Jump to content

In quest of an ideal workout routine... advices are welcome


Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I've tried millions of workout programs during the last decade, but I never found the perfect one

Nevertheless, I've learnt over the years and ended up with these findings: I don’t like full body workouts because I never reach a good level of congestion with it; in the same time I have better results when I train a muscle more than once a week, especially for the chest, triceps, biceps and shoulders; I am totally bad with long sets (over than 12 reps), I guess I have a very low level of endurance muscle fibers and I want to work on it; I currently can't do most leg exercises because of serious back problems (double slipped disc), I only can do hack squats and sissy squats.

 

Recently, I've tried the 2x2 split routine you'll find underneath: 2 different workouts for training the whole body and an alternation between a heavy workout and a light one. I try to workout between 2 and 4 times a week, usually 3 times, so that I train a group of muscle three times every two weeks.

 

The only point of unsatisfaction I have wth it (after 3 weeks of try) is that I have the feeling that 2 exercises are not intense enough to feel my back. Dunno if I could keep on like this except for the back, I would keep a classical 4 exercises once a week only for the back. Anyway and as you see, your advices are welcome! Thx in advance!

 

Workout 1 (heavy): CHEST – SHOULDERS – TRICEPS – ABS

Barbell Bench Press: 5 sets of 5 reps

Dumbbell Shoulder Press: 5 sets of 5 reps

Weighted Dips: 2 sets of 8 reps

Bench To Skull Crusher: 2 sets of 8 reps

Cable Crunch: 5 sets of 15 reps

 

Workout 2 (light): BACK – LEGS – BICEPS

Wide-Grip Lat Pulldown: 3 sets of 15 reps

Straight-Arm Pulldown: 3 sets of 15 reps

Sissy Squat: 3 sets of 15 reps

Leg Curl: 3 sets of 15 reps

Preacher Curl: 2 sets of 15

Concentration Curl: 2 sets of 15

Calves, any exercise: 3 sets of 15

 

Workout 3 (light): CHEST – SHOULDERS – TRICEPS – ABS

Inclined Dumbbell Bench Press: 3 sets of 15 reps

Barbell Bench Press: 3 sets of 15 reps

Seated Lateral Raise in superset with Cable Back Flyes: 3 supersets of 30 reps (15+15)

Lying Dumbbell Triceps Extension: 2 sets of 15 reps

Cable Triceps Extension: 2 sets of 15 reps

Crunch: 5 sets of 20 reps

 

Workout 4: (heavy): BACK – LEGS – BICEPS

Weighted Chins-Up: 3 sets of 6 reps

Incline Bench Pull: 3 sets of 8 reps

Hack Squat: 3 sets 0f 10 reps

Leg Curl: 3 sets of 10 reps

Barbell Curl: 4 sets of 8 reps

Calves, any exercise: 3 sets of 12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im no expert here, but I can tell you that bodybuilders are close to find the perfect workout as an alchemist is close to find the philosopher's stone.

Instead of trying workouts try to see how your body responds to each excercise. Is amazing that a lot of people can train years in the gym and never realise what is the best for their type of body.

For example my body responds very good with light weight and large repetitions. Also my body seems not to like too much cable excercises. It takes only a few weeks to find out what excercises are the best for your body and from there you can build your own workout plan

Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a theory that says any set you do that is not to complete failure is a waste of time if your trying to get stronger: if you're doing a "light" routine, then your working at less than full capacity, lets say for argument sake 80%. By working at 80%, 100% of your muscles do not work at 80%. rather 80% of your muscle fibers work at 100% and 20% of them work barely at all. Why would your muscles be stimulated to grow from such a workout if they already have 20% capacity that's not being used? To build muscle, you must fully recruit the entire muscle so the body knows that more muscle must be built to meet demand. That means working to failure on every single set. There is another theory that says doing split routines is ineffective; working the whole body at each workout creates the chemical environment the body needs to build muscle. The Nautilus company tested these Theories years ago strength training collegiate football teams and found them to be very effective. Ellington Darden's book "The New High Intensity Traing" explains these ideas, and others, very well. It's a great read and I've found it's techniques to be simple, quick, and effective; after reading it, I cut my time in the gym from about 4 hours a week to 75 minutes and have been making consistent strenngth gains ever since! To some of us, lifting is not about frequency or duration; it's about INTENSITY. If your intense enough, you can't spend much time in the gym because you just can't do anymore that workout and you need to recover for a few days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are as many bodybuilding theorys as there are bodybuilders.I've tried alot of them.For me training till failure is how I started,back in "77 when Arther Jones was big and his new nautilus machines came out.It worked to a point.Then I think My central nervous system took a hit plus I was clearly over training.In the last 5 years I've tried 5x5,Dog crap,and even went back to pre-exahaust.How I got over my plateu was basic old school heavy lifting though.Chest delts and tri"s one day,skip a day then legs back and bi"s skip a day,then back to chest....ect.The first exercise per bodypart I do a compound movement and pyramid it for 4 sets.Example:Bench 250x8,260x6,270x4,280x2.Then I'll do flys for 3x8, chest done.The key is to go as heavy as possible.Everybodys different but for me to gain size I have to go as heavy as possible.Like Ronnie Coleman said "everybody wants big muscles but nobody wants to lift heavy weights."One more thing eat clean till your full,then eat some more.For me calorie and protein intake is as or maybe more important than your training routine for gaining size.Good luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally would not discount a well documented theory so readily. We are the same species and our bodies all work in fundamentally the same fashion, so we are far more the same than different. But, that's just my opinion, though it's widely shared in scientific circles. I certainly agree with you about the lifting heavy part; keeping up full intensity is one of the keys to growth, and single sets to failure always keep this fact front and center!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally would not discount a well documented theory so readily. We are the same species and our bodies all work in fundamentally the same fashion, so we are far more the same than different. But, that's just my opinion, though it's widely shared in scientific circles. I certainly agree with you about the lifting heavy part; keeping up full intensity is one of the keys to growth, and single sets to failure always keep this fact front and center!

I wasn't discounting anything.Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates are a testimate that training till failure can work.I was saying for ME not so much.I think genetics and with the big boys pharmicuticals makes a huge difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, like Allantgy said, I don't think there's a perfect workout routine. Perfection doesn't really exist and change along the way, depending on your life, or depending on each person tastes, What you consider perfect can become boring a few weeks later.

 

So that concerns mostly the brain, you love to do what you've been doing since a long time and learned how to do it well.

I noticed many things like that in the last posts:

my body responds very good with light weight and large repetitions. Also my body seems not to like too much cable excercises.
How would that be possible?

Is there a scientific proof that an exercise is better for the body of a person and less for someone else? It's only that doing lots of light weight, your body adapted to it and became more efficient than with heavy weight. It is you and the exercises that defines your body.

I don't think there's different ideal exercises for different bodies. Because we all have similar bodies: same number of muscles once adult age, same organs, etc. Of course there's some leaner than others, a lightweight can perform faster on a bike than a heavyweight. But you can change this with diet and exercises. We shouldn't use our body to decide which exercises are better, it's the exercises (and diet) that define the body. And the mind choose what it prefers. The body adapts.

Of course, genetics change things a bit from a person to another, but not that much. Genetics can make someone grow muscles faster, or being stronger in general, but genetics will never make someone's body better at cable exercises and someone else body bad at free weights or bicep curls in particular.

 

Samething with food. Some say : I don't like carrots. Same body than someone who like carrots. The only difference is the diet for children, and even the mom's diet while the child was still a fetus, all this affects the personal tastes but doesn't change the body.

The fallacy that a healthy food for one person is a poison for another, is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is Pee Wee, a kid ? well, if he's a small adult, he would make a miniature version of Arnold, yes. Lol... I said "similar bodies". A man with a normal constitution can have the same results than another man with a normal constitution. But there's differences between man and woman, child and adult, humans and non-human animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thx for all your suggestions/advices.

 

Off course there's no universal perfect routine, but sometimes you can get useful suggestions to do some rearrangements that can help.

 

There is a theory that says any set you do that is not to complete failure is a waste of time if your trying to get stronger: if you're doing a "light" routine, then your working at less than full capacity, lets say for argument sake 80%.

 

Have you ever had a look on the routine of Serge Nubret. He never did shorter sets than 12 reps and only focused on congestion. I'm sure it can work too.

 

What are your goals?

 

I had almost one year off. I workout again since 3 months. I would like to 1) regain a muscular capital 2) lose a bit of body fat (I guess I'm at around 15-16% now, I would like to reach 12-13%) 3). strengthen my back with bodyweight exercises like the bridge.

 

This is where I am by now :83kg/182lbs. - 187 cm/6.13 FT.

Edited by xlost_alainx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my body responds very good with light weight and large repetitions. Also my body seems not to like too much cable excercises.
How would that be possible?

