PDA

View Full Version : Started Lyle McDonald's Hypertrophy Routine



rvadog
05-07-2012, 05:01 PM
http://jcdfitness.com/2009/01/lyle-mcdonalds-bulking-routine/

Just started this routine. Holy shit. It was rough. I'm going to have to eat like a pig to gain on this program I think.

RichMcGuire
05-07-2012, 06:37 PM
http://jcdfitness.com/2009/01/lyle-mcdonalds-bulking-routine/

Just started this routine. Holy shit. It was rough. I'm going to have to eat like a pig to gain on this program I think.

Its a very solid program but I don't remember it being toooo brutal. You'll def need to at least eat a little more than you need on this generic bulking program ;)

rvadog
05-07-2012, 06:44 PM
This full body shit wears me out. I'm used to 1-2 body parts per day.

RichMcGuire
05-07-2012, 06:49 PM
This full body shit wears me out. I'm used to 1-2 body parts per day.

Its an upper/lower split though. I always went 3 sets on the main lifts and 2 on the secondary movements though.

rvadog
05-07-2012, 07:08 PM
full body/upper body...same thing to me. Yeah, that's what I'm doing too.

Off Road
05-07-2012, 07:32 PM
full body/upper body...same thing to me.
Sadly, a lot of guys think that way.

rvadog
05-07-2012, 07:39 PM
To clarify, working 5 different muscle groups drains me that it might as well be full body. Got lower body tomorrow.

RichMcGuire
05-07-2012, 07:45 PM
To clarify, working 5 different muscle groups drains me that it might as well be full body. Got lower body tomorrow.

Well upper can be made into only 12 sets..lower 10+. Its not horrible. You can always add more volume later or add different techniques to build on intensity. Are you training to failure? I'm not against it but lyle advocates stopping a rep or two short..maybe that could help you too.

chris mason
05-07-2012, 08:33 PM
I wonder if Lyle has ever been big at all? I find it interesting that someone who likely has never had much muscle is going to tell others how to get big... I can talk about dieting because I have been very lean. I've also been pretty big (260+ lbs) and strong, so I know a thing or two about that.

RichMcGuire
05-07-2012, 08:54 PM
I wonder if Lyle has ever been big at all? I find it interesting that someone who likely has never had much muscle is going to tell others how to get big... I can talk about dieting because I have been very lean. I've also been pretty big (260+ lbs) and strong, so I know a thing or two about that.

Yea, I've sort of felt that at points too. The actual program is pretty good though when you look at it.

rvadog
05-08-2012, 04:41 AM
There are Olympic track coaches that have never run in the Olympics.

Manny Pacquiao has a boxing coach that was never as good as he was yet coaches him...

You don't have to have ever been huge to know all the right info and be able to coach people. It may give you more credibility but that's another story,

Off Road
05-08-2012, 07:24 AM
There are Olympic track coaches that have never run in the Olympics.

Manny Pacquiao has a boxing coach that was never as good as he was yet coaches him...

You don't have to have ever been huge to know all the right info and be able to coach people. It may give you more credibility but that's another story,
I agree with this. There are a lot of trainers and coaches out there that have their clients surpassing their own levels. For whatever reason.

RichMcGuire
05-08-2012, 12:25 PM
I agree with this. There are a lot of trainers and coaches out there that have their clients surpassing their own levels. For whatever reason.

Yea, I agree with that too. Controlled studies also wouldnt exist if the researchers themselves 'always' had to be participants. Its def a two sided argument. Simple things prove it untrue..such as, I don't have to have a habanero to know its hot or that it is classified as a chili pepper. I can read about it. But then you have other people like albert einstein who say "knowledge is nothing more than experience"

Alex.V
05-08-2012, 12:39 PM
My only issue with this philosophy (that a coach does not have to be exceptional) is that training in general is very much an inexact science at the moment- unfortunately, a GREAT DEAL of the research out there on diet, nutrition, strength training, even the bloody factors leading to muscle growth is statistically questionable, scientifically dubious, or antiquated/outdated.

There is a tremendous gap between the mechanism-based fundamental knowledge and the empirical or evidence-based group- a real shortage of intelligent individuals who take a look at these mechanisms and theories and apply them with any level of expertise to the real world... Having only a few individuals in this field means that there are, quite frankly, not enough folks out there questioning these theories or methodologies, certainly not compared to many other areas in medicine or the health sciences. Peer review, i.e. someone else saying "Hey buddy, that's bullshit and I can tell you why", is priceless.

So my point... we're still at a stage where personal experience plays a big factor when it comes to designing a routine or creating a methodology. A biochemist may be the best source for information on how a particular compound/nutrient is digested, but they'd never call themselves a dietitian. A "coach" is not a scientist or researcher at heart, a coach is someone who applies their own experience and scrutiny to the existing body of knowledge on a subject and translates it to real individuals. If they themselves have never had much success applying their methods on themselves, then perhaps their methods are missing something in the leap from theory to practice. Some may claim that coaches may not be genetically gifted like their athletes... true, but then you could argue their success stories would have been successful regardless.

Not to take anything away from Lyle, but I would say take a number of these recommendations and programs with a grain of salt.. and question whether those individuals who progress on them would have progressed on anything. If someone can't walk the walk...


tl;dr version: Book learnin' ain't the same as real life learnin'.

Cards
05-08-2012, 02:09 PM
My only issue with this philosophy (that a coach does not have to be exceptional) is that training in general is very much an inexact science at the moment- unfortunately, a GREAT DEAL of the research out there on diet, nutrition, strength training, even the bloody factors leading to muscle growth is statistically questionable, scientifically dubious, or antiquated/outdated.

There is a tremendous gap between the mechanism-based fundamental knowledge and the empirical or evidence-based group- a real shortage of intelligent individuals who take a look at these mechanisms and theories and apply them with any level of expertise to the real world... Having only a few individuals in this field means that there are, quite frankly, not enough folks out there questioning these theories or methodologies, certainly not compared to many other areas in medicine or the health sciences. Peer review, i.e. someone else saying "Hey buddy, that's bullshit and I can tell you why", is priceless.

