What's with the Anti-Bodybuilding Philosphy?

[quote]marty. wrote:
Anyhow, i think you’d be suprised then at how un-athletic the avergae person is[/quote]

Sweet! So lets get em doing powercleans. Great idea.

I’m sorry, but the kool-aide drinkers can’t have their cake and eat it too. Either someone is “too weak and un-athletic” for a split or they are athletic enough for a powerclean. You can’t be too un-athletic to lift like typical BB trainee, but be athletic enough for powercleans.

Because the program has no rows, no chins, no arm work, the only shoulder work is bench and overhead pressing, these kids won’t have any lats, the only trap work is deadlifts and cleans, and don’t forget about the calves.

huh? Dude I’m gonna go out on a limb and say more people get hurt squat and deadlifting than shrugging, curling, and doing a fucking chin up.

I’ve never seen them written into the program. I can’t speak to that.

Well that would be the point of this thread. So why defend it like you did?

I think their philosophy is that compound exercises exert enough stress on the smaller muscles that isolation work isn’t necessary. It’s not so much an anti-bodybuilding approach, I don’t think.

[quote]Bungalow wrote:
I think their philosophy is that compound exercises exert enough stress on the smaller muscles that isolation work isn’t necessary. It’s not so much an anti-bodybuilding approach, I don’t think.[/quote]

…and that philosophy is utter bullshit. Like has been pointed out, you can’t claim that nearly all beginners need an introduction to weight lifting because they are too weak…so you start them on fucking Olympic lifts that take even more skill to perform than more basic movements???

No bodybuilding split routine is free of “compound movements” so why would anyone have the position that beginners will be held back by it?

It is simply a way for previously unknown personal trainers to get their name out there…by trying to rewrite what has worked for decades by acting like it suddenly doesn’t work.

There is no way in hell this makes sense.

Johnny is too weak to start working EVERY MUSCLE IN HIS BODY so lets start him off with a routine that requires advanced counseling and tons of books written by “insert author” just to perform…so that years later he now has absolutely no lateral delt development, small arms and overall disproportionate growth that would have been taken care of from the start had little Johnny actually listened to the people who actually got big.

TBT “might” have a place for guys just looking to improve their conditioning, but I have seen the greatest gains of my life at age 30 using a standard split routine.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bungalow wrote:
I think their philosophy is that compound exercises exert enough stress on the smaller muscles that isolation work isn’t necessary. It’s not so much an anti-bodybuilding approach, I don’t think.

…and that philosophy is utter bullshit. Like has been pointed out, you can’t claim that nearly all beginners need an introduction to weight lifting because they are too weak…so you start them on fucking Olympic lifts that take even more skill to perform than more basic movements???

No bodybuilding split routine is free of “compound movements” so why would anyone have the position that beginners will be held back by it?

It is simply a way for previously unknown personal trainers to get their name out there…by trying to rewrite what has worked for decades by acting like it suddenly doesn’t work.

There is no way in hell this makes sense.

Johnny is too weak to start working EVERY MUSCLE IN HIS BODY so lets start him off with a routine that requires advanced counseling and tons of books written by “insert author” just to perform…so that years later he now has absolutely no lateral delt development, small arms and overall disproportionate growth that would have been taken care of from the start had little Johnny actually listened to the people who actually got big.[/quote]

I agree, I was stating my interpretation of the idea.

I also think that by not doing some isolation work, you aren’t maximizing results because the smaller, weaker muscles will not even come into play as much as they should if a larger muscle taking most of the stress.

I don’t think it’s already been said, but you are going to do your set work at a percentage of your max. If you go for strength at first, you are teaching your self how to lift heavy in the first place and DLs especialy teach you to do this with a lift that you can let go of if you have to without risk of serious injury to anything but the floor and plates.

That and the fact that hypertrophy is a systemic phenomina not a localized one. So lifting heavy (Squats and DLs) ALONG with direct body part training and splits will be more beneficial than the body part split training without the heavy lifting since it will stimulate more growth period.

Also the big lifts are supposedly responsible for higher natural test output.

That said though if you keep it heavy with your curls, close grip bench press, skull crushers et al, (in the case of arm training) and err to the side of adding more plates than adding more reps to progress, when you drop the weights down a bit in favor of more reps (months later) the weight you will be using is much higher than you would have used in those same lifts starting out. That will lead to greater growth.

I’m sure if I’m just full of hot gas someone here (Prof X) will slap me down, but I wouldn’t sweat it too much cause if you’re serious you’ll already be inching up the weight whenever possible, for bragging rights if nothing else right?