 

Different exercises incorporate different levels of muscle fiber recruitment. For example' date=' doing barbell bench presses will incorporate better overall muscle fiber recruitment than, say, doing presses on a benching machine or using a cable setup. Plenty of tests have been done on this to show that some exercises are optimal to get you the best results for your effort while other exercises do not yeild the same muscle stimulation. Just as well, there usually is a max to where you can end up with machine/cable setups and with some exercises that will limit how much good you can do as well. If you have a benching machine and it tops out at 250 lbs., and you eventually can crank out sets of 20 at that weight no problem, you're not going to continually make progress without challenging your body by being able to eventually add more weight. So, that's one more reason that free weights or bodyweight exercises where you can add weight to yourself will have a better impact for development. Also, some machines are not naturally "in the groove" for how the body normally would perform a movement as they're static in their design and don't adapt to the varying sizes and builds of those who use them. This can make some machines uncomfortable for those that use them, yielding lower results than free weight exercises and possibly contributing to a greater chance of injury.

 

Is there a scientific proof that an exercise is better for the body of a person and less for someone else? It's only that doing lots of light weight, your body adapted to it and became more efficient than with heavy weight. It is you and the exercises that defines your body.

 

Different body types have different mechanics, and you can have a body better suited to excel at one lift over another. A man who is 7 feet tall with long legs and shorter arms will have a far, far harder time deadlifting than a man who is 5 feet tall with long arms and shorter legs. So, different physical builds can mean that some lifts are easier than others, and therefore a person can excel in one area but not do well in a similar lift. And, some people just tend to get better results from different lifts because their bodies simply respond better to them - there's not necessarily a clear explanation of why this is, but that's just how it is for some people. And, again, if one exercise has an overall lower rate of muscle fiber recruitment than another similar exercise, what benefit would there be to focus on the exercises that will tax your system less as they'll reap less in the way of rewards?

 

I don't think there's different ideal exercises for different bodies. Because we all have similar bodies: same number of muscles once adult age, same organs, etc.

 

Once more, not everyone is built the same. It makes no difference if we have the same number of muscles and are both men of the same height - if the two people have different propensities for muscle fiber types (fast twitch vs. slow twitch) and have different leverage/mechanics in their build (torso, arm and leg length), this means that two people of the same gender and height could turn out with alarmingly different builds even if they train and eat the exact same way. If we were anywhere near as similar overall, there wouldn't be so much guesswork in finding the best diet/workout plan as we could all do the same thing and get the same results with proper effort.

 

Of course, genetics change things a bit from a person to another, but not that much. Genetics can make someone grow muscles faster, or being stronger in general, but genetics will never make someone's body better at cable exercises and someone else body bad at free weights or bicep curls in particular.

 

Genetics can make up a huge difference between people. Someone, like Arnold who has been used for example, is not like the rest of us. He had a genetic advantage that was unlike what 99.9% of the population will ever know. Some people simply are built to do something well, and those are the ones that often rise to the top. Yes, some people can make it far without genetics being on their side, but when you have two guys who are the same build where one only had to train an hour every other day and ate whatever he wanted vs. man #2 who had to eat 100% strict and clean and spent twice as much time training to achieve the same results (and may have taken twice as long to get them), you can soon see how genetics can play a huge role. Of couse, genetics don't play ANY role unless you use them to your advantage. If Arnold had worked at a desk and filed papers all day and never trained, he wouldn't look the way he did back in the 70s and 80s. However, once you strike out at something that you are predisposed to excel at physically, the genetics will eventually shine through

 

I'll leave the genetics issue at this - Andy Bolton, record holder in the deadlift with over 1000 lbs., managed 500 lbs. on the lift the FIRST TIME HE EVER TRIED IT. And no, he wasn't the hulking mass of a man that he is now, but still a person quite new to weight training. That's a number that most people need at least a few years to reach, if they'll get there at all, but here a guy who had barely trained managed a respectable number the very first time he tried the lift. If you can't see how being genetically predisposed to excel at certain types of training due to build/muscle fiber composition/etc., then I don't know what else to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Different body types have different mechanics, and you can have a body better suited to excel at one lift over another. A man who is 7 feet tall with long legs and shorter arms will have a far, far harder time deadlifting than a man who is 5 feet tall with long arms and shorter legs.

