Size dictating knowledge: Yes and No

[Baoh]

1. You said I was like a religious zealot. How many Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Buddist "zealots" do you know?

2. Obviously you can't really base that on numbers, so let's base it on assertion, as you have done. If the vast majority who get results do volume training, then why does almost everybody in my gym who does it, look the same all the time? And are using nearly the same weight? Obviously this is not a study, it's just based on what I've seen with my own eyes. But it's no less scientific method than what you have said. Also, I can't believe someone that seems as intelligent as you would look at volume training as "productive." Yes, many people have gotten results with it. A huge number of trainees have also made little or no progress with volume training. The ones that do make somewhat fast progress, that are natural (generally those with good genetics) could be training more productively anyway.

3. I'm not trying to be a "tough guy." I just tell it like it is (a horrible cliche but nonetheless applicable). I didn't say that I have the general "I don't give a fuck about anything" attitude that oh so many guys profess, I was saying that I don't give a fuck about telling someone that they could be training much smarter than they are. If they don't believe me, fine, it's their stubborness that will hold them back when they plateau.

1. You didn't answer me.

2. I don't base my use or endorsement of systems by arbitrary assertion. That is WHY, in case you were unable to garner it, I countered your baseless assertion with one of my own. Irony. An obviously failed attempt to show you the logical fallacy in your reasoning. Oh, well. As for your gym, why do you automatically assume that the training is to blame (although I am not saying it isn't partially to blame)? Do you think they have their diet set up properly, too? I doubt it. Also, have you ever considered leaving the microcosm of your gym. It's a big world, and I'm betting you've seen a rather small portion of it. Go to PLing gym or ten. Go to gyms overseas. Not just the Golds or Ballys in your hometown. You are committing an error of sampling, and likely also one of selective observation. I know more tiny HITers than large ones. That doesn't necessarily prove anything, though, so I keep my mind open and say it can work for people, as I have seen it work for some (not the majority of, as I am not into blind faith in training) weight trainers. "Also, I can't believe someone that seems as intelligent as you would look at volume training as 'productive.'" Yeah, sure. Nevermind the fact that most people who achieve results in the competitive sports of Powerlifting, Olympic Lifting, Strongman, and Bodybuilding train via "volume", which you blatantly avoided defining. "The ones that do make somewhat fast progress, that are natural (generally those with good genetics) could be training more productively anyway." I'd interject here with the converse notion to be true. You have no way of backing up your statement, though, and it's obvious you lack the education necessary to determine much at all about genetics, whether in relation to Bodybuilding or any other aspect. For you, it's a blanket excuse. You couldn't possibly handle having your blessed system lose credibility, so you choose to ignore any evidence to contrary, writing it off as "good genetics" or "super supplements". Cop-out of a low order, too.

3. A) No. B) You, too, will plateau, and you'll regress, as thinking outside of one realm is not something you have demonstrated any capability of.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case there's any confusion, I am not anti-DC. I think his diet is excellent, I think his ideas regarding choosing simple compounds, like Testosterone and Trenbolone for AAS usage is spot-on, and I think his stretching & frequency ideas have a good deal of merit. However, it's not the only thing, nor do I believe it's the best thing for all people, or even necessarily for most people.

 

[Debaser]

1. You didn't answer me.

2. I don't base my use or endorsement of systems by arbitrary assertion. That is WHY, in case you were unable to garner it, I countered your baseless assertion with one of my own. Irony. An obviously failed attempt to show you the logical fallacy in your reasoning. Oh, well. As for your gym, why do you automatically assume that the training is to blame (although I am not saying it isn't partially to blame)? Do you think they have their diet set up properly, too? I doubt it. Also, have you ever considered leaving the microcosm of your gym. It's a big world, and I'm betting you've seen a rather small portion of it. Go to PLing gym or ten. Go to gyms overseas. Not just the Golds or Ballys in your hometown. You are committing an error of sampling, and likely also one of selective observation. I know more tiny HITers than large ones. That doesn't necessarily prove anything, though, so I keep my mind open and say it can work for people, as I have seen it work for some (not the majority of, as I am not into blind faith in training) weight trainers. "Also, I can't believe someone that seems as intelligent as you would look at volume training as 'productive.'" Yeah, sure. Nevermind the fact that most people who achieve results in the competitive sports of Powerlifting, Olympic Lifting, Strongman, and Bodybuilding train via "volume", which you blatantly avoided defining. "The ones that do make somewhat fast progress, that are natural (generally those with good genetics) could be training more productively anyway." I'd interject here with the converse notion to be true. You have no way of backing up your statement, though, and it's obvious you lack the education necessary to determine much at all about genetics, whether in relation to Bodybuilding or any other aspect. For you, it's a blanket excuse. You couldn't possibly handle having your blessed system lose credibility, so you choose to ignore any evidence to contrary, writing it off as "good genetics" or "super supplements". Cop-out of a low order, too.

3. A) No. B) You, too, will plateau, and you'll regress, as thinking outside of one realm is not something you have demonstrated any capability of.

1. I believe I did. My point was that a religious zealot, likened to a bodybuilder, would be one that refuses all other ideologies but his own. I said that I endorse many kinds of training, thus refuting that statement.

2. I've talked to a lot of trainers who have been in the game for longer than I've been born. Many of them say that a lot of trainees fail because they are doing too much volume to recover, even IF their diet (and other factors) are spot on. Stuart McRobert's series of books and magazines have helped THOUSANDS of trainees where they simply spinned their wheels with volume training. He wrote for the people with average genetics or less. Obviously this pool of trainees would make up the majority.

