# My training program - Lee Hayward tweaked



## Eugene (Sep 6, 2009)

Hi Guys. I removed all the lower body exercises from the Lee Hayward 12 weeks program, and I came up with the following. Please don't start telling me that I should train the lower body too. I already had too many of these conversations. I am familiar with all the arguments and I decided I will not train the lower body. 

What I want you to tell me after a glance or two, is how balanced this program is. For example for me it seems that the shoulders are trained too much. But I'm definitely not an expert, so I don't know.

Now you don't have to check each month, just glance at some month and tell me if you think its balanced.

Thanks a lot!

P.S. This is a 1 day on 1 day off program (rest after each day).

*Month 1*

Day 1

Leg raises: 5x10
Wide grip pull downs: 3x15
Hyper extensions: 4x10
Pull down ab crunches: 4x15
Barbell Wrist curl: 4x10
Incline sit ups: 3x10-20

Day 2

Incline barbell bench press:*5x5
Seated dumbbell shoulder press:*5x8
Bicep cable curls (from low pulley): 5x10
Tricep push downs (using straight bar attachment): 5x10
Bent over dumbbell lateral raises:*3x10-15

Day 3

Incline dumbbell bench press: 4x10
Dumbbell side lateral raises: 4x10
Bicep dumbbell curls: 4x12
Tricep push downs (with rope attachment): 4x12
Barbell upright rows: 3x15

*Month 2*

Day 1

Incline sit ups: 3x10-20
Bent over barbell rows:*5x8
Barbell shoulder shrugs:*5x10
Seated cable rows: 4x15
Leg raises:*4x12
Barbell Wrist curl: 3x12

Day 2

Decline barbell bench press:*5x5
Seated barbell shoulder press (i.e. military press): 5x8
Preacher barbell curls:*5x10
Lying tricep extensions (with the EZ bar): 5x10
Cable upright rows (from the low pulley): 3x15

Day 3

Crunches: 4x25+
Flat dumbbell bench press: 4x10
Dumbbell front lateral raises:*4x10
Bicep barbell curls: 4x12
Tricep push downs: (with V bar attachment): 4x12
Close grip pull downs:*4x15

*Month 3*

Day 1

Chin ups: 4 x as many as possible
Pull down ab crunches:*5x10
Chest supported row: 4x10
Hyper extensions:*4x10
Leg raises: 5x10
Barbell Wrist curl: 5x8

Day 2

Flat barbell bench press: 5x5
Bent over dumbbell lateral raises:*4x10
Dumbbell side lateral raises:*4x10
Dumbbell front lateral raises:*4x10
Bicep cable curls (from low pulley): 5x10
Tricep push downs (using straight bar attachment): 5x10

Day 3

Pull down ab crunches:*4x15
Dumbbell bench press on the stability ball:* 4x10
Dumbbell shoulder press sitting on the stability ball:*4x10
EZ bar bicep curls:*4x12
One arm over head dumbbell extensions:*4x12
One arm dumbbell rows:*3x15


*Month 4*

Day 1

Incline sit ups:*5x15
Wide grip pull downs:*4x10
Leg raises:*5x15
Seated cable rows: 4x10
Barbell Wrist curl: 4x12
Pull down ab crunches:*4x15

Day 2

Dips: 5x5
Chin ups: 4 x as many as possible
Side lateral raises: 4x10
Seated barbell shoulder press (i.e. military press): 4x10
Bicep dumbbell preacher curls:*5x10
Tricep push downs (using rope attachment): 5x10

Day 3

Push ups with feet elevated on the stability ball:  4 x as many
Seated dumbbell shoulder press: 4x10
Standing one arm dumbbell curls: 4x12
One arm over head dumbbell extensions:*4x12
Close grip pull downs:*4x15


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 6, 2009)

Awful. I cannot see anything good about this program. There is no rhyme or reason for the choices of rep range, there is no periodization, far too much isolation compared to compounds, too much pressing compared to pulling, and whatever you say - if you have legs you should train them.

Why would you want to leave out half your body, and subsequently half the potential growth hormones that come from training it? Not to mention risking potential postural problems. The fact that you've "heard it all before" makes your choice even more the wrong one. So whats the deal with that?


----------



## Eugene (Sep 6, 2009)

1.

Ok, I took it from here. Lee Hayward is supposed to be an authority. So how do you explain this program then?
12 Week Bodybuilding / Strength Training Workout Program

2.

Can you give me a link to another program which you would recommend? (Just keep in mind then I like the concept of switching every month or so in order not to let muscles get used to the program).

3.

I will explain my decision regarding legs in another topic. Just not here.

Thanks.


----------



## Marat (Sep 6, 2009)

Eugene said:


> 1.
> 
> Ok, I took it from here. Lee Hayward is supposed to be an authority. So how do you explain this program then?
> 12 Week Bodybuilding / Strength Training Workout Program



He at least has you squatting and deadlifting in here. 
Additionally, you need to recognize that you are not just training your muscles when you train. 

