# Professional Opinion



## bcat (Jun 3, 2007)

So I want to change up my routine.  For the past year I have been doing variations of a three day workout:  Day 1-Chest/Shoulder/Tri; Day 2-Back/Bi; Day 3-legs.

I want to move to a four day routine.  What I wanted to know was would it be better to do something like:  Day 1-Chest/shoulders; Day 2-Back/Trap/Abs; Day 3-Bi/Tri/Abs; Day 4-leg/Abs    or    would it be better to do what I was doing before but on Day 4  do some type of circuit?  Also, I do a 25 minute cardio after each workout.

My goal is to gain muscle and start adding an ab routine.  Thanks for your help guys.


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

bcat said:


> So I want to change up my routine.  For the past year I have been doing variations of a three day workout:  Day 1-Chest/Shoulder/Tri; Day 2-Back/Bi; Day 3-legs.
> 
> I want to move to a four day routine.  What I wanted to know was would it be better to do something like:  Day 1-Chest/shoulders; Day 2-Back/Trap/Abs; Day 3-Bi/Tri/Abs; Day 4-leg/Abs    or    would it be better to do what I was doing before but on Day 4  do some type of circuit?  Also, I do a 25 minute cardio after each workout.
> 
> My goal is to gain muscle and start adding an ab routine.  Thanks for your help guys.



You can not gain optimally training three large muscle groups in one session.

Let's try this:

Monday: Chest
Tuesday: OFF
Wednesday: Back
Thursday: Shoulders
Friday: OFF
Saturday: Biceps & Triceps
Sunday: Legs

Or

Monday: Legs
Tuesday: OFF
Wednesday: Back/Biceps
Thursday: Chest
Friday: OFF
Saturday: Shoulders
Sunday: Triceps & Biceps


----------



## Gazhole (Jun 3, 2007)

Upper/Lower/Upper/Lower is a good 4 day split if you get the volume and loading  parameters right.


----------



## fufu (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> *You can not gain optimally training three large muscle groups in one session.*
> Let's try this:
> 
> Monday: Chest
> ...



Sorry, I'm going to call it as I see it, and that is 100% not true. The best results I have gained were from training upper/lower days bar none.

Training upper/lower and total body is a fantastic way to train. You can train the muscle groups more frequently and you don't have to pound out a ton of volume in each session. It also gives you more chance for variety which is another plus.

Training body parts is not sounds from a physio stand point. Muscles don't work in isolation, they work in movements, so really, working them as if they did is a poor way to go about training.


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

fufu said:


> Sorry, I'm going to call it as I see it, and that is 100% not true. The best results I have gained were from training upper/lower days bar none.
> 
> Training upper/lower and total body is a fantastic way to train. You can train the muscle groups more frequently and you don't have to pound out a ton of volume in each session. It also gives you more chance for variety which is another plus.
> 
> Training body parts is not sounds from a physio stand point. Muscles don't work in isolation, they work in movements, so really, working them as if they did is a poor way to go about training.



For an ADVANCED bodybuilder, large muscles REQUIRE at least 20-30 sets, and smaller muscles 12-20 sets.

This is not POSSIBLE to accomplish if you are training 3 muscles in one day.


----------



## fufu (Jun 3, 2007)

I'm gonna go ahead and say the original poster is not an advanced bodybuilder.


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

fufu said:


> I'm gonna go ahead and say the original poster is not an advanced bodybuilder.



Even an intermediate would gain much better from MORE VOLUME, which means wwe can only train ONE or TWO muscles maximum per day.

But hey, to each their own.


----------



## fufu (Jun 3, 2007)

But you see, you are more likely to train more volume overall if you train the muscles several times a week, instead of training body parts on their own day once a week, which isn't really occuring anyway because muscles work in movements(for example, you are indeed working your shoulders and arms when training back or chest).


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

fufu said:


> But you see, you are more likely to train more volume overall if you train the muscles several times a week, instead of training body parts on their own day once a week, which isn't really occuring anyway because muscles work in movements(for example, you are indeed working your shoulders and arms when training back or chest).