Why don't you say 10 feet tall and 4 feet short while you're at it. I'm talking about normal persons. Compare the average man with the average man, or compare the tall guy with the tall guy. The average body represents more than 90% of the pop.. There's not many giants and dwarfs. Of course these two examples are different because of their size. Give a giant barbell to one and a mini barbell to the other, they will do the samething. They have the same mechanics, or perhaps the dwarf will be less efficient at lifting loads if he uses his short arms as levers, but he may be as good as the tall guy for deadlifting (proportionnally speaking) . But even with these extreme examples, you'll notice that in many sports, even basketball or volleyball, we often see small, normal, tall persons, sometimes in the same team. And they all perform well, otherwise they wouldn't make the national team. I know that there's more tall guys in basketball, it's common sense, I'm just saying it's not the only thing that matters.
And, some people just tend to get better results from different lifts because their bodies simply respond better to them - there's not necessarily a clear explanation of why this is, but that's just how it is for some people.
I know what you mean and I agree. But the vast majority of them is because of what I explained before. The body responds well because it's been trained to respond well.
And' date=' again, if one exercise has an overall lower rate of muscle fiber recruitment than another similar exercise, what benefit would there be to focus on the exercises that will tax your system less as they'll reap less in the way of rewards?[/quote'] There's no benefits, we should work hard on the exercises we don't excell so later we can excell at them. If someone is weak at an exercise, it is because he never practices it, and he never practices it because he finds himself poor at it.

 

 

If we were anywhere near as similar overall, there wouldn't be so much guesswork in finding the best diet/workout plan as we could all do the same thing and get the same results with proper effort.
Precisely, there's too much useless guesswork in trying to find the best diet/workout plan etc... As if some people were designed to eat meat or cheese and some other are naturally vegans. No, a vegan diet is beneficial for all humans. Diet plans and workout plans differs because the goals differs, each person can have completely different goals; while most of them have a very similar body, they need completely different exercises. Don't give a bodybuilder nutrition plan to an obese who wants to lose weight. Don't give an intensive 1 month program of spinning to someone who wants to become massive.

 

Genetics can make up a huge difference between people. Someone, like Arnold who has been used for example, is not like the rest of us. He had a genetic advantage that was unlike what 99.9% of the population will ever know.

You just invented that "99,9%" number out of your mind. Show me the results of Arnold DNA's analysis. You may be right, or not. Arnold was working harder than 99,9% of the bodybuilders, and was careful about his diet. I see many guys in the gym with huge muscles, but they drink each night and eat pizza, while working less hard than Arnold.

Of course genetics are really important and can make huge differences when we compare two persons that have two completely different bodies. When you look at 2 similar bodies, like same height, etc, genetics still matter, you're right. One may need to study more than another to pass the exams, more may need to work harder in the gym to obtain the same results, one may store fat easier than another, etc... Genetics may be more important than "a bit" like I said, but surely not for more than 50%. Work hard, eat well, rest a lot, genetics, it's all important.

If someone is born w/ more fast twitch muscles like you say, he can do more exercises that use especially the slow twitch muscles like calf raise, and here you go. If you're stuck in the mentality "I was born poor and I'll stay poor" and you see this as a fatality...

The example you gave about the 500lbs deadlift first time is impressive and surely prove genetics are important. But that's pretty rare to see supernatural genetics, most people have normal genetics that look alike from a person to another, with some skills that rise in different subjects; someone is better in maths, someone else its sports. Sometimes, very rare, genetics can play a huge role, someone can have a gene that will allow him to be 300% stronger than the average man. Other times, someone who has a disadvantage in DNA but more determination may succeed better than the DNA gifted who don't use it to his advantage.

I agree about genetics, but usually it's the exercise you choose that determines what you will become as an athlete. The cyclist who wins the Tour de France didn't built the physique to achieve this by deadlifting 500lbs. And what makes the difference between the first and the second at the arrival may be because of genetics, or may be because one practiced and trained more during his life, or gave more effort during this particular race. If genetics were for more than 50% of the game, then only perfect twins could arrive with 0,1 seconds difference at the finish line. Every element is important. You seem to say that genetics are so different from a human being to another, you seem to say that we only see people who look completely different, like one dwarf, one giant, one with one leg, one with no head, etc... People are so similar that we often see someone that look like ourself in real life or on tv, or we think we know this person but it's someone else that look like her; we all have sosies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm Your Man, you seem to refer to Scientific concepts you know nothing about, mixed in with your own person beliefs and outlandish theories.

You can't refer to genetics and science in one thread and totally discount the same or similar concepts in another.

 

2 people who are the same height and weight, doing the same exercise regime and even eating the same often do not achieve the same results from training.

As Vegan Essentials has stated extremely well above, there are a lot of factors involved in this and No 2 people are alike, even if they appear to have the same general body type (Even Twins).

