look for their best example. He worked damned hard. If I do the same I’ll reach my genetic potential too. Can’t change genes, can work hard.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Klein, also one of the real early guys in the sport, didn’t have a physique that would really turn many heads these days[/quote]
Coaches don’t have to look awesome to get good results. He ran one of the better gyms of his day, and moved in a social circle of top lifters and bodybuilders.
For myself, I place greater importance on strength and power. That may mean slower hypertrophy progress and a lower potential top weight. That’s fine for me.
I’m curious; with your discerning eye, can you pick a guy who is strong from a guy who looks strong?
A body that is fit for hunting & gathering, building shelter, and defence is a good looking body. I think that this approach is easily missed because many of the high paying BB contests are muscular beauty pageants which require no measurable athletic output.
[/quote]
Hunter gatherers look like shit. They relied on, and continue to rely on hunting techniques for survival.
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
…the bent press is far less functional than many other lifts that you exclude, such as bench press, pullups, and rows. Climbing to escape someone requires pullups, as is scaling fences. If a heavy object falls on you, the bench press will certainly aid you in getting said object off of you better than the bent press. Rows are also much more functional for strength to pick up items.
[/quote]
Dropping those lift is an experiment. On pullups, and rows, you may very well be right. I too am concerned about the wisdom of dropping them. I dropped those because I was progressing faster on the Bent Press, and my form on the rows was terrible and progress on pullups was slow. I had a crack at pullups just now, after finishing my squats. I did 1x30kg, my best is 2x30kg. I also did DB rows (the row I was doing before), I did 6x30kg which is my best row, with better form than ever before. Probably still strong enough to climb a tree. To be fair I don’t throw anything either, no caber tossing, nor shot putting, nor any other object. Judging by eye, my back (all of it) is bigger for making the switch. I will evaulate it later this year, quite possibly I’ll add them back in.
The bench press however is a different story. If I can press it overhead, then I can press it off my chest. Yes I’d be better at that if I benched… but then I don’t intend to make a habit of letting things fall on me. Lifting overhead is important to me, and from John Grimek to modern Oly Coaches avoiding the bench has been advised (with the eception of the period when the Slump Press was part of OL).
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I am all for trying different things. Most of my training is based around it. However, I also think that forming a set of beliefs before you have the results to back it up is destructive to one’s progress.[/quote]
An experiment starts with a hypothesis. The experiment is performed, and the results evaluated. Baking the cake starts with a recipe, if it turns out well, keep doing it. If not, change.
[quote]confusion wrote:
I respect this guy for putting himself out there and actually trying something different. Some of the guys criticizing him have no photos posted and some are on gear. He is experimenting with his body and is learning what works for him. How many times do we hear that we all respond differently and need to find what works for us? How many lifters really believe that? There are plenty of guys and gals doing programs and not progressing,but still thinking that what they are doing is the only correct way to train. [/quote]
They usually think they DO respond differently and can’t be convinced otherwise. I remember this one guy who was hell-bent on emulating Mike Mentzer…
[quote]confusion wrote:
I respect this guy for putting himself out there and actually trying something different. Some of the guys criticizing him have no photos posted and some are on gear. He is experimenting with his body and is learning what works for him. How many times do we hear that we all respond differently and need to find what works for us? How many lifters really believe that? There are plenty of guys and gals doing programs and not progressing,but still thinking that what they are doing is the only correct way to train. [/quote]
They usually think they DO respond differently and can’t be convinced otherwise. I remember this one guy who was hell-bent on emulating Mike Mentzer…
[/quote]
I got pretty big doing it too. Now I am trying to keep improving. And I don’t cycle steroids like you either,nor do I only make negative posts
[quote]confusion wrote:
I got pretty big doing it too. Now I am trying to keep improving. And I don’t cycle steroids like you either,nor do I only make negative posts.
[/quote]
No, you didn’t. Nobody cycles steroids like me - I do things differently. I inject them without a syringe.
[quote]johnflower wrote:
I’m curious; with your discerning eye, can you pick a guy who is strong from a guy who looks strong?
[/quote]
Being a contest judge, as well as having read more than my share of superhero comic books over the years makes it fairly easy to pick individuals who “look strong.” The truth though is that knowing what I know, means that while someone’s physique (rugged, thick, or any other such advectives being used in descriptions) may indeed appeal to an inner impression of what “strong” looks like, I know full well this may not be the case.
Similarly, I know plenty of competitive PLers who are damn strong on the platform, but you would never peg them as such based solely on their physical appearance.
[quote]johnflower wrote:
An experiment starts with a hypothesis. The experiment is performed, and the results evaluated. [/quote]
And when the results indicate a conclusion, you then post reams of waffle on the internet that has nothing to do with said conclusion or directly contradicts it.
[quote]MaazerSmiit wrote:
And when the results indicate a conclusion, you then post reams of waffle on the internet that has nothing to do with said conclusion or directly contradicts it.[/quote]
Would you specify the contradictions, and irrelevant points?
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I am all for trying different things. Most of my training is based around it. However, I also think that forming a set of beliefs before you have the results to back it up is destructive to one’s progress.[/quote]
An experiment starts with a hypothesis. The experiment is performed, and the results evaluated. Baking the cake starts with a recipe, if it turns out well, keep doing it. If not, change.[/quote]
Exactly, we are in agreement. Until you produce a cake, you have no idea if a recipe works, so it would be silly to have any beliefs regarding the nature of said recipe.
This is why I say you are limiting your growth by having a set of beliefs on training.
Pwnisher and Yogi have pretty much said what I meant without being smartasses like me. I’m not going to the effort of reading through your posts, copying and posting the select bits which support my argument, I’m dependent on food so I should probably go eat.
I am not saying what johnflower is doing will work. I like that he is thinking outside the box and keeping it real. I like the questions he asks cuz the make me think. I was training once a week following the philosophy of a mr olympia winner that I respect. Chris Colluci told me I was only playing with weights and that it was retarded for me to give a newbie advice advocating once a week training.
I’m sure he will be able to explain away the fact that I have a big back compared to him and got it by training once a week. Regardless,I’m keeping it real and trying to continually improve. Actually,that’s another point I will call him out on. He said I wasn’t making good enuf progress because my measurements weren’t changing well enough and that he would have corrected them. Does he have a better body than last year? I do.
If I made more improvement this year than the resident expert,by “playing” with weights,what does that say about his opinions,the way he trains,and the advice he gives? I have gone here for 2 reasons. First,Chris attacked my ideas in a somewhat personal way. Second,he doesn’t hold himself to the same standard as he held me. In other words being a hypocrite. He is a smart guy amd will probably defend his position well,but I would like him to tell me he was wrong at least about me. Confusion
