My [Least] favorite training myths.

[Debaser]

Althought there are many training myths, there are a few that many still seem to cling to, despite the evidence or logic to the contrary. Feel free to add your own to this thread, or discuss my personal choices.

1. INCLINES RULE! Inclines are by far the best chest builder, and fill out your upper chest like no other!

Wrong. Inclines are a great movement, as is almost any compound pressing motion. But this reasoning is flawed for a couple reasons. First of all, by upper chest you really mean the clavicular portion, which is a lot smaller than you probably think it is. Also, regular bench presses performed correctly hits this JUST AS MUCH! Inclines actually hit the sternal part to a lesser degree as well! In other words, they don't hit the pecs completely quite as much as flat presses. They do hit the shoulders a bit more (the higher the incline, the higher the shoulder recruitment). Therefore, it's a great movement, but not the magic cure-all that many make it out to be.

2. Low reps hit this fiber type, higher reps hit this type, I only grow off of low reps, high reps etc.

Progressive load is the key growth factor. If you increase your 5 rep squat by 300 lbs, or your 20 rep squat by 200 lbs, you're going to see some serious growth either way. The whole fiber type thing is a bunch of BS, many trainees worry about it (and other pointless minutae) so much that they lose their focus on important matters and end up not succeeding whatsoever.

3. You should change up your routine constantly so you shock the muscles, because they adapt to a certain training routine.

Again, progressive load (adding weight to the bar session after session) results in building muscle. There is no way to “shock growth” into a muscle. Your muscles do not “adapt” to a certain routine, thereby requiring that you “change it up” constantly (the result of slow or nonexistent progress for many). Muscles don't know what the hell you're doing to them, only that they're experiencing tension. They adapt to a certain load, requiring that you increase said load next time around, but that’s all. Muscles are not intelligent. Rant over.

Also, a single routine CAN get one very far. Cases in point: Westside. Hardgainer magazine. DC training. HST. There are several people on each of these routines that don't "switch it up" and have made constant gains.

Do you think after you gain XX lbs of muscle on, say, DC training, your body is going to say "whoops, that's too much, until he changes his set and rep scheme we're going to stay at this weight." No way. Your body does not adapt in that way. Your muscles merely adapt to a certain load, requiring that you increase the load each session to make progress.

 

[slobberknocker]

Change is necessary. You can't add weight to the bar forever. Eventually you will plateau and something will need to be changed. If this was a myth, I'd be deadlifting 1,200 lbs by now.

 

[Tweakle]

I'd go mad doing the same routine week in, week out. I keep the exercises that work but I'm always tinkering with rep ranges, sets etc. it's necessary after a few years to keep you 'fresh' as much as anything else.

 

[Thaibox]

recently posted by Arnold'sApprentice:

"he's probably the most knowledgable guy in this forum"

 

[Debaser]

Change is necessary. You can't add weight to the bar forever. Eventually you will plateau and something will need to be changed. If this was a myth, I'd be deadlifting 1,200 lbs by now.

Slobber the rate of gain may change as you get more experienced. Also, if you switched to a routine and saw better gains, it's because there was something fundamentally better about that routine that helped your deadlift. It wasn't due to the mere fact that you changed your routine.

Tweakle I'm not saying you have to stick with the same routine forever, I'm just saying that you don't NEED to switch it up constantly to progress.

 

[Debaser]

recently posted by Arnold'sApprentice:

"he's probably the most knowledgable guy in this forum"

I'd rather you contribute something meaningful to the post. Perhaps a logical counter argument to what I've listed, or adding one of your own myths?

 

[slobberknocker]

Slobber the rate of gain may change as you get more experienced. Also, if you switched to a routine and saw better gains, it's because there was something fundamentally better about that routine that helped your deadlift. It wasn't due to the mere fact that you changed your routine.

I'm not talking about switching to a different routine. The routine stays the same. All that changes is the weight; i.e. periodization.

I believe in progressive resistance, but I also believe that you will eventually plateau and weights will need to be cycled.

Let's stay I can add 5-10 lbs a week on my deadlifts. I'll do that as long as I possibly can, but at some point, my muscles and CNS just can't handle any more weight. So let's say I plateau at 735. The next week, I will drop maybe 70 lbs, and start the progressive increase over again, adding 10 lbs a week until a new plateau is reached.

665, 675, 685, 695, 705, 715, 725, 735. After 8 weeks I've reached my old PR. After that I usually have another month or so where I can continue to hit new PR's. But again, I will eventually reach a new plateau, but this one will be higher than the previous one.

20-40 lbs on your compound lifts in 3 months is nothing to sneeze at. Especially when you're already pretty strong.

 

[JOKER47]

The term "change" get's intermixed with "variety" all to often in this age-old discussion. Part of the reason WSB works is due to the endless variety of lifts and moves. (I mention WSB because that's how I train, and that's what I know.) Call it shocking the muscles, keeping them guessing, whatever.....Variety IS needed.

I've heard it said, "If you need to keep switching programs, there is something wrong with the way you are training."


Joker

 

[Brett44444444]

I see what you are saying, but I think there are some advantages to switching routines every now and then. Namely to hit weak parts and so forth. In other words, adding something like close stance front squats if your quads are lagging behind your hamstrings/glutes from wide stance back squats... The "shock factor" that people speak so colloquially of really just means the different movements stress different muscles and can make sure you don't build any imbalances...

 

[lavi]

joker, where can I find out about WSB so I can better understand what you mean by "variety"? variety meaning diff exercises every time you hit the gym?

 

[slobberknocker]

joker, where can I find out about WSB so I can better understand what you mean by "variety"? variety meaning diff exercises every time you hit the gym?

www.elitefts.com

Read the articles, especially the ones by Louie Simmons.

 

[Debaser]

I'm not talking about switching to a different routine. The routine stays the same. All that changes is the weight; i.e. periodization.

I believe in progressive resistance, but I also believe that you will eventually plateau and weights will need to be cycled.

Let's stay I can add 5-10 lbs a week on my deadlifts. I'll do that as long as I possibly can, but at some point, my muscles and CNS just can't handle any more weight. So let's say I plateau at 735. The next week, I will drop maybe 70 lbs, and start the progressive increase over again, adding 10 lbs a week until a new plateau is reached.

665, 675, 685, 695, 705, 715, 725, 735. After 8 weeks I've reached my old PR. After that I usually have another month or so where I can continue to hit new PR's. But again, I will eventually reach a new plateau, but this one will be higher than the previous one.

