What do you fuckers want to know?

[Wiggy]

Lol . I ment 113.

Start feeding him. lol

Given the lifting, him eating is one of the best things you can do for him.

He doesn't need to go ape shit and start eating everything in sight. But he does need to eat enough to be able to take advantage of the lifting he'll be doing.

If you wanna make it very simple for him, as well as not make it a pain in the ass, drudgery, or something he ends up dreading, add 3/4-1 pound of meat a day to whatever he's already eating.

So his current typical day of eating PLUS an additional 12-16 ounces of meat.

It can be eaten at any time in any quantity. As long as he has it eaten by the end of the day, it's fine.

Whatever kinda meat is fine, too. There will obviously be a lot of caloric variation depending on what he has. e.g. - a pound of boneless, skinless chicken vs a pound of 73/27 ground beef.

Doesn't really matter. Change it up. Don't go all / only chicken, all / only beef, etc. A little variety is fine. It'll even out in the end.

You can mix & match, too. So half a pound of chicken + half a pound of ground beef, etc. Whatever.

No need to overcomplicate it.

He'll be much better doing that than adding any kinda supplements, protein shakes, etc.

(No idea if you were considering those, but that's often the next question I get in this kinda scenario, so...lol)

 

[Wiggy]

My second question.
I've never been big into weights so I'm far from a guru on it. I've been more into cardio and martial arts.
However when looking into a few excorsises on YouTube to make sure I'm getting the form right the algorithm starts showing more stuff. I start hearing Dr Mike and some of the stuff he said was actually starting to piss me off. Now I'm skeptical of science but have no reason to dislike this guy. I don't think he's trying to sell something and is biased by that and obviously he this is an area he's basically an expert in. The thought of me trying to come across like I know more than him is absurd. Clearly I don't. I'm fully willing to admit I'm wrong and he's right, it's just going to take some convincing is all.
Specifically, if heard him site studies says that the amount of sets all the way up to 50 a week is optimal for muscle growth.
I'm shocked that he has the balls to repeat that as fact. To me it's clearly not true. I'm sure there are studies on it , but clearly there's something wrong with the studies no ?
Now I'm not saying there's not more than one way to skin a cat and in situations, such as a calorie deficit that's not the best way to train. But surely that isn't optimal for muscle growth. ( he didn't even get into which body part that's for, as legs and arms I'd assume would be different) but at that high of a number it dosent even matter to me.
My ideas for optimal hypertrophy is HIT.( in general) . The concept was never only do one set. It was start with one set to failure and beyond and if required add more . It might end up being 4 or 5 , but certainly not 50 a week. That's going to be more like muscle failure due to lactic acid rather than muscular failure.
For example. I'm sure my boy is going to require more than 1 or even 2 sets at this stage judging by how he's been feeling post workout.
I guess I'm partly venting and partly questioning myself and asking your opinion here.
I'm not trying to sound belligerent here but I thought this was basically widely understood and accepted by everyone yet I've seen this guy , and I assume he knows what he's talking about saying training 50 sets a week 3 rep's from failure is optimal.
Huh?
What are your thoughts on all this ?

Ok, there's a lot here to unpack, so I'll try to do it in sections:

***re HIT:

I've already discussed HIT quite a bit earlier in this thread, so you can check that out & see if there's anything you want me to expand on from there.

HIT is Ok, but in general, I'm not a fan. It can be done "wrong" too easily (and typically unknowingly), leading to almost no results.

***re "studies":

I honestly could not give half a fuck about studies in the workout, fitness, or diet worlds. Only the *smallest* percentage of them are legit or meaningful.

The rest are blatantly misrepresented at best to completely fraudulent at worst.

For instance, you might see a study that says something like how protocol A got 30% more weight loss than protocol B, which sounds amazing...until you take a step back & realize it's talking about 4.3lbs of fat loss in 16 weeks instead of 2.5lbs.

i.e. - a grand total of "who gives a fuck" lol

You can continually find studies that contradict each other, most are performed in a completely bullshit way (to the point that they should not be considered "valid"), and if you drill down enough to determine who funded the study, the study will almost always miraculously have findings that in some way, benefit the funding entity.

Crazy coincidence. lol

(To give you an idea of how bullshit most nutrition studies are, a LARGE number of them are done with data that is "self-reported". Basically people keep track of what they eat and submit their food diary. The data is then analyzed. It'd be like if I started a thread here, told everyone to come back & post every single thing they ate or drank for 3 months, then colated all that data & called it a "study". You'd say I was crazy. Yet, that's how most nutrition "studies" are done.)