So my point... we're still at a stage where personal experience plays a big factor when it comes to designing a routine or creating a methodology. A biochemist may be the best source for information on how a particular compound/nutrient is digested, but they'd never call themselves a dietitian. A "coach" is not a scientist or researcher at heart, a coach is someone who applies their own experience and scrutiny to the existing body of knowledge on a subject and translates it to real individuals. If they themselves have never had much success applying their methods on themselves, then perhaps their methods are missing something in the leap from theory to practice. Some may claim that coaches may not be genetically gifted like their athletes... true, but then you could argue their success stories would have been successful regardless.

Not to take anything away from Lyle, but I would say take a number of these recommendations and programs with a grain of salt.. and question whether those individuals who progress on them would have progressed on anything. If someone can't walk the walk...


tl;dr version: Book learnin' ain't the same as real life learnin'.

I think this is too long to put in my signature

RichMcGuire
05-08-2012, 02:23 PM
My only issue with this philosophy (that a coach does not have to be exceptional) is that training in general is very much an inexact science at the moment- unfortunately, a GREAT DEAL of the research out there on diet, nutrition, strength training, even the bloody factors leading to muscle growth is statistically questionable, scientifically dubious, or antiquated/outdated.

There is a tremendous gap between the mechanism-based fundamental knowledge and the empirical or evidence-based group- a real shortage of intelligent individuals who take a look at these mechanisms and theories and apply them with any level of expertise to the real world... Having only a few individuals in this field means that there are, quite frankly, not enough folks out there questioning these theories or methodologies, certainly not compared to many other areas in medicine or the health sciences. Peer review, i.e. someone else saying "Hey buddy, that's bullshit and I can tell you why", is priceless.

So my point... we're still at a stage where personal experience plays a big factor when it comes to designing a routine or creating a methodology. A biochemist may be the best source for information on how a particular compound/nutrient is digested, but they'd never call themselves a dietitian. A "coach" is not a scientist or researcher at heart, a coach is someone who applies their own experience and scrutiny to the existing body of knowledge on a subject and translates it to real individuals. If they themselves have never had much success applying their methods on themselves, then perhaps their methods are missing something in the leap from theory to practice. Some may claim that coaches may not be genetically gifted like their athletes... true, but then you could argue their success stories would have been successful regardless.


tl;dr version: Book learnin' ain't the same as real life learnin'.


Very true. You'll see a lot of bodybuilders do the scientifically "wrong" things yet they still get undeniable results. This is usually quickly covered by saying "they are an exception to the rule" or "they are genetic freaks" etc. Nice post.


Not to take anything away from Lyle, but I would say take a number of these recommendations and programs with a grain of salt.. and question whether those individuals who progress on them would have progressed on anything. If someone can't walk the walk...

Which recommendations in particular are you referring to here?

r2473
05-08-2012, 02:30 PM
The best performers aren't (necessarily) the best coaches and the best coaches aren't (necessarily) the best performers.

In the world of hypertrophy, I think there is enough evidence and experience out there that we should have an idea what has the best chance of working for the greatest number of people.

I think there is also enough evidence and experience out there to have a good idea how fast people can reasonably expect to grow muscle and how much muscle anyone can reasonably expect to grow (drug free......new drugs are always being engineered, so we may not know the human limit with drugs).

That said, I think Lyle's programs "make sense" and should work for "most people".

RichMcGuire
05-08-2012, 03:37 PM
The best performers aren't (necessarily) the best coaches and the best coaches aren't (necessarily) the best performers.

In the world of hypertrophy, I think there is enough evidence and experience out there that we should have an idea what has the best chance of working for the greatest number of people.

I think there is also enough evidence and experience out there to have a good idea how fast people can reasonably expect to grow muscle and how much muscle anyone can reasonably expect to grow (drug free......new drugs are always being engineered, so we may not know the human limit with drugs).

That said, I think Lyle's programs "make sense" and should work for "most people".


Yea, much of what we know about why muscles grow is simply association. But thats still good enough for most people. I think it still comes down to the individual and how they feel they respond. The more interesting things I've seen is peoples genetic potentials based off of top-level natural bodybuilders. I know most people freak out about it but its pretty compelling.

Personally, I'd say do what you're doing and let nature work it out. We know more food and heavier weights is associated with hypertrophy.

chris mason
05-08-2012, 08:09 PM
There are Olympic track coaches that have never run in the Olympics.

Manny Pacquiao has a boxing coach that was never as good as he was yet coaches him...

You don't have to have ever been huge to know all the right info and be able to coach people. It may give you more credibility but that's another story,

Yeah, but Manny's coach was a pretty decent boxer in his day. That is a poor example.

My guess is most Olympic track coaches were athletic in their day. Do you know of one with no track background?

No, you don't have to be huge to know how to train, but it DOES make a difference. Theory is great, but having lived something physical makes a difference. Yes, due to heredity some people can get quite large without knowing what they are doing and those people make poor coaches, but that does not preclude the fact that if you have never gotten quite large you really don't have the in the trenches experience to fully comprehend the process.

As Alex mentioned above, the science of bodybuilding has a real paucity of viable information. Strength training has more science, but in the end it is really primarily empirical evidence.

True expertise does not exist without experience. That is universally true. What expert do you know that does not have SIGNIFICANT individual experience in their area of expertise? Lyle is a twit with a shit physique and a bit mouth. He certainly knows something about nutrition and even training, but am I going to take advice about how to get big from someone that NEVER has? That is retarded...

chris mason
05-08-2012, 08:11 PM
Which brings us to the point of how silly it is when people elevate some to guru status. Guru status is often much more of a function of marketing and hype than real qualification. In is an interesting sociological phenomenon to me.

chris mason
05-08-2012, 08:15 PM
Here is, I believe, a picture of Lyle deadlifting. Note the massive weight being used and perfect technique...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0YAZMKH5g4I/R2F05QoTxMI/AAAAAAAABLg/wYdgK7ZFfC0/s400/irontamer6b.jpg

Gee, this is who I am going to listen to...