Here's a quote from Mark Rippetoe: "There is simply no other exercise, and certainly no machine, that produces the level of central nervous system activity, improved balance and coordination, skeletal loading and bone density enhancement, muscular stimulation and growth, connective tissue stress and strength, psychological demand and toughness, and overall systemic conditioning than the correctly performed full squat."


Eugene said:


> 2.
> 
> Can you give me a link to another program which you would recommend? (Just keep in mind then I like the concept of switching every month or so in order not to let muscles get used to the program).


What are your current stats (age, height, weight, bf%/lean body mass), goals, training experience?



Eugene said:


> 3.
> 
> I will explain my decision regarding legs in another topic. Just not here.



Your body doesn't know exercises, it knows movements. For example, when you do squats, you aren't just training your quads. Additionally, when you are training, you aren't just training your muscles (re-read Rippetoe's quote). But I'm very interested to here your reasoning for not training quad/hamstring dominant exercises.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 6, 2009)

In addition to what m11 said:



Eugene said:


> 1.
> 
> Ok, I took it from here. Lee Hayward is supposed to be an authority. So how do you explain this program then?
> 12 Week Bodybuilding / Strength Training Workout Program



If he is an authority on training programs, i'm going to throw away my career plans for this industry right now. I like his youtube channel, but that program looks like every other cookie-cutter cobbled together from spare parts bodybuilding routines you see in the rags every week.

There is a huge emphasis on pushing for both upper body and lower body which will ultimately lead to postural injuries due to the lack of pulling (shoulder injuries, ham pulls, etc). You've made it all the worse by removing any leg work, making the balance even more out of whack.

There are loads of isolation and machine exercises in there, far outweighing compound freeweights exercises which will ensure the best gains and overall functional performance.

The rep ranges are fairly random, and there is no periodization - something that ensures constant progress throughout the length of a program. All he has you doing is changing exercises a little, which really wont do anything. In fact, its probably counter productive as it'll make it hard to gauge progress.



Eugene said:


> 2.
> 
> Can you give me a link to another program which you would recommend? (Just keep in mind then I like the concept of switching every month or so in order not to let muscles get used to the program).



http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/new-members-begin-here/97077-read-me-first-homework-1-newbies.html

Read this. If you're considering doing a program this messed up you'll benefit from the solid information in here. I would also read the threads linked in my signature in this link:

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/training/99879-articles-ironmagazineforums-members.html

I could just spew out a balanced and effective program for you to do, but then we'll just be back here in 6-12 weeks doing this again. Better to educate yourself so you can make your OWN programs suited to YOUR goals rather than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole doing something somebody else has given you.



Eugene said:


> 3.
> 
> I will explain my decision regarding legs in another topic. Just not here.
> 
> Thanks.



While the prospect of waiting with baited breath to find out the answer in another topic is appealing, where better than here to discuss your reasons for leaving out a huge component of a balanced and effective training program? That was your question after all.


----------



## Eugene (Sep 6, 2009)

*Not training lower body*

Before I explain myself here, I just want to mention that I will be very grateful if you don't forget about my other topic regarding my training program, and help me there as well.

Anyway, my reasons for not training legs are as follows:

1.
I have big legs, very big head, and a huge ass (don't get scared, I actually look quite well). In order to get into better proportions I need to train the upper body. Training the lower body will achieve the opposite result.

2.
I don't buy the theory that by training the lower body you will actually train the upper body even more. I'll clarify. I agree that Squats will get your chest/back more muscular as well(because of CNS stress), but I think the best way to make your chest/back muscular is to train them even more instead of doing squats.

3.
I don't care about how muscular I am, and I don't want to compete as bodybuilder or as weight lifter. All I want is to look good, that's all. I have big legs, so chicken legs won't be a problem. I see no reason to spend time training legs.

So these were my reasons.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 6, 2009)

Threads merged, just easier this way, or we'll likely end up talking about the same thing in two threads


----------



## Eugene (Sep 6, 2009)

That's actually what I wanted to avoid. I want the readers to help me with my training program, and instead we will get a debate about training/not training legs. But I really need help about that training program!


----------



## Eugene (Sep 6, 2009)

Anyway. I'm 26 years old. I weight 76kg (167 lbs), have about 15% fat percentage, and I want to look good.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 6, 2009)

Eugene said:


> 1.
> I have big legs, very big head, and a huge ass (don't get scared, I actually look quite well). In order to get into better proportions I need to train the upper body. Training the lower body will achieve the opposite result.
> 
> 2.
> ...



The main problem with not training legs, is while your legs may be "big" training the upper body to be stronger without training the legs is going to end up making you pretty susceptible to injury, usually in the lower back area, simply because there is an imbalance of strength - especially functional strength. Its possible your legs are big but theres nothing to say that they are strong, or even that all that size is muscle tissue. Fat will be burnt off on a weight lifting program, and un-used muscle will atrophy if energy is needed elsewhere and those muscles arent used. You're legs wont get bigger by not training them, but they sure as hell could get smaller.