***re Dr. Mike:

The guy is obviously smart and well-read. But he's also PEDed to the absolute gills (which he admits), which creates a completely different type of situation compared to a natural lifter.

He also comes at everything solely with a hypertrophy focus or slant. For instance, he'll talk about getting to the stretch(ed) part of a rep, holding it there, using the least amount of weight for the most amount of growth, etc.

If aesthetics / hypertrophy are your only goals, then these are things that can be kept in mind.

However, if you have even the slightest semblance of performance goals (which, considering he BJJs, you'd think he would), then things have to change.

He seemingly is able to keep his BJJ & bodybuilding completely separate. The *vast* majority of guys I deal with want a good mix of both - to be aesthetic & athletic. And they don't have the luxury to be able to train separately to attain separate types of results.

***re 50 sets/week:

lol that's crazy town. I have NEVER heard anything like that. The general prescription is 10 sets/week, which I'm pretty sure I've heard Dr. Mike discuss before.

That said, it's still a recommendation that, most times, is copletely devoid of context.

If you're discussing purely hypertrophy, 8-12 rep range, going to failure (or at least very close to it) every set, etc, then Ok - I get it. And it's probably not that bad of a recommendation. It honestly wouldn't be too far off from what I recommended for your boy above.

However, all that context is still 100% necessary.

10 sets/week in what I just described would be a completely different situation than 10 sets/week in a Rippetoe-esque 5x5 program. Both of those would be completely different than a Dynamic Effort based sets of 2-3 reps with 45-60% of 1RM shooting for max power generation. Those would all be different than doing submaximal sets in a "GTG" (Grease the Groove) manner to train the CNS for the specific purpose of improving performance on one particular exercise.

etc

X sets/week is a very common topic or prescription, but it's almost never accompanied by the necessary context as far as what kind of sets, performed in what way, for what purpose, etc

 

[Bungee up]

Hey man - you're more than welcome. Glad to help.

Honestly, just keep it simple. A vertical push & pull, as well as a horizontal push & pull. So think a variation each of:

-Overhead Press (vertical push)
-Bench (horizontal push)
-Pullup/Pulldown (vertical pull)
-Rows (horizontal pull)

Which variation of each you pick doesn't really matter - just pick a compound movement and stick with it for the duration.

Start with a weight he can do 8 reps with and have maybe a rep or two in the bank. Do 4 sets x 8 reps.

(If he feels like he can do more than 8 reps, stop at 8 to manage fatigue for later sets).

If he can't get all 8 reps on later sets, stop the sets when form breaks down. Continue this until he can get 8 reps on all 4 sets.

Then start adding reps on sets when / as he can, stopping at 10 reps/set. Start adding a rep or two on the first set, then the second, etc. Don't go past 10 reps so as to again, manage fatigue.

When he can do 10 reps on all 4 sets, add 5-10lbs, drop back to 4 sets x 8 reps, and start the process over.

Rinse & repeat.

As for DL (Deadlifts):

If you have access to a Trap Bar for Trap Bar Deadlifts (TBDL), do those - they are an infinitely better alternative for a whole host of reasons. If you're just straight bar DLing, have him do Rack Pulls...i.e. - DLs inside of a power rack with spotter pins set such that his reps start just below the kneecap.

If you're not a competitive powerlifter, there's no reason to be doing straight bar pulls from the floor, IMO. Not a good enough risk-to-reward.

re Squats:

No need to have him doing barbell Squats for now. He'll be able to build plenty of strength with them and the form is infinitely easier than barbell Squats. In fact, it's almost impossible to do Goblet Squats wrong.

(As an aside, that's one of the reasons I'm a huge fan of TBDLs...the form is so much simpler.)

Have him stick with this a consistent 2-3x/week for the next 6-8 months and he should make some very impressive gains.

It's a very simplistic program, but that's the point. You're not even necessarily trying to get him "in shape", yet.

At this stage, it's more of a (as my old man taught to me back in the day) "get in shape to get in shape"...build the ability to even do the work necessary to build the base that he'll be able to draw upon later.

If that makes sense.

Also - given his age, about to hit puberty, he's growing, size, etc, if you can make at least one each of the upper body push & pull some form of calisthenics, it will do him a lot of good.