Really? This is the guy with the mass program???

:bang:

RichMcGuire
05-08-2012, 09:48 PM
Here is, I believe, a picture of Lyle deadlifting. Note the massive weight being used and perfect technique...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0YAZMKH5g4I/R2F05QoTxMI/AAAAAAAABLg/wYdgK7ZFfC0/s400/irontamer6b.jpg

Gee, this is who I am going to listen to...

Really? This is the guy with the mass program???

:bang:

Lol, this picture always cracks me up too.

But Chris, have you actually looked at the generic bulking routine? Its perfectly good and simple and does work. Its middle of the road in its approach. Theres better ones out there..but its hard to deny a basic upper/lower using double progression works.

chris mason
05-09-2012, 09:17 AM
I glanced at it. Frankly, coming up with a stupidly generic mass routine is something virtually anyone could do. Lyle needs to stick to dieting advice. Following his training advice is like having an Ethiopian marathoner tell me how to get big...

You know, it shows his sheer stupidity that he would even allow a picture like that to be used for interviews. He is straining mightily to deadlift less weight than most women use.

RichMcGuire
05-09-2012, 10:36 AM
I glanced at it. Frankly, coming up with a stupidly generic mass routine is something virtually anyone could do. Lyle needs to stick to dieting advice. Following his training advice is like having an Ethiopian marathoner tell me how to get big...

You know, it shows his sheer stupidity that he would even allow a picture like that to be used for interviews. He is straining mightily to deadlift less weight than most women use.


haha very true

yayeti
05-12-2012, 04:25 PM
What general principles do you follow and or have had success with as far as bodybuilding? What kind of splits, how many sets, cutting and bulking....?

chris mason
05-12-2012, 10:26 PM
That seems like an odd question considering all of the threads, programs, and articles on this site. What are you trying to figure out?

yayeti
05-13-2012, 10:08 AM
I was actually looking quite a bit into what lyle says on his site about dieting and training. Because it seems like there's a lot of science that he backs it up with. But you make a good point in that why would you take advice from somehow on how to get ripped who is not ripped himself. So I was just wondering what you disagreed with. There's so much out there its tough to find something that works vs just a bunch of crap.

chris mason
05-14-2012, 09:02 PM
I think his nutritional information is more sound than his training recommendations. I'm not even saying his training recommendations are all bad, but the bottom line is the guy is a physical nothing and I simply cannot take advice from him on getting big. There are a lot of better sources out there.

fuzzy_monkey
05-16-2012, 05:49 PM
I wonder if Lyle has ever been big at all? I find it interesting that someone who likely has never had much muscle is going to tell others how to get big... I can talk about dieting because I have been very lean. I've also been pretty big (260+ lbs) and strong, so I know a thing or two about that.

Right, because it's impossible to know how to train someone to be big unless you're big yourself. Uh, wait... Because, even if you've successfully trained hundreds of people to be big, if you're not big yourself, you couldn't possibly know how to train someone to be big.. um, no, wait... because if you're big that must mean you know how to train other people (of all shapes, sizes, genetics, etc) to be big. For some reason, none of this is ringing true...

fuzzy_monkey
05-16-2012, 05:52 PM
haha very true

Is there anything that you wouldn't think was "true"?

RichMcGuire
05-16-2012, 07:09 PM
Is there anything that you wouldn't think was "true"?

Yea. Most of what I read. I said "that was true" about what Chris said because it was funny. I'm not sure what your bizarre point is or why you had to put quotations around the word true. Silly, silly.

fuzzy_monkey
05-16-2012, 08:29 PM
Yea. Most of what I read. I said "that was true" about what Chris said because it was funny. I'm not sure what your bizarre point is or why you had to put quotations around the word true. Silly, silly.

If you don't know my point, why would you say it's bizarre? And why did you just put quotes around 'that was true'?

My point is two statements which conflict with each other can't be true. Either one is true and one is false, or both are false. Either way, this thread irritated me, and I was just being a punk.

Alex.V
05-16-2012, 09:04 PM
I was just being a punk.

This more or less sums it up.

chris mason
05-16-2012, 09:28 PM
Hey Fuzzy, Lyle irritates me (for a good reason that has zero to his with his worthless physique) and guess what, this is MY FUCKING SITE...

Look, if you love the guy and want to be huge and powerful like him then by all means follow his advice.

RichMcGuire
05-16-2012, 10:05 PM
this thread irritated me, and I was just being a punk.

that explains the useless posts.

JacobH
05-16-2012, 11:34 PM
I can respect his knowledge/know-how, but I think if this guy(or anyone) was training me in a gym it would be akward taking advice from someone smaller than me. I would want to be the one giving advice. If you can't take the time or don't have the drive to accomplish the things you preach that really fucks your credibility up. It's like taking guitar lessons from someone who knows a lot of music theory but can't play worth a shit.

NITF
05-17-2012, 07:29 AM
Yeah... I usually try to avoid ad hominem attacks as they are considered a logical fallacy. Just because someone has never done something doesn't mean they can't say something worthwhile about it. A good example might be Machiavelli - he wrote The Prince, a political treatise that gave advice on how to rule a princedom; Machiavelli was never royalty yet The Prince is regarded as one of the best texts on the subject.
Now, I do believe sometimes there are cases where an ad hominem attack is valid; this may be an example of one. Something to think about...

fuzzy_monkey
05-17-2012, 07:30 AM
that explains the useless posts.

Right, unlike your very useful "that's true" posts.

fuzzy_monkey
05-17-2012, 07:31 AM
Hey Fuzzy, Lyle irritates me (for a good reason that has zero to his with his worthless physique) and guess what, this is MY FUCKING SITE...

Look, if you love the guy and want to be huge and powerful like him then by all means follow his advice.

