Latest Article

It’s no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

 By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
 Contrast Training for Size By: Lee Boyce
 An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong By: Jordan Syatt
 What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
 Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
 Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

# Thread: How much excercise is enough?

1. ## How much excercise is enough?

Here is another chapter from my free journal. drmarkp

Chapter 13
Your exercise thermostat, how much is enough?

How much exercise is enough? The answers to this question are elusive, and attempts to find them are intangible without first considering proper applications of volume, intensity, frequency and the momentum (impetus) of exercise.
Establishing the ideal “dose” of exercise is first determined by finding the most effective portal possible for bringing the target muscle to its full “saturation point”. By this I am referring to the point where the target muscle attains its maximum possible state of congestion (pump) while subsequently losing its ability to further respond to additional properly applied exercise. Having achieved this “state”, additional exercise is no longer necessary nor will it even be desired. The actual numbers of sets are secondary to the fashion by which they should be performed.
There is a delicate balance to consider between the above four variables (volume, intensity, frequency and momentum) stated in the first paragraph. While collectively they bring the muscles to a point of complete saturation, they are also the keys to answering the question of “how much”.
The issue of volume like frequency; is straightforward from the onset and should be provided little leverage in the way of deviation. You can whittle away at these two variables only so much before going too far in the other direction. The new system advocates giant sets utilizing two to four exercises per grouping and performing no more than two clusters per muscle group. From a volume of exercise standpoint, never under any circumstances should a total of more than eight total working sets be performed for any individual muscle group; in some cases with more advanced individuals, even less total sets are probably better.
From my experience, the muscles and their surrounding structures do not reach their point of full saturation after having performed only one single giant set. Even with extremely high intensity, it is not until the second “round” that you experience the deeper effects of complete muscle stimulation and congestion. During the first giant set the involved muscles and structures are still gaining momentum, building up to full strength in preparation for an even more explosive subsequent effort yet to come.
To complete only one cycle of exercises would be stopping short of both the volume and accumulative intensity necessary to bring the muscle to complete threshold, thus preventing it from reaching its full saturation point. In most cases with a well conditioned individual, consistently high levels of intensity can be sustained for the entire duration of two complete “clusters” of exercises, each cluster containing giant sets for multiple muscle groups.
Conversely, it is intensity itself that ultimately determines the ceiling of volume that is actually required, necessary, or even possible for achieving maximum growth stimulation. It is not a coincidence that in fact once having been achieved, this “ceiling” translates into all the volume that a trainee can even stand. For both volume and intensity there is a point of diminishing returns, both predicated on the other.
Time is also a consideration for the enhancement of intensity; therefore a certain element of brevity must also be brought into the equation for best results. With high intensity training, only a small window of time is available to yield the greatest possible value of exercise. Actual workouts therefore must be short and brief. It is a quickened pace or momentum generated by the new system that enhances and literally enables levels of intensity beyond that which is normally attainable with conventional training methods; this intensity being best achieved by the application of “cluster training”.
Intensity itself imposes limitations in workout brevity-brevity being a necessity when training with truly high intensity. Even as an increase in volume compromises intensity, intensity is also diminished when it is spread out over longer periods of time. In addition, as stated in earlier chapters, an increase in volume will also adversely affect overall recovery ability.
But even an increase in workout momentum can become self-limiting. Decreasing elapsed workout time does not mean to suggest that an increase in workout speed be in order to the point of simply racing through the exercises. As discussed in earlier chapters, not only should all individual movements be performed with extreme intensity, but also strictly, methodically and deliberately. In addition, there should be rest period of about thirty seconds between regular sets. Rest between groups of exercises should be no more than the time required for a training partner to complete theirs. Following of these guidelines will provide everything in the way of the requirement for training brevity.
While it is this very momentum that enables the target muscle to quickly achieve its saturation point, the “down side” afterward is equally as important an indicator that the exercise session was successful. After a properly performed workout, the subject should experience a tremendous degree of muscle “pumping”. This will soon be followed by a noticeably rapid loss of neuromuscular efficiency, as neurological pathways to the muscle become no longer able to fire at full threshold. Saturation point is reached when the highest possible percentage of muscle fibers have been affected to the point where these nerve pathways become irresponsive, and momentarily unable to generate the contractions necessary to further achieve high levels of intensity with additional sets. In other words, the muscles are shot! Even as the pump begins to rapidly dissipate, at this point you’ll know you’ve had enough.
Longer workouts as with conventional systems, fail to send such discernable “signals” to indicate when a muscle has had enough exercise. Single sets initiate only a partial affect to exercise response, because the signal gets lost again before proceeding on to the next one. This happens because intensity becomes dispersed due to the inordinately long rest periods between sets that are usually associated with straight set systems. These on again/off again responses fail to permit the muscles neither to achieve maximum intensity nor reach saturation threshold, thus leaving the subject craving more exercise.
The perceived signal instead, is to continue with more sets in order to produce a desired effect that can never be accomplished by training in this fashion. As a result, the subject is never quite sure whether or not they have performed enough volume of work. I call this “chasing the genie”; the resulting excessive volume leading to over training that taxes the overall systems recovery reserves.