Calisthenics in general are better for triggering growth, strength, & overall results as they have a higher NMA (neuro-muscular activation...basically great muscle recruitment) than standard lifting movements do.

Squats & DLs are some of the best movements to build muscle & strength, right? They're also both really just forms of weighted calisthenics. Dips are called the "upper body Squat" - a weighted calisthenic. Same goes for Pullups.

etc

So perhaps instead of a Bench Press variation, he does Pushups...then elevate the feet, add weight (you can place plates on his back), etc. Or move onto Dips.

For the upper pull, if he can't do Pullups, yet (likely can't...and certainly not enough to complete this workout), have him do inverted Rows hanging from a bar in a power rack or the like.

That should go a long way to helping him get the results you're desiring for him.

That all makes sence to me. That's more or less my line of thinking. Keep it simple and really milk the benefit from the exercises for what they are without overdoing it. What you said about the deadlifts is noted . Unfortunately there's no trap bar but there is a rack.
The calathasenics / compound movements makes a load of sense as well and thank you for reminding me of that. It's something we will incorporate especially if we can't get to the gym easily for whatever reason.

 

[Bungee up]

Start feeding him. lol

Given the lifting, him eating is one of the best things you can do for him.

He doesn't need to go ape shit and start eating everything in sight. But he does need to eat enough to be able to take advantage of the lifting he'll be doing.

If you wanna make it very simple for him, as well as not make it a pain in the ass, drudgery, or something he ends up dreading, add 3/4-1 pound of meat a day to whatever he's already eating.

So his current typical day of eating PLUS an additional 12-16 ounces of meat.

It can be eaten at any time in any quantity. As long as he has it eaten by the end of the day, it's fine.

Whatever kinda meat is fine, too. There will obviously be a lot of caloric variation depending on what he has. e.g. - a pound of boneless, skinless chicken vs a pound of 73/27 ground beef.

Doesn't really matter. Change it up. Don't go all / only chicken, all / only beef, etc. A little variety is fine. It'll even out in the end.

You can mix & match, too. So half a pound of chicken + half a pound of ground beef, etc. Whatever.

No need to overcomplicate it.

He'll be much better doing that than adding any kinda supplements, protein shakes, etc.

(No idea if you were considering those, but that's often the next question I get in this kinda scenario, so...lol)

That's good advice/ way to look at it adding around a pound of meat to his diet. Simple. I was wondering how I was going to approach that side of it. I was wondering if his own appetite would kick in naturally and take care of itself. Maybe not though. One thing about my kids is they have very healthy appetites. But I don't mean that like most people do where they are talking about overeating.
They will eat what's put in front of them . Big meals, but not stupid amounts. They will eat throughout the day but not freak out if they have to skip or have late a meal. And if they get a chance to eat junk they don't gorge themselves.
At this stage I've just been getting him a milk to drink on the way home.

 

[Bungee up]

meh...not a huge fan.

You have to already be in pretty good shape / strong in order to push hard enough to trigger any real growth stimulus.

e.g. - Benching 95lbs to failure isn't gonna trigger the same kinda response Benching 250 to failure will...because it's only 95lbs lol

At the same time, most guys simply do NOT have the mental fortitude to go to complete failure and are quitting long before failure...this is especially true when the reps get up over about 6-8.

Show me a guy that says he's hit failure after 8-10 reps on the Squat. Now pull out his dog and put a gun to his head, threatening to shoot his pup unless he does 5 more reps. Know what he's gonna do? 5 more reps. lol

Point being, he wasn't actually going to failure, even though he thought he was. And when you're not going to actual failure, all you're doing is a very small amount of volume that's not even at your max. It's a recipe for not getting very far.

At the same time, the biggest & most well-known "success" cases from HIT were either bullshit or not actually HIT.

Casey Viator and the "Colorado Experiment" was basically just a giant lie (I can detail it if you like).

And while Dorian Yates always preached Mentzer & HIT, his "Blood & Guts" wasn't actually HIT (especially Mentzer's extreme version) at all.