It has nothing to do with loving the guy. He can be a jerk on his forums, no doubt. It's just the premise in general that someone who knows how to train theirself must be able to train anyone. People have genetic limits. Some people don't wannabebig. If someone successfully trains theirself, the yippee they've trained a single person successfully. If they can train lots of different people successfully ,I think that says a lot more about their ability.

fuzzy_monkey
05-17-2012, 08:00 AM
This more or less sums it up.

I'm not denying it.

Alex.V
05-17-2012, 08:17 AM
Yeah... I usually try to avoid ad hominem attacks as they are considered a logical fallacy. Just because someone has never done something doesn't mean they can't say something worthwhile about it. A good example might be Machiavelli - he wrote The Prince, a political treatise that gave advice on how to rule a princedom; Machiavelli was never royalty yet The Prince is regarded as one of the best texts on the subject.
Now, I do believe sometimes there are cases where an ad hominem attack is valid; this may be an example of one. Something to think about...

Machiavelli's text is not specifically about royalty- it is about politics, it is about morality, strength, the ability to rule, realism versus idealism.... Niccolo Machiavelli lived in a time of tremendous unrest in Italy, and was at times a politician, a diplomat, a military leader... as someone who lived and breathed government and governance, he was particularly well-qualified to write a treatise on leadership.

In general, ad hominem attacks are attempts to discredit an argument or viewpoint based on flaws in the individual presenting a position.

However, in this case, one's personal accomplishments ARE relevant- again, back to my point that this is still NOT a hard and fast science- there are still a tremendous number of assumptions being made at all levels of training. A training system, in an ideal world, would be more complex than any medical treatment or course of treatment- there are more variables, more endpoints, more confounding factors. So let's assume any good training system is just a model- strong assumptions and theories based on existing scientific and empirical evidence. However, it also needs to be realistic and doable. Lyle has, at various points, dabbled in getting larger and stronger, and his results have been mediocre. If his methods were valid, you'd assume they would have worked on him.

And there is precisely the genetic component as well- fuzzy mentions 'trained a number of individuals successfully'. Has he? Has he trained them any better than they would have progressed on any other somewhat acceptable system? Is there a basis for this claim? (Not saying there is or isn't, just raising the question). Or would his success stories have succeeded on any routine?

We could also discuss how there is VERY little scientific backing whatsoever for the "genetic limitations" argument (the vast majority of human beings are capable of getting much faster, bigger and stronger than they seem to believe), but that's a much larger topic.

Fuzzy, you also do state that not everyone wants to be big... true. And again, Lyle knows a great deal about nutrition and metabolism, etc. etc. But in this case, we're discussing the quality of his advice when it comes PRECISELY to getting big.

fuzzy_monkey
05-17-2012, 08:47 AM
Lyle has, at various points, dabbled in getting larger and stronger, and his results have been mediocre. If his methods were valid, you'd assume they would have worked on him.

If this is true, then it's a valid point, and I'd like to know more. Where did you learn of his dabblings, aside from the awesome deadlifting photo?



We could also discuss how there is VERY little scientific backing whatsoever for the "genetic limitations" argument (the vast majority of human beings are capable of getting much faster, bigger and stronger than they seem to believe), but that's a much larger topic.


What about soma-types, and hardgainers, small framed, large framed, etc etc. Maybe there isn't a lot of science, but clearly some folks can get bigger than others, and with less effort. I can guarantee you I couldn't get as big as Chris.



Fuzzy, you also do state that not everyone wants to be big... true. And again, Lyle knows a great deal about nutrition and metabolism, etc. etc. But in this case, we're discussing the quality of his advice when it comes PRECISELY to getting big.

My point was maybe Lyle doesn't want to be big :)

chris mason
05-17-2012, 08:52 AM
It has nothing to do with loving the guy. He can be a jerk on his forums, no doubt. It's just the premise in general that someone who knows how to train theirself must be able to train anyone. People have genetic limits. Some people don't wannabebig. If someone successfully trains theirself, the yippee they've trained a single person successfully. If they can train lots of different people successfully ,I think that says a lot more about their ability.

Fuzzy,

Allow me to try to logically present my position:

You are correct, one need not necessarily have to be good at something in order to teach it. NITF provided us an example, but I will say that more or less purely intellectual topics are a bit different than physical ones. I too might have great ideas on how to rule without ever having been a king etc. I can study what others have done and of course I may have some experience in leading others in my life even though I have not been a king.

The same can hold true for lifting weights and getting big, but I would argue that the personal experience of actually doing it, of having had 900+ lbs on your back, or 20" guns etc. will give you a perspective that cannot be had without that experience.

Of course, now that I write this, if you have not been a king and had to make such macro level decisions some of which may involve life and death for many, many individuals, you can probably have some wonderful ideas on how to rule, but your thoughts might be tinged with idealism and sound great, but not be possible or work out in reality...

Ok, I'm back to my gut feeling of I am going to listen to the intelligent individual with experience vs. the one without it.

Alex.V
05-17-2012, 10:13 AM
If this is true, then it's a valid point, and I'd like to know more. Where did you learn of his dabblings, aside from the awesome deadlifting photo?

Have you read his books, including the ketogenic diet? In his earlier postings around the initial time of publication, he was a fixture around various forums and was very open about his attempts to manipulate his body weight and lean body mass through various dieting and training routines. I don't believe he ever said "I'm going to get to be 250 and lean, and here's how", but at a few points he'd talk about working to gain x pounds of muscle and the like. Been following the guy off and on for close to a decade. Apologies, I'd have a hard time scouring the internet now for it, but I'll see if I can pull up some old postings.




What about soma-types, and hardgainers,

There is ZERO evidence whatsoever to support the wildly outdated/antiquated somatype description. The concept of a "hardgainer" likewise is complete bunk. Yes, there are certain body types more predisposed towards gaining muscle, others that tend to be shaped to stay more lean. But the overall physiology of a Kenyan is not so wildly different from a Maori- both are capable of being lean and wiry or larger and more muscular. "Hardgainers" are almost inevitably those who simply do not eat enough- unless they have some other underlying condition (like celiac disease or other malabsorption) that is preventing them from gaining weight.

