# Super setting Biceps & Triceps provides amazing growth



## Johnnny (May 10, 2004)

Super setting biceps & triceps I've found provides amazing growth in size, strength & shape.

The best way is to take one day once a week just for arms if you can spare the time.

I do 3 bicep exercises & 3 tricep exercises each exercise 4 sets each. Totaling the arm workout to 24 sets. 12 sets for biceps & 12 sets for triceps.

First you start with & mass/power building exercise like close-grip super setting with barbell curls using the 45lb bar. 8 sets for the two exercises.

Then a secondary exercise that still builds size/strength/shape such as some form of skull crusher tricep extensions with some form of bicep hammer curls. 8 sets for the two exercises.

Lastly you want to shape the triceps & biceps. The best would be some cable pushdown exercise for triceps & some for of concentration curls or preacher curls for biceps. 8 sets for the two exercises.

This type of arm routine can be done in 50mins if you aren't wasting time talking to ppl. Your arms will be soooo pumped & rock solid by the end of the workout. Plus your strength for the 2 muscles will greatly increase along with shape depending on your diet.

I used to train arms seperately maybe 6yrs ago say chest & biceps, shoulders & triceps or vice versa. My arms grew not to badly & developed power. But after asking around & talking to a couple of local bodybuilders, I was told I should be super setting arms on the same day & just arms. Yes these guys were on roids, but they were doing almost double the 24 sets I'm doing. They said 18-24 sets super setting arms is just the right ammount for a natural person.

Since I've been doing this, my arms have grown in size/strength, & shaped much better. I'm sure that some ppl will argue this, but if they haven't tried training arms in this manner, than they wouldn' know how good it is.


----------



## gopro (May 10, 2004)

I will do this occassionally myself if in a rush or just to change things up. This technique DOES allow for the use of heavier weights as doing a bicep exrercise right after a tricep exercise (or vice versa) fosters faster recovery in the antagonistic muscle and increases nerve force as well.


----------



## Johnnny (May 10, 2004)

Well you are right. I can do this type of arm routine in about 50mins if I don't talk much. It's much better than being in the gym for 1hr30mins or 2hrs which is way too much.


----------



## firestorm (May 10, 2004)

I do this type of workout at least once a month.  It is awesome.  One other reason you can handle heavier weights throughout the workout is because your giving the bis or tris a little longer break then normal because your doing  the 2nd set and then taking a break.  The time is takes to do that 2nd set is extra break time for that 1st muscle group.


----------



## Johnnny (May 11, 2004)

Yep, but I do this routine every week. I can't do arms any other day anyway so it's great.


----------



## plouffe (May 11, 2004)

If I'm in a huge rush.. I just go a single pull up ( 30 seconds up, 30 seconds ) Then a 3 Set Drop Set of straight bar curls. Then I go a single of tricep dips ( 30 seconds down, 30 seconds up ) and then a 3 Set Drop Set of over the head extensions. 

* Each drop set is to failure with 2-3 additonal forced reps.


----------



## Johnnny (May 11, 2004)

plouffe you should try super setting arms with the type of arm routine I mentioned at the beginning of this thread. You'll find your arms grow much more. I guess you are a football player eh?


----------



## gopro (May 11, 2004)

Well, I wouldn't use this method exclusively as the body will quickly adapt to almost any stress if done over and over. Sometimes it IS better to train a bodypart straight through, but like I said, this is a great method to use on occassion with any pair of antagonistic bodyparts. The great Arnold used this method quite a bit, especially with chest/back and bis/tris.


----------



## CowPimp (May 11, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Well, I wouldn't use this method exclusively as the body will quickly adapt to almost any stress if done over and over. Sometimes it IS better to train a bodypart straight through, but like I said, this is a great method to use on occassion with any pair of antagonistic bodyparts. The great Arnold used this method quite a bit, especially with chest/back and bis/tris.



Agreed.  For a while I was doing not only biceps and triceps like this, but all the muscle combinations I did in the same workout.  I saw some gains, but my gains are much better overall if I do one muscle at a time.  It's good for a change, but not as a basis for a program, at least for me.  I could see it being particularly beneficial to power lifters because it helps them achieve that full 2+ minutes of rest without wasting too much time.


----------



## Johnnny (May 11, 2004)

Well from my experience your muscles won't adapt to this type of routine. Your muscles adapt to the exercises that is apart of your routine.

If you change each individual exercise every 4 weeks 5 at most, than you will be shocking muscles. Personally I think that you can always super set bi's/tri's just as long as you're changing each exercise. It's the same for every muscle, if you do the same exercise for more than 4 or 5 weeks, you're muscles will adapt to it.

Just keep changing the exercises, no need to permanently stop super setting your arms. I've been doing this for a long time for arms & it's the only thing that works that I've tried.


----------



## Mudge (May 11, 2004)

24 sets to me is still freaky, but I feel my arms are in proportion to the rest of me @ 18 7/8".

Albert Beckles trains arms once every 2 weeks. Honestly, it seems that everyone who says more is better, or less is better, eventually looks about the same. Persistence is the main thing. Sure a program like that might work in the short term which is awesome, but I can't see that tiny little muscles really require that kind of load.

I wouldn't mind a temporary growth spurt, I may try it, but lower volume.


