Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Mike_Rojas
New member
CoolColJ said:
Good points CCJ.
Good points CCJ.
Buddy_Christ
New member
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.
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.
CoolColJ said:
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
S
slobberknocker
Guest
b fold the truth said:
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.
slobberknocker said:
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
S
slobberknocker
Guest
b fold the truth said:
Likewise my friend. We'll have to have a sitdown before too long here.
D
Debaser
Guest
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.
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.
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
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
S
slobberknocker
Guest
Debaser said:
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.