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

That and the fact that hypertrophy is a systemic phenomina not a localized one. [/quote]

This isn’t true. It is BOTH. Get it? Your body grows as a whole as well as in parts. I will be very glad when non-biologists stop trying to limit what the body can do. It is fascinating in its ability to adapt and yes, you can build one muscle group in exclusion of others to a limit (one that none of us know and none of us can predict).

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I find it hard to believe that so many people are so weak when they start that they can’t start on an push/pull or upper/lower for christ sake.
[/quote]
Unless you are training 6 days a week, you won’t hit everything 3x per week as you do with full body work. Beginers don’t need very many sets to create a growth stimulus, so why not combine everything into one workout that can be performed frequently? Personally I’d rather stimulate my muscles as often as possible given my ability to recover.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Why the fuck would anyone in their right mind promote an utter newb with no coach to walk into a gym and squat, dead & fucking powerclean with form learned from a book, but tell him he can’t curl? That is utter nonsense.
[/quote]
Sadly for many people, the book is a far better resource than any advice from the local personal trainer. I’m not sure I agree with the powerclean but really the book is probably a better resource than 90% of the advice someone gets in person.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You talking about untrained individuals doing big compound movements, with progressive overload, and drinking a gallon of whole milk a day. ANYONE on earth will grow from that. There is not magic what-so-ever to that program.

SS is not a good starting program for someone who wants to be or look like a bodybuilder.[/quote]
Wait a minute, you say “ANYONE on earth will grow from that…” and “is not a good starting program…”. These statements seem to be somewhat contradictory in nature. Would you rather a beginner use a program that only a few people manage to have success with?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Because the program has no rows, no chins, no arm work, the only shoulder work is bench and overhead pressing, these kids won’t have any lats, the only trap work is deadlifts and cleans, and don’t forget about the calves.

[/quote]

To be fair, I believe most of the routines listed in the OP have chins and/or rows included. The Starting Strength routine does not, but the beginner routine in Practical Programming does IIRC.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Vires Eternus wrote:

That and the fact that hypertrophy is a systemic phenomina not a localized one.

This isn’t true. It is BOTH. Get it? Your body grows as a whole as well as in parts. I will be very glad when non-biologists stop trying to limit what the body can do. It is fascinating in its ability to adapt and yes, you can build one muscle group in exclusion of others to a limit (one that none of us know and none of us can predict).[/quote]

Sorry I was losely quoting Poliquin on that, but he may have clarified it as both by the end of the article. My light went on at that statement and honestly I got a little fuzzy after that. :slight_smile:

To the OP. I liken anti bodybuilding sentiment to 90s era Alternative rock. Back in the 80s EVERY popular rock and especially metal song had a rippin guitar solo in it. It was an expected thing.

Eddie Van Halen, George Lynch, Vito Brata, Vernon Reid, Satriani, Vai, add to that list all you want, were constantly trying to one up each other. It was considered an accomplishment to be a phenominal musician, and me and half my freinds picked up guitars with the lofty goal of one day being able to play like them…

Then the 90s came, and suddenly it was ‘uncool’ to play a solo unless of course it sounded like you played it backwards with your feet, on only two strings. Not to say all the music suddenly sucked. There is some great music from that era too. It’s just that pop-metal hit a saturation point and was culturally disgorged.

I’m seeing similar things happening with some people’s sentiments towards bodybuilding as a sport and a training practice. Watch them come back around in a few years.

The great guitar solos finally did.

With all the talk of Starting Strength I thought I’d clear things up. Chinups are usually included in the form of a couple of sets at the end of each workout. The program doesn’t hit all bodyparts but I have yet to see a program add so much weight to so many lifts so fast. With this program you can add weight to your squat 3 times a week and add to both your bench press and military 3 times in two weeks.

It’s not intended to be run forever and for bodybuilding purposes it’s a great way of building a base to start from. I want to be as big and strong as possible, so I intend to run it again (moving onto the texas method if necessary) for 3 months before jumping onto 5/3/1 as with a bit of weight gain it’s a great way of pushing up the big 3. Doing chins 2 or 3 times a week and gaining weight all over is unlikely to make anyones biceps smaller and they can be given a bigger focus afterwards - 3 months isn’t that long to sacrifice to get those sorts of gains on the big 3.

TBT or splits, I don’t care as long as it makes me bigger and stronger. Isn’t that what everyone here is after?

[quote]OBoile wrote:

Unless you are training 6 days a week, you won’t hit everything 3x per week as you do with full body work. [/quote]

In the program in question a trainee not hitting everything.