Believe me, I'm not arguing all should train the same way- far from it. But again, another reason why anybody who seeks to train a variety of others should be able to practice what they preach and show superior results from it.

You're right, he may not want to be big. But, to Chris' last point there- all else being equal, being given advice from two intelligent sources with multiple success stories each, I will follow the advice from the one who has tested it on himself and can personally speak to results.

fuzzy_monkey
05-17-2012, 10:14 AM
The same can hold true for lifting weights and getting big, but I would argue that the personal experience of actually doing it, of having had 900+ lbs on your back, or 20" guns etc. will give you a perspective that cannot be had without that experience.
...

Ok, I'm back to my gut feeling of I am going to listen to the intelligent individual with experience vs. the one without it.

Thanks Chris. What you're saying makes sense, and given those two options, I would make the same choice. I guess the bottom line is people want a program that works, and it's not clear whether Lyle's generic bulking routine has been effective, since there aren't a lot of success stories (or failures for that matter).

RichMcGuire
05-17-2012, 11:00 AM
Right, unlike your very useful "that's true" posts.

Accepting someones humor is never useless.

Alex.V
05-17-2012, 11:03 AM
Accepting someones humor is never useless.

That's very true.

RichMcGuire
05-17-2012, 11:05 AM
Thanks Chris. What you're saying makes sense, and given those two options, I would make the same choice. I guess the bottom line is people want a program that works, and it's not clear whether Lyle's generic bulking routine has been effective, since there aren't a lot of success stories (or failures for that matter).

This is true for everything...but it rings of "perfect program" mentality. I mean, its not like the program itself is the secret route of getting bigger or more muscular. Programs generally work because they follow a set of physiological principles and conditions.

NITF
05-17-2012, 11:22 AM
Machiavelli's text is not specifically about royalty- it is about politics, it is about morality, strength, the ability to rule, realism versus idealism.... Niccolo Machiavelli lived in a time of tremendous unrest in Italy, and was at times a politician, a diplomat, a military leader... as someone who lived and breathed government and governance, he was particularly well-qualified to write a treatise on leadership.

In general, ad hominem attacks are attempts to discredit an argument or viewpoint based on flaws in the individual presenting a position.

However, in this case, one's personal accomplishments ARE relevant...

Yeah... thanks for not letting me get away with that; I wanted to come up with a better example but couldn't seem to think of one that didn't involve sex advice columns for some reason.... hmmm...

r2473
05-17-2012, 11:39 AM
We could also discuss how there is VERY little scientific backing whatsoever for the "genetic limitations" argument (the vast majority of human beings are capable of getting much faster, bigger and stronger than they seem to believe), but that's a much larger topic.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Are you just saying that many "hardgainers" are simply not working hard enough or doing things right (or perhaps they are just physically immature at this point in their lives and won't be "hardgainers" in a few years)?

Or are you suggesting that the "hardgainer" concept is a complete myth (the basic idea that some people will have a more difficult adding muscle than others and some people will not be able to add as much as others no matter how hard or long they try)?

Or are you making an even stronger claim against "genetic limitations" in general? Many people will claim that we have limitless potential and that what we achieve is based on how hard and smart we work.

Just to be completely open here, I'm quite convinced by articles Casey Butt has written on the idea of "genetic limitations".

http://www.weightrainer.net/articles.html

Alex.V
05-17-2012, 11:50 AM
I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Are you just saying that many "hardgainers" are simply not working hard enough or doing things right (or perhaps they are just physically immature at this point in their lives and won't be "hardgainers" in a few years)?

Or are you making a stronger claim against "genetic limitations"?

Just to be completely open here, I'm quite convinced by articles Casey Butt has written on the idea of "genetic limitations".

http://www.weightrainer.net/articles.html

To be sure, I'm not stating there is no such thing as genetic limitations- apologies if that wasn't clear. There certainly are- we are not capable of putting on limitless amounts of lean body mass, I'm simply stating there is FAR greater parity in the human population than those who discuss somatypes and "hardgainers" would have you believe. By the genetic limitations argument specifically, I meant the argument put forward that genetic limitations will forever relegate some people to needing superhuman effort to gain a single pound of muscle, therefore they're simply condemned to be small (and it's not their fault.)

In fact, if you look at Casey Butt's writing, he does state that the multitude of complex factors used to predict maximum growth can all be put aside for all practical intents and purposes, and the greatest correlation is simply joint size and stature overall. Given how well this model works, it would seem to argue that the "hardgainer" concept is a myth- even those with a small frame and smaller joints can still gain a significant amount of muscle.

There are simply too many variables that could account for a failure to gain mass that you can't simply lump it in as being a hardgainer... sort of like Fibromyalgia- there's zero evidence whatsoever that it is a discrete condition, rather it's likely a combination of several factors, from underlying disease conditions to psychosomatic components. The problem with calling it "Fibromyalgia" is that you no longer focus your effort on determining multiple discrete causes, but rather look at the condition overall and attempt to find an overarching prescription that works for all of it.

r2473
05-17-2012, 12:01 PM
In fact, if you look at Casey Butt's writing, he does state that the multitude of complex factors used to predict maximum growth can all be put aside for all practical intents and purposes, and the greatest correlation is simply joint size and stature overall. Given how well this model works, it would seem to argue that the "hardgainer" concept is a myth- even those with a small frame and smaller joints can still gain a significant amount of muscle.

That's pretty much the gist of it.

People are different.....but not really THAT different. Anyone who really tries will get "good" results in the long run.

blackboard
05-17-2012, 12:26 PM
I believe genetics will always play a factor when talking about physical limitations. I guarantee you world record sprinters had above average speed before training. I will never forget this huge guy in my neighborhood. He would show up once a month at the gym and bench 5 plates. He was just huge for no reason. We saw him carrying a full size couch on his shoulders across the park one day lol. This leads me to believe the gifted and top % are completely different from the average.