Totally agree with all of that W @Wiggy .
I appreciate the time you've given with your detailed responses.
The mentzer approach was a very extreme way of getting his point across. I think his concept was generally right but he certainly pushed the 1 set thing a lot. He did however say it should just be you're starting point.
With Dr Mike. I don't want to say he both sides things, but I haven't heard him give a clear position. Which I get because there's so many ways to train. But at the same you kind of need to be clear sometimes.
I've heard him say 10 sets ( which sounds about right) but he's said that as a minimum and showed graphs and said you get improved results all the way up to 50 sets. 50 being the peak benefit before a precipitous drop. I've heard him say it on multiple occasions which implies high volume is optimal.
My opinion mirrors your own , which is , there's obviously something wrong with that study/s. Which makes me question why he would site it. Especially with no disclaimers.
So as a novice on this subject it's kind of got me questioning on of the most basic assumptions and wanting clarity.
I fully respect training methods like pilates style things and GTG methods. It think they are good , ef and have their place ( not to sound dismissive).
So my question would be , if you take out all the caveats. Age. Experience. Calorie intake.ect. would the best method for pure hypertrophy. Be to lift to true muscle failure with assisted reps even .between 6 and 15 rep's. Wether it be 1 set or 5 , whatever it takes to get the muscle response.
This is assuming people are capable of putting in that kind of intensity.
Obviously if you don't give yourself enough time to recover there's going to be a problem. Or if you're lifting like dorian for Ronnie colman squatting 800lbs for rep's eventually something is going to break.
So with all that being said . Is this still generally considered the most effective/efficient way to get muscle gains or is there something else like time under tension method that is now considered the better method for pure muscle gains these days?

 

[Fookster1982]

Been doing intermittent fasting and the AthleanX workouts. Also, picked up some more golf. Go to the gym 3 days a week to maintain and been walking more with the golf. I’ve lost 5 lbs and it seems to be mostly chub, not muscle. I actually have a 4 pack now. Just going to go slowly to see if I can get my bottom two abs back. I’m 215 now, last time I had a six pack was 4 years ago when I was 178 lbs. trying to get it again without going under 210. We shall see.

 

[Wiggy]

Been doing intermittent fasting and the AthleanX workouts. Also, picked up some more golf. Go to the gym 3 days a week to maintain and been walking more with the golf. I’ve lost 5 lbs and it seems to be mostly chub, not muscle. I actually have a 4 pack now. Just going to go slowly to see if I can get my bottom two abs back. I’m 215 now, last time I had a six pack was 4 years ago when I was 178 lbs. trying to get it again without going under 210. We shall see.

If that's working for you and it's something you'll continue to stick to, then do it.

The most important thing I tell guys now is that the "best" program is the one you'll actually do...and do consinstently for the long-term. No matter the reason.

Good on you for figuring something that works for you.

 

[Wiggy]

That all makes sence to me. That's more or less my line of thinking. Keep it simple and really milk the benefit from the exercises for what they are without overdoing it. What you said about the deadlifts is noted . Unfortunately there's no trap bar but there is a rack.
The calathasenics / compound movements makes a load of sense as well and thank you for reminding me of that. It's something we will incorporate especially if we can't get to the gym easily for whatever reason.

Glad it helps, man.

re the calisthenics:

Remember that they're no different than the weights. What "works" for them is the same as what "works" for barbells & DBs as what "works" for sandbags and what "works" for anything else.

S&C principles, methods, etc don't change based on the implement - just the application of said principles.

I say that because guys often make the mistake of thinking "calisthenics" = "high reps".

No.

(I mean, they can...but one doesn't necessitate the other.)

I recommend including calisthenics done within the protocol I laid out. Just do what you have to do to make them fit.

e.g. - you get him to the point that Pullups for 4 x 10 are doable...now add weight

Keep the sets & reps protocol the same & integrate calisthenics into it.

 

[Wiggy]