This can lead to a whole host of problems.

If you pick up a heavy weight with your upper body, what is supporting that weight? Your legs and lower back. Not just the muscles, but the tendons, bones, connective tissue, and cartilage. As your upper body gets stronger, you are going to be picking up and lifting heavier and heavier weights, while the lower body is doing little to keep up with this.

Overhead press? Need the legs. Bent over rows? Need the lower back and legs. Carrying stuff? Legs! Kneejoints! Bones! The very things that squatting and deadlifting will help to strengthen. Lifting is not just about muscle strength, but it helps strengthen all the other components aswell. One weak link can break the chain!

Leg movements such as Deadlifts and Squats also utilize a LOT of core musculature to stabilize the weight. This is also a very important factor, as you use your core in pretty much everything you do in or out of the gym. Same deal as above, if you're lifting heavy weights with the upper body, whats gonna stabilize that weight? The core!

Id bet without training legs you'd outstrip all those things fairly quickly. Might be in a few months, might be a year or two. But it only takes one injury to take you out. I was out for 18 months with a lower back injury, and it was just a moderate pull. If the core muscles that stabilize my back were weaker, could have been a tear, or maybe something worse.

You've hit on my next point a tad, in that big movements like squats and deadlifts also train the rest of the body to a certain extent already, but most of the benefits come from things less obvious than that. The legs are the biggest muscles in the body, so training them requires a lot of energy and releases a lot of hormones post-workout. The former is great for people trying to get lean, because a few sets of squats is going to burn a shedload of calories. The latter is good for people trying to build up, because those hormones will act throughout the body - not just the legs.

Theres a reason why the 20-rep squat program adds muscle throughout the whole body - its because doing that many squats is an adaptation-creating monster! I've done similar programs and added size to my arms with like, 3 sets of rows/bench a week and nothing else for upper body!

Seriously man, there is no excuse short of injury or amputation for you not to train your legs. You're needlessly opening yourself up for injury, and under-cutting your potential for progress by leaving out a whole half of your body.

There is absolutely no reason for it.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 6, 2009)

Eugene said:


> That's actually what I wanted to avoid. I want the readers to help me with my training program, and instead we will get a debate about training/not training legs. But I really need help about that training program!



Its fine man, i wont forget. Read those threads i linked to you.

At the end of the day, the biggest help i CAN give you is to convince you to train your legs. I only trained upper body when i started training and once i started squatting regularly my progress went through the roof. My legs still aren't disproportionately big, and i squat all the time now.


----------



## Eugene (Sep 6, 2009)

Well look at this:
http://www.leehayward.com/workout_programs/pushdowns.htm

You see his ass? That's how my ass looks. It's too big. Now imagine I'll do even more squats, how am I going to look like?
Now remember that my only purpose here is to look better, not to lift weights. Try to think of it from my perspective. By doing squats and deadlifts I won't fix the bad genetic proportions of my body!

Now about injuries. Naturally if you have more muscles you'll have a lesser chance to be injured. But I don't see this as an imbalance problem. For example construction workers may have bigs hands but small legs. Soccer players have huge legs but small upper body. Swimmers have huge backs and small chests. So imbalances are everywhere. It all depends on your job/occupation. So i'm not sure this is something we should worry about.


----------



## Marat (Sep 6, 2009)

Your ass, as well as the gentlemen's in the picture, is big because of the fat that is covering your glutes. Lose the fat and your butt will look smaller. 

I don't think anyone has every complained about having glute muscles that were too big.


----------



## Built (Sep 6, 2009)

Playing devil's advocate here, I can see the need to specialize on upper body from an aesthetic perspective. Increasing your training volume and frequency for upper body is indeed the right approach - but I'd suggest you consider training your lower at maintenance while you do this. My approach here is to change your area of concentration, while maintaining a minimal, strength-focused approach of say, 3x5-8 squats and deads ohhh, how about once a week to keep those muscles hard and striated. Plus, this way, once your upper gets caught up with your lower, you'll be able to resume a more integrated approach to your training more quickly. 

Can you tell me how heavy you can lift currently? What can you pull on 5-rep weighted chins, and what is your 5-rep bench press? This will tell me a bit about your current conditioning.


----------



## Eugene (Sep 6, 2009)

You must be kidding. I'm sure you know that some people have too much fat in specific areas like hips, buttocks, breasts. I have a problem with the buttocks. It is also a known fact that these fat pockets cannot be removed by diet, only by liposuction (which is a surgical removal). 

Now I'm not going to do liposuction, but I also don't plan to increase the problem by adding even more volume and weight to this area. In fact one of the reasons I began bodybuilding is to make the rest of the body bigger so that my head and buttocks don't look disproportionate.