I agree with Chris mason 100% when it comes to the author but I would ask you Chris, were you ever a skinny kid or adult? Iím not sure if just anyone could ever reach a 900lb squat or have 20inch arms?

chris mason
05-17-2012, 03:19 PM
Here is a photo of me from my senior year of high school (on the right). I was not skinny, but I was not huge by any means and I had already begun lifting weights the summer before.

chris mason
05-17-2012, 03:23 PM
As for that goofy-ass overly complicated formula, there is one using wrist circumference which is MUCH simpler and just as accurate when gauged vs. the measurements of the top bodybuilders as in that article.

Oh, and a guy that trains with us is 6'3" tall, 260 lbs, has legit 20" arms, and has abs and he is totally drug free.

JacobH
05-17-2012, 03:48 PM
Here is a photo of me from my senior year of high school (on the right). I was not skinny, but I was not huge by any means and I had already begun lifting weights the summer before.

You were a pretty muscly little fucker though lol

chris mason
05-17-2012, 04:08 PM
You were a pretty muscly little fucker though lol

I was lean back then :).

r2473
05-18-2012, 10:13 AM
As for that goofy-ass overly complicated formula, there is one using wrist circumference which is MUCH simpler and just as accurate when gauged vs. the measurements of the top bodybuilders as in that article.

Oh, and a guy that trains with us is 6'3" tall, 260 lbs, has legit 20" arms, and has abs and he is totally drug free.

The author of that goofy-ass article would very much like to hear from your friend. Why not formally take him up on his challenge?

If you do follow through on this, let us know how it turns out. Seriously.

http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html

If you are a bodybuilder or strength athlete having verifiable statistics in excess of what the equations of this article predict and have competed in a drug-tested bodybuilding contest then, please, contact me and I'll include the information in an ongoing statistical analysis - your name will be withheld upon request. This invitation has been open since this article was first posted (in early 2007 and dating back through it's predecessors to 2000) and remains so. To those who have contributed I'd like to thank you here. I appreciate your honesty and even bravery ...if that's the right word.

Over the years I've also received many emails full of unsubstantiated claims, hostile remarks and even personal attacks because of the information presented here. But in that time, though many have told me they're easily going to surpass these predictions, I haven 't received any legitimate, verifiable statistics that significantly exceed the results of the equations presented above ...including correspondance with some of today's top-ranked drug-free bodybuilders upon which the equations were partially based. So, please, if you're not able to provide verifiable measurements contradicting the information in this article then don't send me slander, accusations and hate mail.

chevelle2291
05-18-2012, 03:16 PM
Never understood people's fascination with genetic potential.

Alex.V
05-18-2012, 03:40 PM
Never understood people's fascination with genetic potential.

This. Who gives a crap. Whatever yours is, just assume you're not there yet and keep working.

r2473
05-18-2012, 04:46 PM
Never understood people's fascination with genetic potential.

It's helped me in a lot of different ways. Not really so much for understanding what size I could be at my "max". But more so for giving me a perspective and road map on my weightlifting / bodybuilding journey.

For me, its proved very accurate. I took bod pod tests when I was "untrained". The equations predicting my "untrained" LBM were very close to what I actually tested at. Over the course of a few years of lifting, I continued to take bod pod test. Showed me exactly how much of my weight gain was LBM and how much was fat. And sure enough, it was very close to what his equations predicted. Pretty amazing really. And at this point, it gives me an idea of the cost / benefit of working to add more muscle.

It has also helped me put muscle building claims I read in some sort of context and perspective. Instead of worrying that "some internet dude is making amazing gains, what's wrong with me, I must be doing it all wrong or be a hardgainer", I can look at claims a bit more rationally.

I understand this approach isn't right for everybody. I have come to understand that it isn't right for very many people at all. But it is right for me.

chevelle2291
05-18-2012, 05:07 PM
It's helped me in a lot of different ways. Not really so much for understanding what size I could be at my "max". But more so for giving me a perspective and road map on my weightlifting / bodybuilding journey.

For me, its proved very accurate. I took bod pod tests when I was "untrained". The equations predicting my "untrained" LBM were very close to what I actually tested at. Over the course of a few years of lifting, I continued to take bod pod test. Showed me exactly how much of my weight gain was LBM and how much was fat. And sure enough, it was very close to what his equations predicted. Pretty amazing really. And at this point, it gives me an idea of the cost / benefit of working to add more muscle.

It has also helped me put muscle building claims I read in some sort of context and perspective. Instead of worrying that "some internet dude is making amazing gains, what's wrong with me, I must be doing it all wrong or be a hardgainer", I can look at claims a bit more rationally.

I understand this approach isn't right for everybody. I have come to understand that it isn't right for very many people at all. But it is right for me.

So when you appeared to close in on what the calculator believed was your potential, did you stop weight training completely?

My issue with these calculators, etc. is that they just don't take into account the true genetic freaks out there. I don't like the idea that if someone doesn't neatly fit into whatever numbers this calculator spits out, he's automatically using gear. I just do not believe that bodybuilding reached its natural peak with Reg Park.

The demonization of AAS use that a lot of these authors seem to promote also bothers me, but that's a completely different issue.

I just do not believe that bodybuilding reached its natural peak with Reg Park.

joey54
05-18-2012, 07:20 PM
Serge Nubret might have took it past Reg.

r2473
05-18-2012, 09:02 PM
So when you appeared to close in on what the calculator believed was your potential, did you stop weight training completely?

I just do not believe that bodybuilding reached its natural peak with Reg Park.

Are you nuts? I'm nowhere close to my potential. I still continue to weight train, but I have stopped training for muscle mass.

Humans certainly haven't "evolved" since 1950. We are the same now as then. You can believe that "supplements" will allow you to build more muscle if you want, but there are natural limiting factors to muscle growth that supplements can't address.


The amount of lean body mass a human body can develop and maintain is limited by it's own, naturally occurring, hormone levels. A fundamental reason as to why males carry more lean body mass than females, and have the potential to develop greater amounts of muscle in less time, is precisely because their natural testosterone levels are many times higher than females.