It unfortunately doesn't physiologically work that way, but I SURE WISH IT DID! 

Overload per session is more important than overload per week or MONTH.


----------



## bcat (Jun 3, 2007)

Thanks for all the input guys.  True, I am only an intermediate.  I have done a lot of research on my own, but as can be seen in this thread, I have found lots of different opinions.  As I develop my new routine I wanted to have the first part (of a 12 week training period) with a similar set up that I originally had (Chest/tri/shoulder; Back/bi; legs; day four maybe chest and amrs) but for the second part I wanted to mix it up to try to get some good gains in size.  

I know you guys have a lot more experience and that is why I am asking for your opinion.  Thanks again and Ill keep checking up to see what yall say.


----------



## fufu (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> *It unfortunately doesn't physiologically work that way, but I SURE WISH IT DID! *
> 
> Overload per session is more important than overload per week or MONTH.



What do you mean by "it"?


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> For an ADVANCED bodybuilder, large muscles REQUIRE at least 20-30 sets, and smaller muscles 12-20 sets.


 
Really?  Are those all work sets or including warm up sets?


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

fufu said:


> What do you mean by "it"?



Anabolism(Muscle-Growth).


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

JerseyDevil said:


> Really?  Are those all work sets or including warm up sets?



WORKING SETS my friend.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Guys who have gained optimally training more than one large muscle group in a training session.


----------



## fufu (Jun 3, 2007)




----------



## fufu (Jun 3, 2007)




----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)




----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

*Pictures of ME(Ross) from LAST YEAR.  I am 15lbs heavier and LEANER NOW.*


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

strength athletes aside, if you look at how athletes in other sports train, it is more often then not strength work and high amounts of metabolic work in some sort of upper/lower or total body training program


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

Those guys are POWERLIFTERS, NOT BODYBUILDERS!

They do NOT have SUPERIOR MUSCLE DEVELOPMENT.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> *Pictures of ME(Ross) from LAST YEAR.  I am 15lbs heavier and LEANER NOW.*





Who the fuck cares about you?

We are jsut proving the point that what you are saying is not 100% accurate.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> Those guys are POWERLIFTERS, NOT BODYBUILDERS!
> 
> They do NOT have SUPERIOR MUSCLE DEVELOPMENT.



Um....Dave Tate looks better than you do.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Pudz does too


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

P-funk said:


> Who the fuck cares about you?
> 
> We are jsut proving the point that what you are saying is not 100% accurate.



I AM 100% ACCURATE, FOR OPTIMAL MUSCLE GROWTH!


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)




----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> I AM 100% ACCURATE, FOR OPTIMAL MUSCLE GROWTH!



 

Look at how old school BB'ers trained....total body workouts.

Split routines came about when D-bol came around.

Go read flex magazine and put some posing oil on.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


>



Drugs work!


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)




----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

P-funk said:


> Drugs work!




Hate to tell you, THOSE POWERLIFTERS take drugs as well


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

P-funk said:


> Look at how old school BB'ers trained....total body workouts.
> 
> Split routines came about when D-bol came around.
> 
> Go read flex magazine and put some posing oil on.



Please refrain from DISRESPECTING THE SPONSORS.

Conduct yourself like an adult and a professional. please.


----------



## fufu (Jun 3, 2007)

These guys all take/took massive amounts of drugs to get where they are at. Along with all the hard work + insane dieting. Combine that with incredible genetics for muscle growth. Normal people can't and shouldn't train like pro bodybuilders.

Not trying to start shit, just a little debate.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> I AM 100% ACCURATE, FOR OPTIMAL MUSCLE GROWTH!


  Are we chemically enhanced just maybe?  

Is this where you tell us how wonderful your supps are?


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> Please refrain from DISRESPECTING THE SPONSORS.
> 
> Conduct yourself like an adult and a professional. please.


Well I AM starting shit. Who the hell do you think YOU ARE Mr 37 posts.  A sponsor?  BIG FUCKING DEAL!

I for one won't buy ANY of your shit pal.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> Please refrain from DISRESPECTING THE SPONSORS.
> 
> Conduct yourself like an adult and a professional. please.



what are your qualifications? Degrees?  professional certifications?