Your point is moot.

Personally, I’d rather use weight heavy enough for me to need more than 36-48 hours to hit that movement again. There is no way in hell I could squat 3 times a week and deadlift without drastically reducing the weights I use in order to get out of bed in the morning.

I never said Rippetoe wasn’t smart, or his book wasn’t good. I said Starting Strength is a shitty program for a trainee that wants to look like a bodybuilder.

Nice try slappy. I’m not an idiot, while you may be, I am not. Going forward actually read my post before responding, don’t just pick half statements and string them together.

But one more time for shits and giggles:

Anyone drinking a gallon of fucking milk a day, doing the big dawg lifts consistently, with progressively heavier weight will grow. This is not a novel concept, this is not rocket science. Starting strength is such a program.

BUT (please actually pay attention this time…)

For someone who wants to look like a bodybuilder, ie: proportional development, Starting Strength is a bad choice as a first routine. It ignores far too many body parts and has people doing complex, skilled movements, while restricting simple, necessary ones.

If you are training for Football(handegg), soccer, karate, hockey, fucking badminton, then fine do whatever the fuck you want. But if you are training to look like a bodybuilder, there are better approaches.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

In the program in question a trainee not hitting everything.

Your point is moot.
[/quote]
Which program are you refering to? Several were listed. Even with Starting Strength, there are several different variations.

Regardless, allow me to rephrase: Full Body Training hits all the MAJOR muscle groups 3 times a week. A beginner will make faster progress due to the more frequent stimulus his muscles recieves.

  • repeated from previous post -
    Beginers don’t need very many sets to create a growth stimulus, so why not combine everything into one workout that can be performed frequently? Personally I’d rather stimulate my muscles as often as possible given my ability to recover.
  • end repeat -

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Personally, I’d rather use weight heavy enough for me to need more than 36-48 hours to hit that movement again. There is no way in hell I could squat 3 times a week and deadlift without drastically reducing the weights I use in order to get out of bed in the morning.
[/quote]
You are not a beginner (I’m assuming anyway). Beginners don’t need to do that much work in order to provide the necessary stimulus for growth.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Nice try slappy. I’m not an idiot, while you may be, I am not. Going forward actually read my post before responding, don’t just pick half statements and string them together.

But one more time for shits and giggles:

Anyone drinking a gallon of fucking milk a day, doing the big dawg lifts consistently, with progressively heavier weight will grow. This is not a novel concept, this is not rocket science. Starting strength is such a program.

BUT (please actually pay attention this time…)

For someone who wants to look like a bodybuilder, ie: proportional development, Starting Strength is a bad choice as a first routine. It ignores far too many body parts and has people doing complex, skilled movements, while restricting simple, necessary ones.

If you are training for Football(handegg), soccer, karate, hockey, fucking badminton, then fine do whatever the fuck you want. But if you are training to look like a bodybuilder, there are better approaches.[/quote]

I’ll stand by my original statement:
Wait a minute, you say “ANYONE on earth will grow from that…” and “is not a good starting program…”. These statements seem to be somewhat contradictory in nature. Would you rather a beginner use a program that only a few people manage to have success with?

I’ve yet to see a scrawny body builder (at least a successful one anyway). Its pretty stupid to worry about proportions when you are small all over. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the olympia goes to the 165# guy with great proportions.

[quote]OBoile wrote:
countingbeans wrote:

In the program in question a trainee not hitting everything.

Your point is moot.

Which program are you refering to? Several were listed. Even with Starting Strength, there are several different variations.[/quote]

The program we are discussing is SS. Please try and keep up. Which variation works lateral delts, traps, lats, arms & calves again?

[quote]Regardless, allow me to rephrase: Full Body Training hits all the MAJOR muscle groups 3 times a week. A beginner will make faster progress due to the more frequent stimulus his muscles recieves.

  • repeated from previous post -
    Beginers don’t need very many sets to create a growth stimulus, so why not combine everything into one workout that can be performed frequently? Personally I’d rather stimulate my muscles as often as possible given my ability to recover.
  • end repeat -[/quote]

a) No stats or pictures in your profile, I don’t give a fuck about your personal experience. I have no basis to compare your amazing progress to others.

b) I will not get into a TBT v. Split debate. And SS being TBT is NOT why I think it is an inferior program for someone who wants to look like a bodybuilder. It neglects muscle groups, and promotes NON-proportional growth, which for someone who wants to look like a bodybuilder is fucking stupid for ANY amount of time.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Personally, I’d rather use weight heavy enough for me to need more than 36-48 hours to hit that movement again. There is no way in hell I could squat 3 times a week and deadlift without drastically reducing the weights I use in order to get out of bed in the morning.