In regards to the question “how much is enough”; we must first ask the question “how much can you stand”? Brief and intense training as outlined by the new system, requires high levels of conditioning and muscular endurance. A trainee must first acquire the conditioning necessary to generate and sustain the high levels of intensity necessary for maximum growth stimulation. Until a high level of conditioning is acquired, it will be difficult if not impossible to properly perform “enough” exercise (whether it is too much or too little) without the proper physical conditioning to do so.
By training in the fashion outlined by the new system, a healthy individual will quickly improve their levels of muscular conditioning and endurance. As a subjects conditioning improves, so will their potential for increased intensity as well as their ability to recover between sets; giant and cluster sets opening the floodgates to intensity.
The ability of each individual muscle group to adequately recover from exercise is contingent upon the ability of the entire system to recover as a unit from the accumulative effects of exercise. The body requires adequate recovery time between individual workouts for the sake of the systems overall recovery as well as between the individual muscle groups themselves-for the sake of their own. We have already established that for best results, each muscle group should be trained about once a week almost without exception-using a three-way split routine. A complete layoff may be indicated from time to time however; for example, taking a week or so off once every five or six months. Occasionally the most important consideration for the recovery from exercise is the complete abstinence from exercise.
For reasons stated above, the addition of weekly training days such as that, which occurs by splitting the body into more than four workouts per week, is always a mistake. This forces the body to do two things, first; it increases the overall volume of exercise creating inroads into systems recovery reserves, and second; causes overlapping indirect effects of exercise that cut into the recovery time for the individual muscle groups themselves. Increases in frequency and volume never compensate for a lack of intensity and always result in over training.
In chapter 12 I outlined two leg workouts, versions A and B using the new system. On the “heavy” day after having performed two cycles of leg presses and hack squats, I finish up with two straight sets of Smith machine full squats, the last set being followed by a drop set. Having been thoroughly primed by the preceding two cycles of exercises, the brutality of these sets of squats are now enhanced considerably.
This means that two sets of full squats are being performed every other leg workout totaling up to only four sets of squats per month! The maximum possible benefits that can be derived from squats will be yielded by rotating them in this fashion, and poundage’s utilized will increase steadily as will those for all other associated exercises.
To claim that the performance of four total sets of back squats per month is adequate under any other circumstances would be ludicrous, but in fact when properly integrated with the new system-they are. In any case, to perform more would only compromise intensity, and contribute little to nothing to enhance the value of full squats.
Yet four sets of full squats per month, per week or even per day, will accomplish little on their own merit without combining them with other leg exercises as applied by the principles outlined with the new system. Combined, they’re synergistic effects facilitate the tremendous growth promoting effects of squats; the forthcoming results certainly qualifying four sets of full squats per month as being -enough.
Lacking training knowledge during my early training days, I became a slave to squats. If I wasn’t full squatting I was front squatting with maximum poundage’s every single leg workout, twice a week. While I became a fairly strong squatter, I was never able to develop the desired fullness or sweep to my thighs that I wanted. I now realize that although I had always trained my legs till failure, I came nowhere near reaching a degree of true intensity that is the benchmark for achieving outstanding results. Even if I had understood then, how to effectively apply true intensity in the first place, it could never have been achieved while training each muscle group twice a week anyway.
The information in this chapter is not meant to imply that the value of quality training lies merely on the merit of low volume. On the contrary, as much volume as possible should be performed with extremely high intensity. It just so happens that under these conditions, the volume of exercise that is possible happens not to be that much.
While it is not easy to determine a definitive number of sets ideally required stimulate growth, it is clear that some muscle groups are able to stand a greater volume of exercise and intensity than others. For example, it seems that the calves require a greater number of high intensity sets in order to reach their “saturation point”. Forearms too seem to be able to withstand a greater number of sets. So both forearms and calves seem to respond particularly well to a higher that usual number of sets. I’ve noticed that triceps and deltoids seem to be able to stand a little more work as well. Perhaps it depends on individual responsiveness to these areas and how they are combined with other muscle groups.
In the overall scheme of things, there seems to be little danger of over training smaller muscle groups by performing a higher than usual number of sets for them; being smaller, they do not impose such high demands as to adversely affect overall systems recovery.
This theory is contrary to what is preached by some proponents who claim that larger muscle groups can actually stand, and therefore respond better to higher volume. Well if that’s the case, then I’d like to drive them through two brutal giant sets for legs, using the new system and then ask the question; “which muscle groups do you think can stand the most exercise now, the larger ones or smaller ones?”
Regardless, the most definitive assessment of the proper volume of exercise can only be determined after having applied the highest possible degrees of intensity while incorporating the many principles outlined in this journal. The muscle having reached its “saturation” point will ultimately determine its ceiling of volume, intensity, and therefore limitation of individual tolerance and responsiveness to exercise.
In summary, in order to determine the quantity of exercise that is required for maximum growth stimulation; there are three factors that must be in place, first; that the highest possible levels of intensity must be attained, second; that volume must not compromise intensity, and third; that a level of conditioning must be attained to sustain both the desired momentum and intensity of exercise. Frequency of exercise becomes more of an established variable. Even as a subject becomes more advanced, frequency can only be extended so far within certain limitations before the amount of time elapsed between muscle groups becomes counterproductive.