 

Back to the original Thread xlost_alainx, there are a bunch of different rountines out there, I would keep experimenting until you find something that suits you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Different body types have different mechanics, and you can have a body better suited to excel at one lift over another. A man who is 7 feet tall with long legs and shorter arms will have a far, far harder time deadlifting than a man who is 5 feet tall with long arms and shorter legs.

Why don't you say 10 feet tall and 4 feet short while you're at it. I'm talking about normal persons. Compare the average man with the average man, or compare the tall guy with the tall guy. The average body represents more than 90% of the pop.. There's not many giants and dwarfs. Of course these two examples are different because of their size.

 

I've trained with guys who are both just over 5 feet tall, and with plenty of guys well into the mid 6 foot mark. I'm not being absurd in being a bit extreme, but if you think that most people who weight train are only of "average" stature you're sadly mistaken. I was simply showing that different heights and limb lengths create different leverages and different advantages - if you'd prefer to believe this isn't the case, then you can choose to ignore science as much as you'd like, but it's your loss to have a mythical belief that we're all able to achieve the same thing with the same effort despite these differences. I don't know where you live, but when I go to the gym, I see short people and tall people, narrow frames and wide frames and everything in between. You CANNOT just say "the average person" and expect that to hold water, because you're simply using your own experience and what you consider to be identical as a base without giving creedence to anyone else who may have different issues.

 

 

Give a giant barbell to one and a mini barbell to the other, they will do the samething. They have the same mechanics, or perhaps the dwarf will be less efficient at lifting loads if he uses his short arms as levers, but he may be as good as the tall guy for deadlifting (proportionnally speaking) . But even with these extreme examples, you'll notice that in many sports, even basketball or volleyball, we often see small, normal, tall persons, sometimes in the same team. And they all perform well, otherwise they wouldn't make the national team. I know that there's more tall guys in basketball, it's common sense, I'm just saying it's not the only thing that matters.

 

If you think that a dwarf and a giant have the same mechanics, you unfortunately don't understand what I'm referring to.

 

I like to use the deadlift as a best example of where mechanics come into play. Okay, person A is 5' tall, average to slightly longer limbs, and person B is 7' tall with slightly shoter than average limbs. Person A only has to move the bar, say, 18" from the floor to the top of the lift, and limb-wise, is at an advantage as he does not have to squat down as far and does not have to lean forward to pur more stress on the lower back, giving him a mechanical advantage (THIS is what I mean by body mechanics!) Person B may need to make the bar travel another 12-14" to complete the lift, may have to use more lower back and bend forward more to get into an ideal setup, and therefore has a less efficient position for the lift. While they are doing the same movement, they are moving the weight VERY differently , giving the short person a distinct advantage based on...you guessed it...body mechnics due to height and limb size.

 

And, it is like I said earlier, just because one doesn't have the best mechanics or predisposition to excel does not mean that hard work cannot make them excellent at what they do. But, if you deny that those with a mechanical advantage and ideal genetics somehow don't have it any easier, then I don't know what to say as you're ignoring obvious points despite them being very clear and easy to see.

 

And, some people just tend to get better results from different lifts because their bodies simply respond better to them - there's not necessarily a clear explanation of why this is, but that's just how it is for some people.
I know what you mean and I agree. But the vast majority of them is because of what I explained before. The body responds well because it's been trained to respond well.

 

There are people that train to get their body to respond well to a specific lift' date=' motion or activity for years who don't excel at it. Could you explain why this is, if it is as simple as repetition? You can't just throw a baseball a thousand times per day and expect to be the world's greatest pitcher, because it doesn't work like that, but from your statements, there's no excuse to not excel except for lack of practice, which is not how things work in the real world.

 

And, again, if one exercise has an overall lower rate of muscle fiber recruitment than another similar exercise, what benefit would there be to focus on the exercises that will tax your system less as they'll reap less in the way of rewards?
There's no benefits' date=' we should work hard on the exercises we don't excell so later we can excell at them. If someone is weak at an exercise, it is because he never practices it, and he never practices it because he finds himself poor at it. [/quote']

 

You are correct that we should work to bring up weaknesses. HOWEVER, that does not mean that practice will make you excel where you once were weak. It will certainly make you better, but there can be limits to everything. I still suck at pull-ups despite putting in lots of practice, trying various training methods such as adding weight, different grips, doing ballistic style reps with reduced weight via bands, and always working to improve them, but if it is as simple as practice, why do I not get much better? I'm very focused on them, I give 100% on every attempt, but progress is slow if at all. That's how people are - not everyone can say "I'm not good at activity X, but if I keep trying, I will be great at it" because sometimes, you have a level where you're going to peak out for a stretch, possibly a long time, simply because of things such as mechanics and other factors that may be working against you.