You are not a beginner (I’m assuming anyway). Beginners don’t need to do that much work in order to provide the necessary stimulus for growth.[/quote]

I’ve been that way since about month 2 of lifting. I kept trying to squat 8,000 times a week, but I didn’t grow, and I felt like assbags.

[quote]

I’ll stand by my original statement:
Wait a minute, you say “ANYONE on earth will grow from that…” and “is not a good starting program…”. These statements seem to be somewhat contradictory in nature. Would you rather a beginner use a program that only a few people manage to have success with?[/quote]

Then one of four things applies:

a) You are an idiot,
b) You are purposely trying to spin my words. See #1 as to why that isn’t working,
c) You are trolling,
d) You aren’t reading my posts, see #1 again.

This statement is relevant to exactly dick. When did I say anything that your above statement actually remotely applies?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The program we are discussing is SS. Please try and keep up. Which variation works lateral delts, traps, lats, arms & calves again?
[/quote]
http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/The_Starting_Strength_Novice/Beginner_Programs
All but the calves.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

a) No stats or pictures in your profile, I don’t give a fuck about your personal experience. I have no basis to compare your amazing progress to others.

b) I will not get into a TBT v. Split debate. And SS being TBT is NOT why I think it is an inferior program for someone who wants to look like a bodybuilder. It neglects muscle groups, and promotes NON-proportional growth, which for someone who wants to look like a bodybuilder is fucking stupid for ANY amount of time.
[/quote]
This has nothing to do with my personal experience so I’m not sure why you would assume that. I’m simply stating the current commonly held belief that novice lifters don’t require nearly as much stimulation to grow.
â??Stimulate, don’t annihilate.â?? is a term that applies here. Beginners can get adaptation from using as little as 40% of their max for only a couple of sets.
As for pictures, you can look me up on youtube if you want. I’m not sure how relevant that is considering I’m not a bodybuilder and I had never heard of Starting Strength when I started (although I wish I had).

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’ve been that way since about month 2 of lifting. I kept trying to squat 8,000 times a week, but I didn’t grow, and I felt like assbags. Furthermore, its quite clear that you don’t understand the difference between beginner and intermediate programming if you are still lifting that way.
[/quote]
Were you doing SS? Were you eating properly? I’m guessing “no” to both counts.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Then one of four things applies:
a) You are an idiot,
b) You are purposely trying to spin my words. See #1 as to why that isn’t working,
c) You are trolling,
d) You aren’t reading my posts, see #1 again.
[/quote]
I’ll stand by my original statement:
Wait a minute, you say “ANYONE on earth will grow from that…” and “is not a good starting program…”. These statements seem to be somewhat contradictory in nature. Would you rather a beginner use a program that only a few people manage to have success with?

When you can think of something better than petty name calling to counter my arguement I’ll be happy to listen. Until then, I’ve wasted enough time here. But, by all means, continue to berate me and believe that a beginner should be concerned about whether all three heads of the deltoid are in perfect proportion.

[quote]OBoile wrote:
considering I’m not a bodybuilder[/quote]

Why is it then, that you post in this particular sub-forum, and pretend to have any clue as to how someone who WANTS TO ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE ONE should train?

[quote]

When you can think of something better than petty name calling to counter my arguement I’ll be happy to listen. [/quote]

When you actually read and comprehend what I am saying I will stop calling you an idiot. If you aren’t going to read what I say, don’t fucking respond, and I won’t call you a dumbass. It really is a pretty basic cycle if you look at it.

Feel free to STFU then.

Um, where did I say that a beginner should be worried about perfect proportions?

What I did say is train every body part so that your body will grow in proportion. (If you don’t understand the difference, See #1 in my previous post.)

But feel free to continue to try and spin what I said into something else, because I get great joy from watching slow people struggle.

Before I talk about some shit I don’t know how long does starting strength last?

anyone saying full body training sucks for bodybuilding should check out alpha’s thread on the front page- he used 5/3/1 for a while but is back on the full body thing and credits that w/ his size and strength.

he is bigger and stronger than you.

not that it matters, but i use a split and throw in full body from time to time for periods of 3-4 weeks. i’m not anti-split, i just think the bodybuilding dogma that is pushed around here and “tbt” backlash is counterproductive and promotes inaccuracies.

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Before I talk about some shit I don’t know how long does starting strength last?[/quote]

Depends on the individual I believe. From what I understand until you stop making gains each workout.