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

JerseyDevil said:


> Are we chemically enhanced just maybe?
> 
> Is this where you tell us how wonderful your supps are?



The original argument was if training 3 or more muscle per session is MORE OR LESS EFFECTIVE than training ONE OR TWO MUSCLES per training session.

I STATED, it is FAR more effective to train one or two muscle per session, as an intermediate bodybuilder needs at LEAST 10-15 sets per muscle, 20-25 on Back and legs.  This is IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish if you are training 3 or more muscles in ONE SESSION!

I enjoy the discourse, just shows there are many ways to SKIN a CAT.

BUT, I believe THIS is the most EFFECTIVE way.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> I enjoy the discourse, just shows there are many ways to SKIN a CAT.


Now that, I can agree with.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> I STATED, it is FAR more effective to train one or two muscle per session, as an intermediate bodybuilder needs at LEAST 10-15 sets per muscle, 20-25 on Back and legs.  This is IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish if you are training 3 or more muscles in ONE SESSION!




You are not quantifying volume properly.

If you are saying that you need to train 10-15 sets per muscle group and that you can't do it in one session you are correct.  You break up the muscle groups and do something like train chest on monday for 10-15 sets.  then, you waite to train chest again until next week.  So, in actuality, you have trained 10-15 sets on chest in one week (7 day rotation).  

Now, if I train bench press for 4 sets on monday, DB incline press for 4 sets on wed. and incline BB press for 4 sets on fri., have I not done the exact same total amount of volume that you have done in a weeks time?

The only difference is that metabolic recovery will take place in around 48 hours.  Why not give myself that additional training stimulus instead of waiting a week (a full 7 days) to do it again?


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

P-funk said:


> You are not quantifying volume properly.
> 
> If you are saying that you need to train 10-15 sets per muscle group and that you can't do it in one session you are correct.  You break up the muscle groups and do something like train chest on monday for 10-15 sets.  then, you waite to train chest again until next week.  So, in actuality, you have trained 10-15 sets on chest in one week (7 day rotation).
> 
> ...




*This is just physiolgically FALSE.*

If this were the case, ENDURANCE ATHLETES WOULD BE JACKED, because they TECHNICALLY perform more VOLUME than ANYONE! 

*What matters PHYSIOLOGICALLY for anabolism(muscle-growth), is OVERLOAD PER SESSION.*


----------



## fufu (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> *This is just physiolgically FALSE.*
> 
> If this were the case, ENDURANCE ATHLETES WOULD BE JACKED, because they TECHNICALLY perform more VOLUME than ANYONE!
> 
> *What matters PHYSIOLOGICALLY for anabolism(muscle-growth), is OVERLOAD PER SESSION.*



No, it isn't false, because endurance athletes train at a low intensity range that does not stimulate muscle growth.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> *This is just physiolgically FALSE.*
> 
> If this were the case, ENDURANCE ATHLETES WOULD BE JACKED, because they TECHNICALLY perform more VOLUME than ANYONE!
> 
> *What matters PHYSIOLOGICALLY for anabolism(muscle-growth), is OVERLOAD PER SESSION.*



No, that is not physiologically false at all.

Endurance athletes are not jacked because they do not training with the proper stimulus to illicit growth!

You clearly missed what I was saying......The volume between my example and yours is the EXACT SAME!

The difference is the frequency.  This is training 101.

There is a difference between training volume and training frequency.  What you do with those two variables and how you manipulate intensity is what will make or break the training program

Again....please answer my question.


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

P-funk said:


> No, that is not physiologically false at all.
> 
> Endurance athletes are not jacked because they do not training with the proper stimulus to illicit growth!
> 
> ...




Frequency for each muscle ranges from 1-2 times per week, each time with the MAXIMUM STIMULUS required to illicit MAXIMUM GROWTH.

NOW, for an ALL NATURAL ATHLETE, this may be overkill, so a LOWER VOLUME approach would be OPTIMAL for ANABOLISM.


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

fufu said:


> No, it isn't false, because endurance athletes train at a low intensity range that does not stimulate muscle growth.