20-40 lbs on your compound lifts in 3 months is nothing to sneeze at. Especially when you're already pretty strong.

No I fully agree with cycling intensity, I'm just opposed to the idea of progress stopping simply because your body is somehow "used" to the routine itself.

 

[Cuthbert]

I think there is more to it than your body needing to adapt. By changing your training program every once in a while, or using WSB principles and changing more often, it keeps you mentally in the game a LOT longer. I know that when I train with more variety... I train more consistently, and I make better gains.

The psychological aspect CANNOT be overlooked.

 

[JOKER47]

joker, where can I find out about WSB so I can better understand what you mean by "variety"? variety meaning diff exercises every time you hit the gym?

What Slobberknocker said.

 

[Zander1983]

I don't know how you could disagree with any of the myths posted by Debaser. They are the cold hard facts (which is what he always presents).

Like people have said, mentally you might have to change things up just to stay sane and motivated, but that has little to do with progress in a PURELY physical sense.

 

[BlkWS6]

So with the logic that a muscle really only "knows" tension, it follows that you could in fact change exercises every single workout and be fine so long as the amount of resistance is increased, right?

 

[b fold the truth]

Just curious if Debasser really does TRY to start heated debates here on Elite...

Debasser: Don't forget that good arguements can be made for all of your 'myths' as well as your 'facts'. There is no black and white...for either one. I can find examples which would prove both your 'facts' as well as your 'myths'.

B True

 

[d3track]

Just curious if Debasser really does TRY to start heated debates here on Elite...

Debasser: Don't forget that good arguements can be made for all of your 'myths' as well as your 'facts'. There is no black and white...for either one. I can find examples which would prove both your 'facts' as well as your 'myths'.

B True

agreed

take inclines:
not such a big deal for power lifters, they are looking to move as much weight as possible
big deal for bodybuilders, creating balance in all 3 areas of the chest make the bodypart look that much more impressive

 

[Debaser]

So with the logic that a muscle really only "knows" tension, it follows that you could in fact change exercises every single workout and be fine so long as the amount of resistance is increased, right?

Yes, in a way DC does this because it cycles 3 different exercises. But you still progress on each one when it comes around. If you just changed exercises with no rhyme or reason, it would be very difficult to ensure you're increasing the resistance.

 

[Debaser]

big deal for bodybuilders, creating balance in all 3 areas of the chest make the bodypart look that much more impressive

This is what I'm talking about. First of all, what do you mean all three areas of the chest? Seconds, the flat press works the upper chest just as hard as inclines, as I've stated. The inclines work the shoulders more, but there's always overhead presses for that.

Bfold there is nothing wrong with heated debate. It's what keeps a forum healthy. As long as people know how to argue like adults, there's no problem. I'd love to hear your arguments against my myths, because I'm curious to hear the other side. So far no one has been able to effectively counter them, so I would like to see what you have to say.

 

[from zero]

Bfold there is nothing wrong with heated debate. It's what keeps a forum healthy. As long as people know how to argue like adults, there's no problem. I'd love to hear your arguments against my myths, because I'm curious to hear the other side. So far no one has been able to effectively counter them, so I would like to see what you have to say.

I don't think there is such a thing as "arguing like adults." I'm all for a good debate anytime. But, let's keep it that way guys. A debate. Non-biased and intelligent.

 

[Exodus]

well im going to be my usual self.

Debaser...... what scientific proof do you have for your statements???

X

 

[ATF]

This is what I'm talking about. First of all, what do you mean all three areas of the chest? Seconds, the flat press works the upper chest just as hard as inclines, as I've stated. The inclines work the shoulders more, but there's always overhead presses for that.

Debasser,

I curious about where you get your information about inclines and flat presses. If you would direct me there it would be appreciated.

I started pressing on a slight incline...20° or so. My upper chest is lagging and this is giving me better results.

The only research that I have done is in front of the mirror, holding my arms out straight (as in a flat bench). If you move your arms up slightly, you can see that the upper pec flexes more with the movement. The lower pec does flex a little less, and the shoulders a little more. My thought with going with inclines was to move my upper chest to be the primary target and the lower pec and shoulders as stablizers. It seems to me that it is more of a compound movemet then flat presses because you have added the shoulders, yet the pectoral minor hasn't been completely obsoleted from the lift.

I agree with everyone else about changing things up, and I think we agree, but are arguing the same point from a different perspective. Change is good, mostly mentally. I do know that if I change an exercise I have to lower the weight to get my form down. Therefore I am kind of doing with slobberknocker is doing. Does that make sense. Other than that, it keeps me into it mentally by making it not to monotonous (spelling?)

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

recently posted by Arnold'sApprentice:

"he's probably the most knowledgable guy in this forum"

And given the intelligence of your contribution..i endorse this statement with added certainty.

 

[casualbb]

I can't help it... with respect to fiber types, they recently did an experiment with the express purpose of debunking it, and did a decent job.

See Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60).

Basically they just pick high, medium, and low rep programs, randomly assigned people to each, and measured growth of each fiber type. Here are the results:

High-Rep (20-28RM)
Type-I
· pre = 3894 post = 4297 (10.3% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5217 post = 5633 (8.0% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4564 post = 5181 (13.5% increase)

Med-Rep (9-11RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4155 post = 4701 (~13.1% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5238 post = 6090 (~16.3% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4556 post = 5798 (~27.3% increase)


Low-Rep (3-5RM)
Type-I
· pre = 4869 post = 5475 (~12.4% increase)
Type-IIA
· pre = 5615 post = 6903 (~22.9% increase)
Type-IIB
· pre = 4926 post = 6171 (~25.3% increase)

As you can see, in each case the highest-twitch fibers grew most, and the growth was predominantly weighted towards higher twitch fibers, even doing 20-28 reps.

QED.

 

[Scotsman]

For the first time I think I find myself in full agreance with debaser. My favorite chest myth is that declines give you great lower chest to go along with what you said about inclines.

Cheers,
Scotsman

 

[Debaser]

well im going to be my usual self.

Debaser...... what scientific proof do you have for your statements???

X

Well casual already got to one for me, for the inclines I'd have to look up where I found some EMT (sp) data. I've seen it published in a few different places, but I can't recall exactly where, as I browse so many sites daily. But this can also be dispelled if you understand the biomechanical function of the pecs, which is scientific in and of itself.

But the more important question is Exodus: why would I be the one to prove it? All 3 of these myths seem to originate from muscle mags, hardly a trustworthy source of information. THEY should have backed up their claims, not make up fallacies and then have me prove the opposite. Thus I would believe the burden of proof wouldn't rest on me anyway.