----------



## Eugene (Sep 6, 2009)

Built said:


> Playing devil's advocate here, I can see the need to specialize on upper body from an aesthetic perspective. Increasing your training volume and frequency for upper body is indeed the right approach - but I'd suggest you consider training your lower at maintenance while you do this. My approach here is to change your area of concentration, while maintaining a minimal, strength-focused approach of say, 3x5-8 squats and deads ohhh, how about once a week to keep those muscles hard and striated. Plus, this way, once your upper gets caught up with your lower, you'll be able to resume a more integrated approach to your training more quickly.
> 
> Can you tell me how heavy you can lift currently? What can you pull on 5-rep weighted chins, and what is your 5-rep bench press? This will tell me a bit about your current conditioning.



I didn't train for 5 years, and now I'm starting again. So I'm a total newbie now. Started only 2 months ago. I didn't do chins, and I can bench press maybe 40 kilograms (88 lbs).


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 6, 2009)

Eugene said:


> Now about injuries. Naturally if you have more muscles you'll have a lesser chance to be injured.



Not true. Bodybuilders, olympic weightlifters, strongmen and power-lifters get injured, and they have huge muscles!



Eugene said:


> But I don't see this as an imbalance problem. For example construction workers may have bigs hands but small legs. Soccer players have huge legs but small upper body. Swimmers have huge backs and small chests. So imbalances are everywhere. It all depends on your job/occupation. So i'm not sure this is something we should worry about.



So you come here asking for a balanced program, then proceed to say balance isn't important? If one muscle in an antagonistic pair is far stronger than the other, you're saying this doesn't make any difference to the performance of that pair?

We're not talking about job/occupations here. We're talking about training. Im sure some construction workers, soccer players, and swimmers DO have muscular imbalances. Last time i checked, soccer players are plagued with hamstring injuries. Having worked in building services for a few years in the past, a large portion of them complained of bad lower backs while a lot of them didn't.

I can't generalize on people i haven't met, and neither can you because that logic is retarded. I don't know how they train, or whether they have muscular issues because you have just said "a few million people who have this occupation in common don't have any problems because i know at least one of them who doesn't".

Im not telling you to train legs 7 days a week, and i think Built's suggestion is a good one. All im saying is that you'd be an idiot to leave them out altogether, for the reason i have already stated at length.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 6, 2009)

Eugene said:


> It is also a known fact that these fat pockets cannot be removed by diet.



Have you been diagnosed with such a disorder, or at least have a source for this?

If you haven't tried to remove this fat through diet and exercise, i'm pretty confident that you will be able to lose fat from this area. Just because fat accumulates in specific areas and not others doesn't mean it is an unmovable object.

There are certain areas where there is more adipose tissue in which the body stores fat, but that fat can always be utilized by the body for energy.


----------



## Marat (Sep 6, 2009)

Gazhole said:


> There are certain areas where there is more adipose tissue in which the body stores fat, but that fat can always be utilized by the body for energy.





Eugene said:


> You must be kidding. I'm sure you know that some people have too much fat in specific areas like hips, buttocks, breasts. I have a problem with the buttocks. It is also a known fact that these fat pockets cannot be removed by diet, only by liposuction (which is a surgical removal).



I'm not kidding. I just conveniently posted this in another thread so i'll copy and paste it here. Additionally, I think would be hard pressed to  find a picture of an individual who is lean and has an ass that is 'too big' in the sense that you are referring.



Catecholamines are released during cardiovascular activity and basically during any situation that stresses your body (think: you encounter a lion in between yourself and your car and you need to get ready to run away), and those hormones bind to adrenoreceptors.

Your body has two major receptors, alpha and beta receptors. There are 3-4 betas and 2 alphas. The pertinent ones are the alpha-2 and beta-2 receptors. The beta-2 receptors are the ones that, in short, signal for fat mobilization. However, the alpha-2 receptors increase cAMP levels which decrease breakdown.

Men have more alpha-2 receptors in their belly area, whereas women have more in their thigh area. Conversely, men have more beta-2 receptors in their thigh areas, and women have more beta-2 receptors in their belly area. 

When you are stressed, you release catecholamines. When you release catecholamines, they ultimately bind to both receptors, and the density of those receptors per area basically define where fat gets mobilized or not.

This explains for why the EC stacks as well as stronger CNS drugs like phendimetrazine work so well to help mobilize fat so that they can be used more readily. 

However, you don't get a lot of blood flow, relative to other parts of your body, to those areas. Therefore, they tend to mobilize fat slower than in other areas of your body. Notice how your upper body gets leaner before you see your abs?

By doing cardio, you get an increase in blood volume to those areas and in turn, increase in exposure to catecholamines.