NOT NECESSARILY, but yes in most cases correct.

Which is why MAXIMUM STIMULUS is required for MAXIMUM GROWTH.


----------



## fufu (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> NOT NECESSARILY, but yes in most cases correct.
> 
> Which is why MAXIMUM STIMULUS is required for MAXIMUM GROWTH.



Well I'm not sure what you mean by maximum stimulus. What do you define that as?


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 3, 2007)

I believe he is defining 'maximum stimulus' as 20-30 working sets once a week for large muscle groups.

SS, how did you come up with these exact numbers?  Any references?  What are your credentials again?


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

fufu said:


> Well I'm not sure what you mean by maximum stimulus. What do you define that as?



*For an intermediate bodybuilder: *

Chest:12-20 sets
Back: 15-20 sets
Shoulders: 10-15 sets
Biceps: 10-12 sets
Triceps: 10-15 sets
Legs: 15-20 sets

*For an ADVANCED bodybuilder:*

Chest: 15-25 sets
Back: 20-30 sets
Shoulders: 15-20 sets
Biceps: 10-15 sets
Triceps: 15-20 sets
Legs: 20-30 sets


As I STATED BEFORE...


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> *For an intermediate bodybuilder: *
> 
> Chest:12-20 sets
> Back: 15-20 sets
> ...





and how are you going to set that up in one week.  where you get that number of sets each training session.  while only training one muscle group per workouk.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

also, what are you qualifying as interediate and advanced?


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

I am just a hardcore bodybuilder my friends. I wanted to impact the community so I started Supreme Sports Enhancements(SSE) and Supreme Sports Fitness(SSF) 

No CREDENTIALS WHATSOEVER. 

BTW, I actually MISTRUST people with credentials.


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

P-funk said:


> and how are you going to set that up in one week.  where you get that number of sets each training session.  while only training one muscle group per workouk.



One or two muscles, depending on the specific regimens.

I do professional consulations, and I list NO CREDENTIALS WHATSOEVER.  Most people know me by word-of-mouth, so they know I am the REAL DEAL


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> One or two muscles, depending on the specific regimens.
> 
> I do professional consulations, and I list NO CREDENTIALS WHATSOEVER.  Most people know me by word-of-mouth, so they know I am the REAL DEAL



What do you mean one or two muscles?  I thought you said one muscle per workout for optimal gains?


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Oh, I thought you said one muscle per workout.

So what if you do consultations?


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

P-funk said:


> Oh, I thought you said one muscle per workout.
> 
> So what if you do consultations?



To clarify that there are literally DOZENS of different training schemes yuo can create.

I can set you up if you would like. 

You are a very knowledgable bro, we can use a MOD like you over at SSF.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> To clarify that there are literally DOZENS of different training schemes yuo can create.
> 
> I can set you up if you would like.
> 
> You are a very knowledgable bro, we can use a MOD like you over at SSF.



I don't think that I need your consultations.

I have to many fucking letters after my name as it is.  I think I should know something by now.


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

P-funk said:


> I don't think that I need your consultations.
> 
> I have to many fucking letters after my name as it is.  I think I should know something by now.



I was only joking, but feel free to join SSF.  We really could use a guy like you.


----------



## Yanick (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> BTW, I actually MISTRUST people with credentials.



So you mistrust people who were actually formally trained in the areas of exercise physiology, kinesiology, biomechanics etc etc and would rather trust a BB'er who reads FLEX mag and shoots roids into his asshole? 

And you expect us to take you seriously after you just said that?


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Yanick said:


> So you mistrust people who were actually formally trained in the areas of exercise physiology, kinesiology, biomechanics etc etc and would rather trust a BB'er who reads FLEX mag and shoots roids into his asshole?
> 
> And you expect us to take you seriously after you just said that?



I know.  While I agree, there are bad people in every field.....saying something like that is ridiculous.

I mean Yan, could you imagine someone looking down their noes at you BECAUSE of your education?


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> *For an intermediate bodybuilder: *
> 
> Chest:12-20 sets
> Back: 15-20 sets
> ...



Are these numbers for drug-free trainees?