 

[JOKER47]

But the more important question is Exodus: why would I be the one to prove it?

Because you initiated the thread, and made the challenges.

The challenger bears the burden of proof.

 

[The Red Dragon]

the whole concept of definition/toning
spot reduction
high rep definition/low rep bulk mass (stupidest shit I've ever heard)

Kind of all related =/

Hmm why would musclemag companies want to spread around all that false shit?

 

[coolcolj]

I can't help it... with respect to fiber types, they recently did an experiment with the express purpose of debunking it, and did a decent job.

See Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-2):50-60).

Basically they just pick high, medium, and low rep programs, randomly assigned people to each, and measured growth of each fiber type. Here are the results:



As you can see, in each case the highest-twitch fibers grew most, and the growth was predominantly weighted towards higher twitch fibers, even doing 20-28 reps.

QED.

The problems is there are too many variables, how fast were they lifting, how fast were the eccentrics, did they explode etc etc
Honestly reps and sets are archiac things.

I can get a very light weight and do 3 explosive reps with it, pushing as hard as I possible can - which I do all the time - and obviously it's gonna be pretty ballistic, and you would expect the high threshold fibers to be heavily recruited.
But if I take the same weight and do 3 casual reps, chances are not much if any high threshold fibers will be recruited

Nothing is black and white

 

[Mike_Rojas]

Nothing is black and white

Good points CCJ.

 

[Buddy_Christ]

i have to say, i heard and believed that thing about inclines. i was told that by a guy that used to be a personal trainer, and he helped me out a little in establishing my routine. he also got me doing pyramids, and i think that's been good for me so far, but i'm starting to have a hard time increasing weight each week. trying to figure out the whole 5x5 thing, and it's not easy. i don't know the difference between a compound more or whatever else there is. but since i'm having trouble increasing weight with my pyramid routine, it's time to switch to the 5x5 or something else that requires me to go up every single week.

what other myths are there to dispel? i'd love to hear 'em, cause i probably believe them, but can't think of any offhand.

 

[b fold the truth]

Nothing is black and white

Yep...I think that I said the same thing. Debasser likes to start these debates and assume that there are black and whites though...

I got an idea...stop thinking about theory and show some proof. Proof doesn't come from a book, scientific study, or a lifting guru telling me that it works.

I trust competitive strength athletes.

Read THAT again...I trust competitive strength athletes!!! I read some study that was done by some group of Ph.D.'s and realize that they were done on a bunch of goofballs who attend the local college nearly as much as they do the local bars and fraternity houses and they get amazing results from them.

On the other hand...I read something from Poliquin, Simmons, the guys at Metal Militia, Chad Coy, Willie Wessels, etc...and they are giving me something that they have found to work on people who are COMPETITIVE, are already trained athletes, AND that really works in practice...NOT just in theory.

Hey...I'll take what works for the competitive athlete 8 days a week before I'll take what SHOULD work.

B True

 

[slobberknocker]

Yep...I think that I said the same thing. Debasser likes to start these debates and assume that there are black and whites though...

I got an idea...stop thinking about theory and show some proof. Proof doesn't come from a book, scientific study, or a lifting guru telling me that it works.

I trust competitive strength athletes.

Read THAT again...I trust competitive strength athletes!!! I read some study that was done by some group of Ph.D.'s and realize that they were done on a bunch of goofballs who attend the local college nearly as much as they do the local bars and fraternity houses and they get amazing results from them.

On the other hand...I read something from Poliquin, Simmons, the guys at Metal Militia, Chad Coy, Willie Wessels, etc...and they are giving me something that they have found to work on people who are COMPETITIVE, are already trained athletes, AND that really works in practice...NOT just in theory.

Hey...I'll take what works for the competitive athlete 8 days a week before I'll take what SHOULD work.

B True

Amen.

I know there's some things I do that I can't "prove" scientifically. And some people would look at the stuff in my routine and say "why are you doing that?" But the stuff I do comes from the culmination of about 8 years of struggle, and I'll take that over a book anyday.

Of course, if somebody who squats 1000 lbs or something gives me advice, I sure as hell listen to them. It's all about real world results. That's where I put my faith.

 

[b fold the truth]

I know there's some things I do that I can't "prove" scientifically. And some people would look at the stuff in my routine and say "why are you doing that?" But the stuff I do comes from the culmination of about 8 years of struggle, and I'll take that over a book anyday.

Of course, if somebody who squats 1000 lbs or something gives me advice, I sure as hell listen to them. It's all about real world results. That's where I put my faith.

I know that I would love to sit down and pick your brain to gain the knowledge that you have gained over the past 8 years.

When I have a problem with a lift or an event, I seek out those who are better than I am and I ask TONS of questions.

B True

 

[slobberknocker]

I know that I would love to sit down and pick your brain to gain the knowledge that you have gained over the past 8 years.

When I have a problem with a lift or an event, I seek out those who are better than I am and I ask TONS of questions.

B True

Likewise my friend. We'll have to have a sitdown before too long here.

 

[Debaser]

B fold some things aren't black & white but some certainly are. Physiologically humans are fundamentally the same. Muscles don't work differently for different people.

Ok do you honestly think a guy who could squat 400+ lbs for 20 reps would have small legs if his "fiber type" was a certain configuration? Likewise would that same guy have had huge legs if he had merely done less reps with more weight?

Incline Presses are cut and dry. They are a good movement, but they aren't an "upper-chest solution." Anyone that says differently needs to learn some simple biomechanics. I know that *gasp* it came from a textbook, but just because some guy says his upper chest is big since he inclined his way up to a 350 lb press doesn't make it true. Would he have no upper chest if he worked to a 350-400 lb flat bench press? No way. I had a guy try to convince me that the reason his chest was large and full was due to using incline dumbells. I shrugged it off, noticing that anyone using 180 lb dumbells in any type of press isn't going to have a small chest. Just because a big strong guy says it doesn't make it so. "Correlation does not imply causation." Often people don't realize the important underlying factors of what they do, and mistakenly make incorrect assumptions.

 

[b fold the truth]

Debasser:

I think that it is pointless to argue or even debate with you.

If you would take the time to read what I've posted here...you might see that I've made my points.

As I have been quoted at before...
"If you don't understand...I can't explain it to you."

