# Banned Exercises ?



## LAM (Apr 24, 2004)

Check out this link and you guys/gals post your opinions...

http://www.revised-training.com/banned_exercises.htm


----------



## Eggs (Apr 24, 2004)

Its BS IMO... just a way for the guy to join the fad workout program group... which is really similar to the fad diet group 

If bench wasnt effective, it wouldnt be a staple of chest growth as it has been for many years.  I'm not sure exactly what the data is behind those charts that he posts or if the research was conducted in an appropriate manner, but that stuff works... so why not use it.

As to preachers, been doing them vertical for a long time now... I definitely like them more that way.


----------



## Eggs (Apr 24, 2004)

Oh, and if I see someone doing reverse spinal erectors like he suggests... mounting the machine backwards, I'm going to burst out laughing at them looking silly.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_
> Oh, and if I see someone doing reverse spinal erectors like he suggests... mounting the machine backwards, I'm going to burst out laughing at them looking silly.




I do reverse hypers all the time.  they are an excellent exercise.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 24, 2004)

I have not read all of it, but I was reading what he said about lunges, and I would like for him to tell Ronnie Coleman what a waste of time lunges are.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 24, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Prince *_
> I have not read all of it, but I was reading what he said about lunges, and I would like for him to tell Ronnie Coleman what a waste of time lunges are.



LOL, I was thinking the exact same thing.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 24, 2004)

I heard that Ronnie likes to walk across the gym parking lot doing dumbbell lunges, what a waste of time, huh? How f'ing big are Ronnie's legs?


----------



## vas85 (Apr 25, 2004)

Hey guys, sorry for the lack of LONG REPLY .. as i mentioned in another post after reinstalling windows i kinda forgot everything, but yeh... Removing BENCHPRESS as being ILLEGAL??? i cannot laugh any harder, thats like the epitomy of all CHEST development in its incline decline and flat Form... that sites a bit of a joke IMO.


----------



## Vieope (Apr 25, 2004)

_He is right about the bench press though. _


----------



## Eggs (Apr 25, 2004)

To a degree he is Vieope... truth is when you do bench you are going to utilize alot of different muscles.  I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say is a superior chest exercise that will stimulate more growth.

I just cant really respect anybody that published on a site and says that all this stuff doesnt work... then he just says to go on and buy his book and doesnt provide any answers.  I consider such tricks to be more consistant wit charlatans than those who actually perform


----------



## Vieope (Apr 25, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_
> I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say is a superior chest exercise that will stimulate more growth.


_Yeah me too  _


----------



## Eggs (Apr 25, 2004)

I sitll think bench is important though... its an excellent idea for utilizing those muscles and helping them work together very efficiently   If there was any other exercise that targetted the chest area better then it would be good to know about it... not to drop chest, but to add that exercise to the routine.


----------



## Vieope (Apr 25, 2004)

_There is no way I am stopping bench press, even if it is proved that it doesn´t work. 
I am no kinesiology expert but I guess this exercise is very effective:
[IMG2]http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/2002/cablecrossover1s.jpg[/IMG2] _


----------



## OceanDude (Apr 25, 2004)

I have not read the entire thing yet but I like this kind of "counter intuitive" reasoning. We must always reconsider alternatives if we want to improve. I like the analogy of risk-reward in that some of these exercises can put you into a high risk of serious damage for very little marginal benefit. While it is true that people like Arnold and Ronnie have had phenomenal success in applying the "old school" exercises (which I too have embraced) we will never know how many other men and women could have exceeded or matched their physical achievement if they had not become injured at an early age and dropped out.

I find the whole article interesting. Thanks for posting it.
-OD


----------



## Fit Freak (Apr 25, 2004)

Like Funk I also do reverse hyper-extensions...I do it using a stability ball...excellent exercise.

BUT...the majority of that info is BS...IMO of course


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 25, 2004)

I find it interesting that he used an electrical activity study to come to the conclusion that the bench press was ineffective. This is assuming the trainee was doing the movement to perfection, and as we all know, it is entirely possible to do bench press and strongly influence the delts and tri's more then the pecs (i.e. delt pressers).

There was a book out awhile back, sorry I can't remember the name, that did exactly the same comparison.  The goal was to find which movements generated the most muscular activity, determined by neuromuscular stimulation, for a given muscle group.  Guess what?  The decline bench, with the standard flat bench press coming in a very close second, provided the most pectoral stimulation.  So as typical, two studies, two sets of results.

Fact is, if you bench with a _slight_ arch, shoulder blades squeezed together, elbows in, and chest high, you will stimulate your pecs just fine.  This article was more to generate revenue, then provide earth shattering new ways to train.


----------



## Eggs (Apr 25, 2004)

Good point JD... research is so often abused that its just plain whacky.  Its hard to cite it alot of times as you never know what the exact situation was for the  researc hand why they might have arrived at certain results. Ah well!  I guess we'll just have to stick with using ourselves as guinea pigs


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 25, 2004)

I guess the gains I've made thus far with those exercises, in terms of strength and mass, are just a fluke and my real world experience means nothing because these studies told me so.


----------



## plouffe (Apr 25, 2004)

That's alll bullshit. FLEX Magazine had an article simular they said Squats and Deadlifts were too dangerous, and shouldn't be performed by weightlifters haha


----------



## Quadsweep (Apr 26, 2004)

Prince: I feel sorry for Ronni Coleman and his training methods.
Ronnie knows his steroids. I don't bring in Coleman and his training methods when discussing upper lower inner outer chest isolation  

To say lunges put mass on Colemans legs is like saying bicep curls built his massive legs. 

Taken from the article

*Lunges* 
"Lunges is a huge waste of time because while one leg performs, the other is recuperating, and you are basically performing a series of one rep sets in succession.   This bypasses the efficiency of continuous muscular tension and alleviates any buildup of muscular tension produced by essentially ratcheting a muscle tighter with successive repetitions"

"Far too little resistance is used to merit working the targeted muscle group.  Yes, your legs will seem to be on the edge of spontaneous combustion; so what, that has no relevant benefit beyond making you feel like you have done something.  You would do better running up a steep hill or pushing a car"

I agree.... Lunges is waste of time.

*Preacher curls* 
"Watch anyone perform a preacher curl.  They have to strain mightily at the bottom of the exercise, but as they move to the top, they actually begin to relax, and even pause to rest at the top.  At the top, or peak, of this exercise you have the option of contracting the biceps isometrically or totally relaxing.  Muscular contraction is irrelevant to the balanced state of the resistance"

I agree....