----------



## Eugene (Sep 6, 2009)

I asked about a balanced program because I want to be balanced aesthetically. You are saying that imbalance is not only a matter of aesthetics, but it can also cause injuries. I agree with you that injuries can be caused by imbalance, but I don't think this risk of injuries is increased that much. To prove that I gave you an example of soccer players. If injuries caused by imbalance were such a serious issue, soccer players would have also trained the upper body part. But they don't do that.

Anyway, big thanks for all of your answers. I'll do what Build suggested and you agreed with.

The only thing remains is to tweak the Lee Hayward program even more to make it more balanced according to what you said. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise for that, so if anyone helps me with this, that would be great. Otherwise I will just stick to my tweaked program having no other authoritative alternative.


----------



## Marat (Sep 6, 2009)

Gazhole said:


> Im not telling you to train legs 7 days a week, and i think Built's suggestion is a good one. All im saying is that you'd be an idiot to leave them out altogether, for the reason i have already stated at length.



For an individual that is well conditioned and would like to 'bring up' certain portions of their body, the training would certainly be altered to reach that goal.

However, for all intents and purposes, you are relatively untrained (5 year layoff etc). Therefore, a well organized program should contain squats and deadlifts in order to bring you up to an acceptable strength level.


----------



## Eugene (Sep 6, 2009)

About fat in specific locations:

Of course you can burn the fat there, but the proportion won't change. So if you go from 15% fat percentage to 10% fat percentage, all of your body will have less fat, including the problematic areas. However these areas will still be proportionally bigger than other areas.

For example a woman can go to 12% fat, but she still will have breasts. That's because breasts have a lot of fat, and you can't burn all of it. That is, you can't burn more fat in breasts than in other places of the body. The same thing goes for the buttocks. I can't burn MORE fat there that in the rest of the body. That's why the problematic proportion will remain.


----------



## Marat (Sep 6, 2009)

Eugene said:


> To prove that I gave you an example of soccer players. If injuries caused by imbalance were such a serious issue, soccer players would have also trained the upper body part. But they don't do that.



High level athletes frequently have a genetic profile that already provides for an extremely high level of conditioning and strength before they even start actively training. They are 'genetic freaks'. The additional training just kind of puts them over the top. 

You cannot compare those with optimal genetics to regular folks.


----------



## Built (Sep 6, 2009)

Eugine, thank you for the clarification. 

Here's my suggestion to you:


Read the link in my sig on "getting started". Track your diet and post up your current macros. Once you do this, we'll make some suggestions on how to reduce your calories.
Do the whole-body workout in the link in my sig for a month. Get your body used to moving again. 
Once you're sure you're running a caloric deficit (ie you start dropping about say a pound a week, on average) and you can at least squat, dead and bench a plate a side (135lbs or 60kg), come back to this thread, drop me a PM and I will personally help you set up a specialization programme to add some mass to your upper. You need to drop bodyfat first. You're too juicy to partition well if you bulk, and you can't see what you're working with while you have that little layer of blubber covering you up.


----------



## Built (Sep 6, 2009)

Eugene said:


> About fat in specific locations:
> 
> Of course you can burn the fat there, but the proportion won't change. So if you go from 15% fat percentage to 10% fat percentage, all of your body will have less fat, including the problematic areas. However these areas will still be proportionally bigger than other areas.
> 
> For example a woman can go to 12% fat, but she still will have breasts. That's because breasts have a lot of fat, and you can't burn all of it. That is, you can't burn more fat in breasts than in other places of the body. The same thing goes for the buttocks. I can't burn MORE fat there that in the rest of the body. That's why the problematic proportion will remain.


Trust me, at 12%, most women don't have much breast tissue. In my profile pic, I'm 14% and what's stuffed into my underwire A-cup bra is skin. I went to see my physiotherapist for my screwed up rotator cuff just before that was shot and this was his comment: "Wow, are you ever lean! <poke, poke, digs around into right pec> is there actually any breast tissue left there?"

Forty pounds earlier, I barely fit into a D-cup. 

<weeps, shakes tiny fist in rage... >


----------



## Marat (Sep 6, 2009)

Eugene said:


> About fat in specific locations:
> 
> Of course you can burn the fat there, but the proportion won't change. So if you go from 15% fat percentage to 10% fat percentage, all of your body will have less fat, including the problematic areas. However these areas will still be proportionally bigger than other areas.



Perhaps relatively bigger in the sense of bone structure etc. However, if you get lean, your butt won't be bigger than you want it to be. Again, it would be very tough to find a lean person with a shockingly large butt. 



Eugene said:


> For example a woman can go to 12% fat, but she still will have breasts. That's because breasts have a lot of fat, and you can't burn all of it. That is, you can't burn more fat in breasts than in other places of the body. The same thing goes for the buttocks. I can't burn MORE fat there that in the rest of the body. That's why the problematic proportion will remain.



I understand the point you are trying to make. I do get it. 