B True

 

[Exodus]

But the more important question is Exodus: why would I be the one to prove it? All 3 of these myths seem to originate from muscle mags, hardly a trustworthy source of information. THEY should have backed up their claims, not make up fallacies and then have me prove the opposite. Thus I would believe the burden of proof wouldn't rest on me anyway.

becuase your the one dispelling the myth......... so you provide the proof that makes it a myth, and not just yours, or hardgainer magizine's opinion.

i dont read bodybuilding magizines......... i do like to look at the pictures though...

X

 

[slobberknocker]

I had a guy try to convince me that the reason his chest was large and full was due to using incline dumbells. I shrugged it off

Uh huh. I'd have listened to him. But that just goes back to the real world results vs. science debate. I guess it's just a fundamental difference between us that can't be changed through debate.

 

[Debaser]

This is still the real world. It seems pretty common for this type of situation to occur:

1. Bob flat benches 180. He complains that he has no upper chest.

2. Steve claims that his full upper chest is the result of incline presses. He said he never does flat presses anymore, and inclines 350 lbs.

3. Bob takes his advice. Bob drops flat presses and over the next couple years takes his incline to 350 lbs. "Wow, he was right," he says, "my upper chest is awesome now!"

4. Then Jim comes along, complains he has no upper chest and Bob tells him incline presses do the trick.

It's obvious to see how easily misinformation can be spread. When I was saying correlation doesn't imply causation, this is exactly what that means. He equated having an upper chest to the fact that he did inclines, where he should have equated it to the fact that he increased his poundage greatly, and any pressing movement would have done the same thing given this increase.

And no exodus, because that claim was never substantiated. There was no original backing of these claims. They essentially made shit up, or misinterpreted the facts to a laughable degree. I actually just read a magazine which finally admits that they fucked up (of course not in their words), in a sense, by saying that lab tests show that inclines really are inferior as a chest movement compared to flat benches and declines.

 

[Exodus]

well...... how can you say that bob, jim and whoever is wrong.

if it made the first guy's chest big, then the 2nd, then the 3rd...... thats kinda what i call reality. kinda like if i stab myself i will bleed becuase the 2 guys infront of me did it. if inclines keep producing results for people........ and im going to be annoying, but you didnt provide any scientific proof that they are wrong...... isnt that just your opinion then???

X

 

[slobberknocker]

Well Debaser, how about this. Just do flat bench for a while, and then post a pic and show us how massive your upper chest is. Then I will believe you.

 

[JOKER47]

Because you initiated the thread, and made the challenges.

The challenger bears the burden of proof.

Exodus and I think alike.....

 

[Debaser]

well...... how can you say that bob, jim and whoever is wrong.

if it made the first guy's chest big, then the 2nd, then the 3rd...... thats kinda what i call reality. kinda like if i stab myself i will bleed becuase the 2 guys infront of me did it. if inclines keep producing results for people........ and im going to be annoying, but you didnt provide any scientific proof that they are wrong...... isnt that just your opinion then???

X

Out of curiousity, how much do you think scott mendelson focuses on incline pressing? His upper chest isn't too bad.

Even better, how about any of the bodybuilding old-timers, I've seen many of them with thick chests and incline pressing was unheard of in that era.

Slobber I pretty much do only dips for chest. So when I post my pics we'll see what a devotion to a single, non-incline push movement will net in terms of gains. Keep in mind that since this will be at about the 2-year progress mark, my chest won't be "massive," but you'll see that there isn't a weakness in the upper part.

 

[Exodus]

Out of curiousity, how much do you think scott mendelson focuses on incline pressing? His upper chest isn't too bad.

Even better, how about any of the bodybuilding old-timers, I've seen many of them with thick chests and incline pressing was unheard of in that era.

i dont think he does incline at all......... and his upper chest is good. but not compared to his lower pecs.......... much much thicker. for example. when my best friend graduated high school and started working out with me........ looked at my calf's first day were in the gym........"dang they sure do look good. thier big!!!"

then a few days later we did legs, i wore shorter shorts and he saw my legs......."ok, i take back the calfs statement, the look good, but not compared to the size of your legs. like right now....... i have 19 inch calfs........ thats great, but i have 33 inch thighs......... so they dont look big at all.

besides..... the stronger you get, the thicker you get...... scott can flat bench press over 700lbs with no bench shirt........... how about bob, tim, john all those common guys we see in the gym...... do any of them have a raw 700lb bench??..no. after you get to that size, everything looks big. besides these guys want to get the upper chest equal to the lower chest, not bigger or smaller.

and for the old schoolers......... Arnold said after he won his 2nd or third olympia, he switched to Inclines first in his chest routine and got rid of weighted dips ( which is basically a decline bench) becuase he said he was getting "boobs"

X

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

besides..... the stronger you get, the thicker you get...... scott can flat bench press over 700lbs with no bench shirt........... how about bob, tim, john all those common guys we see in the gym...... do any of them have a raw 700lb bench??..no. after you get to that size, everything looks big. besides these guys want to get the upper chest equal to the lower chest, not bigger or smaller.



X

that is EXACTLY debaser's point.Well done bro..you just learned something

 

[SlavikHavik]

Well ill tell you.
the person who was teaching the PT cert course i just completed. This guy used to be a COMPETITIVE powerlifter, squatting in the mid 800's benching in the high 500's and this was in the 70-80's
He is also one of the directors and main coaches on the canadian SPI (sports preformance institute) which works with canadian olympic athletes who are high end COMPETITIVE athletes.
He also carries out many studies about athleticism at SPI and keeps himself updated on whats being learned in the world of bodymovement.

So heres a guy who is a competitive athlete, works with competitive athletes, and has a huge ammount of scientific data backing up what hes saying....

and what does he say about flat bench:
Flat bench will hit your upper pecs to a greater degree than incline.

 

[muscledog95]

you always talk about "in 2 yrs"? So what are your stats now?

 

[Cuthbert]

This is still the real world. It seems pretty common for this type of situation to occur:

1. Bob flat benches 180. He complains that he has no upper chest.

2. Steve claims that his full upper chest is the result of incline presses. He said he never does flat presses anymore, and inclines 350 lbs.

3. Bob takes his advice. Bob drops flat presses and over the next couple years takes his incline to 350 lbs. "Wow, he was right," he says, "my upper chest is awesome now!"

4. Then Jim comes along, complains he has no upper chest and Bob tells him incline presses do the trick.

It's obvious to see how easily misinformation can be spread. When I was saying correlation doesn't imply causation, this is exactly what that means. He equated having an upper chest to the fact that he did inclines, where he should have equated it to the fact that he increased his poundage greatly, and any pressing movement would have done the same thing given this increase.

I see your point, Debaser.

BUT

How do we know that their upper chest would be the same size had they focused on flat instead of incline?