I still don't understand why the volume has to occur all in one sitting...


----------



## Skate67 (Jun 3, 2007)

I love you P-funk  .


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

Yanick said:


> So you mistrust people who were actually formally trained in the areas of exercise physiology, kinesiology, biomechanics etc etc and would rather trust a BB'er who reads FLEX mag and shoots roids into his asshole?
> 
> And you expect us to take you seriously after you just said that?



I was trying to make a point, and although I was being sarcastic, please don't twist my words my friend. 

*I know dozens of morons who have "CREDENTIALS" that have no idea what they are talking about.  SADLY, same is the case with Doctors.*

I prefer not to engage in any unproductive argumentation, I am just expressing my personal opinions on what works BEST.


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

CowPimp said:


> Are these numbers for drug-free trainees?
> 
> I still don't understand why the volume has to occur all in one sitting...



Watch pumping iron. 

j/k

*As the bodybuilder increases his muscular development, more and more volume is required to illict a MAXIMUM growth response.  This overload must occur in one session, or the overload becomes dispersed and therefore SUBOPTIMAL for GROWTH.*


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> Watch pumping iron.
> 
> j/k
> 
> *As the bodybuilder increases his muscular development, more and more volume is required to illict a MAXIMUM growth response.  This overload must occur in one session, or the overload becomes dispersed and therefore SUBOPTIMAL for GROWTH.*



I understand your position on this.  My question was why?  Also, is this entirely based on empirical evidence?


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

CowPimp said:


> I understand your position on this.  My question was why?  Also, is this entirely based on empirical evidence?



*Most of what we as bodybuilders do IS BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, but I am sure I can dig up something for ya 

I would consult the PROFESSIONAL LEVEL BODYBUILDERS, and see what THEY DO.  I can assure you, they are NOT training 3 muscles in one session. *


----------



## Double D (Jun 3, 2007)

Ouch....my head hurts!

Arguing with P is like a 16 year old boy arguing with Ron Jeremy about sex.....its just not worth your time. P is to educated and things on this board just dont work in a body part sense. Most guys here are for the most part natural. Some guys use a little here, but most guys are natural. Bodypart splits for natural guys arent your best bet.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> *Most of what we as bodybuilders do IS BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, but I am sure I can dig up something for ya
> 
> I would consult the PROFESSIONAL LEVEL BODYBUILDERS, and see what THEY DO.  I can assure you, they are NOT training 3 muscles in one session. *



You're probably right about what professional bodybuilders, but top tier powerlifters and strongmen have huge amounts of lean body mass as well, and they don't generally train as you have suggested.  The only difference is they don't need to have extremely low body fat levels to compete in their sport.  That doesn't mean they don't have the mass to back up their training style.

Also, once again, are these guidelines for a natural trainee, yes or no?


----------



## Skate67 (Jun 3, 2007)

Double D said:


> Bodypart splits for natural guys arent your best bet.



Why not?


----------



## Double D (Jun 3, 2007)

Are you kidding me? You've been here since 03 and your asking me why not? Hum....not to active are we?


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

Double D said:


> Are you kidding me? You've been here since 03 and your asking me why not? Hum....not to active are we?



Bro, don't come down on the man so hard, it is JUST YOUR OPINION.

IN MY OPINION, working one or two muscles per session is OPTIMAL.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

working one or two movements per workout is good.  I hate thinking in terms of working muscles.  The body is a linked kinetic chain which works together to create movement. By limiting your thinking to just a muscle group, you are limiting you thinking about how a specific movement effects all the others muscles that work to produce that movement.  This is were movement impairments, muscle imbalances and potential injuries tend to be displayed.

Example:

upper push/lower pull (or hip dominant)

upper pull/lower push (or quad dominant)


----------



## Double D (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> Bro, don't come down on the man so hard, it is JUST YOUR OPINION.
> 
> IN MY OPINION, working one or two muscles per session is OPTIMAL.



By splits I mean 1 muscle group a day.

Something like 

Mon-Chest
Tues-Back
Weds-Legs
Thurs-Shoulders
Fri-Arms

Is just ignorant.