*Triceps kickbacks* 

"This exercise can't normally be performed with heavy resistance.  The range of motion for this exercise can be duplicated and improved upon by using other exercises that have a greater range, a higher potential for resistance, and the performance of both arms simultaneously."

I agree....

*Upright rows*

"A lateral raise is superior to this exercise because it requires exclusion of the traps and biceps when performing it efficiently, making it a better isolation exercise for the shoulder.  

I agree


*Military press*

"The main drawback to performing this overhead press is that the shoulder joint is twisted to its rear extreme where the bones tendons and ligaments are forced to rotate.  This is called impingement.  It is a potentially damaging situation.  When the exercise is performed with heavy resistance, the impinged friction of the joint is enormous"

It's a fact


*Hyperextensions:*
Reverse hypers rock!


*Straight Bar Curls:*
Dumbells rock!

*Bench press:*
Old news. We all know the delts and triceps get pounded as well as the chest


----------



## Eggs (Apr 26, 2004)

I see you dont have any pics in your gallery Quad... since you're able to criticize Ronnie, I'd appreciate it if you posted some pics so we can see where you're coming from.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_
> I see you dont have any pics in your gallery Quad... since you're able to criticize Ronnie, I'd appreciate it if you posted some pics so we can see where you're coming from.


Ditto.

In fact I would appreciate that anyone who runs off at the mouth post their pics.





> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> Prince: I feel sorry for Ronni Coleman and his training methods.
> Ronnie knows his steroids. I don't bring in Coleman and his training methods when discussing upper lower inner outer chest isolation
> 
> To say lunges put mass on Colemans legs is like saying bicep curls built his massive legs.



Yeah, I feel sorry for Ronnie Coleman as well. He is now 40 years old, the biggest bodybuilder to ever walk on stage (287 shredded lbs at the last Olympia), and has 6 consecutive Mr. O wins.

But you're correct, it must be due to his steroid use.


----------



## Eggs (Apr 26, 2004)

Yeah Prince.. those guys who use steroids obviously know nothing about lifting... its all steroids and we know it!


----------



## Arnold (Apr 26, 2004)

Speaking of Ronnie, he is guest posing at a show here in Colorado in a few months. I am very excited to see him, I also plan on buying his video. His lifts are supposed to be amazing! I believe he reps out with around 550lbs on benchpress 5 weeks out from the Olympia!  (of course this is all due to steroids)


----------



## ALBOB (Apr 26, 2004)

"The actual movement does not require the chest to move the resistance.  An overhead shoulder press is the exact same movement done in a different direction.  The chest isn't involved in that movement, because it is not an integral part of the process.  The anterior and medial deltoids, along with the triceps are the primary movers, as their electrical activity blatantly shows."

This is the statement that gets me.  To simply dismiss the bench press as an inferior chest exercise because "the overhead shoulder press is the exact same movement done in a different direction" is absurd.  So, does that mean Weighted Dips are inferior chest developers too?  They're the same movement done in a different direction too.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 26, 2004)

Professional bodybuilders use steroids?  Do you think maybe powerlifters use'em too?  Gosh, I thought it was all creatine, vitamins, and good, clean living...


----------



## Arnold (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by JerseyDevil *_
> Professional bodybuilders use steroids?  Do you think maybe powerlifters use'em too?  Gosh, I thought it was all creatine, vitamins, and good, clean living...



I even heard that some pro athletes use them, i.e. football & baseball players.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 26, 2004)

No way!  No one on my favorite team I'm sure.


----------



## OceanDude (Apr 26, 2004)

Well, I for one am willing to listen to alternative exercises when the science seems to suggest that the conventional wisdom is not as effective as we think. I keep having to ask how many other people out there could have had much better results if they were more effective with their technique and exercise. For every Ronnie Coleman there are probably 10,000 or so other young men and women who have dropped out due to injury or frustrated results. For most of us that are not %100 professional body builders and still slug it out in the gym routinely and that have other obligations I am personally all for getting more stimulus for less time in the gym. Just wish someone would take the bait and find out what the author is proposing as alternatives and let the rest of us know before we commit real for-gosh money to it.  Wait, a sec??? I *can* afford to pay real for-gosh money. Why am I worried about spending a few bucks for? Hmm, I am thinking that a lot of us in BB have a tendency to be cheapskates when we would rather put down $50 bucks to try a totally bogus product like NO2 but hesitate to put down $20 bucks to read a few new ideas. And this is coming from a traditionalist guys. Shame on you others.


-OD


----------



## Quadsweep (Apr 26, 2004)

> Hmm, I am thinking that a lot of us in BB have a tendency to be cheapskates when we would rather put down $50 bucks to try a totally bogus product like NO2 but hesitate to put down $20 bucks to read a few new ideas. And this is coming from a traditionalist guys. Shame on you others.



True! The subject up for discussion is the link posted by LBM. People don't take the time to read what's it's all about. Some people just reject everything in some kind of one sentence orchish language.



> "In fact I would appreciate that anyone who runs off at the mouth post their pics"



How big does the circumference of my thigh has to be before I am entitled to question Colemans training methods? I have not seen your pictures. Frankly, I don't care much about what you look like. (but I do wonder why Prince crop his avatar like that?)  

I don't care much about the exception ronnie coleman. Silly me, I thought this was a forum for discussing training methods in general and not the exceptions like coleman.

Go ahead. Duplicate Ronnie and his training methods. For your convenience I have included a chest workout below. It's The Endlösung of all chest workouts!

Remember we are aiming for the high reps. Go ahead inject yourselves and get the roids pumping. Remember the all important squezze!

RONNIE COLEMAN'S PRIORITIZING CHEST WORKOUTS

EXERCISE                  SETS  REPS
WORKOUT A

Flat bench presses         5    20-12
Incline barbell presses    4     12
Flat dumbbell flyes        4     12
Incline dumbbell presses   4     12

WORKOUT B

Incline barbell presses    4     12
 superset with
 Incline dumbbell flyes    4     12
Flat bench presses         4     12
 superset with
 Flat dumbbell flyes       4     12

Flat bench presses AND incline presses. High reps. Does this make any sense to you, Prince? Do you train this way? Why not? Coleman knows training much better than you do. It's obvious he's much bigger than you.





> "He is now 40 years old, the biggest bodybuilder to ever walk on stage (287 shredded lbs at the last Olympia), and has 6 consecutive Mr. O wins."


 If there is any justice to this world his lifespan will be very short. If not elect him for governor.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 26, 2004)

That is not Ronnie Coleman's workout, despite what many publications (funded by supp companies of course) would have you believe.