 

[Debaser]

you always talk about "in 2 yrs"? So what are your stats now?

I meant 2 years from when I started training, which will be right around the beginning of summer. I've said my stats so many times.

 

[Debaser]

I see your point, Debaser.

BUT

How do we know that their upper chest would be the same size had they focused on flat instead of incline?

Because we have scientific and biomechanical data on the subject. The upper pecs experience no more tension on an incline press than a flat bench press, according to EMT results as well as from a pure biomechanical standpoint. If you want some real-world examples, there are still many people with thick upper chests that never do inclines. And in case everyone was wondering, this is the upper (clavicular) area:

 

[c3bodybuilding]

Hmm why would musclemag companies want to spread around all that false shit?>>>>

To keep you buying the magazines. There's only so much that can be written about working out. They have to come up with more and more claims to keep people in an endless cycle.
----
As for the myths that has no just become a debate, I too have to go with real world over books. Debaser you remind me of Mike Mentzer in many ways. Mike was a great guy, and smart man, but he could never look at things from more than one way. I think you need to be more open to others ideas. It's great to learn the science behind it all, and try your best to apply it to yourself, but at the same time, you can't ignore 50 years of experience.

Besides, a lot of the current science is just starting to catch up with some of the things that many thought were bs or myths. Whole body workouts three times a week. People laughed at those and said they were for newbies. Now HST brought it back and it's all the rage. Reg Park was doing that in the 50's. HST also talks about Am Pm training. Didn't Arnold call that the double split? My point is, if some guy with 20, 10 or even 5 years of hard work and experience tells me something, I'll listen, and not just shrug it off because some book says it's wrong or a myth. Who knows, in 20 years, science might finally catch up and say it was right....

ps. Arnold NEVER ditched dips from his workout. He kept his pec routine the same from the time he came to America until the day he retired. The only thing he ever changed around 72 was supersetting back with chest. This is from his The Education of the Bodybuilder (in his own words) and many interviews I've read.

 

[MattRecc]

Like most of the other people on this post, i believe that inclines are better for chest (my chest at least).

Why is it that everyone always thinks they have "THE EXERCISE" to do that everyone NEEDS to do. Learn your body first, if flat bench is working well, then keep fucking doing it!! If inclines are working better for you, then keep doing fucking inclines!! I know people that grow off of getting out of bed in the morning, people who grow off never doing a freeweight bench press movement, and people who incline their balls off to make their chest grow.

Find something that works for you, learn your body. All i do now is inclines and weighed dips for chest, with the occaisonal hammer strength press. Since starting this, my chest has responded better than when i did flat benches. On the other hand, one of my best friends NEVER inclines and grows. SO STICK WITH WHAT IS WORKING FOR YOU END OF DISCUSSION!!

 

[Exodus]

that is EXACTLY debaser's point.Well done bro..you just learned something

no......... you missed my point. here is what i meant again.

if scott mendalson has a huge upper chest and bench presses 700lbs on the flat bench, then all bodybuilders, should just skip trying to do inclines and only work towards getting a 700lb bench press........... which can take only about 20 years..............

or, you could do some inclines now and watch your upper chest grow too......

hmmmm.......... tough choice.

do incline's now to bring up my upper chest, or workout on flat bench for 20 years to get a 700lb bench, and then will have big upper pecs.

talk about a no brainer for a bodybuilder.

X

 

[slobberknocker]

Plus I think Mendy used to be a bodybuilder. So who knows, maybe he used to do inclines and flies and all that jazz, lol.

 

[Debaser]

do incline's now to bring up my upper chest,

X

Okay, you obviously can't be reasoned with. I've presented both scientific, and real-world examples, and tried to show you that elementary biomechanics all state the same thing unequivocally. That's okay though, Musclemag is probably right.

For someone who asks for "scientific proof" all the time, you sure as hell don't act like any scientist.

 

[Thaibox]

debaser...

Don't get all offended by what I say. My intent is not to attack you. I think you're an okay guy... I simply want to point something out. Take it as you may. During my first year of college I learned that the people who talk the most, and appear to have the most knowledge are rarely the ones whom actually have any true knoweldge.

When I have a problem with a lift or an event, I seek out those who are better than I am and I ask TONS of questions.

This is the approach to training(or pretty much anything) that leads to a champion.

Your "black and white" approach is one of shear arrogance that makes anyone arguing you disregard what you are saying. Try, for once, using the words "my opinion"......"I think that"...or...."I believe that." Try qualifying your arguments.

I disagree with so much that you say, but I don't even bother to post because you can't argue objectively, so I don't waste my time.

You have under 2 years training experience under you, and yet you continue to argue adamantly against the knowledge of professionals and veterans of this game. If you have something to share...great. However, being so green, you should learn to open your ears more than your mouth. You're making yourself look very bad like you use to.

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

Everyone always wants to diss debaser about his time in the gym (2 yrs) the fact he doesn't have 22 inch bi's.

1. He is not a juicer

2.He clearly knows a hell of a lot more than 99% of the guys on this thread

3.If he is intelligent and RIGHT why the heck does he have to wait 10 yrs before speaking?

4.He is not rude or arrogant..he just makes his point in a no nonsense fashion and doesn't suffer fools gladly

5. he is flamed very badly and unfairly

6. Some of the greatest sports coaches actually look like shit (not saying debaser does)

7. You guys need to listen to what he says and maybe you will see some gains (his advice is working for me) DON'T BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU!

8. Peace bros

 

[slobberknocker]

2.He clearly knows a hell of a lot more than 99% of the guys on this thread

You're entitled to your opinion, but I have a real problem with this. I just scrolled back through this entire thing, looking at the people that posted. Me, CCJ, Thaibox, Joker, casualbb, Exodus, bfold, Mike Rojas, C3bodybuilding, Cuthbert, etc. If you think Debaser knows more about training than those people then I just feel sorry for you.



Loudest does not imply smartest.



I was REALLY trying to avoid posting on this thread anymore but holy cow.

 

[Debaser]

debaser...

Don't get all offended by what I say. My intent is not to attack you. I think you're an okay guy... I simply want to point something out. Take it as you may. During my first year of college I learned that the people who talk the most, and appear to have the most knowledge are rarely the ones whom actually have any true knoweldge.

Person-specific. My uncle is a chemical engineer, talks about it all the time and is one of the most qualified men in his field. My philosophy professor loves to talk more than anyone else I know, and is probably the smartest person I have ever met, and I've met a few flat-out geniuses. You're completely correlating two different factors that depend on the person. Whether they like to discuss their ideas all the time is the first thing to consider. This is independent of whether they know what they're talking about or not. Steven Hawking loves to prattle on about Quantum Physics.