2. This is the internet and the wonderful age of instant gratification. Without some shiny pictures of cute girls and a few more reliable sources, you're just sprouting **** that very few are going to read. You're rehashing very old information without much, if anything, new. Very few here are impressed with long posts and many of us just don't have time to read it. Unless you've recently trained Chuck Vogelpohl, Ronnie Coleman, or one of the World's Strongest Men, you have nothing insightful to offer.

3. Big....wall....of....text....Mind....shutting....down....

4. If you are going to post such long, dense missives, please add some white space in there...jeez!

5. I started laughing right about here
the momentum (impetus) of exercise.
Continued here:
Establishing the ideal “dose” of exercise is first determined by finding the most effective portal possible for bringing the target muscle to its full “saturation point”. By this I am referring to the point where the target muscle attains its maximum possible state of congestion (pump) while subsequently losing its ability to further respond to additional properly applied exercise. Having achieved this “state”, additional exercise is no longer necessary nor will it even be desired.
Mostly because those two passages show remarkable physiological ignorance. Then I saw the suggestion to use Smith Machine Full Squats (quite an oxymoron) after leg presses and hack squats, and I just decided to try to sell YOU a book.

I suggest you pick up Practical Programming by Mark Rippetoe, an actual strength coach, someone with actual credentials, and tangible results training hundreds, if not thousands, of athletes.

You might find a more receptive audience for gurudom posting this over at getbig.com, where bro science is really appreciated.

6. If you squint the original post kinda looks like a big wall.

7. I would have liked to think this was trolling, but then I found your website. You wrote 21 chapters of that ****? Why aren't there any pictures of you to show for your 30 years competing in regional physique contests?

Honestly, why do you think anyone would pay for any of this when it is all available for free on the internet? Some books, like Starting Strength and Practical Programming, are worth the money, but your book is nothing than a bunch of old T-Nation articles pasted together.