Ronnie Coleman lifts using an extremely high volume Westside routine. I assume the volume is what it is because of the amount of drugs in his body.

And science would say that science doesn't lie. Let's look at one particular science (physiology) and the resulting studies done by Mel Siff and company. When this science is applied, what are the results? Every single elite level powerlifter on the planet and the pinnacle of bodybuilding, Ronnie Coleman.


----------



## Eggs (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> How big does the circumference of my thigh has to be before I am entitled to question Colemans training methods? I have not seen your pictures. Frankly, I don't care much about what you look like. (but I do wonder why Prince crop his avatar like that?)



If you're not too lazy you can click on the little link under his post thats says gallery and you can see pics from his most recent competition


----------



## Arnold (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> I have not seen your pictures. Frankly, I don't care much about what you look like. (but I do wonder why Prince crop his avatar like that?)



It takes a genius to click on my pic gallery icon.

I cropped the pic so it would fit as an avatar. 


Some of My Pics: (April 3, 2004)

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1367&password=&sort=1&cat=500&page=1

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1366&password=&sort=1&cat=500&page=1

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1355&password=&sort=1&cat=500&page=1

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1354&password=&sort=1&cat=500&page=1

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1352&password=&sort=1&cat=500&page=2

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=1353&password=&sort=1&cat=500&page=2


----------



## Arnold (Apr 26, 2004)

oh, here are some more pics, including my "cropped" avatar pic.

http://www.ironmagazine.com/biography.php

[IMG2]http://ironmagazine.com/images/rob/04Northern2/8.jpg[/IMG2]


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 26, 2004)

My only problem with these statements is that you shouldn't "ban" any exercise from your routine.  You should use a very wide variety of lifts.  Just because one lift is not the best means nothing.  If you stick with the same lifts just because they are considered the "best" then you will never get anywhere.  

Declaring the bench press worthless for chest is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.  Just because it hits shoulders and triceps doesn't mean the chest doesn't do a lot of work.  There are plenty of other lifts that people use for one purpose that server others (Deadlifts for example are done for the back, but the legs certainly do quite a bit of work).  In addition, I would like to see the form the person used when they tested that.  Very few people understand proper bench press form.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Apr 26, 2004)

Proper in what sense?


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Saturday Fever *_
> Proper in what sense?



Very few people arch their back and pull their shoulder blades in when they bench press.  They lie flat on the bench and push up, which is wrong.


----------



## LAM (Apr 26, 2004)

I think the only thing that I agree on about that site is what he stated about the straight bar curls....


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 26, 2004)

Well OD, since you are so open minded, why don't you go to his website and order his 'program' with all of these startling revelations for a mere $25?  The article about why the bench press is bogus appeared in the Feb issue of Natural Bodybuilding, I'm sure you can get back issues.

I honestly think you'll find nothing new, just someone trying to make a buck promising easily obtainable muscular gains.  Guys like this have been around since the days of Charles Atlas...





> _*Originally posted by OceanDude *_
> Well, I for one am willing to listen to alternative exercises when the science seems to suggest that the conventional wisdom is not as effective as we think. I keep having to ask how many other people out there could have had much better results if they were more effective with their technique and exercise. For every Ronnie Coleman there are probably 10,000 or so other young men and women who have dropped out due to injury or frustrated results. For most of us that are not %100 professional body builders and still slug it out in the gym routinely and that have other obligations I am personally all for getting more stimulus for less time in the gym. Just wish someone would take the bait and find out what the author is proposing as alternatives and let the rest of us know before we commit real for-gosh money to it.  Wait, a sec??? I *can* afford to pay real for-gosh money. Why am I worried about spending a few bucks for? Hmm, I am thinking that a lot of us in BB have a tendency to be cheapskates when we would rather put down $50 bucks to try a totally bogus product like NO2 but hesitate to put down $20 bucks to read a few new ideas. And this is coming from a traditionalist guys. Shame on you others.
> 
> 
> -OD


----------



## OceanDude (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by JerseyDevil *_
> ...  Guys like this have been around since the days of Charles Atlas...



Don't tell me that Atlas's "Bull Twist Thingie" he use to sell when I was a kid didn't work for you? I think it cost like $10. Heck, I'm probably more buff looking than Atlas anyway and so are 80% of most gym-heads currently working out. I just want to make sure I am not gonna end up looking like Ronnie by accident by doing his routines...

 


-OD


----------



## Arnold (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by OceanDude *_
> I think it cost like $10. Heck, I'm probably more buff looking than Atlas anyway and so are 80% of most gym-heads currently working out.



yeah, but wasn't that $10 back in the 1940's or 50's?

how much would that be in today's dollars? $100?


----------



## Eggs (Apr 26, 2004)

I agree JD, OD should spot the $25 and break it down for us... any good information in there or is it just a big dud like most of us think it is.

Since you volunteered...


----------



## OceanDude (Apr 26, 2004)

Bah, you buys your tickee and youz takes yer chances...

No free info for jou! 

-OD


----------



## Quadsweep (Apr 26, 2004)

Prince: Nice upper body 

However, please crop your pictures. It leaves a better impression. Too much of leg extensions and lunges. You asked for it by posting your pics.


On the more serious side, I never got any explanation why Lunges work wonders?

The Lunge is in every aspect infererior compared to the mighty squat and humble leg press. Lunges is a waste of ammo.

Is it the "I feel it syndrome"?





OceanDude:


> I just want to make sure I am not gonna end up looking like Ronnie by accident by doing his routines...


 Stay clear of roids 

I also think bench press is just fine. Maybe he wants to sell us the idea of doing some kind of a low pulley cable combined flye and press???



> "While it is true that people like Arnold and Ronnie have had phenomenal success in applying the "old school" exercises (which I too have embraced) we will never know how many other men and women could have exceeded or matched their physical achievement if they had not become injured at an early age and dropped out."



True, bodybuilding is 95% genetics. Genetics that allows you to lift unbelieveable amount of weight in the most stupidious ways without getting injured. 

Yesterday, I visited a clinic for physiotherapy and rehabilitation of paralyzed and quadriplegic patients. The will power and effort exerted by those patients made Ronnie Coleman and his "unbelievable" pale in comparison. To some extent it all comes down to what you've got.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> Prince: Nice upper body



thanks...waiting anxiously for yours...


----------



## Arnold (Apr 26, 2004)

btw, my quads have always been one of my strong points, so not sure what you meant.

here is a better shot of them:
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/g...4&password=&sort=1&size=medium&cat=500&page=3


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> On the more serious side, I never got any explanation why Lunges work wonders?
> 
> The Lunge is in every aspect infererior compared to the mighty squat and humble leg press. Lunges is a waste of ammo.
> ...