This is the approach to training(or pretty much anything) that leads to a champion.

Your "black and white" approach is one of shear arrogance that makes anyone arguing you disregard what you are saying. Try, for once, using the words "my opinion"......"I think that"...or...."I believe that." Try qualifying your arguments.

Have you ever taken a logic or argument course? If something is your opinion, that characteristic is self evident. You don't need to prefix everything you say, identifying it as opinion or otherwise. When 2 people are debating abortion, they don't start every statement with "well, in my opinion." They would look like fools. You state your argument, period.

I disagree with so much that you say, but I don't even bother to post because you can't argue objectively, so I don't waste my time.

Actually, it becomes quite apparent that some of the people on this forum, can't argue objectively, and simply don't know how to argue period, who think a fallacious argument has to do with some kind of blowjob.

You have under 2 years training experience under you, and yet you continue to argue adamantly against the knowledge of professionals and veterans of this game. If you have something to share...great. However, being so green, you should learn to open your ears more than your mouth. You're making yourself look very bad like you use to.

I have opened my ears. Where the hell do you think I GET my knowledge? From "professionals and veterans." From guys (although this doesn't matter to me, some of the very people I argue against here seem to take it is all-important) that would dwarf just about every member on this forum. Guys that are extremely strong, some of them having the same goals as me, some of them not. Do you think this is the only forum where professionals convene?

p.s. thanks apprentice for backing me bro

 

[Tweakle]

I'm starting to suspect that Arnold'sApprentice is either an alter or is taking the piss out of debaser big time.

this thread smells of pee

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

don't turn into a personal thing..i shouldn't hav e said 'guys on this thread' cos it appears insulting..HOWVEVER, I have said before that he is probably -at least it appears so -that he is most knowledgable guy on this forum. I just want people to listen to what says and not go nuts at him. he knows his shit and can help you

later bro

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

I'm starting to suspect that Arnold'sApprentice is either an alter or is taking the piss out of debaser big time.

this thread smells of pee

With idiots posting pathetic,juvenile retorts such as yours it does.

Look,debaser made a bunch of excellent,totally correct points -we wasn't even that contraversial...However, a bunch of guys starting insulting him so I said my bit. I've tried to be nice but I won't play playground politics with you ...you little prick.

If debaser speaks the truth and gets flamed i speak out..if he says something i don't agree with I'll call him out on it. He's the only guy I know won't start sulking and stomping his feet about it and wil have a reasoned debate instead.

 

[Mike_Rojas]

2. Low reps hit this fiber type, higher reps hit this type, I only grow off of low reps, high reps etc.

Progressive load is the key growth factor. If you increase your 5 rep squat by 300 lbs, or your 20 rep squat by 200 lbs, you're going to see some serious growth either way. The whole fiber type thing is a bunch of BS, many trainees worry about it (and other pointless minutae) so much that they lose their focus on important matters and end up not succeeding whatsoever.

From personal experience I've found that people respond differently to training. For example, I worked out with my friend for months. We did the exact same workout for our biceps. We did 3 sets of 10 with the same weight. Over the months his biceps grew, while mine remained essentially the same size. Why the hell are his biceps bigger than mine when we train exactly the same? Also, this guy took up running. He ran 2 miles 3 times a week. His calves blew up like crazy. I've done my share of long-distance running over the years, and my calves never grew from it. If anything they got smaller and harder.

Now that I've switched to low-rep training, I've increased my muscle size much more. A lot of people complain they don't get any size from training with low reps, but there's some of us that do.

While I agree with you that progressive load is the key growth factor, I think people should use a variety of rep ranges in order to promote maximum muscle growth.

3. You should change up your routine constantly so you shock the muscles, because they adapt to a certain training routine.

Again, progressive load (adding weight to the bar session after session) results in building muscle. There is no way to “shock growth” into a muscle. Your muscles do not “adapt” to a certain routine, thereby requiring that you “change it up” constantly (the result of slow or nonexistent progress for many). Muscles don't know what the hell you're doing to them, only that they're experiencing tension. They adapt to a certain load, requiring that you increase said load next time around, but that’s all. Muscles are not intelligent. Rant over.

Also, a single routine CAN get one very far. Cases in point: Westside. Hardgainer magazine. DC training. HST. There are several people on each of these routines that don't "switch it up" and have made constant gains.

Do you think after you gain XX lbs of muscle on, say, DC training, your body is going to say "whoops, that's too much, until he changes his set and rep scheme we're going to stay at this weight." No way. Your body does not adapt in that way. Your muscles merely adapt to a certain load, requiring that you increase the load each session to make progress.

You can't use a linear progression forever - it leads to burnout, both mentally and physically. You often need to do something different to break a plateau. Whether its changing the reps, sets, speed, or working the muscle with a different movement.

You mention Westside as a routine that can get one very far. I don't know if you know the fundamentals of WSB or not, but variety is one of the keys to it. Most of the WSB'ers change their moves every single week, some not repeating that move again for several weeks (or even months). Their assistance exercises often vary a lot, too.

One reason to change up your routine is to make it "fresh" to your mind. You can't overlook the mind in training. If you've been doing the same workout for months, you can get to the point where you have to drag your ass to the gym. When you start a new program you are enthusiastic about it.

 

[NWinters]

Re: Re: My [Least] favorite training myths.

From personal experience I've found that people respond differently to training. For example, I worked out with my friend for months. We did the exact same workout for our biceps. We did 3 sets of 10 with the same weight. Over the months his biceps grew, while mine remained essentially the same size. Why the hell are his biceps bigger than mine when we train exactly the same? Also, this guy took up running. He ran 2 miles 3 times a week. His calves blew up like crazy. I've done my share of long-distance running over the years, and my calves never grew from it. If anything they got smaller and harder.

Now that I've switched to low-rep training, I've increased my muscle size much more. A lot of people complain they don't get any size from training with low reps, but there's some of us that do.

While I agree with you that progressive load is the key growth factor, I think people should use a variety of rep ranges in order to promote maximum muscle growth.



You can't use a linear progression forever - it leads to burnout, both mentally and physically. You often need to do something different to break a plateau. Whether its changing the reps, sets, speed, or working the muscle with a different movement.

You mention Westside as a routine that can get one very far. I don't know if you know the fundamentals of WSB or not, but variety is one of the keys to it. Most of the WSB'ers change their moves every single week, some not repeating that move again for several weeks (or even months). Their assistance exercises often vary a lot, too.

