What do you guys think? It's a short article so read it.
I find it curious that you can't find a picture of the guy on the net anywhere. Also, he cites no sources in any of his articles. It all seems like personal opinion to me.
A poor interpretation of an even more poorly performed study. I doubt the author even lifts.
From the article...
8-12 rep sets is not low reps in my book. Low reps means under 5, maybe even 3 and under. I'm surprised there's any difference between doing 12-15 rep sets and 8-12 reps sets, they're both high rep sets in my book.One workout program was made up of multiple sets for high reps and lighter weight (reps were in the 12-15 per set).
The other workout routine was made up of multiple sets for low reps with heavier weight (reps were in the 8-12 per set).
Another from the article...
Hmm, maybe it's not true for competitive bodybuilders, but for the average person, IMHO size does equal strength.No, size and strength donít go hand in hand, as many would have you believe. Which is a huge reason why most natural bodybuilders / fitness enthusiasts never truly achieve their goals. They get stronger, but not bigger.
Last edited by BigTallOx; 01-06-2009 at 11:31 AM.
What a ridiculous comparison. They should've compared heavy triples with sets of 12-15, adjusting the number of sets to make tonnage equal.
Flat out wrong. (1) Most people spin their wheels for years, never getting stronger, OR bigger. (2) Any "natural bodybuilders / fitness enthusiasts" that aren't growing aren't EATING. They're worried about definition all the time.No, size and strength donít go hand in hand, as many would have you believe. Which is a huge reason why most natural bodybuilders / fitness enthusiasts never truly achieve their goals. They get stronger, but not bigger.
this is a stupid article.
Ridiculous article. 8-12 reps isn't 'low reps'. Low reps are 6 or under. No one will grow without food, no matter what routine you do.
Also do you wanna LOOK like you can pick up a car or do would you rather BE ABLE to pick up a car?
Give chalk a chance.
49 years old
as we all know i loathe pseudo-science.
one thing that annoys me more is people who talk with authority having clearly not the slightest idea of what they are reading!
his other articles also advocate more sugar in your diets, cardio is useless for getting rid of body-fat, and that the speed you eat can determine whether you lose or gain weight!
What they found was that the weight trainers that had a harder time gaining weight and muscle had predominantly ACE II genes
....so er... not all then. i suspect there could just be a different link perhaps?
it would appear from this article that mr peraz doesnt realise the structural differences between fibre typing (basic a-level/introductory college physiology) or even how to conclude his own articles. he also shows that strength and muscle size are at odds. it would seem he says all bodybuilders are of the two genotypes mentioned then at the end conclude all should use high reps.
next hell tell us that using cables causes hyperplasia.
or perhaps im just ignorant and should burn every medical book i own and take up lawn bowls and get a job serving coffee (he does claim it helps build muscle after all).
rant transmission: over.
One thing on the speed in which we eat. I haven't searched to find articles on this, but there have been studies done and what they've said is that typically people that eat more slowly tend to stay leaner because they get full more quickly than those that horse down their food. From personal experience, if I eat more slowly (which is typical) I tend to get fuller more quickly and eat less. When I horse down the food, I eat more. Either way, I'm not lean.
Give chalk a chance.
49 years old
Last edited by Kastro; 01-09-2009 at 12:52 PM.