 

If we were anywhere near as similar overall, there wouldn't be so much guesswork in finding the best diet/workout plan as we could all do the same thing and get the same results with proper effort.
Precisely' date=' there's too much useless guesswork in trying to find the best diet/workout plan etc... As if some people were designed to eat meat or cheese and some other are naturally vegans. No, a vegan diet is beneficial for all humans. Diet plans and workout plans differs because the [b']goals[/b] differs, each person can have completely different goals; while most of them have a very similar body, they need completely different exercises. Don't give a bodybuilder nutrition plan to an obese who wants to lose weight. Don't give an intensive 1 month program of spinning to someone who wants to become massive.

 

I'm not talking about similar plans for different objectives, I'm talking similar workouts/diets for the same objective. You can't put 100 people looking to be champion bodybuilders on the same diet and training regimen (and, I'll put in, all of the same height/build just to make this even) and expect that they'll get the same results. As humans, we're WAY too different. Obviously, the 100 people would all make progress coming in as new to training, but they're not going to all end up the same, where some will do very well and some may see minor progress. There's no natural law that makes us so identical - rather, there are many other factors that make us so very different even if we appear the same, that as Sydneyvegan said, even a pair of identical twins on the same program could end up with radically different results. It's not as simple as you seem to think it is.

 

Genetics can make up a huge difference between people. Someone, like Arnold who has been used for example, is not like the rest of us. He had a genetic advantage that was unlike what 99.9% of the population will ever know.

You just invented that "99,9%" number out of your mind. Show me the results of Arnold DNA's analysis. You may be right, or not. Arnold was working harder than 99,9% of the bodybuilders, and was careful about his diet. I see many guys in the gym with huge muscles, but they drink each night and eat pizza, while working less hard than Arnold.

 

I'm willing to bet that Arnold had better genetics than even the number that I listed, but it's something that can't be proven. Arnold didn't somehow stick 100% clean and train harder while everyone else slacked off and cheated on their diets. He simply was destined to be better against people who were already the best in their field. It's not some sort of situation that you can calculate mathematically or "prove" through something just to make you happy, but it's reality. He battled some people who probably sacrificed more than he did, spent more time training and analyzing, and ate cleaner than he did, but at the end of the day, the best man wins.

 

Let's use this for example to get back to genetics - some people have awesome biceps that look like a half of a grapefruit on top of their arm, some people have huge arms but bad biceps insertions where their muscles look gapped and shorter. That, sir, is genetics and can't change. You can increase a muscle's size, but you cannot change it's shape and sculpt it into something totally new. It is already pre-determined how it fits on your body, how it will look as it increases in size, but some things cannot be changed. Arnold had, except for a few small flaws, exceptional genetics. Tiny waist, great arms, a huge back, near-perfect chest, etc. that came naturally as he trained and got larger over time. Someone else may have high lat insertions that will never make their back looks as large, a chest that won't fill out completely to where two giant pecs just roll into each other, etc. These things are all part of the genetics factor that can give someone a distinct advantage over others while it can hold someone else back from reaching the top. It is a legitimate thing to be recognized because it exists, even if you can't calculate it on a piece of paper.

 

If someone is born w/ more fast twitch muscles like you say, he can do more exercises that use especially the slow twitch muscles like calf raise, and here you go. If you're stuck in the mentality "I was born poor and I'll stay poor" and you see this as a fatality...

 

Actually, you indavertantly agreed that different exercises can be ideal for different people, and that not everything is the same for everyone. Different body types need to train differently, and not all doing the same exercises (for the same goal), with the same sets/reps, the same weight and the same diet. But, the 2nd part doesn't relate exactly. Of course, if you accept defeat from the start, you're not going to succeed. But, that doesn't explain away the situation where the average guy in the gym wants 18" arms and just can't seem to get there doing what his best friend did to reach that same goal successfully. Mental drive makes a big difference, but you can't outsmart your body and simply will physical change and practice until perfection in all instances.

 

 

I agree about genetics, but usually it's the exercise you choose that determines what you will become as an athlete. The cyclist who wins the Tour de France didn't built the physique to achieve this by deadlifting 500lbs.

 

Of course not. Never for a moment did I infer that anywhere.