One reason to change up your routine is to make it "fresh" to your mind. You can't overlook the mind in training. If you've been doing the same workout for months, you can get to the point where you have to drag your ass to the gym. When you start a new program you are enthusiastic about it.

Promising words!!!!!

 

[Debaser]

There are so many variables to consider. When you were curling 3 sets of 10, in that period of time how much weight did you acquire on the bar? Were both your diets exactly the same? How much muscle mass did you gain on the rest of your body? etc...

There are some people that do use linear progression forever. They have to take breaks, of course, perhaps cycling intensity as well, but this still linear progression. I never said keep adding weight without cycling intensity, in fact that's a principle I believe in (though my views on how to do it best have changed slightly as of late).

I agree with the mental thing. Training should never be considered a "chore," but rather something you enjoy, or "love to hate." I enjoy my type of training. I think HST is an extremely effective routine, but I don't enjoy it much personally so I don't do it.

Lastly, you guys are misinterpreting me somewhat on my last point. You've seen the guys here that just cannot decide on a routine. They post something new week in week out. They never progress, because their set/rep scheme and exercises are different every week or 2. I say stick with a certain routine for at least 3 months to determine it's efficacy. And I'm saying that if it's a competent routine, you should be able to be on it for much longer than many people would have you realize (as in even years, if you chose to do so).

 

[Exodus]

for once.......... i agree with debaser about mike rojas post..... too many things to be taken into consideration.

but debaser............... all of your post... have no scientific proof..... not one case study reference number anything. you posted a nifty diagram.......... but where is this proof that your getting that says, inclines dont build the clavicular pec's as much as flat bench. now both sternal and clavicular pec's work when doing a bench, its silly to think you can isolate..... but the stress is placed more on the clavic pec's when doing incline........ so how can you say, your upper chest will grow just as big.........

and i dont know any real world answers you've presented.... mendy doesnt count........ seeing how he is probably one of the only 5 people in the world who can do a raw 700lb bench. were talking in general. your every day guy's who bench 300lbs.

and arnold's apprentice........... seek out your own truth, studies and info...... thats all debaser is doing, he is not giving you info on his own studies and research, but on what he has read from DC training..........

X

 

[Mike_Rojas]

There are so many variables to consider. When you were curling 3 sets of 10, in that period of time how much weight did you acquire on the bar? Were both your diets exactly the same? How much muscle mass did you gain on the rest of your body? etc...

Obviously my example isn't a controlled experiment, I just wanted to use an example from the real world. I'm sure there are other people who have noticed this. Some people blow up on higher reps, some on lower reps.

 

[b fold the truth]

"There comes a time when you have to stop talking about the weights and you have to wrap your hands around a cold piece of steel and give it Hell."
Terry Long (old friend of mine)

B True

 

[casualbb]

Some people blow up on higher reps, some on lower reps.

One point I want to make, and I think at least CCJ would agree with me, is that I think we should stop trying to think of everything in terms of sets and reps. A much more productive AND precise mindset would be of total reps and training load.

The number of reps in a set by itself is almost meaningless. Say you do a set of 5 reps. What does that tell you? Not all that much. One might assume that implies high load; that's not necessarily true.

Why do we even split stuff into sets anyway? Sets exist solely as a way to manage fatigue! You'd do more reps if you could, but you can't. So in order to hit your desired total, you must split it up into separate sessions. Since fatigue is meaningless, who cares how many reps are in each set? The only reason people obsess about reps and sets is because the number of reps tends to predict the load, because most people are always working to within the limit of their capacity at a given rep range. I hope by now we can dispense with that idea.

What I currently do is I have a total rep goal and a training load, and I'll split it up however I feel will get me there as quickly as possible with the lowest fatigue. If the load is low, that means 15-rep sets. If it's high, 5-rep or even 3-rep sets. My last workout was a really crappy one. I felt extremeley weak, but I still wanted to make the reps. So where I had originally planned to do 10-rep sets, I had to split it into 5. But I still hit the total, and the growth will still be there. Another example of a case when the number of reps in each set was fairly meaningless.

I realize I'm rambling at this point, but this does kinda tie into the fiber type issue. Happy belated turkey day.

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

and arnold's apprentice........... seek out your own truth, studies and info...... thats all debaser is doing, he is not giving you info on his own studies and research, but on what he has read from DC training..........

X

What he has said on this thread is applicable to any training situation or philosophy. Facts are facts...these are not opinions.

 

[Thaibox]

"Have you ever taken a logic or argument course? If something is your opinion, that characteristic is self evident. You don't need to prefix everything you say, identifying it as opinion or otherwise. When 2 people are debating abortion, they don't start every statement with "well, in my opinion." They would look like fools. You state your argument, period."
-------------------------
I have a Master's in philosophy. I also teach part-time. One of my classes is critical thinking. So, yes, I think I may have taken a logic course or two. Don't be so presumptuous little man. I was trying to show you how poorly you come across on the board. You choose not to see it, so I will let you impeach yourself. I could care less.

"There comes a time when you have to stop talking about the weights and you have to wrap your hands around a cold piece of steel and give it Hell."
Terry Long (old friend of mine)

 

[slobberknocker]

Debaser, when are you going to train with spatts? Just wondering. I want to make it down for a training day too. It'd be neat if you were there when I was. It's hard for me since I'm broke and live farther away, but hopefully it can happen.

 

[Debaser]

It was going to be January but I think she's mad at me so I'm not so sure anymore.

 

[Debaser]

"Have you ever taken a logic or argument course? If something is your opinion, that characteristic is self evident. You don't need to prefix everything you say, identifying it as opinion or otherwise. When 2 people are debating abortion, they don't start every statement with "well, in my opinion." They would look like fools. You state your argument, period."
-------------------------
I have a Master's in philosophy. I also teach part-time. One of my classes is critical thinking. So, yes, I think I may have taken a logic course or two. Don't be so presumptuous little man. I was trying to show you how poorly you come across on the board. You choose not to see it, so I will let you impeach yourself. I could care less.

I think you know that I'm right on this one. You do not deny my statements at all, because you know they're true. When you're arguing someone, you do not prefix your statements with an "in my opinion" qualifier. I cannot believe you have a masters in philosophy and don't recognize (or are choosing not to for the purpose of bolstering your own statements) that. If you think I come across poorly on the board, more power to you. I'm certainly not going to sulk about it, and you shouldn't either.