8. On the “heavy” day after having performed two cycles of leg presses and hack squats, I finish up with two straight sets of Smith machine full squats, the last set being followed by a drop set. Having been thoroughly primed by the preceding two cycles of exercises, the brutality of these sets of squats are now enhanced considerably
There are a lot of things wrong with this! A LOT!

I have been studying for several days straight for an anatomy final and a clinicals test, at least 4 hours a night....and it was this thread that made my brain hurt!

9. Originally Posted by drmarkp
Here is another chapter from my free journal. drmarkp

Chapter 13
Your exercise thermostat, how much is enough?

How much exercise is enough? The answers to this question are elusive, and attempts to find them are intangible without first considering proper applications of volume, intensity, frequency and the momentum (impetus) of exercise.
Establishing the ideal “dose” of exercise is first determined by finding the most effective portal possible for bringing the target muscle to its full “saturation point”. By this I am referring to the point where the target muscle attains its maximum possible state of congestion (pump) while
subsequently losing its ability to further respond to additional properly applied exercise. Having achieved this “state”, additional exercise is no longer necessary nor will it even be desired. The actual numbers of sets are secondary to the fashion by which they should be performed.

Yet below you give a exact number of sets

There is a delicate balance to consider between the above four variables (volume, intensity, frequency and momentum)

Define "momentum". I take it you are not using it in the ordinary everyday sense?

stated in the first paragraph. While collectively they bring the muscles to a point of complete saturation, they are also the keys to answering the question of “how much”.
The issue of volume like frequency; is straightforward from the onset and should be provided little leverage in the way of deviation. You can whittle away at these two variables only so much before going too far in the other direction. The new system advocates giant sets utilizing two to four exercises per grouping and performing no more than two clusters per muscle group. From a volume of exercise standpoint, never under any circumstances should a total of more than eight total working sets be performed for any individual muscle group; in some cases with more advanced individuals, even less total sets are probably better.

How did you arrive at this number?

From my experience, the muscles and their surrounding structures do not reach their point of full saturation after having performed only one single giant set.

What if the "giant set" consists of eight sets? Or the trainee is an advanced individual?

Even with extremely high intensity, it is not until the second “round” that you experience the deeper effects of complete muscle stimulation and congestion.

Proof? Anything to back up this claim?

During the first giant set the involved muscles and structures are still gaining momentum, building up to full strength in preparation for an even more explosive subsequent effort yet to come.

You are strongest when you are fresh. You don't get stronger throughout the workout...unless you are holding back.

To complete only one cycle of exercises would be stopping short of both the volume and accumulative intensity necessary to bring the muscle to complete threshold, thus preventing it from reaching its full saturation point.

Again, how do you know this?

In most cases with a well conditioned individual, consistently high levels of intensity can be sustained for the entire duration of two complete “clusters” of exercises, each cluster containing giant sets for multiple muscle groups.
Conversely, it is intensity itself that ultimately determines the ceiling of volume that is actually required, necessary, or even possible for achieving maximum growth stimulation. It is not a coincidence that in fact once having been achieved, this “ceiling” translates into all the volume that a trainee can even stand. For both volume and intensity there is a point of diminishing returns, both predicated on the other.
Time is also a consideration for the enhancement of intensity; therefore a certain element of brevity must also be brought into the equation for best results. With high intensity training, only a small window of time is available to yield the greatest possible value of exercise. Actual workouts therefore must be short and brief. It is a quickened pace or momentum generated by the new system that enhances and literally enables levels of intensity beyond that which is normally attainable with conventional training methods; this intensity being best achieved by the application of “cluster training”.
Intensity itself imposes limitations in workout brevity-brevity being a necessity when training with truly high intensity. Even as an increase in volume compromises intensity, intensity is also diminished when it is spread out over longer periods of time. In addition, as stated in earlier chapters, an increase in volume will also adversely affect overall recovery ability.
But even an increase in workout momentum can become self-limiting. Decreasing elapsed workout time does not mean to suggest that an increase in workout speed be in order to the point of simply racing through the exercises. As discussed in earlier chapters, not only should all individual movements be performed with extreme intensity, but also strictly, methodically and deliberately. In addition, there should be rest period of about thirty seconds between regular sets.