Totally agree with all of that W @Wiggy .
I appreciate the time you've given with your detailed responses.
The mentzer approach was a very extreme way of getting his point across. I think his concept was generally right but he certainly pushed the 1 set thing a lot. He did however say it should just be you're starting point.
With Dr Mike. I don't want to say he both sides things, but I haven't heard him give a clear position. Which I get because there's so many ways to train. But at the same you kind of need to be clear sometimes.
I've heard him say 10 sets ( which sounds about right) but he's said that as a minimum and showed graphs and said you get improved results all the way up to 50 sets. 50 being the peak benefit before a precipitous drop. I've heard him say it on multiple occasions which implies high volume is optimal.
My opinion mirrors your own , which is , there's obviously something wrong with that study/s. Which makes me question why he would site it. Especially with no disclaimers.
So as a novice on this subject it's kind of got me questioning on of the most basic assumptions and wanting clarity.
I fully respect training methods like pilates style things and GTG methods. It think they are good , ef and have their place ( not to sound dismissive).
So my question would be , if you take out all the caveats. Age. Experience. Calorie intake.ect. would the best method for pure hypertrophy. Be to lift to true muscle failure with assisted reps even .between 6 and 15 rep's. Wether it be 1 set or 5 , whatever it takes to get the muscle response.
This is assuming people are capable of putting in that kind of intensity.
Obviously if you don't give yourself enough time to recover there's going to be a problem. Or if you're lifting like dorian for Ronnie colman squatting 800lbs for rep's eventually something is going to break.
So with all that being said . Is this still generally considered the most effective/efficient way to get muscle gains or is there something else like time under tension method that is now considered the better method for pure muscle gains these days?

re Mentzer:

I think I talked about this earlier in the thread, but Mike is known primarily for two things:

#1 - hit style of HIT
#2 - getting second to Arnold at the '80 Olympia when he very much deserved to win

(#3 would be that he was by most account, an eccentric weirdo, but that's a different subject. lol)

Thing is, #1 didn't lead to #2. As I understand it, he never did HIT during his competitive career. He only started pushing it when he was able to turn it into a monthly column / regular writing gig. Had there not been a pretty decent monetary incentive, I doubt he'd have pushed HIT like he did.

Maybe I'm wrong.

re the "best method for pure hypertrophy":

It's hard to answer this without caveats as caveats radically change the answer.

If you take the approach I laid out, even very seasoned lifters can get a lot of growth out of that as it's based on exactly what hypertrophy requires - sufficient volume coupled with progressive overload.

Would going to failure, using forced reps, etc trigger more of a growth response? Probably.

It would also be a greater strain on recovery, which might lead to overtraining, CNS burnout (more of an issue the stronger you get), etc.

I mean, think about it like this - you hit Bench how I laid out say 3x in 2 weeks or to failure, forced reps, etc once a week. Which is "better"?

In the end, they'll likely even out. Or be so close that it really won't matter much.

That is providing that the trainee CAN actually adequately go to failure. And once you get up over 6-7 reps, I will pretty much always maintain that the VAST majority of guys fail mentally LONG before they fail physically...especially on big movements like Squats.

(Take a guy that thinks he's hit "failure" on the Squat after 9 reps, and just before he racks the bar, pull out his dog and threaten to shoot it if he doesn't do another 5 reps. Know what he's gonna do? 5 more reps. lol. It's because he failed mentally before he did physically.)

If going to failure, forced reps, etc is the kinda thing you're interested in, or you want an HIT-esque routine that actually works, read up on Doggcrap training by Dante Trudel. He's got an extensive track record of helping guys put on a LOT of size with his methods.

Do know that he (and I'd assume a lot of his guys) are PED'd, so there is that to consider.

That said, DC is good stuff if that's the kinda training you like.

I also have a system I call "Money Set" training that's along these lines if you want a brief rundown.

 

[Bungee up]

re Mentzer:

I think I talked about this earlier in the thread, but Mike is known primarily for two things:

#1 - hit style of HIT
#2 - getting second to Arnold at the '80 Olympia when he very much deserved to win

(#3 would be that he was by most account, an eccentric weirdo, but that's a different subject. lol)

Thing is, #1 didn't lead to #2. As I understand it, he never did HIT during his competitive career. He only started pushing it when he was able to turn it into a monthly column / regular writing gig. Had there not been a pretty decent monetary incentive, I doubt he'd have pushed HIT like he did.

Maybe I'm wrong.

re the "best method for pure hypertrophy":

It's hard to answer this without caveats as caveats radically change the answer.

If you take the approach I laid out, even very seasoned lifters can get a lot of growth out of that as it's based on exactly what hypertrophy requires - sufficient volume coupled with progressive overload.

Would going to failure, using forced reps, etc trigger more of a growth response? Probably.

It would also be a greater strain on recovery, which might lead to overtraining, CNS burnout (more of an issue the stronger you get), etc.

I mean, think about it like this - you hit Bench how I laid out say 3x in 2 weeks or to failure, forced reps, etc once a week. Which is "better"?

In the end, they'll likely even out. Or be so close that it really won't matter much.