I don't think lunges work wonders.  However, I do feel that they are a useful exercise.  They are especially useful for me because I workout at home so my range of exercises is limited, particularly for my back and legs.

For me, it's the "I saw strength/size gains syndrome."


----------



## Arnold (Apr 26, 2004)

Guess I never addressed lunges...

Lunges are okay, I do them about every 3rd or 4th leg work-out for something different, my main focus is squats and leg press. I do not like to do lunges often due to the glute emphasis, my ass is already big enough from deep squats! 

Honestly, I am not real fond of any single leg exercise, in fact lunges would be the only leg exercise I do that is single leg and like I said I do not even do them very often.

I only brought up Ronnie doing lunges because I read that he was quite fond of them, and I was being sarcastic as far as the author of that article telling Ronnie that lunges are a waste of time. 

If anyone asks me what they should do for big legs my answer is always the same: Free weight barbell squats, the deeper and heavier the better!


----------



## Flex (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Robert DiMaggio *_
> I have not read all of it, but I was reading what he said about lunges, and I would like for him to tell Ronnie Coleman what a waste of time lunges are.


----------



## Eggs (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by OceanDude *_
> Bah, you buys your tickee and youz takes yer chances...
> 
> No free info for jou!
> ...



Pretty please with protein on top?


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by OceanDude *_
> I just want to make sure I am not gonna end up looking like Ronnie by accident by doing his routines...
> 
> -OD


That was good.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> Prince: Nice upper body


Yeah, yeah, Prince looks great, but what about his wife Gena. 

Robert, you dog.


----------



## Flex (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Robert DiMaggio *_
> I heard that Ronnie likes to walk across the gym parking lot doing dumbbell lunges, what a waste of time, huh?



no no no!

he only uses 185 on a barbell. 

i don't know the whole premise behind all this argueing, but lunges DO work.


----------



## Quadsweep (Apr 26, 2004)

> i don't know the whole premise behind all this argueing, but lunges DO work!





> he only uses *185*  on a barbell


 Ok now I am convinced.... 

Never take any advice from an IFBB pro. You might end up doing lunges in a parkin lot with dumbells weighing 40-45 pounds 

What Cutler has to say about Lunges:



> "I do these year-???round, because they allow me to develop a lot of detail  in the off-season," says Jay  "Most pros will limit lunges to the time they???re preparing for a big contest." Jay uses dumbbells that weigh *40-45 pounds *  in each hand, and his lunges see him take a step with one leg, return to the starting position, and then do the same with the opposite leg. "I???m not real big on walking lunges, for 2 reasons," says the Night of Champions winner: "It???s far more difficult to keep your chest erect and your head up, which is essential to the movement, and you???re constantly having to make sure you have clear sailing ahead, or you have to stop your forward movement." Some fast calculating confirms his concerns: Jay does 9-11 reps. At 30" of forward movement per lunge, that would work out to 90 to 110 feet of needed clear straight-ahead runway.



Massive Quads with jay cutler 

Try to do this. Do lunges and legextension only for a period of time and watch how your legs atrophy at the speed of light.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 26, 2004)

The author wasn't saying that these exercises don't work, only that they were a waste of time.  I think he used the wrong terminology and meant to put that they are a less efficent use of time.  

Also, he put that whole graph on the chest portion but failed to put an accompanying graph of another exercise for perspective.  First off, who the hell puts up a graph without a scale.  Is the y-axis percent recruitment, wattage, etc.  Sure, according to that graph it would seem that the chest is not used much in certain portions of the lift, but where is the graph of the movement he recommends for comparison.  You wouldn't choose between 2 cars having only seen the specs on one of them.  

Let me ask a question, what exercises generally elicit the greatest training response?  The multi-joint ones (Squat, Deadlift) that work multiple muscles.  He is equating how isolated a movement is to the growth response associated with it.  I imagine he recommmends some sort of flye or crossover movement since that would more isolate the pec.  You can work on that and see how big you get, I will continue with the multi-joint movements.

Also, his description of the Bench press and overhead shoulder press being the same is absurd, they are in completely different planes.  It would be like saying the Lat pulldown and Barbell row are exactly the same.  I would love to see a graph showing these exercises to be exactly the same, but it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> What Cutler has to say about Lunges:
> 
> Massive Quads with jay cutler
> ...



You know I never cared much for Jay Cutler, but at my last show he was the guest poser, and I decided to buy his DVD just cause I thought seeing a monster like that train would be inspirational (and it was). 

But after watching his double DVD set I gained a new respect for Jay, not only is a pretty cool and down to earth guy, but he defied so many odds and became one of the top pro bodybuilders today. 

Not to mention the guy really does live bodybuilding 24/7, and yes I realize he takes a boatload of drugs, but there is no way in hell I could do half of this guy work-out! It was pretty unbelievable, and after watching the DVD I realized why Jay is one of the top IFBB pros today. He is 100% dedicated, and has complete discipline beyond what 99% of people have, yet he still ensures that he makes time for all of his fans, charity events, and his wife.

I give Jay a 

So, you can make fun of him, and his article or whatever, but the fact of the matter is you will never be at his level (or even close)of success in bodybuilding.


----------



## Burner02 (Apr 26, 2004)

when is ronnie coming?


----------



## Arnold (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Burner02 *_
> when is ronnie coming?



Nov 13 - THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN BODYBUILDING & CAROL SEMPLE FITNESS & FIGURE CLASSIC 

http://jefftaylor.com/calendar/index.html


----------



## Flex (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> Ok now I am convinced....
> 
> Try to do this. Do lunges and legextension only for a period of time and watch how your legs atrophy at the speed of light.



hey wiseass,
i wasn't saying only do lunges and leg extensions if you want big quads. obviously squats are the best ex. you can do.

but what i WAS saying was that lunges DO work as a nice supplement.


----------



## Flex (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Robert DiMaggio *_
> But after watching his double DVD set I gained a new respect for Jay, not only is a pretty cool and down to earth guy, but he defied so many odds and became one of the top pro bodybuilders today.
> 
> yes I realize he takes a boatload of drugs, but there is no way in hell I could do half of this guy work-out!



i never really liked him either (only cuz i love Ronnie...in a completely heterosexual way haha) until i saw his video just like you. i also gained respect for him, for the same reasons as you.

but as to your second part, honestly, you have no idea how "much" you can train when juicin. you finish your workout and feel like you can go run a marathon. during your w.o., you get an indescribable feeling of wanting to train. the best comparison is when you take time off. say you take a month off, and your literally almost going through lifting withdrawals you want in the gym so bad.........that's how you feel before/during/after wo's while juicin.