If you are training heavy (and I mean heavy relative to the individual) with squats or deadlifts you are very likely to need more than 30 seconds. If your goal is to build strength most certainly you will need more rest time.

Rest between groups of exercises should be no more than the time required for a training partner to complete theirs. Following of these guidelines will provide everything in the way of the requirement for training brevity.
While it is this very momentum that enables the target muscle to quickly achieve its saturation point, the “down side” afterward is equally as important an indicator that the exercise session was successful. After a properly performed workout, the subject should experience a tremendous degree of muscle “pumping”. This will soon be followed by a noticeably rapid loss of neuromuscular efficiency, as neurological pathways to the muscle become no longer able to fire at full threshold. Saturation point is reached when the highest possible percentage of muscle fibers have been affected to the point where these nerve pathways become irresponsive, and momentarily unable to generate the contractions necessary to further achieve high levels of intensity with additional sets. In other words, the muscles are shot! Even as the pump begins to rapidly dissipate, at this point you’ll know you’ve had enough.

My goal is not to get a pump but to lift more weight than I did the last time.

Longer workouts as with conventional systems, fail to send such discernable “signals” to indicate when a muscle has had enough exercise. Single sets initiate only a partial affect to exercise response, because the signal gets lost again before proceeding on to the next one. This happens because intensity becomes dispersed due to the inordinately long rest periods between sets that are usually associated with straight set systems.

Incorrect. Intensity can increase with a longer rest set, because the muscles have had more time to prepare. And what signals are you talking about? I've never noticed my muscles doing semaphores.

These on again/off again responses fail to permit the muscles neither to achieve maximum intensity nor reach saturation threshold, thus leaving the subject craving more exercise.
The perceived signal instead, is to continue with more sets in order to produce a desired effect that can never be accomplished by training in this fashion. As a result, the subject is never quite sure whether or not they have performed enough volume of work. I call this “chasing the genie”; the resulting excessive volume leading to over training that taxes the overall systems recovery reserves.
In regards to the question “how much is enough”; we must first ask the question “how much can you stand”? Brief and intense training as outlined by the new system, requires high levels of conditioning and muscular endurance. A trainee must first acquire the conditioning necessary to generate and sustain the high levels of intensity necessary for maximum growth stimulation. Until a high level of conditioning is acquired, it will be difficult if not impossible to properly perform “enough” exercise (whether it is too much or too little) without the proper physical conditioning to do so.
By training in the fashion outlined by the new system, a healthy individual will quickly improve their levels of muscular conditioning and endurance. As a subjects conditioning improves, so will their potential for increased intensity as well as their ability to recover between sets; giant and cluster sets opening the floodgates to intensity.
The ability of each individual muscle group to adequately recover from exercise is contingent upon the ability of the entire system to recover as a unit from the accumulative effects of exercise. The body requires adequate recovery time between individual workouts for the sake of the systems overall recovery as well as between the individual muscle groups themselves-for the sake of their own. We have already established that for best results, each muscle group should be trained about once a week almost without exception-using a three-way split routine.

We haven't established anything of the sort.

A complete layoff may be indicated from time to time however; for example, taking a week or so off once every five or six months. Occasionally the most important consideration for the recovery from exercise is the complete abstinence from exercise.
For reasons stated above, the addition of weekly training days such as that, which occurs by splitting the body into more than four workouts per week, is always a mistake. This forces the body to do two things, first; it increases the overall volume of exercise

Not necessarily. You could simply take the amount of volume that you did in three days and divide it up among 4 days.

creating inroads into systems recovery reserves, and second; causes overlapping indirect effects of exercise that cut into the recovery time for the individual muscle groups themselves. Increases in frequency and volume never compensate for a lack of intensity and always result in over training.
In chapter 12 I outlined two leg workouts, versions A and B using the new system. On the “heavy” day after having performed two cycles of leg presses and hack squats, I finish up with two straight sets of Smith machine full squats, the last set being followed by a drop set. Having been thoroughly primed by the preceding two cycles of exercises, the brutality of these sets of squats are now enhanced considerably.
This means that two sets of full squats are being performed every other leg workout totaling up to only four sets of squats per month! The maximum possible benefits that can be derived from squats will be yielded by rotating them in this fashion, and poundage’s utilized will increase steadily as will those for all other associated exercises.
To claim that the performance of four total sets of back squats per month is adequate under any other circumstances would be ludicrous,