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

P-funk said:


> working one or two movements per workout is good.  I hate thinking in terms of working muscles.  The body is a linked kinetic chain which works together to create movement. By limiting your thinking to just a muscle group, you are limiting you thinking about how a specific movement effects all the others muscles that work to produce that movement.  This is were movement impairments, muscle imbalances and potential injuries tend to be displayed.
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...



Most movements utilize a PRIMARY muscle and a secondary muscle.  Sometimes, even a third and fourth muscle are utilized.

BASED on this knowledge of MOVEMENTS, we can strategically train our MUSCLES using a series of muscle-specific MOVEMENTS!

*So for CHEST:*

4 Sets BB Flat Bench
4 Sets DB Flat Bench
4 Sets BB Incline Bench
4 Sets Pec-Dec Flies

NOW ALTHOUGH many of these chest movements ALSO utilize the deltoids, triceps, and even biceps, they PRIMARILY TARGET THE CHEST.

So long as one constructs their regimen STRATEGICALLY, you can train each muscle OPTIMALLY once or twice per week, depedning on the individual regimen.


----------



## Double D (Jun 3, 2007)

Interesting P, hes telling you how to develop a program. I am curious to see where this goes.


----------



## MCx2 (Jun 3, 2007)




----------



## Yanick (Jun 3, 2007)

P-funk said:


> I know.  While I agree, there are bad people in every field.....saying something like that is ridiculous.
> 
> I mean Yan, could you imagine someone looking down their noes at you BECAUSE of your education?



I will laugh in the face of anyone who says/thinks such things. Yes there are bad people in every industry but, were i not educated, i would still listen to the guy who went through atleast some formal schooling rather than read some BB rags and got himself hyooge. And speaking from personal knowledge, P-funk has had more than his fair share of formal and informal schooling.



Supreme Sports said:


> I was trying to make a point, and although I was being sarcastic, please don't twist my words my friend.



Sarcasm does not translate well over the internet big guy, 90+% of communication is non-verbal and sarcasm happens to fall into that category.

As well there was no twisting of words, you were asked for your credentials. You stated you had none and then went on to say you mistrusted people with credentials, there is no way to take such words out of context and twist them around to appeal to a straw man argument.

*


			
				SS said:
			
		


			I know dozens of morons who have "CREDENTIALS" that have no idea what they are talking about.  SADLY, same is the case with Doctors.
		
Click to expand...


*It is true that knowledge is an individual thing and credentials don't make someone knowledgeable, but they atleast show that the person has put time and effort into their respective fields.

Now the doctor thing is a different story all together, but i would please ask you not to disrespect such individuals with blanket statements such as you have done twice in this thread. Once again it is a very individual thing but i can assure you that even the most idiotic doctor will take you to school regarding the human body, maybe not steroids, whey protein and bench pressing but it takes lots of hardwork and time to become a doctor and as far as i can see you are just some juicehead who read some muscle rags and paid Rob money to come here and pimp your supps.



			
				SS said:
			
		

> I prefer not to engage in any unproductive argumentation, I am just expressing my personal opinions on what works BEST.



Its a very productive argument because it shows this community where you are coming from with your attitude, training, advice etc.

I won't post in this thread anymore because if i do it won't be long until i get banned.


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 3, 2007)

Yanick said:


> I will laugh in the face of anyone who says/thinks such things. Yes there are bad people in every industry but, were i not educated, i would still listen to the guy who went through atleast some formal schooling rather than read some BB rags and got himself hyooge. And speaking from personal knowledge, P-funk has had more than his fair share of formal and informal schooling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Credentials do NOT mean that much to me, I am just being honest. They realistically translate into very little real-world application.

First of all, I am UNIQUE; I am by no means the rule, I AM THE EXCEPTION.


I have made a name for myself in the community BASED on my INTIMATE knowledge of Physiology, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and all things scientific for that matter.

I went to college for business and philosophy.  I am JEWISH. 

Me being as JACKED as I am today is almost a MIRACLE in itself.