However, for this particular case, you are getting into secondary sexual characteristics that are associated with the various estrogen-related hormones. But if you do take a fat woman and diet them down, their breast size will decrease to an extent. For all intents and purposes, they'll never fully disappear. 

What i'm trying to get across to you is that your butt is big because of the fat. Additionally, you can get rid of the fat and your butt will no longer be 'too big'. Finally, you still would very much benefit by adding lower body dominant exercises to your routine.


----------



## Marat (Sep 6, 2009)

Built said:


> Eugine, thank you for the clarification.
> 
> Here's my suggestion to you:
> 
> ...



I think this is the best thing to take away from this thread.

Do that!


----------



## Eugene (Sep 6, 2009)

Ok people. Thanks for your help. I definitely learned something.
However:

1.
I was not convinced that I should drop the Lee Hayward routine. After all he is also a specialist, and considered to be a very good one. So I doubt he prescribes something much worse than what Built or Gazhole prescribe. 

2. 
I was not convinced that muscular imbalance significantly increases the risk of injury. And if that's the case, I'm sorry, I still don't see why I should train lower body, even at minimal level.

Anyway, I appreciate the time you spend arguing with me. I know its probably frustrating, but I am just a kind of person who doesn't like to make any effort unless it is absolutely required.


----------



## Marat (Sep 6, 2009)

We can only bring you to the barbell, but we can't force you to deadlift it. 

Good luck with everything, feel free to come back if the Hayward stuff doesn't work out. Hopefully, it'll get you to your goals


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 6, 2009)

Eugene said:


> Ok people. Thanks for your help. I definitely learned something.
> However:
> 
> 1.
> ...



The word you're looking for is "lazy".

So basically, you're going to do whatever the hell you like after wasting the time of people who know more than you do, after specifically asking for their help?

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.


----------



## Marat (Sep 6, 2009)

Gazhole said:


> The word you're looking for is "lazy".
> 
> So basically, you're going to do whatever the hell you like after wasting the time of people who know more than you do, after specifically asking for their help?
> 
> Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.



haha, juggernaut wouldve had a good time with this thread.


----------



## Built (Sep 6, 2009)

Eugene, you got some of the best advice in the world on this thread, tailored to your specifications. 

I am delighted to know that you value a generic, off-the-shelf programme written by someone who makes a living selling training over advice tailored to your specifications by people who live the lifestyle. We have all been sucked into these plans before and come out the other side. Think about this for a moment - we like what we do so much that we offer it to others for free. 

Best of luck with your goals. I guarantee you will not hit them if you ignore our advice. Given how much time we've collectively invested in you, it warms me that you will invest much of your own time fruitlessly.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 6, 2009)

m11 said:


> haha, juggernaut wouldve had a good time with this thread.



I miss that guy.


----------



## Built (Sep 6, 2009)

I know. I do do. :'(


----------



## stepaukas (Sep 6, 2009)

eugene
some great points here about how doing squats will help your overall strength.  i read all the posts and see how you just dont want to do them for your reasons given...
i just want to bring up a point from 35 years ago when my friend and i were in george turners gym here in st louis missouri doing bench presses, just building strength for our running. we both were pretty good x-country runners, and while at 159#'s, he benched 365#'s. george walked by and commented how that was one hell of a bench press. he quickly asked my friend ron how much he squatted, and ron said he dosent squat, thet he gets enough leg work running all his track and road workouts. george said if he started squatting, his bench would go up 20#'s..
squatting makes your whole body stronger..
s


----------



## danzik17 (Sep 6, 2009)

Gazhole said:


> I miss that guy.



Juggs is gone?  Where to?  Coincidence that is happened to be right when high school was starting back up?  Just sayin


----------



## Built (Sep 6, 2009)

Yep - large-muscle microtrauma like squatting stimulates a systemic anabolic response. Squat, eat lots and your whole body will grow muscle.


----------



## jehoverall (Sep 8, 2009)

the thing is, as a n00b, if doing the Lee Hayward program will get you in the gym and a squat/deadlift/bench routine won't, then you should just do the damn Lee Hayward thing. the most important thing in weightlifting, as in life, is simply showing up. if anyone were to go to the gym 3 days a week for 3 months doing Lee Hayward's program, i am almost (almost!) positive he would see some gains. 

by that time he will have realized how important whole-body compound movements like squat or deadlift are, so at that time he will be more receptive to what's been said on here. for on the Hayward routine, once you waste your "noob gains" your progress will stall; this will happen fast, and progress won't move for a long time. not only that, but you won't make nearly as much progress as you would if you'd done 5x5 or something similar. at that point the dude will hopefully get on a real life program like 5x5 or whatever built advocated, and will kick himself for having "wasted" his earlier efforts on Hayward. but whatever. if, instead of taking advantage of the wisdom of people who have done the same thing as what he now proposes and learned from it, he wants to experience it for himself, then i say go for it. 