As would be a claim asserting that someone trains harder than anyone else when he only does 4 sets of SMITH MACHINE squats (not proper barbell squats) per month.

but in fact when properly integrated with the new system-they are. In any case, to perform more would only compromise intensity, and contribute little to nothing to enhance the value of full squats.
Yet four sets of full squats per month, per week or even per day, will accomplish little on their own merit without combining them with other leg exercises as applied by the principles outlined with the new system.

Really? If by other "leg exercises" you mean deadlifts, then you are correct. Squats and deadlifts will give you the most bang for your buck in terms of leg size and strength. If they don't, then you're not doing them right.

Combined, they’re synergistic effects facilitate the tremendous growth promoting effects of squats; the forthcoming results certainly qualifying four sets of full squats per month as being -enough.
Lacking training knowledge during my early training days, I became a slave to squats. If I wasn’t full squatting I was front squatting with maximum poundage’s every single leg workout, twice a week. While I became a fairly strong squatter, I was never able to develop the desired fullness or sweep to my thighs that I wanted.

Maybe it was the Smith machine that was holding you back?

I now realize that although I had always trained my legs till failure,

Or failure...if we are using the classic definition

I came nowhere near reaching a degree of true intensity that is the benchmark for achieving outstanding results. Even if I had understood then, how to effectively apply true intensity in the first place, it could never have been achieved while training each muscle group twice a week anyway.

First of all you shouldn't be training muscle groups. The body is a unit and should be trained as such. And secondly doing heavy compounds on separate days allows you to train your upper and lower body each twice a week with full intensity (provided you eat and rest right)

The information in this chapter is not meant to imply that the value of quality training lies merely on the merit of low volume. On the contrary, as much volume as possible should be performed with extremely high intensity. It just so happens that under these conditions, the volume of exercise that is possible happens not to be that much.
While it is not easy to determine a definitive number of sets ideally required stimulate growth,

Yet you've managed to deduce that eight or so is the absolute standard

it is clear that some muscle groups are able to stand a greater volume of exercise and intensity than others. For example, it seems that the calves require a greater number of high intensity sets in order to reach their “saturation point”. Forearms too seem to be able to withstand a greater number of sets. So both forearms and calves seem to respond particularly well to a higher that usual number of sets. I’ve noticed that triceps and deltoids seem to be able to stand a little more work as well. Perhaps it depends on individual responsiveness to these areas and how they are combined with other muscle groups.
In the overall scheme of things, there seems to be little danger of over training smaller muscle groups by performing a higher than usual number of sets for them; being smaller, they do not impose such high demands as to adversely affect overall systems recovery.
This theory is contrary to what is preached by some proponents who claim that larger muscle groups can actually stand, and therefore respond better to higher volume. Well if that’s the case, then I’d like to drive them through two brutal giant sets for legs, using the new system and then ask the question; “which muscle groups do you think can stand the most exercise now, the larger ones or smaller ones?”
Regardless, the most definitive assessment of the proper volume of exercise can only be determined after having applied the highest possible degrees of intensity while incorporating the many principles outlined in this journal. The muscle having reached its “saturation” point will ultimately determine its ceiling of volume, intensity, and therefore limitation of individual tolerance and responsiveness to exercise.
In summary, in order to determine the quantity of exercise that is required for maximum growth stimulation; there are three factors that must be in place, first; that the highest possible levels of intensity must be attained, second; that volume must not compromise intensity, and third; that a level of conditioning must be attained to sustain both the desired momentum and intensity of exercise. Frequency of exercise becomes more of an established variable. Even as a subject becomes more advanced, frequency can only be extended so far within certain limitations before the amount of time elapsed between muscle groups becomes counterproductive.
It's at times like these that I become nostalgic for the days of PowerManDL

10. ## Now what?