That is providing that the trainee CAN actually adequately go to failure. And once you get up over 6-7 reps, I will pretty much always maintain that the VAST majority of guys fail mentally LONG before they fail physically...especially on big movements like Squats.

(Take a guy that thinks he's hit "failure" on the Squat after 9 reps, and just before he racks the bar, pull out his dog and threaten to shoot it if he doesn't do another 5 reps. Know what he's gonna do? 5 more reps. lol. It's because he failed mentally before he did physically.)

If going to failure, forced reps, etc is the kinda thing you're interested in, or you want an HIT-esque routine that actually works, read up on Doggcrap training by Dante Trudel. He's got an extensive track record of helping guys put on a LOT of size with his methods.

Do know that he (and I'd assume a lot of his guys) are PED'd, so there is that to consider.

That said, DC is good stuff if that's the kinda training you like.

I also have a system I call "Money Set" training that's along these lines if you want a brief rundown.

My son has been with my parents over the school holidays since I first reached out so we haven't been to the gym.
I will be taking your advice though. Certainly as a base starting point.
I'm interested in the dogcrap training and will look into it as well as your money set system.
With weight lifting there seems to be so many factors that caveats and exceptions are going to be the norm so it's almost necessary to speak generally knowing that will be the case.
Thus is a really interesting conversation to have though.
I agree with what you said about Mike mentzer ( actually everything you said.) There dose seem to be some baggage around HIT that's hard to unravel when talking about this stuff, even though I am the one who brought it up.
But what initially triggered me was the lifting heavy to failure vs what I heard Dr Mike saying about high volume 3 reps or so from failure.
I have so many thought's on this and why I was surprised to hear him saying that.
Even though body builders tend to be creatures of habit, I think it's pretty safe to say that they probably have all tried just about every type of training.
I'm also guessing that if you were to ask any body builder from mentzer or Arnold's era about putting on muscle you would get some version of . "It's obvious, it's the last rep or 2 of the last set that's going to be the one's that count. So they were probably all lifting heavy to failure or close to it for getting those big gains. Maybe they weren't going fully up to and past failure but thats probably because they were training the same body part every 3rd day or so. So it didn't make sence to overdo it to much.
So in the off season they were probably training a lot closer to mike's HIT than Dr mike's apparently feasible approach.
If it sounds like I'm back tracking or moving the goal posts I'm not. Just sort of explaining my position a bit better.
So here's the thing where I'm coming back to my original opinion.
If you take out all the differences of the body builders and what we know and don't know about how they trained. Let's use a dorian or Ronnie as examples. Would they have gotten that big that quickly if they weren't lifting as hard and heavy as they did ? So that takes out genetics ect from the equation. I agree with the idea that training twice a week high intensity or 3 times a week slightly lower may have similar results, certainly to a point .however I think for Ronnie or dorian to get that big they had to lift the way they did.
They may have even looked better if they didn't lift that heavy and focused more on developing certain areas. But I don't think they ever would have put on that kind of muscle.
Also the steroids probably helped them not just with recovery but being able to lift that heavy weight. I say that to point out they probably maximised the benefits of the steroids more so than other bodybuilders .
Another point( which is an extreme example) would be if you compared the GTG method to say 1 rep maxing every other day ,( the absolute best way to cause an injury) over a period of time I'd imagine that both methods will make you stronger for a while then the GTG method will taper off and build next to zero muscle and taxiing out will build muscle and make you stronger.

These are just some of my thoughts. They are based pretty much entirely on instinct. I could be wrong.
What are your thoughts on where my head is at? Am I missing something?
The 2-3 times at the gym was just a figure. I'm not exactly sure how often Ronnie or dorian trained each body part. The point was , could they have got there by lowering the intensity and upping the frequency ?

I'm going to say( just on gut instinct) that a Dr Mike approach of higer volume lower intensity more frequency would have quite limited benefits. Think about how long it takes to heal ? Basically nothing heals in a day or 2. Even the tiniest scratch will take the better part of a week to heal.
At a certain point you're just building endurance rather than muscle.

Also, although a lot of people won't ever be able to push to absolute failure with a HIT type of method a similar thing can be said for higher volume. Once you get to about 15-20 reps it's also all in the head. People will think they are at failure and instead of having one or two in the bank they have 10 or 20+.

Just some thoughts. As I said, I'm far from a guru on this stuff.