Testosterone is required for muscle growth and maintenance, and there is a limit as to the amount of testosterone the male body can produce in good health. Resistance training results in micro-trauma to protein structures within the muscle cells and circulating testosterone is instrumental in the repair and replacement of these structures. Once the body has attained the maximum amount of muscle mass that the available testosterone can maintain - i.e. "repair" after training and replace with an equal amount of "new" proteins - then no additional proteins, and therefore no additional muscle mass, can be added and maintained. It is a fundamental and irrefutable fact.

The normal adult male serum testosterone level for a man under 40 years of age is between 3 and 10 ng/ml, and decreases with increasing age. This clearly imposes a personal limit on the amount of lean body mass that can be developed and maintained without the use of exogenous anabolic drugs (i.e. "steroids"), and any further development beyond this point will require drug-use. Other major factors influencing ultimate muscular potential are muscle belly lengths, fast-twitch to slow-twitch fiber ratio, etc.

chris mason
05-18-2012, 09:05 PM
The author of that goofy-ass article would very much like to hear from your friend. Why not formally take him up on his challenge?

If you do follow through on this, let us know how it turns out. Seriously.

http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html

If you are a bodybuilder or strength athlete having verifiable statistics in excess of what the equations of this article predict and have competed in a drug-tested bodybuilding contest then, please, contact me and I'll include the information in an ongoing statistical analysis - your name will be withheld upon request. This invitation has been open since this article was first posted (in early 2007 and dating back through it's predecessors to 2000) and remains so. To those who have contributed I'd like to thank you here. I appreciate your honesty and even bravery ...if that's the right word.

Over the years I've also received many emails full of unsubstantiated claims, hostile remarks and even personal attacks because of the information presented here. But in that time, though many have told me they're easily going to surpass these predictions, I haven 't received any legitimate, verifiable statistics that significantly exceed the results of the equations presented above ...including correspondance with some of today's top-ranked drug-free bodybuilders upon which the equations were partially based. So, please, if you're not able to provide verifiable measurements contradicting the information in this article then don't send me slander, accusations and hate mail.

Actually, I said the formula was goofy and overly complicated. I did not comment on the article itself.

JacobH
05-18-2012, 09:19 PM
It's helped me in a lot of different ways. Not really so much for understanding what size I could be at my "max". But more so for giving me a perspective and road map on my weightlifting / bodybuilding journey.

For me, its proved very accurate. I took bod pod tests when I was "untrained". The equations predicting my "untrained" LBM were very close to what I actually tested at. Over the course of a few years of lifting, I continued to take bod pod test. Showed me exactly how much of my weight gain was LBM and how much was fat. And sure enough, it was very close to what his equations predicted. Pretty amazing really. And at this point, it gives me an idea of the cost / benefit of working to add more muscle.

It has also helped me put muscle building claims I read in some sort of context and perspective. Instead of worrying that "some internet dude is making amazing gains, what's wrong with me, I must be doing it all wrong or be a hardgainer", I can look at claims a bit more rationally.

I understand this approach isn't right for everybody. I have come to understand that it isn't right for very many people at all. But it is right for me.

I don't really see the part where it helped you. It gives you an idea of the cost/benefit of working to add more muscle? What? To maximize your "genetic potential" you have to work as hard and as smart as you can regardless. And to keep the gains you have to continue to do that anyway. Sorry I just don't see what these calculations, even if they were 100% accurate (which I'm sure is nowhere near the case) are doing for you.

chevelle2291
05-18-2012, 09:20 PM
Are you nuts? I'm nowhere close to my potential. I still continue to weight train, but I have stopped training for muscle mass.

Humans certainly haven't "evolved" since 1950. We are the same now as then. You can believe that "supplements" will allow you to build more muscle if you want, but there are natural limiting factors to muscle growth that supplements can't address.

I'm not referring to supplementation. Park gained a certain level of fame when bodybuilding/weight training was still in its infancy. You really don't think that there are some straight-up genetic freaks from god-knows-where that couldn't make Park look like a chump and blow that muscular limit calculator out of the water? I certainly think so.

Off Road
05-19-2012, 07:11 AM
You really don't think that there are some straight-up genetic freaks from god-knows-where that couldn't make Park look like a chump and blow that muscular limit calculator out of the water? I certainly think so.
I believe Park was a straight-up genetic freak. Since humans haven't changed much in the past years, and the stimulus needed to grow muscle hasn't changed in the past years, and the speed at which 'natural' genetic freaks can gain muscle hasn't changed much in the past years, I think Park would be a good representation of what could be the top of the ladder. It's always possible that somebody could pass him, but that would be a very, very, very rare exception.

chris mason
05-19-2012, 12:20 PM
I am also 99% sure Park used anabolics later in his career. So using him isn't really a great idea.

r2473
05-19-2012, 03:08 PM
I am also 99% sure Park used anabolics later in his career. So using him isn't really a great idea.

Opinions abound on this. Nobody seems to know one way or the other.

One thing you can look at however are his stats at competitions early and later in his career. Surprisingly, they are very similar.

So if Park did use steroids, they didn't have much of an effect.

And early in his career, steroids simply weren't available. They may have "existed" (in lab testing), but not in any practical sense. So we have strong reason to believe that the physique Park built is natural.

Another interesting thing (at least it was to me) is that smaller naturals are "only" able to add ~30 lbs of muscle over their entire careers. Dave Goodin backs this up (as he says in this video Layne Norton did).

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/insidethelife18.htm

A larger man like Park is "only" able to add ~40 lbs. of muscle (which is what he said in interviews I've read).

Cards
05-21-2012, 10:30 AM
Another interesting thing (at least it was to me) is that smaller naturals are "only" able to add ~30 lbs of muscle over their entire careers. Dave Goodin backs this up (as he says in this video Layne Norton did).

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/insidethelife18.htm

A larger man like Park is "only" able to add ~40 lbs. of muscle (which is what he said in interviews I've read).