Originally Posted by HomeYield
This is the internet and the wonderful age of instant gratification. Without some shiny pictures of cute girls and a few more reliable sources, you're just sprouting **** that very few are going to read. You're rehashing very old information without much, if anything, new. Very few here are impressed with long posts and many of us just don't have time to read it. Unless you've recently trained Chuck Vogelpohl, Ronnie Coleman, or one of the World's Strongest Men, you have nothing insightful to offer.
speak for yourself. no one asked you to read anything. did anyone ask for the Beatles credentials before they appeared on the Ed Sullivan show? why do you haters always have to throw **** in the game, and who the f**k are these so called trainers who trained all these so and sos anyway? there no better than you and me are. If i'm just re-hashing old information, then they ought to just shut down all these silly ass boards right now my prickly participant. I suggest you read on though, you might learn something.

dr mark p

11. Exactly what sort of doctor are you? You seem very mature for somebody with such a high level of education. Also, those "so called trainers" that were named above, are some of the best in the biz. They are quite better at what they do than you or me. At least your spelling and punctuation improved, well a little, from your last humongous post. Oh, and I'm pretty sure the people in charge of booking musical talent for the Ed Sullivan show probably checked up on them before booking them.

12. ## You don't know me!

Originally Posted by Paul Stagg
I started laughing right about here

Continued here:

Mostly because those two passages show remarkable physiological ignorance. Then I saw the suggestion to use Smith Machine Full Squats (quite an oxymoron) after leg presses and hack squats, and I just decided to try to sell YOU a book.

I suggest you pick up Practical Programming by Mark Rippetoe, an actual strength coach, someone with actual credentials, and tangible results training hundreds, if not thousands, of athletes.

You might find a more receptive audience for gurudom posting this over at getbig.com, where bro science is really appreciated.
Unless you had an opportunity to follow me through an actual workout, its no wonder that what i have to say is beyond your grasp. if being an armchair fan of your cookie cutter idols makes you comfortable, thats your choice. i obviously take you out of your comfort zone so you find me offensive.

do you think i give a f**k who "approves" of what i write? a few months ago i never even knew that these internet bodybuilding boards existed, yet the thoughts that ive laid down represent years of work and experience. i'm not trying to win a popularity contest. yeah, i'm a nobody, so what! does that make me a lame? then i guess all the rest of you poster boys out there are lame too. so why the f**k have a board then? so haters like you can put us down for having an opinion? f**k that!

Dont be a barking pussy chihauha. have enough humility to let a man say what he has to say. i'm not out to hurt or mislead anybody. i'm just trying to express myself, contribute and participate. this is the only opportunity ive had to share my knowledge. I'm only going to say this one time and one time only--trust me when i tell you that i am the real thing and that i know what the f**k i'm talking about. as far as credentials go in this business, all they're good for is to wipe your ass as far as i'm concerned.

drmarkp

13. Originally Posted by drmarkp
Unless you had an opportunity to follow me through an actual workout, its no wonder that what i have to say is beyond your grasp. if being an armchair fan of your cookie cutter idols makes you comfortable, thats your choice. i obviously take you out of your comfort zone so you find me offensive.

do you think i give a f**k who "approves" of what i write? a few months ago i never even knew that these internet bodybuilding boards existed, yet the thoughts that ive laid down represent years of work and experience. i'm not trying to win a popularity contest. yeah, i'm a nobody, so what! does that make me a lame? then i guess all the rest of you poster boys out there are lame too. so why the f**k have a board then? so haters like you can put us down for having an opinion? f**k that!

Dont be a barking pussy chihauha. have enough humility to let a man say what he has to say. i'm not out to hurt or mislead anybody. i'm just trying to express myself, contribute and participate. this is the only opportunity ive had to share my knowledge. I'm only going to say this one time and one time only--trust me when i tell you that i am the real thing and that i know what the f**k i'm talking about. as far as credentials go in this business, all they're good for is to wipe your ass as far as i'm concerned.

drmarkp
Lets see some pics?

14. Originally Posted by Runty
Exactly what sort of doctor are you? You seem very mature for somebody with such a high level of education. Also, those "so called trainers" that were named above, are some of the best in the biz. They are quite better at what they do than you or me. At least your spelling and punctuation improved, well a little, from your last humongous post. Oh, and I'm pretty sure the people in charge of booking musical talent for the Ed Sullivan show probably checked up on them before booking them.
I'm a D.C.