 

[Wiggy]

My son has been with my parents over the school holidays since I first reached out so we haven't been to the gym.
I will be taking your advice though. Certainly as a base starting point.
I'm interested in the dogcrap training and will look into it as well as your money set system.
With weight lifting there seems to be so many factors that caveats and exceptions are going to be the norm so it's almost necessary to speak generally knowing that will be the case.
Thus is a really interesting conversation to have though.
I agree with what you said about Mike mentzer ( actually everything you said.) There dose seem to be some baggage around HIT that's hard to unravel when talking about this stuff, even though I am the one who brought it up.
But what initially triggered me was the lifting heavy to failure vs what I heard Dr Mike saying about high volume 3 reps or so from failure.
I have so many thought's on this and why I was surprised to hear him saying that.
Even though body builders tend to be creatures of habit, I think it's pretty safe to say that they probably have all tried just about every type of training.
I'm also guessing that if you were to ask any body builder from mentzer or Arnold's era about putting on muscle you would get some version of . "It's obvious, it's the last rep or 2 of the last set that's going to be the one's that count. So they were probably all lifting heavy to failure or close to it for getting those big gains. Maybe they weren't going fully up to and past failure but thats probably because they were training the same body part every 3rd day or so. So it didn't make sence to overdo it to much.
So in the off season they were probably training a lot closer to mike's HIT than Dr mike's apparently feasible approach.
If it sounds like I'm back tracking or moving the goal posts I'm not. Just sort of explaining my position a bit better.
So here's the thing where I'm coming back to my original opinion.
If you take out all the differences of the body builders and what we know and don't know about how they trained. Let's use a dorian or Ronnie as examples. Would they have gotten that big that quickly if they weren't lifting as hard and heavy as they did ? So that takes out genetics ect from the equation. I agree with the idea that training twice a week high intensity or 3 times a week slightly lower may have similar results, certainly to a point .however I think for Ronnie or dorian to get that big they had to lift the way they did.
They may have even looked better if they didn't lift that heavy and focused more on developing certain areas. But I don't think they ever would have put on that kind of muscle.
Also the steroids probably helped them not just with recovery but being able to lift that heavy weight. I say that to point out they probably maximised the benefits of the steroids more so than other bodybuilders .
Another point( which is an extreme example) would be if you compared the GTG method to say 1 rep maxing every other day ,( the absolute best way to cause an injury) over a period of time I'd imagine that both methods will make you stronger for a while then the GTG method will taper off and build next to zero muscle and taxiing out will build muscle and make you stronger.

These are just some of my thoughts. They are based pretty much entirely on instinct. I could be wrong.
What are your thoughts on where my head is at? Am I missing something?
The 2-3 times at the gym was just a figure. I'm not exactly sure how often Ronnie or dorian trained each body part. The point was , could they have got there by lowering the intensity and upping the frequency ?

I'm going to say( just on gut instinct) that a Dr Mike approach of higer volume lower intensity more frequency would have quite limited benefits. Think about how long it takes to heal ? Basically nothing heals in a day or 2. Even the tiniest scratch will take the better part of a week to heal.
At a certain point you're just building endurance rather than muscle.

Also, although a lot of people won't ever be able to push to absolute failure with a HIT type of method a similar thing can be said for higher volume. Once you get to about 15-20 reps it's also all in the head. People will think they are at failure and instead of having one or two in the bank they have 10 or 20+.

Just some thoughts. As I said, I'm far from a guru on this stuff.

There's a lot to unpack here. Gimme a day or two to give you a full on response.

 

[Wiggy]

One quick thing I will say, though:

No offense, but I think you're making things WAY more complicated than they have to be.

*Can* they be this complicated? Sure. Do they need to be? For 99.9% of the population? No...not even close.

If yo'ure an elite athlete, top .1% type trying to get the absolute most, peak results, then sure - all of this matters. But for the VAST majority of the population? Find your 80/20 stuff (movements, protocols, etc) and work the everliving shit out of them.

When all else fails, remember that the body is naturally lazy. It makes doing difficult things easy (or at least easier) as a self-preservation mechanism.

You have enough biceps mass to Curl 75lbs for 10 reps. Increase it to 85lbs and it has to work harder. First thing it's gonna do (depending on the protocol) is maximize CNS efficiency. If CNS efficiency has been maximized (or close to it), it's gonna build more muscle.