----------



## Burner02 (Apr 26, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Robert DiMaggio *_
> Nov 13 - THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN BODYBUILDING & CAROL SEMPLE FITNESS & FIGURE CLASSIC
> 
> http://jefftaylor.com/calendar/index.html


thanks!


----------



## Quadsweep (Apr 27, 2004)

> So, you can make fun of him, and his article or whatever, but the fact of the matter is you will never be at his level (or even close)of success in bodybuilding



I will beat a 100% clean Jay Cutler at any time!

You know why?

Jay Cutler will find himself in the parking lot with pink dumbells doing lunges at the same time I am in the gym doing heavy squats. Maybe then he will be forced to realise what work and what does not work.

I find it very amusing that I beat a juiced up Cutler at lunges. Maybe it's has something to do with my background in OLY weightlifting or maybe I have a better hand eye coordination?

I don't know about his other lifts. I don't think anyone knows what for real or what is plates of cardboard and gossip.

You know I don't Envy Cutler that much. I'm as much into athletics as I am into bodybuilding. Beauty, explosivity, strenght united.

I understand that one can get motivated by looking at the training videos.  




> hey wiseass,



Same back at you! "Mr. Lunges DO work"



> but what i WAS saying was that lunges DO work as a nice supplement



You still refuse to tell why I should be doing them?  




> but as to your second part, honestly, you have no idea how "much" you can train when juicin. you finish your workout and feel like you can go run a marathon. during your w.o., you get an indescribable feeling of wanting to train.



This is exactly why people on juice giving advice to other people should have their post labelled with a big disclaimer.


----------



## Eggs (Apr 27, 2004)

Oh please, you couldnt beat my friggin grandma out in the parking lot with pink dumbells.  You compare yourself to Cutler?

Maybe I missed you posting your pics somewhere... but the only thing I can guarantee is big on you is your mouth.

Keep talking your smack, you want to see the size some of the pros lift at?  Go watch a Ronnie training video and you'll see how hardcore his training is.  You still have this stupid idea in your head that pros are "all roids man".  Wake the hell up, just because you use roids and have good genetics doesnt make you a monster like that.  It takes some hardcore training too.. training which you couldnt possibly fathom.  But you'd like us to believe you do 

Your body adapts.  Its good to change up your routine and hit your muscles in different ways.  I think lunges are valuable as an occasional tool to place a different kind of stress on your leg muscles.



> This is exactly why people on juice giving advice to other people should have their post labelled with a big disclaimer.



I think that you should have a big disclaimer on your postings that tell us how much beef you ate as a kid, what your genetics are, how long you've been training, what kind of supplements you use, and so on.  Or you could just leave it be and take advice for what it is worth and train hard.


----------



## Quadsweep (Apr 27, 2004)

> Or you could just leave it be and take advice for what it is worth and train hard


  Hard is never ever going to be enough for drug free athletes. Drugfree athletes must train _smart_ as well


----------



## Flex (Apr 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> Hard is never ever going to be enough for drug free athletes. Drugfree athletes must train _smart_ as well



dude, you're one of the many misinformed people that knows little to nothing about steroids. people like you think you take steroids, and voila, you are huge. i feel sorry for you.

ya, ronnie's done an enormous amount of juice. but w/o his genetics, 20+yrs of lifting, dieting and living the BB lifestyle, he wouldnt be anything w/ just juice.

you're just like the dumbass people in congress, so learn a little before you judge something you know nothing about.


----------



## Flex (Apr 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> I will beat a 100% clean Jay Cutler at any time!
> 
> 
> ...



First of all, you beating a clean Jay Cutler is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. do you even workout? if you could beat a clean Cutler, you'd better be one of the top natural guys in the world right now for starters, and that's JUST for starters. 

secondly, it's not that i refuse to tell you why you should be doing lunges, its that i dont care if you do lunges. personally i'll take the opinions of Arnold, Haney, Ronnie, Sergio, Platz, DeMayo and so many other pro BB's about something over some guy on a forum named quadsweep.


----------



## Flex (Apr 27, 2004)

oh ya, and like you said "as far as natural athletes have to train smart as well", that goes to show you know zero about steroids. 

you think people grow just from injections, like they don't need to train correctly/intensely, rest enough and eat right/enough. again, please don't argue about something you know nothing about.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 27, 2004)

Quadsweep, I am still waiting to see your pics.


----------



## Flex (Apr 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Robert DiMaggio *_
> Quadsweep, I am still waiting to see your pics.



they must be pretty impressive if he owns a natural Jay Cutler


----------



## Arnold (Apr 27, 2004)

he will never post pics.


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Robert DiMaggio *_
> he will never post pics.



I'm sure he will continue to talk trash about the training methods of some of the world's top bodybuilders though.


----------



## Flex (Apr 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by CowPimp *_
> I'm sure he will continue to talk trash about the training methods of some of the world's top bodybuilders though.



Ya, because those methods are ONLY good for BB's on steroids


----------



## Eggs (Apr 27, 2004)

Yeah, we all know that without the roids they'd all be crazy skinny!


----------



## Arnold (Apr 27, 2004)

the funny thing is many people actually believe that if they took the same drugs they could look like a pro bodybuilder, I will never understand this irrational thinking.

It's like saying that you could also be a NFL star quarterback or an Olympic Gold Medalist, if you wanted to, or if you trained like them, or whatever.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Robert DiMaggio *_
> the funny thing is many people actaully believe that if they took the same drugs they could look like a pro bodybuilder, I will never understand this irrational thinking.
> 
> It's like saying that you could also be a NFL star quarterback or an Olympic Gold Medalist, if you wanted to, or if you trained like them, or whatever.



Yeah, I could never understand that.  The World's strong man contest was on today when I was working out and after my workout my training partner and I were standing there and he says  "Man these guys are so strong.  They are on everything though AND they have great genetics.  I could take all the stuff they are taking and never be that strong or atheletic."  Steroids don't make you an amazing athelete.  You either are or you aren't!!  they can help a great athelete become a tad bit better though.


*side note* I don't use steroids so I never don't do walking lunges.


----------



## LAM (Apr 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Robert DiMaggio *_
> the funny thing is many people actually believe that if they took the same drugs they could look like a pro bodybuilder, I will never understand this irrational thinking.



ditto, that shit kills me ! 

if you can't win a national title steroid free you have NO CHANCE as a pro....