It was the result of KNOWLEDGE.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 3, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> Most movements utilize a PRIMARY muscle and a secondary muscle.  Sometimes, even a third and fourth muscle are utilized.
> 
> BASED on this knowledge of MOVEMENTS, we can strategically train our MUSCLES using a series of muscle-specific MOVEMENTS!
> 
> ...





There are a few flaws in your approach:

a) The incline bench press (depending on angle of inclination) is not a MOVEMENT in the horizontal or transverse plane.  it is more in between the transverse and frontal planes (or depending on the abduction of the arm, IE into the high five position, could even be more between transverese and sagital).  Understanding the biomechanics of the exercises you are prescribing become critical when analyzing how to balance out that movement to properly strengthen the shoulder girdle.

b) Why both doubling up the pressing in the same plane in one workout (IE, bench press AND DB bench press) when you can do one on one day and then the other on another day, when you are fresher and can take better advantage of your pressing strength and stimulate the muscle to a greater extent.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 4, 2007)

I will try asking this question one more time and see if I get a response.  These guidelines that you have laid out, are they for the natural trainee, or the chemically enhanced trainee?


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 4, 2007)

CowPimp said:


> I will try asking this question one more time and see if I get a response.  These guidelines that you have laid out, are they for the natural trainee, or the chemically enhanced trainee?



BOTH my friend, with the NATURAL trainee using slightly less(but not MUCH less) volume.


----------



## rmcfar (Jun 4, 2007)

Yanick said:


> Now the doctor thing is a different story all together, but i would please ask you not to disrespect such individuals with blanket statements such as you have done twice in this thread. Once again it is a very individual thing but i can assure you that even the most idiotic doctor will take you to school regarding the human body, maybe not steroids, whey protein and bench pressing but it takes lots of hardwork and time to become a doctor and as far as i can see you are just some juicehead who read some muscle rags and paid Rob money to come here and pimp your supps.



 well said

I'm sorry but if you are prepared to say that someone with 8+ years of education on the human body doesnt know what they are talking about you are a complete idiot. And saying you know what you are talking about chemically in comparison to a doctor is absurd as well. I'm sure you know more then the average joe because of the one chemistry course you took at community college but you don't hold a candle to even the least qualified doctor out there.


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 4, 2007)

rmcfar said:


> well said
> 
> I'm sorry but if you are prepared to say that someone with 8+ years of education on the human body doesnt know what they are talking about you are a complete idiot. And saying you know what you are talking about chemically in comparison to a doctor is absurd as well. I'm sure you know more then the average joe because of the one chemistry course you took at community college but you don't hold a candle to even the least qualified doctor out there.



Sorry, its the truth.

I DIAGNOSED MY MOTHER WITH DIABETES, after she suffered for YEARS without being properly diagnosed.  Don't even get me started, my mother almost died.  i can tell you COUNTLESS horror-stories, but I won't waste my time.

Qualifications do not = expertise

EXPERIENCE = expertise

By the way, University of Florida is not a  community college.


----------



## Double D (Jun 4, 2007)

I am pretty sure you could say P has the experience.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 4, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> Sorry, its the truth.
> 
> I DIAGNOSED MY MOTHER WITH DIABETES, after she suffered for YEARS without being properly diagnosed.  Don't even get me started, my mother almost died.  i can tell you COUNTLESS horror-stories, but I won't waste my time.
> 
> ...



You honestly think you are more knowledgeable in anatomy, physiology, chemistry, medicine, etc. than an MD? 

I wonder what Trouble would have to say if she were still around?


----------



## P-funk (Jun 4, 2007)

Prince said:


> You honestly think you are more knowledgeable in anatomy, physiology, chemistry, medicine, etc. than an MD?
> 
> *I wonder what Trouble would have to say if she were still around?*



 I can't even imagine.


----------



## DontStop (Jun 4, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> Credentials do NOT mean that much to me, I am just being honest. They realistically translate into very little real-world application.
> 
> First of all, I am UNIQUE; I am by no means the rule, I AM THE EXCEPTION.
> 
> ...