Since strength is just a function of muscle mass + nervous system efficiency.

Continue the progressive overload consistently over time, and the muscle mass & strength are gonna happen simply as a byproduct of doing the thing (the lifting), regardless of what the physiological "triggers" are.

More later.

 

[Bungee up]

One quick thing I will say, though:

No offense, but I think you're making things WAY more complicated than they have to be.

*Can* they be this complicated? Sure. Do they need to be? For 99.9% of the population? No...not even close.

If yo'ure an elite athlete, top .1% type trying to get the absolute most, peak results, then sure - all of this matters. But for the VAST majority of the population? Find your 80/20 stuff (movements, protocols, etc) and work the everliving shit out of them.

When all else fails, remember that the body is naturally lazy. It makes doing difficult things easy (or at least easier) as a self-preservation mechanism.

You have enough biceps mass to Curl 75lbs for 10 reps. Increase it to 85lbs and it has to work harder. First thing it's gonna do (depending on the protocol) is maximize CNS efficiency. If CNS efficiency has been maximized (or close to it), it's gonna build more muscle.

Since strength is just a function of muscle mass + nervous system efficiency.

Continue the progressive overload consistently over time, and the muscle mass & strength are gonna happen simply as a byproduct of doing the thing (the lifting), regardless of what the physiological "triggers" are.

More later.

I totally agree.
I know I'm coming across like I am over analysing the shit out of things when in actuality, the truth is we probably just need to get in the gym, work the muscle enough to generate a growth response and make sure we're eating enough. That's it , at least at this stage.( and what you mentioned about 80/20 exercises, agreed)
It's honestly just some of the things I heard dr Mike saying that triggered my brain and now all these thoughts are floating around in there. I can't really help it . It's the way I'm wired.

I was a bit surprised to see how little there was on dante trudel on YouTube.
I read this article though and it actually gave a pretty good description of his philosophy.

A Load of Doggcrapp: Is Dante Trudel’s Doggcrapp Training System The Next Big Thing In Bodybuilding? - SimplyShredded.com

A Load of Doggcrapp: Is Dante Trudel's Doggcrapp Training System The Next Big Thing In Bodybuilding?

www.simplyshredded.com

What he was saying made a lot of sence.
The giving the body a break from heavy lifting every so often as well. Something you have mentioned. I totally agree with.
One thing I wonder is , how beneficial is the stretching? I remember hearing about that years ago. It certainly wouldn't hurt I'm guessing. I'm also guessing the benefits , such there is any would only be seen once you have significant muscle mass.

I don't want to bombard you with to much stuff so no obligation to reply.
Thanks

 

[Bungee up]

I took some " before n after pictures " about a month ago of my boy about 1 month ago and was (understandably ) apprehensive about posting them before putting in some time in the gym.
However I think I'll post them.
His weight is now 117lbs- 53.4 kg and height is bang on 180cm. 5'9
He's only 6cm shorter than me now.
He's never been shy. Gets his clothes of in a second " oh what are we doing again? " oh , taking before pictures"? Ok.

these are from a month ago.
He doesn't (still dosent) even know how to flex his muscles, cos he really doesn't have anything to flex yet. ( we'll work on that )
I was trying to explain to him how to flex his abs.

Here's the pictures from today.
He's still having trouble flexing. We need to work on those triceps and chest. He'll get there . I've got a bit of a chest and never really done weights.
I was thinking, well it is the way it is. The boy has wide hips and narrow shoulders. Good for generating punching power but not the ideal frame for body-building (which has never been the goal).
Then this kid hits me with this pose out of nowhere with no coaching at all.

I'm like " fuck yeah boy, spread those wings".
You can see his little Christmas tree in there as well on his skinny little body.
Must've been all those push-ups we were doing when you were 4 and I was dropping you off at daycare when your mother had to start work early.

Don't worry, we're going to hit those legs. He loves basketball.

If you want to give a critique W @Wiggy feel free. It would be appreciated. I don't really know what I'm looking at.
I have an eye , but not a good eye. I know about muscle bellies and inserts but I don't know enough to recognise what I'm looking at exactly ( I dont know what's good from what's great from what's average).
What I do appreciate and recognise is he and his younger sister are great kid's. More than I deserve.
My father says they're "well adjusted " . I have to agree, but that's coming from a couple of men that have at least one or two screws loose somewhere along the line of assembly.
They must get that from their mother.