----------



## Arnold (Apr 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by LAM *_
> if you can't win a national title steroid free you have NO CHANCE as a pro....



You're right...these days you can almost say a state level show.


----------



## maniclion (Apr 27, 2004)

Walking Lunges - is that the maneuver men make to get their underwear out of their crack? A la Kevin James


----------



## Flex (Apr 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Robert DiMaggio *_
> the funny thing is many people actually believe that if they took the same drugs they could look like a pro bodybuilder, I will never understand this irrational thinking.
> :



The best estimation i can come up for this is because they try to rationalize and justify why they are not a top BB....or in this case, a top anything.

"OH, if i took as much steroids as Ronnie blah blah blah". It's easy for people to accept that they can't be the best of something by giving a reason, so they attempt to justify by "if i took all those roids...."

and you're dead right, its the exact same as w/pro athletes. it's basically giving people a chance at the glory days they never had. "i could've done this or i could've done that"


----------



## Quadsweep (Apr 27, 2004)

> personally i'll take the opinions of Arnold, Haney, Ronnie, Sergio, Platz, DeMayo and so many other pro BB's about something over some guy on a forum named quadsweep.


*LAUGH*

Do you actually do walking lunges in the parkin lot with dumbells weighing only 40-45 pounds like the PROs? Do you squat in a smith machine with elevated heels like Arnold did? I won't go further into Arnold encyclopedia of MYTHS. Great entertainment. Go ahead waste your time in the gym getting bursitis hitting every muscle from every angle.     

IFBB pro Bob Cicherrillo: "Squat is a back breaker. Bench press sucks. Deadlifts strain your body." ( http://www.flexonline.com/train/6?page=1 )    


I could go on and on about the training MYTHS employed by juiced up bodybuilders. Frankly, I don't have time for that.



> personally i'll take the opinions of Arnold


Great ask for his opinion about drugs!



> they must be pretty impressive if he owns a natural Jay Cutler


  There is no such thing as a natural Cutler. There never has been.



> Walking Lunges - is that the maneuver men make to get their underwear out of their crack?


 Yes there is a time and place for everything.


----------



## Flex (Apr 27, 2004)

quadsweep, you're a clown.

if Cutler was natural, he'd own you. as a matter of fact, do you even bodybuild?

actually i do squat with plates under my heels, and guess what, my legs are my best bp.

please, humor me, and tell me "myths" of juiced up BB's that don't pertain to natural BB's.


----------



## Eggs (Apr 27, 2004)

Everyones gotta be in agreement on that... Quads most definitely a clown.


----------



## LAM (Apr 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Eggs *_
> Everyones gotta be in agreement on that... Quads most definitely a clown.



Quad who ? he got put on my ignore list days ago...


----------



## Eggs (Apr 27, 2004)

Haha, one of these days I'm going to find that thing 



That said, every bit of training advice we get should be taken with a grain of salt... on the internet, from friends, or from pro body builders.  One shouldnt discount them just because of their position, but one should definitely take everything with a grain of salt and reason through the value of what the person recommended.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Apr 27, 2004)

heres the conclusion i came to after reading this whole thread just now:
Quadsweep was doing lunges, in the parking lot with 45 pounders....
he let his form slip and fell down and hit his face on the concrete...
Since then he's been on a campaign to diss anyone using lunges

He cant show pics, b/c of his banged up face
and
He pretends like he is a pro something
acts like he knows the "real" pros
and goes around with a big head


----------



## Arnold (Apr 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> IFBB pro Bob Cicherrillo: "Squat is a back breaker. Bench press sucks. Deadlifts strain your body." ( http://www.flexonline.com/train/6?page=1 )



Interesting article it did have some truth to it.

One important thing to note was in the first paragraph: "_You don't have to do anything except what works best for you..._"

The problem I have with his article is he is implying that all of those exercises should be avoided by basically everyone, I disagree with that. I do agree that if certain exercises are not working well for you, i.e. bench press, don't do it. Find an alternative like dumbbell flyes, or whatever.

Obviously he has figured out what works well for him and that is what is important. However, I would hate to see a beginner read that article and avoid all of those basic, free weight compound movements that I view as important foundation builders, i.e. squats.

I do agree that once you're an advanced bodybuilder and have all of the mass that you want you can drop certain exercises if you feel they're inefficient and you can retain your mass doing a different movement. As he said he prefers leg press and hack squats and no longer uses free weight squats, and if that works for him then great!


----------



## MissOz (Apr 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Fit Freak *_
> Like Funk I also do reverse hyper-extensions...I do it using a stability ball...excellent exercise.
> 
> BUT...the majority of that info is BS...IMO of course




I program rev hypo's...into my PT clients training once they are conditioned ...awesome exercise!!.xx


----------



## Jodi (Apr 27, 2004)

Since when does size equate knowledge? 

Shame on all of you!


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 28, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Robert DiMaggio *_
> Interesting article it did have some truth to it.


Yes it did.  Especially the one about behind the neck presses.

I found it somewhat humorous that Quadsweep thoughout this thread has denouced the training methods of steroid using pro's, but then in this case, is quoting an article from an obviously 'juiced up' IFBB pro Bob Cicherillo. 

So which is it Quad?  Do we listen to a 'juiced up' 2nd or 3rd tier BB'er like Bob Cicherillo, or a 'juiced up' multiple Mr Olympia winner in Ronnie Coleman?  

Frankly, I listen to myself and what seems to work for me.  People will debate the proper way to train until the end of time, so these 'discussions' are largely a waste of time.


----------



## Quadsweep (Apr 28, 2004)

JerseyDevil, this one is for you:

Bob Cicherillo, not good enough for you?

Chris Cormier Former Mr. Olympia, taken from the 10 Basic Rules of Mass

#1. Use Free Weights for all Heavy Sets

As heavy as some machines might feel, they do not involve as much of the ancillary muscles areas as do free weights and, therefore, do not build as much compound mass. 

lets take a jump to rule number 

#5.  Be wary of dangerous exercises. Squats and flat bench presses, for example, possess the highest injury potential, so I stay away from them.........
  

Every IFBB pro has his or her own rules they preach about. They hardly ever mention periodization training techniques. One of the most powerfull tools. How comes ? (ROIDS?) They say it's all about training hard enough. Frankly speaking it is no match for most of us to train hard enough (overtraining).



> So which is it Quad?


 Listen to me  

Jersey devil wrote:


> Frankly, I listen to myself and what seems to work for me.


