Started Lyle McDonald's Hypertrophy Routine

[chris mason]

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]

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]

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]

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]

haha very true

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

[RichMcGuire]

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]

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]

I was just being a punk.

This more or less sums it up.

[chris mason]

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]

this thread irritated me, and I was just being a punk.

that explains the useless posts.

[JacobH]

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]

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]

that explains the useless posts.

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

[fuzzy_monkey]

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]

This more or less sums it up.

I'm not denying it.

[Alex.V]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Accepting someones humor is never useless.

[Alex.V]

Accepting someones humor is never useless.

That's very true.

[RichMcGuire]

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]

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]

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