At 22 years old, you dont know your a** from a hole in the ground so why are you raggin' on me? Hey, did i ever say i was comparing myself to this trainer guy or that trainer guy? i'm not trying to be a trainer, i'm just having fun sharing the thoughts i believe in based on the observations and evidence that i have found.

The reason why the posts are so long is because they are actually chapters. I did the best i could with punctuation, i'm not a writer and i know i'm weak in this area. hopefully the message still gets across.

drmarkp

15. No pics drmarkp?

What exactly are you supposed to be a doctor of? Outdated and over-rated training methods?

Originally Posted by deeder
No pics drmarkp?

What exactly are you supposed to be a doctor of? Outdated and over-rated training methods?
I'm a D.C. Read on and you might learn of something you know nothing about. I have just posted chapter 17 of my free journal.

17. Originally Posted by drmarkp
I'm a D.C. Read on and you might learn of something you know nothing about. I have just posted chapter 17 of my free journal.
I don't know what D.C is supposed to stand for...

Still no pictures?

18. Can we just ban this idiot and be done with it/

Waste of space

19. Originally Posted by Songsangnim
It's at times like these that I become nostalgic for the days of PowerManDL
This made me laugh out loud.

20. So how many copies of this book have you sold?

21. It's free.

...You get what you pay for.

22. Originally Posted by Belial
It's free.
Damnit!!!!! I just paid \$19.99. At least I got a set of nevrdull steak knives since I was one of the first 20 callers.

23. I would like to point out that at no time did Sangsonnim or I ever insult you.
Also, I would like to continue discussing several things with you about your process of finding your outcomes.

24. Originally Posted by nddillon
I would like to point out that at no time did Sangsonnim or I ever insult you.
Also, I would like to continue discussing several things with you about your process of finding your outcomes.
I would second that. And I wanna see some pics like Deeder asked for.

25. “The issue of volume like frequency; is straightforward from the onset and should be provided little leverage in the way of deviation.”
--Straightforward? The issue of volume and frequency relies on entirely too many variables to be considered straight forward: experience, previous injuries, diet, rest, age, sex, cardiovascular level, adipose level, metabolism, genetics, hematocrit level, …I can go on.

“The new system advocates giant sets utilizing two to four exercises per grouping and performing no more than two clusters per muscle group”
--What do you consider a muscle group? Do you train muscles or movements that enhance muscles?

“From a volume of exercise standpoint, never under any circumstances should a total of more than eight total working sets be performed for any individual muscle group; in some cases with more advanced individuals, even less total sets are probably better.”

“From my experience, the muscles and their surrounding structures do not reach their point of full saturation after having performed only one single giant set.”
--You have never explained what muscle group you are referring to. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that if there was a saturation point threshold that it would be different in relevance to the muscle, further more the movement the muscle is experiencing.

“Even with extremely high intensity, it is not until the second “round” that you experience the deeper effects of complete muscle stimulation and congestion.”
--What are you using as an indicator for “complete muscle stimulation and congestion?” Where did this come from? Was this your experience? Does this differ from your “patients”?

“During the first giant set the involved muscles and structures are still gaining momentum, building up to full strength in preparation for an even more explosive subsequent effort yet to come.”
--Are you talking about a warm up set? Otherwise, as sangsing said “You are strongest when you are fresh. You don't get stronger throughout the workout” Nor would you be able to compare due to you advocating changing exercises to “peak your momentum”

“To complete only one cycle of exercises would be stopping short of both the volume and accumulative intensity necessary to bring the muscle to complete threshold, thus preventing it from reaching its full saturation point.”
--You cannot use such a blanket statement, you have to specify a particular exercise and muscle. One cycle of Bohemian wrist curls (negative only of course)…ok maybe you need more work. One “cycle” of Rack pulls and/or weighted back extensions and your erector spinae is not going to benefit from more work to bring it to “saturation point.”

So with this knowledge you obtain could you deliver a sample routine for us to discuss?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•