here's my experience. almost exactly 1.5 years ago i started out weight lifting/bb'ing on a totally stupid 4 day bodypart split that i got from a coach. i experienced little to no gains for several months. i think i put on maybe 2 pounds, going from mid 170's to high 170's. 

i started reading about lifting. after months elapsed i realized the superiority of 5x5, and i've been on it ever since (or at least on a variation which utilizes the key aspects of 5x5 i.e. whole body compound movements for both neural recruitment and growth hormone release as well as injury prevention and functional strength etcetc). in the past 4 months alone i gained about 15 pounds of (mostly) lean muscle, added 70 pounds to my bench press (not a typo, though admittedly bench was a weak spot before) and a lot to my deadlift, increased my pull ups from 10 to 20+ etc. so there's no question that programs built around free weights and whole-body compound movements work. eugene will discover this himself eventually. 

the point is there's no need to bully eugene into accepting weight lifting orthodoxy. if he wants to be a dumbass let him be a dumbass, provided he keeps going to the gym and working hard there. i'm certain that eventually he will come to realize the superiority of routines built around large compound lifts over the Hayward program. but at least he'll have learned something, at least he'll have continued lifting, and hopefully he'll get on the right track at last and make the gains he was always capable of making :/


----------



## jmorrison (Sep 10, 2009)

A couple questions/comments in order of importance:

1. WTF happened to Juggs?

2. After a 5 year layoff, jumping rope, walking, being tickled, even just vigorous anf furious masturbation would probably net you some gains.  So your generic workout will probably get you some results, and you will be convinced that it is the greatest workout on the planet.  More power to you.  Whatever motivates you to get off the dissproportionately large ass and workout is a good thing.

3. No isolation based, generic workout created for assisted bodybuilders is going to compete with a tailored workout matched to your needs.  Go to Builts pics.  Look at them.  Then look at them again.  Then read her posts.  Read them again.  Learn.  Come back and apologize, then faithfully follow her advice.  

You. Will. See. Results.

Quickly, efficiently and with less effort than by throwing yourself mindlessly into a program built for the masses.

4. You asked for advice.  You got advice.  You discarded advice.  Why are you here again? You specifically asked for opinions on your workout.  If you were just going to say "I dont care if you think its bad, I thiink its awesome!" then why the hell did you ask?

5. I have gone from a barely human 265lb chub-monster, to a 209lb, muscular beast (rawr) in 7 months, UNASSISTED, by listening to Built.  It's not too late to pull your head out of your ass, take a deep breath, and listen to those with more knowledge, which basically encompasses every person in this thread who took time from their busy day to try to help you.  Except me.  I really don't know what the hell I am doing, I just do what Built tells me to.  Don't fix what's not broken I always say.


----------



## Built (Sep 10, 2009)

jmorrison said:


> A couple questions/comments in order of importance:
> 
> 1. WTF happened to Juggs?


He maxed out his infractions. I miss him too. 


jmorrison said:


> 2. After a 5 year layoff, jumping rope, walking, being tickled, even just vigorous anf furious masturbation would probably net you some gains.  So your generic workout will probably get you some results, and you will be convinced that it is the greatest workout on the planet.  More power to you.  Whatever motivates you to get off the dissproportionately large ass and workout is a good thing.
> 
> 3. No isolation based, generic workout created for assisted bodybuilders is going to compete with a tailored workout matched to your needs.  Go to Builts pics.  Look at them.  Then look at them again.  Then read her posts.  Read them again.  Learn.  Come back and apologize, then faithfully follow her advice.
> 
> ...


And doing the work. I just open doors. You had to walk through 'em. 


jmorrison said:


> It's not too late to pull your head out of your ass, take a deep breath, and listen to those with more knowledge, which basically encompasses every person in this thread who took time from their busy day to try to help you.  Except me.  I really don't know what the hell I am doing, I just do what Built tells me to.  Don't fix what's not broken I always say.



That's what they can put on my epitaph: that woman, damn but could she open a door!

Glad to have contributed to your ongoing success, bud.


----------



## jmorrison (Sep 10, 2009)

Man, anyway to get Juggs back?  He was harsh, but he gave great advice and didn't pull punches.  One of my favs here.

Now just go back to the diet page and help me with this PSMF and I will start a church in your name.  I started it today, and I am ready to eat a small child.  Maybe I am doing it wrong lol.


----------



## Built (Sep 10, 2009)

What are you currently eating (macros only), and what is your current weight and approximate LBM?

Re jugg - dunno. I can ask though. Seems more than a few people miss him.


----------



## jmorrison (Sep 10, 2009)

I will get back to you tomorrow on the definite macros after I have completed a day, but I am looking for about 1k-1200 cals per day, 200g protein, and negligible carbs/fats.

I am 209, and 13-16% neigborhood.


----------



## Built (Sep 10, 2009)

Let's put you at 180 lbs LBM. This puts you at 14% and makes you a category I dieter. 