 

[NWinters]

I hope you do workout w/ Spatts....Maybe she will post some freakin' pictures

 

[guldukat]

I hope you do workout w/ Spatts....Maybe she will post some freakin' pictures

I hope so. I always like pictures of Spatts!

Sorry, couldn't resist, LOL...

 

[Debaser]

I hope you do workout w/ Spatts....Maybe she will post some freakin' pictures

I betcha I'll look like a 225 lb guy around 6 ft

...with a sexy jawline.

 

[slobberknocker]

It was going to be January but I think she's mad at me so I'm not so sure anymore.

You should take advantage of the opportunity. I'm only a couple hours from Nazareth Barbell, and I'll definitely be going to learn as much as I can. You should always take advantage of opportunities like these. When a world class athlete INVITES you to train with them, it's an honor.

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

I could care less.

A rather elementary mistake for a p/t critical thinking teacher and Philosophy graduate. Hmmmm ......love those internet tough guys/musclemen and brainboxes huh

 

[Debaser]

You should take advantage of the opportunity. I'm only a couple hours from Nazareth Barbell, and I'll definitely be going to learn as much as I can. You should always take advantage of opportunities like these. When a world class athlete INVITES you to train with them, it's an honor.

Don't I know it. Really the whole reason was me saying some stupid things on a farewell post...also my apology thread was locked down instantly...

Part of the reason I started shit, and which I neglected to mention so as not to try and interject more drama (doesn't matter anymore), is because my life has been very trying lately. Mix in some utterly confused anger with a girl I've known for 5 years, me having to drop all of my classes so I can get a second job, and you can make a relatively passive guy fly off the handle pretty easily. I just hated seeing drama in the one place of my life I thought there would be none.

 

[slobberknocker]

Debaser, at least have the ball sack to post as yourself. Stop using your Arnold's Apprentice alter to flame the people you disagree with.

 

[NWinters]

Debaser, at least have the ball sack to post as yourself. Stop using your Arnold's Apprentice alter to flame the people you disagree with.

LOL.....

 

[Thaibox]

ArnoldsApprentice.....

Check your pm box and you will find all my contact info. If you have a problem with me...take it there and we'll deal with it privately. Keep this crap off the board Slick.


lol @ slobber

 

[Debaser]

Debaser, at least have the ball sack to post as yourself. Stop using your Arnold's Apprentice alter to flame the people you disagree with.

Are you joking?

Check the IPs.

 

[JOKER47]

Are you joking?

Check the IPs.

How is it you are able to read his IP?

Or are you just stating to check and compare his and yours which is available to Mods?


Joker

 

[Debaser]

Or are you just stating to check and compare his and yours which is available to Mods?


Joker

Yeah, he'd have to ask a mod. Or he could just take my word for it. I'm not a liar.

 

[Tweakle]

we wasn't even that contraversial...

freudian slip? Whatever dude, you're a nothing. It's a shame you feel the need to stir up trouble on these forums.

 

[guldukat]

Debaser, at least have the ball sack to post as yourself. Stop using your Arnold's Apprentice alter to flame the people you disagree with.

Big bro, have you ever known Debaser to not speak to someone directly?

Based on writing styles alone, AA's definitely a different person. Given all the time he's spent talking about his own training experiences etc., I'd say that, if he was a puppet account, it's one of the best-orchestrated deceptions I've seen in years.

I had a couple of things I wanted to say but, not surprisingly, the thread turned into a shitstorm of personal side-issues, just like however many recent dozens before it.

No offense to any moderator--I personally like and respect each w/ which I am familiar--but I have to say this:

If I had mod powers here, now, I'd be editing messages and issuing warnings left and right for ANY personal bullshit. We'd talk training, and anything that deviated from that would be terminated faster than you can say "drop set."

*shrugs* What can I say? That's "just my 'opinion'." Somehow, though, I think my "opinion" and FACT coincide when I say these constant red herring nitpicks, personal attacks and assorted digressive bullshit has gotten WAY out of hand.

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

Yeah I'm the Brad Pitt alter ego...sorry debaser,you're Ed Norton

I'm a brit..my IP is in England..ask spatts to verify if you don't think it possible that someone could agree with/and admire debaser.

 

[JOKER47]

Yeah I'm the Brad Pitt alter ego...sorry debaser,you're Ed Norton

I'm a brit..my IP is in England..ask spatts to verify if you don't think it possible that someone could agree with/and admire debaser.

You are my hero, bro. *sniff*

 

[slobberknocker]

Debaser, I don't think you realize how likely it is that we're going to meet, since you live so close to spatts. I can't wait.

 

[NWinters]

its not Slobberknockers fault, you guys sound like brothers.

 

[Debaser]

Debaser, I don't think you realize how likely it is that we're going to meet, since you live so close to spatts. I can't wait.

I hope you're not meaning that in some kind of derogatory way, because I actually was looking forward to meeting you. We share a lot of the same beliefs.

 

[spatts]

The IPs aren't even close...they are each where they claim to be. There are always proxys though.

 

[NWinters]

Tea and crumpets anybody?

 

[Debaser]

Big bro, have you ever known Debaser to not speak to someone directly?

Based on writing styles alone, AA's definitely a different person. Given all the time he's spent talking about his own training experiences etc., I'd say that, if he was a puppet account, it's one of the best-orchestrated deceptions I've seen in years.

I had a couple of things I wanted to say but, not surprisingly, the thread turned into a shitstorm of personal side-issues, just like however many recent dozens before it.

No offense to any moderator--I personally like and respect each w/ which I am familiar--but I have to say this:

If I had mod powers here, now, I'd be editing messages and issuing warnings left and right for ANY personal bullshit. We'd talk training, and anything that deviated from that would be terminated faster than you can say "drop set."

*shrugs* What can I say? That's "just my 'opinion'." Somehow, though, I think my "opinion" and FACT coincide when I say these constant red herring nitpicks, personal attacks and assorted digressive bullshit has gotten WAY out of hand.

Ah, the voice of reason.

 

[Arnold'sApprentice]

The IPs aren't even close...they are each where they claim to be. There are always proxys though.

What's a proxie?

*computer illiterate here*

 

[TheOak84]

i didnt read all the responces but mine are..

fat turns into muscle - two totally different types of cells
dont get too big, it will all turn to fat - blah
heavy weights are bad 4 ur joints - knees and back feel great
lifting stunts growth - dunno how when it denses the bones and builds everything else...
bbers have small dicks. - dunno if thats on the subject but.. its false
whacking off too much makes u blind - hey, its training for sex.
everyone needs endurance