Yes, you're unique like every one else.
And you don't think doctors come from the real world? My mom goes to AA with a doctor. Doctors are just like everybody else. being a doctor does'nt make you high society. But I'd rather go to a doctor about health matters then some guy who went to college for business and philosiphy


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 4, 2007)

Prince said:


> You honestly think you are more knowledgeable in anatomy, physiology, chemistry, medicine, etc. than an MD?
> 
> I wonder what Trouble would have to say if she were still around?



Obviously there are some GREAT JEWISH DOCTORS OUT THERE, LOL.

I am simply stating, JUST BECAUSE I AM NOT A DOCTOR, does not nullify my education or knowledge.

MOST doctors would run circles around me.  HOWEVER, you would be shocked how many doctors I could take to friggin SCHOOL on a plethora of different medical subjects and fields.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 4, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> ...you would be shocked how many doctors I could take to friggin SCHOOL on a plethora of different medical subjects and fields.



yes I would.


----------



## P-funk (Jun 4, 2007)

just because you workout and do juice doesn't qualify you to know dick shit about anything.

I may know more about exercise physiology or kineseology than an MD, but that doesn't mean I am smarter than them or could "school" them in the medical field.  It just means that I specialize in a specific field that is not something that they specialize in.

I might know more about kineseology and biomechanics than Yanick.  But, if I walk into the fucking hospital, I can garuntee you that he is going to know 100% more than I would.  That is not my playing field, so to speak.  But, that happens to be where his speciality is.

when you make foolish blanket statements you look.....foolish.


----------



## Supreme Sports (Jun 4, 2007)

P-funk said:


> just because you workout and do juice doesn't qualify you to know dick shit about anything.
> 
> I may know more about exercise physiology or kineseology than an MD, but that doesn't mean I am smarter than them or could "school" them in the medical field.  It just means that I specialize in a specific field that is not something that they specialize in.
> 
> ...



EXACTLY, and I know bodybuilding. 

This argument is futile, LOL!

Let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## DontStop (Jun 4, 2007)




----------



## CowPimp (Jun 4, 2007)

Thank you for responding to my question.  Just out of curiosity, how much less would you say that a naturally trainee should be doing?

Here's my problem with empirical evidence: very few people give everything a try before they make a judgement on what works.  So, there is this huge variance in "what works," which I think basically consists of people claiming that whatever worked for them works for everyone else.  This is not always the case, but it seems to be a common trend.

I do realize that scientific studies also have variance, but that's why I try not to make big judgments on stuff before I see lots of studies coinciding, or studies in conjunction with empirical evidence to back it up.  For example, the effect of EPOC on body composition and additional caloric expenditure seems to be up in the air when it comes to the research (Probably because of the large variance in research methods, modalities, and parameters), but there is enough evidence to support it's benefit for other reasons.

A board member here who I give a lot of respect to, Gopro, has a huge amount of experience in the realm of bodybuilding, with clients and with himself.  He seems to believe in much less volume, which is also based on personal experience.  He is also your size or bigger, hasn't juiced up, and started at 120-130 pounds to boot.  Who's personal experience do I believe?  You see where the issue arises?




P-funk said:


> just because you workout and do juice doesn't qualify you to know dick shit about anything.



Haha, best quote ever.




DontStop said:


>



Followed by the best picture ever!


----------



## Double D (Jun 4, 2007)

Very nice post CP. Reguardless which way I believe, you sure made me a believer!


----------



## Witchblade (Jun 4, 2007)

I've never seen such patience on IM before.


----------



## Gazhole (Jun 5, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> I've never seen such patience on IM before.



^ Agreed.

This is a good debate.


----------



## JerseyDevil (Jun 6, 2007)

Supreme Sports said:


> Please refrain from DISRESPECTING THE SPONSORS.
> 
> Conduct yourself like an adult and a professional. please.


I see our friend Ross is no longer an official sponsor.  Is it something we said?


----------



## camarosuper6 (Jun 6, 2007)

I really despise any kind of volume training.


----------



## Yanick (Jun 6, 2007)

JerseyDevil said:


> I see our friend Ross is no longer an official sponsor.  Is it something we said?



He's not!? Sweet!

What a fuckin' clown. He had my blood boiling damnit!


----------