 Ok, may I ask you, what the hell are you doing here? Are you listening to yourself?

You remind me of a juiced up drug addict I saw in the Gym some days ago. He literally brainwashed this pure newbie into thinking that the seated Calf raise machine is the most effective method to train the gastrocnemius (the most visible part of the calf where the meat is, so to speak). I explained this poor newbie all about muscle length/tension relationsships. The sad thing is that I literally had to take off my trousers and show this guy my calves to make him believe. Not unlike the way things are in here 



> Since when does size equate knowledge?


  

The problem being easy gainers (top level BB/drug addicts) are passing on advice to the majority of people. But sadly it is that minority which has such a powerful influence in educating the exercise world through magazines and unbelievable videos...

Prince, Congrats, your last post shows me that you are better than most of the snotty kindergarten kids in here (and the egg head).


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 28, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> JerseyDevil, this one is for you:
> 
> Bob Cicherillo, not good enough for you?
> ...


The point was, smart ass, during this entire thread you tell us not to listen to the training advice of juiced up pro's.  But then we ARE supposed to listen to juiced up pro's (Bob Cicherillo and Chris Cormier's advice) because now it backs up some of your statements.  So which is it?  Do we listen to the pro's or not? 


> You remind me of a juiced up drug addict I saw in the Gym some days ago. He literally brainwashed this pure newbie into thinking that the seated Calf raise machine is the most effective method to train the gastrocnemius (the most visible part of the calf where the meat is, so to speak). I explained this poor newbie all about muscle length/tension relationsships. The sad thing is that I literally had to take off my trousers and show this guy my calves to make him believe. Not unlike the way things are in here


How in the fuck, did my saying I listen to my body remind you of a 'juiced up drug addict'?  Screw you Asswipe.


----------



## Flex (Apr 28, 2004)

Quad-
the reason people are being "snotty kindergarten kids" is because first of all, you say you'd beat a clean Jay Cutler, implying you have an amazine physique. I say...prove it.

secondly, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, do you honestly think IFBB pros write those articles for mags? if you do, you're seriously mistaken. Frankly, i'd be suprised if they even read the mags that they're feature in....that show they're "10 surefire ways to gain mass" and all the other b.s.

thirdly, you say the problem is that easy gainers (pro bb's) pass on advice to the majority of people. people who follow "pro's advice" blindly (from magazines and videos) are obviously not real BB's. Like Prince said "One important thing to note was in the first paragraph: "You don't have to do anything except what works best for you..."

Fourth, jerseydevil said he uses "what works best for HIM"....which is what you SHOULD do.

and a "Juiced up drug addict"? i ask you once again, please don't insult, or in any matter, try to even talk about something you know NOTHING about (...steroids). The so-called "juiced up addict" showed limited extent of his BB knowledge, that's all. It had NOTHING to do with him being on juice.

p.s. Chris Cormier was never Mr. Olympia


----------



## Arnold (Apr 28, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Jodi *_
> Since when does size equate knowledge?



It doesn't.

But when someone talks/posts the way this guy has been in this thread I expect that he must have quite a physique, otherwise he is just another little bookworm sitting behind his PC.

Book knowledge is great amd I am not discounting it, but I also believe in real life experience and knowledge as well. And since we are discussing training primarily here, not something like nutrition, it takes more than just a book to be educated IMO.

If he is going to criticize basically everyone from us to pro bodybuilders, and tell us which exercises work the best, etc., then I assume he has some real world gym experience to back all of this up, and a physique that matches.


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 28, 2004)

I think that no exercise should ever be banned.  I'm not going to argue that there may be more effective exercises for certain people, and I'm not going to argue that certain lifts aren't good for people who are prone to injuries in areas that these lifts stress.  

There is no need to argue about what these articles say.  There probably is truth behind them, but I don't make a decision as to whether or not I like a training method until I try it out.  If you never apply the advice to yourself, then you really don't know the results.  

Different lifts work better for different people.  Despite what these articles say, squats and deadlifts have done wonders for me.  My lower body is crap compared to my upper body, but deadlifts and squats have added quite a lot of size to my waist and legs.  I have done other lower body lifts and they did not yield nearly the size or strength gains that deadlifts have added.  I could care less what these people say because I have tried various things, and the classic compound exercises that some guy told me are "obsolete" are what work best for me thus far.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 28, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by CowPimp *_
> There is no need to argue about what these articles say.  There probably is truth behind them, but I don't make a decision as to whether or not I like a training method until I try it out.  If you never apply the advice to yourself, then you really don't know the results.



Exactly.


----------



## Quadsweep (Apr 29, 2004)

> . But then we ARE supposed to listen to juiced up pro's (Bob Cicherillo and Chris Cormier's advice) because now it backs up some of your statements


 You've got it completely wrong. Maybe I did not make it clear enough for you.  I don't like Bob Cicherillo's statements at all. He is just another bad example. 



> Cowpimp wrote: There is no need to argue about what these articles say. There probably is truth behind them, but I don't make a decision as to whether or not I like a training method until I try it out. If you never apply the advice to yourself, then you really don't know the results.
> 
> Jersey Devil wrote: Exactly



This is exactly why some people spend 16 years developing a physique they could have gotten in 8 years time (or opt for the ROIDS)! They persist at trying out all the counterproductive methods of training. A lot of those people get career ending injuries as well when they try to mimic Arnold doing squats in the smith machine with heels elevated! They are not as lucky as the beings you find in the parkin lot wasting time doing lunges with 45 pounders.

Robert DiMaggio: Pictures, Pictures Pictures. It's usually a topic I avoid to discuss. Frankly, I find it very amusing to see grown up men soaked in oil and charcoal strike poses on a catwalk wearing tiny thongs   The girls make hookers look decent.  You know I usually don't comment on this unless asked for.

Friends, romans, countrymen and drug addicts.

I will let you in on a secret. I squat heavy. I squat to increase lean muscle mass. I squat because I am a 60 and 100 metres specialist. I squat because it makes me run faster. I don't build muscle because I want to look good on a catwalk.

Frankly, I don't own a digital cam at all


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 29, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> This is exactly why some people spend 16 years developing a physique they could have gotten in 8 years time (or opt for the ROIDS)! They persist at trying out all the counterproductive methods of training. A lot of those people get career ending injuries as well when they try to mimic Arnold doing squats in the smith machine with heels elevated! They are not as lucky as the beings you find in the parkin lot wasting time doing lunges with 45 pounders.