 

And what makes the difference between the first and the second at the arrival may be because of genetics, or may be because one practiced and trained more during his life, or gave more effort during this particular race.

 

Which I said is completely possible in that someone with lesser genetics but who has trained harder can certainly take top honors. I never said that genetics were a fool-proof way to excel at an activity or that they made a massive difference for everyone, but it can't be denied that they play an important role in many activities.

 

If genetics were for more than 50% of the game, then only perfect twins could arrive with 0,1 seconds difference at the finish line.

 

Which isn't true. Perfect twins won't end up the same simply because they've got the closest to the same body type from the start. That's ignoring every factor that can impact how one will end up for their success in a chosen sport. If I had a twin, he may have found that he did not excel at lifting but worked better as a distance runner, which I was not meant for. Just because someone else has an identical body does not mean that they'll excel at the same thing. That, again, is the difference of genetics coming in to play (along with dozens of other factors aside from genetics.)

 

Every element is important. You seem to say that genetics are so different from a human being to another, you seem to say that we only see people who look completely different, like one dwarf, one giant, one with one leg, one with no head, etc... People are so similar that we often see someone that look like ourself in real life or on tv, or we think we know this person but it's someone else that look like her; we all have sosies.

 

I don't understand this at all, so I can't really say anything more about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, at the end (the part you don't understand) I'm just saying people are very similar in general, so much that we often see someone who looks the same as me, you, or friends, etc. People who look completely different are the minority. Eventhough I know everyone is different, no DNA is identical, etc.

 

You don't understand at all my point of view. I never said short people or tall people can't weightlift ! That's you who started with those examples, and then you try to make believe others things I never said. Quote a sentence from me where I say that people who don't have an average body can't train. I'm saying, just like you did, that, depending in which discipline, a short person or tall person may need to adjust how he achieve a particular movement, in some other disciplines the height don't matters very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tests done by Nautilus show that everyone who used the technique I described became stronger; whether it's the best method for everyone is a different matter, but it is universally effective because we are all fundamentally the same, at a certain level (and of course Arnold is genetically gifted). Every tree in an oak forest is unique and everyone is simultaneously the same, depending on what level of detail, etc your looking at. In some caes seeing the similarities lets you see the big picture, in some caes the details of individual trees are more important; it just depends on what goals you have to determine the most useful perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah exactly. Of course Arnold was gifted. I find his musculature "perfect". But even if Arnold has that "perfect" gene and therefore is "different" from us, doesn't mean he needs a different workout plan. If his routine is ideal for him, it may be ideal for most of us too, except maybe for very tiny men or for very tall guys. There is a perfect program for average men, one for tall men, one for small men, one for average women, etc...

 

But, from this principle, I can say that nutrition and exercise define the body. These 2 things can make a difference between 2 bodies that were originally similar at the beginning, because of similar genetic bodies.

 

Anyway, I tried to explain it better on my blog.

 

Concerning Arnold. There's something called in French "le nombre d'or", or the Golden Number in English. It is a number said to be "perfect" because it is the key to construct a perfect spiral. The spiral is knowned to be the only geometrical shape found in Nature, or the only shape found in Nature that we can reproduce with mathematics.

In a way, we can use this Golden Number for human body's perfection too. Arnold had that unique gene of beauty that provides a certain perfection. Masculine and muscular silouette, symmetrical facial features, defined jaw, etc. Most of the bodybuilders who are pro and winning have that gene, as well as the mannequins, models, etc. It is proven that everybody is attracted to beauty, and that this type of beauty mentionned above is the universial beauty, or perfection of the body. In an experiment, babies looking at photos were looking longer at faces like that and were fascinated, and were almost ignoring the other photos of "normal" people.

 

But is the workout program of Arnold is also perfect for us who are totally not as gifted genetically. Of course yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi,

Just an update to tell you that I try to alternate "heavy" workouts (from 5 to 10 reps) and lighter workouts (from 15 reps to 30 reps) and I obtained a great level of satisfaction (it feels so good feeling your muscles burnt without feeling pain in your back and tiredness of the nervous system) and good results.

Here's something to deconstruct the too often taken for granted M&F recommended routine:

 

Effects of whole-body low-intensity resistance training with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular size and strength in young men.

