Started Lyle McDonald's Hypertrophy Routine

[rvadog]

http://jcdfitness.com/2009/01/lyle-m...lking-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]

http://jcdfitness.com/2009/01/lyle-m...lking-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]

This full body shit wears me out. I'm used to 1-2 body parts per day.

[RichMcGuire]

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]

full body/upper body...same thing to me. Yeah, that's what I'm doing too.

[Off Road]

full body/upper body...same thing to me.

Sadly, a lot of guys think that way.

[rvadog]

To clarify, working 5 different muscle groups drains me that it might as well be full body. Got lower body tomorrow.

[RichMcGuire]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Here is, I believe, a picture of Lyle deadlifting. Note the massive weight being used and perfect technique...



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

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

[RichMcGuire]

Here is, I believe, a picture of Lyle deadlifting. Note the massive weight being used and perfect technique...



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

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

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]

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]

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]

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....?