Your protein can go as high as 360g per day if you wish; go for 11-12 days, then take a two-day refeed followed by a diet break at maintenance for at least a few weeks.

The refeed will look something like this:

If you go low on the carbs:

Day 1
Grams of Protein: 180
Grams of carb: 720
Grams of Fat: 59	
Calories: 4,135	

Day 2
Grams of Protein:180
Grams of carb: 360
Grams of Fat: 59
Calories: 2,695


If you go high on the carbs: 
Day 1	
Grams of Protein: 180	
Grams of carb: 1,080	
Grams of Fat: 59	
Calories: 5,575	

Day 2
Grams of Protein: 180
Grams of carb: 540
Grams of Fat: 59
Calories: 3,415

Two short heavy lifting workouts a week; do a tension workout before the carbup. 

Supplements (Note: salt your food normally)
1g potassium, 
1g calcium, 
500mg magnesium	
10g fish oil	
"Multi, 
also 1g vitamin C"

Need anything else from me?


----------



## jmorrison (Sep 11, 2009)

Nope I think you just awesomed all over the place.

Here were my macros and meals for the day. Keep in mind that I work nights, so my meals are backwards, ie: breakfast for dinner etc. Any tweaks would be great:

Breakfast: Small salad with (all raw veggies)broccolli, tabasco peppers, bell pepper slices and 1/2cup diced ham with a whey shake:
280 cals, 8g carbs, 36g protein

Break: 1 cup Cottage Cheese
220 cals, 5g carbs, 30g protein

Lunch: 2 small/med boneless chicken breasts and whey shake
390cals, 3g carbs, 68g protein

Break: 1 cup Cottage Cheese
220 cals, 5g carbs, 30g protein

Afterworkout dinner: Eggbeater omelet with diced ham
115cals, 2g carbs, 25g protein

Totals: 1225cals, 23g carbs, 190g protein

I am doing 30 mins low impact SS cardio (as per Lyle) per day, with 2 of the days actually being HIIT followed by 10-15 mins of SS.  I am resistance training 3 days per week, upper push, lower body, upper pull, lower impact for around 30-45 mins.

Supplements currently taking are:

Multivitamin
10 caps fish oil
EC stack
Whey shake

I dont have any access to any other supps out here.

Anything I am messing up here?  Any ideas on a little more protein with less cals or carbs?  Having trouble getting that protein and keeping the carbs under control.  Also, how much fat should I be shooting for? Thanks lady!


----------



## Built (Sep 11, 2009)

Fats should be minimal, just take your 10g of fish oil and perhaps a tablespoon of olive oil daily. 

No HIIT. It's too much. His revised guidelines say as much. 

I do a workout every third day, alternating between these:

PSMF workout 1	
Push press	3 x 5-8
Chins	3 x 5-8
Squats	3 x 5-8

PSMF workout 2	
Bench	3 x 5-8
Deads	3 x 5-8
T-bars	3 x 5-8


----------



## Built (Sep 11, 2009)

Oh, and try tuna mixed with cottage cheese and celery, with chopped up egg white.

You'll see. It's not bad.


----------



## jmorrison (Sep 11, 2009)

That sounds terrible, but I will give it a go.

I will drop the HIIT then until I finish this.  

The macros are ok then?


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 11, 2009)

Built said:


> Re jugg - dunno. I can ask though. Seems more than a few people miss him.



And ironically a lot of them are mods! I like straight shooters, he's definitely that.


----------



## Built (Sep 11, 2009)

Protein may be too low. I'd bring it up to at least 270g.


----------



## jmorrison (Sep 11, 2009)

I'm going to run a log in the diet section Built if you are interested in babysitting me.


----------



## Built (Sep 11, 2009)

Go ahead, drop me a PM with a link when you need me.


----------



## gtbmed (Sep 11, 2009)

All I have to say is:

If you say don't want to squat because you're afraid of having a big butt and you say that you're a male, then one of the things you said was a lie.

Get in the gym and squat.


----------



## DiGiTaL (Sep 12, 2009)

Quick question, its been awhile so I cant remember the difference between a high carb and low carb diet? Whats the difference again?

Carbs are used for energy, so low = bad?


----------



## Built (Sep 12, 2009)

Fat's used for energy, too. So is protein.


----------



## danzik17 (Sep 12, 2009)

DiGiTaL said:


> Quick question, its been awhile so I cant remember the difference between a high carb and low carb diet? Whats the difference again?
> 
> Carbs are used for energy, so low = bad?



The difference is in that a low carb diet will have a different effect on satiety that a high carb diet would (assuming equal calories).

Many people also have issues with insulin sensitivity/resistance (Save me here Built, can't remember which one it is!  ) which makes keto dieting much easier than "normal" dieting - I happen to fall into that category.


----------



## Gazhole (Sep 12, 2009)

I think you're thinking of insulin resistance, this is what diabetes type 2 is.


----------