How are you supposed to know which methods of training are counter productive for you if you don't try them first?  Conversely, how are you supposed to know which training methods are most productive for you unless you try them?  Bodybuilding is very much a process of trial and error, learning about physiology, and learning about your own body.  Don't tell me that you went online and designed the perfect routine for your body your first day of training...

Furthermore, most people have to switch to different training methods periodically to break past plateaus.  As well, you probably benefit differently from certain training methods depending on how advanced you are (Your training age).


----------



## Arnold (Apr 29, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> Robert DiMaggio: Pictures, Pictures Pictures. It's usually a topic I avoid to discuss. Frankly, I find it very amusing to see grown up men soaked in oil and charcoal strike poses on a catwalk wearing tiny thongs   The girls make hookers look decent.  You know I usually don't comment on this unless asked for.



In other words you're too embarrassed to post your pics, I understand.

It's too bad that you view bodybuilding competition this way, and it sounds like you may have some latent homosexual tendencies, you may want to seek therapy for this.


----------



## Quadsweep (Apr 29, 2004)

> How are you supposed to know which methods of training are counter productive for you if you don't try them first?


There is no need to re-invent science all over again. 

80 % science
20 % out of box thinking

No need to re-invent the 80 % science.



> Furthermore, most people have to switch to different training methods periodically to break past plateaus. As well, you probably benefit differently from certain training methods depending on how advanced you are (Your training age).


 True



> Don't tell me that you went online and designed the perfect routine for your body your first day of training...



Unfortunately I came across Arnolds encyclopedia of Myths. Then I met a coach. Giant leap forward.



> it sounds like you may have some latent homosexual tendencies, you may want to seek therapy for this.



Do you prescribe theraphy for being a homosexual? Book a time for Mr. Eggs as well. He refuses to stop sending me flowers. He does not take No for an answer


----------



## Eggs (Apr 29, 2004)

I send you flower because I hope you'll end up in the grave one of these days.  If stupidity kills, it shouldnt be long


----------



## Eggs (Apr 29, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> There is no need to re-invent science all over again.
> 
> 80 % science
> ...



Way to throw some numbers out there.  If I could pull numbers out of my ass like that I'd be a mathematician 



> True



True true... wazzuuuup.  This statement you just answered with a "true" is the main friggin point of all of this.  We have argued not to throw away exercises needlessly.  Variation and putting the body under new stress is key to building muscle and strength.  Rob Faigin has some about that in his book "Natural Hormonal Enhancement" as do tons of other writers.  So you dont like lunges... if you did them once a while they wouldnt hurt, even if you did them with pink dumbells.



> Unfortunately I came across Arnolds encyclopedia of Myths. Then I met a coach. Giant leap forward.



Ooooh, met a coach... they're about a frigging dime a dozen.  Look around, coaches are all over the place.  I'm sure he'll give you a nice pat on the butt too after a 50... who cares?



> Do you prescribe theraphy for being a homosexual? Book a time for Mr. Eggs as well. He refuses to stop sending me flowers. He does not take No for an answer



Sorry, I dont care to join you anywhere in or out of the closet.  But I would enjoy it if you actually posted proof of anything that you've said.

Oh, and shit... a sprinter.  Damn, thats special!   I'm sure everyone around here is all impressed.  Who gives a shit?  Have you ever won anything decent?  Hate to say it bro, but you'll never be best... but if it gives you goose bumps to rag on the world best sprinters, Shhh... they're roiding


----------



## CowPimp (Apr 29, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> There is no need to re-invent science all over again.
> 
> 80 % science
> ...


No one is talking about re-inventing science.  However, if you haven't noticed, there are several highly accepted training methods that all work to different degrees for different people: Max-OT, HST, and P/RR/S to name a few.

Surely, there are some basics that apply to most every training method.  However, I find that I end up having to tweak these highly accepted workouts to fit my body and available workout equipment all the time.  If you're not tweaking the program to your own needs, then you aren't training optimally.


----------



## Quadsweep (Apr 29, 2004)

> This statement you just answered with a "true" is the main friggin point of all of this. We have argued not to throw away exercises needlessly.



Who want's to throw away exercises needlessly? You tell me!

Dear Mr. Eggs, THE MAIN FRIGGIN POINT IS: What exercises do we need?



> So you dont like lunges... if you did them once a while they wouldnt hurt, even if you did them with pink dumbells


 They don't hurt. In fact they do very little, unless you are a child with severe motor learning disorders. 

" lunges are not an exercise that allows the kind of heavy weights that the lower body responds the best to.  There are more efficient exercises that work both legs simultaneously, allow for sufficient to extreme resistance, and have a longer range of resisted motion for the targeted muscles."

"walking lunges: When a person extends off the forward foot from the lunge position, you will notice that the foot leaves the floor after the initial push-off, before the lower leg is completely extended.  Half the remaining part of the motion involves a small contraction of the calf and glute muscles that pull the body back across the foot until an upright stance is achieved.  The targeted quadriceps can't complete its movement against any resistance because the foot is in the air, and theres nothing to push against.  Talk about a limited range of resisted motion."

"This bypasses the efficiency of continuous muscular tension and alleviates any buildup of muscular tension produced by essentially ratcheting a muscle tighter with successive repetitions."

Parking lots. Lunges. Pink dumbells. Jane Fonda elastic tubing bands. Mr. Eggs You are a mystery to me. You have plenty of other options such as the powersquat, front squat, barbell hack squat, olympic squat, legpress, deadlifts, sumo deadlift, stiflegged deadlift.....

Juicemaster wrote:


> If stupidity kills, it shouldnt be long



Not gonna happen in near future. You have to look elsewhere for spareparts to replace your ROID infested kidneys.....brains...genitals





*******************


Cowpimp I agree with you.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 29, 2004)

I love lunges


----------



## Quadsweep (Apr 29, 2004)

> I love lunges



Is she pretty?


----------



## Yanick (Apr 29, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by P-funk *_
> I love lunges



Done cooking/cleaning already?


----------



## plouffe (Apr 29, 2004)

Speaking of Chris Cormier ( Top of thread 4 )  -- He's guest posing in Chicago soon.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 30, 2004)

Is this thread still alive?  Sheesh.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 30, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Quadsweep *_
> Is she pretty?




no, she isn't prety.....she is f*cking hot!!!


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 30, 2004)

Is this the one you bounced on the trampoline with P?


----------



## P-funk (Apr 30, 2004)

LOL, no she is old news!!

Lunges is a new chick.....really smokin' bod!!!


----------



## JerseyDevil (Apr 30, 2004)

Good thing her name isn't Squats.


----------