I'm 5'7 and am pretty sure I've already added 30lbs of muscle over the 5 to 6 years I've been doing this....and am still going to add more over the next 20 years.

DontTakeEmOff31
05-21-2012, 10:39 AM
I'm 5'7 and am pretty sure I've already added 30lbs of muscle over the 5 to 6 years I've been doing this....and am still going to add more over the next 20 years.

I think the argument is that its 40 lbs of lean muscle mass (not an ounce of fat). The 70 lbs of "muscle" I've put on since lifting is a mixture of muscle and fat obviously (it may visually look like all muscle or mostly muscle but that's not the case).

On topic, I've never been a fan of these formulas that state the maximum potential someone has. I find it hard to believe that someone was able to 100% figure out the most amount of muscle or size a person was able to achieve, especially as records across all sports continue to be broke (raw power lifting comes to mind).

blackboard
05-21-2012, 10:43 AM
We could also discuss how there is VERY little scientific backing whatsoever for the "genetic limitations" argument (the vast majority of human beings are capable of getting much faster, bigger and stronger than they seem to believe), but that's a much larger topic.


Although we may be lacking scholarly peer reviewed science experiments, I believe enough people have trained the human body over the years resulting in the ability to be realistic about results. Itís almost like using a max bench press chart; yeah itís not 100% accurate but the numbers will be close for the majority.


I also must say talking about genetics doesnít have to imply any excuses are about to made for getting faster or stronger but at the same type letís not pretend like we as human are somehow only using 10% of our physical abilities, ďlike the 10% brain mythĒ. The average man no matter how hard he trains will never squat 900lb or run a 4.2 40 even with perfect training.

r2473
05-21-2012, 11:18 AM
I'm 5'7 and am pretty sure I've already added 30lbs of muscle over the 5 to 6 years I've been doing this....and am still going to add more over the next 20 years.

This will depend on a few things. Most notably, where you were when you started. For example, since birth, I've added over 170 lbs. of lean mass. Shortly after I got out of college, I added ~20 lbs. of lean mass by just sitting on my couch. I "filled out".

So the ~30 lbs. Goodin is talking about means you are starting from "untrained" but physically mature.

I really doubt Goodin's lying about how much muscle he's gained. And bear in mind, his 30 lbs. of muscle gain has been good enough to win multiple prestigious titles. Park's 40 lbs. of muscle gain was good enough to make him a "genetic freak / legend".


I think the argument is that its 40 lbs of lean muscle mass (not an ounce of fat). The 70 lbs of "muscle" I've put on since lifting is a mixture of muscle and fat obviously (it may visually look like all muscle or mostly muscle but that's not the case).

Right. You need to test lbm gain using an accurate device. I used bod pod. I find it important to use something that can't be manipulated. For example, when I was ~250 lbs., using on-line calculators, I estimated that I was carrying ~195 lbm. Now, that's crazy if you think about it. That would have given me lbm equivalent to Steve Reeves. Bod pod gave me the real story. I only had 181 lbm. ~27.5% bodyfat. You don't have to pull "too tight" or suck in "too much" to get a very inaccurate wasit measurement (which causes the on-line calculators to give very inaccurate bodyfat estimates). Same goes for calipers. I actually had the guys in the bod pod office give me a caliper bodyfat test (so these guys know what they are doing). The results were much different.

You also need to compare gains at similar bodyfat percentages. As you get fatter, you will gain some LBM no matter what and as you get leaner, you will lose some LBM no matter what. I'm not really sure this is muscle. Its just "stuff" that isn't fat.

I was amazed how little lbm you actually lose when you cut weight. I cut back down to 200 lbs. 173 lbm. Tested at 13.5% bodyfat. So of the 50 lbs. of bodyweight I lost, only ~8 lbs. was lbm. 16% of the total. However, if I had convined myself that I had 195 lbm before cutting, then I would have lost 22 lbm or nearly 50% of the loss.

Oh, and in case anyone really cares, I'm 6 feet 1/2 inches and 156 lbm is my estimated "untrained lbm". And this seems pretty accurate. My first bod pod test recorded 160 lbm, but I had lifted "a little". So if we assume 156 lbm to be accurate, I've gained ~17 lbs. of muscle. Almost exactly half of my estimated potential. This probably doesn't sound like a lot, but it might be more than you think.

Anyway, this stuff interests me because there seems to be a large gap between "perception" and "fact" in this area. That's the way it seems to me at least.

chevelle2291
05-21-2012, 02:07 PM
fuck this natty shit I'm starting the JayStar cycle on Friday.

Cards
05-21-2012, 03:07 PM
...I've gained ~17 lbs. of muscle. Almost exactly half of my estimated potential. This probably doesn't sound like a lot, but it might be more than you think.

Anyway, this stuff interests me because there seems to be a large gap between "perception" and "fact" in this area. That's the way it seems to me at least.

Honestly, all youíre doing is limiting yourself mentally. If that's your thing, all the power to you, but Iím not going to let someone tell me what my limit is.

One reason I love this game is that there truly are no limits, why would I want to start adding them now?

r2473
05-21-2012, 03:42 PM
Honestly, all youíre doing is limiting yourself mentally. If that's your thing, all the power to you, but Iím not going to let someone tell me what my limit is.

One reason I love this game is that there truly are no limits, why would I want to start adding them now?

You might be right. Anyway, if that mindset helps you, then that is the one to stick with.

I've honestly always been surprised by the reaction to "genetic limitations". The idea that I can "only" be the size of Reg Park, somehow doesn't seem very "limiting" to me. I'm (obviously) nowhere near that size and I've never seen a natural anywhere near that size in person either.

I don't know, you say you've "already gained 30 lbs. of muslce and plan on adding 20 lbs. more". You are the same height as Dave Goodin. Do you really believe that you have put on the same amount of muscle as he has right now? If so, why not do some shows. This is a guy that is right at the top. And do you really believe that you are then going to out do Goodin by 20 lbs. of muscle? Does that sound realistic to you (assuming you don't take steroids)?