 

Our previous study showed that relatively low-intensity (approximately 50% one-repetition maximum [1RM]) resistance training (knee extension) with slow movement and tonic force generation (LST) caused as significant an increase in muscular size and strength as high-intensity (approximately 80% 1RM) resistance training with normal speed (HN). However, that study examined only local effects of one type of exercise (knee extension) on knee extensor muscles. The present study was performed to examine whether a whole-body LST resistance training regimen is as effective on muscular hypertrophy and strength gain as HN resistance training. Thirty-six healthy young men without experience of regular resistance training were assigned into three groups (each n = 12) and performed whole-body resistance training regimens comprising five types of exercise (vertical squat, chest press, latissimus dorsi pull-down, abdominal bend, and back extension: three sets each) with LST (approximately 55-60% 1RM, 3 seconds for eccentric and concentric actions, and no relaxing phase); HN (approximately 80-90% 1RM, 1 second for concentric and eccentric actions, 1 second for relaxing); and a sedentary control group (CON). The mean repetition maximum was eight-repetition maximum in LST and HN. The training session was performed twice a week for 13 weeks. The LST training caused significant (p < 0.05) increases in whole-body muscle thickness (6.8 +/- 3.4% in a sum of six sites) and 1RM strength (33.0 +/- 8.8% in a sum of five exercises) comparable with those induced by HN training (9.1 +/- 4.2%, 41.2 +/- 7.6% in each measurement item). There were no such changes in the CON group. The results suggest that a whole-body LST resistance training regimen is as effective for muscular hypertrophy and strength gain as HN resistance training.

 

As you maybe know, my mothertongue is french and I am on a forum where a lot of guys train only with 20-40 and up to 60 reps. Look on the results (they are all drug free):

http://www.fabriceproudhon.com/superphysique

 

And have a look on this: 3 sets of 20 reps at 110kg, BP :

http://www.dailymotion.com/naturel666/video/x50yh7_2008-bench-press-100-kg-110-kg-vrac_sport

 

Of course not everyone can bench 20 times with 110 kg, I started with 3 sets of 20 reps at... 40 kg (88 lbs) but believe me, my chest burnt as hell!

 

Greetz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Just an update to tell you that I try to alternate "heavy" workouts (from 5 to 10 reps) and lighter workouts (from 15 reps to 30 reps) and I obtained a great level of satisfaction (it feels so good feeling your muscles burnt without feeling pain in your back and tiredness of the nervous system) and good results.

Here's something to deconstruct the too often taken for granted M&F recommended routine:

 

Effects of whole-body low-intensity resistance training with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular size and strength in young men.

 

Our previous study showed that relatively low-intensity (approximately 50% one-repetition maximum [1RM]) resistance training (knee extension) with slow movement and tonic force generation (LST) caused as significant an increase in muscular size and strength as high-intensity (approximately 80% 1RM) resistance training with normal speed (HN). However, that study examined only local effects of one type of exercise (knee extension) on knee extensor muscles. The present study was performed to examine whether a whole-body LST resistance training regimen is as effective on muscular hypertrophy and strength gain as HN resistance training. Thirty-six healthy young men without experience of regular resistance training were assigned into three groups (each n = 12) and performed whole-body resistance training regimens comprising five types of exercise (vertical squat, chest press, latissimus dorsi pull-down, abdominal bend, and back extension: three sets each) with LST (approximately 55-60% 1RM, 3 seconds for eccentric and concentric actions, and no relaxing phase); HN (approximately 80-90% 1RM, 1 second for concentric and eccentric actions, 1 second for relaxing); and a sedentary control group (CON). The mean repetition maximum was eight-repetition maximum in LST and HN. The training session was performed twice a week for 13 weeks. The LST training caused significant (p < 0.05) increases in whole-body muscle thickness (6.8 +/- 3.4% in a sum of six sites) and 1RM strength (33.0 +/- 8.8% in a sum of five exercises) comparable with those induced by HN training (9.1 +/- 4.2%, 41.2 +/- 7.6% in each measurement item). There were no such changes in the CON group. The results suggest that a whole-body LST resistance training regimen is as effective for muscular hypertrophy and strength gain as HN resistance training.

 

As you maybe know, my mothertongue is french and I am on a forum where a lot of guys train only with 20-40 and up to 60 reps. Look on the results (they are all drug free):

http://www.fabriceproudhon.com/superphysique

 

And have a look on this: 3 sets of 20 reps at 110kg, BP :

http://www.dailymotion.com/naturel666/video/x50yh7_2008-bench-press-100-kg-110-kg-vrac_sport

 

Of course not everyone can bench 20 times with 110 kg, I started with 3 sets of 20 reps at... 40 kg (88 lbs) but believe me, my chest burnt as hell!

 

Greetz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...