Most people who achieve in the competetive sports of powerlifting, bodybuilding etc. use volume? You don't think any other factors might have to do with it? Genetics and/or gear maybe? These people succeed for a reason. This has no bearing on the genetically average, NATURAL trainee. How many of these average, natural trainees do you think will go far in pro bodybuilding, or the world's strongest man competition, or the olympics, or powerlifting competitions?

3. Until I hit my genetic ceiling (which I believe is much higher than everyone thinks of themselves) what makes you think I would plateau on DC training? The entire system is set up to avoid plateaus. I haven't heard of anyone, since the Cycles on Pennies thread was started, that truly plateaued with no way out on his program.

 

[Nelson Montana]

I just think it's funny that every proponent of low volume training also insists on doing hours of cardio each week.

Why not just work out a little more and drop the cardio? Oh yeah, cardio magically makes fat disappear while other forms of training training doesn't. Whatever.

 

[slobberknocker]

More important than size, is experience. My mentor is a man who's been doing this for 35 years. I hang on his every word. I just think you should show respect to those who have battled with the iron for a really long time. Chances are, they know a thing or two, no matter how big they are. JMO.

 

[Baoh]

1. I believe I did. My point was that a religious zealot, likened to a bodybuilder, would be one that refuses all other ideologies but his own. I said that I endorse many kinds of training, thus refuting that statement.

2. I've talked to a lot of trainers who have been in the game for longer than I've been born. Many of them say that a lot of trainees fail because they are doing too much volume to recover, even IF their diet (and other factors) are spot on. Stuart McRobert's series of books and magazines have helped THOUSANDS of trainees where they simply spinned their wheels with volume training. He wrote for the people with average genetics or less. Obviously this pool of trainees would make up the majority.

Most people who achieve in the competetive sports of powerlifting, bodybuilding etc. use volume? You don't think any other factors might have to do with it? Genetics and/or gear maybe? These people succeed for a reason. This has no bearing on the genetically average, NATURAL trainee. How many of these average, natural trainees do you think will go far in pro bodybuilding, or the world's strongest man competition, or the olympics, or powerlifting competitions?

3. Until I hit my genetic ceiling (which I believe is much higher than everyone thinks of themselves) what makes you think I would plateau on DC training? The entire system is set up to avoid plateaus. I haven't heard of anyone, since the Cycles on Pennies thread was started, that truly plateaued with no way out on his program.

1. No. Additonally, I find it funny how you put similar routines in a collection as if they are so different. Hardgainer and Iron Addict's work are -for the most part- quite similar, as are the others you mentioned. DC incorporates R-P and a greater frequency (which I believe is a large improvement over other HIT systems). Also, his incorporation of stretching is a different aspect from that normally seen in other HIT routines. Regardless, you're speaking in terms of Fudge Ripple, Chocolate, and Moca Fudge ice cream. All variants of the same theme, and closer together than they are different. Not entirely the same, but not nearly so different as you imply by listing them.

2. Show me the results Stuart McRobert has achieved in his own body by following his own methods. I used to subscribe to Hardgainer magazine. With a few notable exceptions, the athletes depicted as proponents of Hardgainer tend to have paltry development. Even the exceptions are not true McRobert-type enthusiasts, so don't even try to pull a Kevin Tolbert example. His adoptive father was a Nautilus man, and often still advocates higher frequency than the average HITer.

3. Read between the lines on why that reason exists, since you often use it as a justification for "volume" trainers.

 

[jubei]

It seems everybody knows something about every possible subject imaginable. People in general "hear" alot of things. This could be while flipping through channels, browsing through a magazine at the doctors office, or scanning through the paper at the breakfast table. Once armed with the knowledge gleaned from a single article by a single author this person will not be swayed by any argument you can come up with regadless of its validity.

True, while not every big guy is a genius, I can bet he knows a good if not great dig on the subject of gaining muslce. The same applies to "retired veterans" who are now older and are no longer involved in the sport.

If thats a picture of Nelson Montana on the front of his book, it would be a good indication that what he's saying at least has the potential to be right. There is no substitute for experience.

 

[Debaser]

1. No. Additonally, I find it funny how you put similar routines in a collection as if they are so different. Hardgainer and Iron Addict's work are -for the most part- quite similar, as are the others you mentioned. DC incorporates R-P and a greater frequency (which I believe is a large improvement over other HIT systems). Also, his incorporation of stretching is a different aspect from that normally seen in other HIT routines. Regardless, you're speaking in terms of Fudge Ripple, Chocolate, and Moca Fudge ice cream. All variants of the same theme, and closer together than they are different. Not entirely the same, but not nearly so different as you imply by listing them.

2. Show me the results Stuart McRobert has achieved in his own body by following his own methods. I used to subscribe to Hardgainer magazine. With a few notable exceptions, the athletes depicted as proponents of Hardgainer tend to have paltry development. Even the exceptions are not true McRobert-type enthusiasts, so don't even try to pull a Kevin Tolbert example. His adoptive father was a Nautilus man, and often still advocates higher frequency than the average HITer.

3. Read between the lines on why that reason exists, since you often use it as a justification for "volume" trainers.

1. Point taken. I agree that I am definitely a proponent of low volume, higher intensity routines. I was essentially just reiterating that I'm not saying "DC or hit the bricks."

2. Stuart McRobert had horrible genetics (read Beyond Brawn) and managed a 400 x 20 deadlift. I'd say that's pretty impressive. Not all have paltry development, I'd say John Christy is pretty sizeable. And Dr. Ken is a higher frequency guy? Every routine of his looked pretty much like the standard hardgainer route. Kevin Tolbert had incredible genetics and would have thus benefited from any type of training. However I believe even his strength gains would have plateaued much earlier from volume training as opposed to lower volume methods. He was natural too.

3. To be honest I'm not sure what you're saying here. Of course it's 4:15 in the morning and my deductive reasoning at the moment is sub-par.