----------



## Johnnny (May 11, 2004)

Well I was only doing 18 sets, 9 for bi's & 9 for tri's. I was doing it for quit awhile. But about 3 weeks ago I started doing 12 sets for bi's & 12 sets for tri's & it seems to be working much better.


----------



## gopro (May 11, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> Well from my experience your muscles won't adapt to this type of routine. Your muscles adapt to the exercises that is apart of your routine.
> 
> If you change each individual exercise every 4 weeks 5 at most, than you will be shocking muscles. Personally I think that you can always super set bi's/tri's just as long as you're changing each exercise. It's the same for every muscle, if you do the same exercise for more than 4 or 5 weeks, you're muscles will adapt to it.
> ...



I cannot dispute your experience and if this technique works for you on a constant basis, then more power to you.

However, for the majority this is not the best idea. Your muscles can and will adapt to not only exercises used but training protocols as well...this includes supersets, forced reps, dropsets, etc.

There are also benefits to keeping blood flow to one specific area for the duration of the workout, like would be the case training bi's and tri's seperately.


----------



## Johnnny (May 11, 2004)

gopro than what would you suggest?

Chest & then doing 12 sets of biceps, & on shoulder day do 12 sets of triceps afterwards?

In my opinion if you do triceps right after chest, your close-grip bench press will be weak & it's important for building size/power to your triceps?

All I know is that my arms get majorly pumped & rock hard when I do arms this way but I'm not going to argue anyone's methods.


----------



## Saturday Fever (May 11, 2004)

Your muscles exhausting and adapting isn't even the main issue with constant, repetitive training. Your CNS will be done. It will be hosed. Variety is the spice of weightlifting.

Your body will benefit from occassional bouts with overtraining, but to constantly overdo it is asking for a stall in your progress. It's inevitable.



> In my opinion if you do triceps right after chest, your close-grip bench press will be weak & it's important for building size/power to your triceps?



OK, firstly, your strength on close-grip bench is really a trivial matter. Who cares? Why do you do close-grip bench? Is it to increase your overall bench strength? Do you use it as an accessory lift to add size to your triceps?

Secondly, size and power are two very different things. Size, in weightlifting, is generally judged by the circumference of a muscle. Power = work/time. Power is the ability to move weight faster. The two are not the same, nor are they trained for in the same way.

My only advice would be to pick your goals. How big in how much times? How much of a strength increase by what date? Figure out what you want, and when, and work towards it. If you fail, you know your idea was wrong.

(all things assuming you have a quality diet of course)


----------



## jadakris31 (May 11, 2004)

so does everyone agree supersetting bi/tris is good... but why not do it every arm workout? .. or you should you do supersets one week... then next do all of triceps then hit up the biceps?


----------



## CowPimp (May 11, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> gopro than what would you suggest?
> 
> Chest & then doing 12 sets of biceps, & on shoulder day do 12 sets of triceps afterwards?
> ...



I also do my arms on a separate day, but I only do 6 sets for triceps and 5 sets for biceps.  They get hit hard enough on back and chest/shoulder day that I find I don't need to do 12 sets each for those muscles.  Hell, I only do 12 sets for by back and 14 sets for my legs.  I still see nice gains.

I'm glad this works for you, but I'm just saying there are countless ways to increase you arm strength/size.  Your routine seems to be very useful for an occasional change in routine, or even as a regular routine for certain people.  The only way to know is to try it.


----------



## gopro (May 11, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> gopro than what would you suggest?
> 
> Chest & then doing 12 sets of biceps, & on shoulder day do 12 sets of triceps afterwards?
> ...



Actually, if your method is working for you, than keep at it! Like I said, I cannot argue your results or experience. I'm sure that there are tons of people out there breaking all "the rules" and growing quite well. I'd love to tell Ronnie Coleman to clean up his form a bit, but how can you argue with HIS results (yes, I know he's a genetic freak and on drugs, but you get the point).

However, for most, I would consider 12 sets for either bis or tris too much. I do maybe 5 sets for bis and 6 for tris at most. I also train them together in the last day of my training cycle. 9 out of 10 times I train my bis first and then tris, but will occassionally superset my bis and tris OR do a bi exercise to competion and then a tri exercise to completion, back and forth until arms are complete (if I do this it will occur during a power week in my P/RR/S protocol).


----------



## Mudge (May 11, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> Well I was only doing 18 sets, 9 for bi's & 9 for tri's. I was doing it for quit awhile. But about 3 weeks ago I started doing 12 sets for bi's & 12 sets for tri's & it seems to be working much better.



I've gone that high years ago when I was about 18, worked very well at the time. I think right now I'd be sore for a damn long time without working up to it, as it is my tricpes and nearly everything else is blown out for a few days.


----------



## Saturday Fever (May 11, 2004)

The only way to know if it's working is to set a goal and see how you end up. That's my theory anyways.


----------



## Johnnny (May 11, 2004)

Saturday Fever don't you know how important close-grip bench press is for developing your tricep size & strength? It's very important.

But maybe I was better doing just 9 sets for bi's, & 9 sets for tri's instead of 12 sets for bi's & 12 for tri's. I find that I'm training arms a little too hard so I'll go back to just 18 sets total for arms.

gopro just out of curiosity, how come you consider super setting arms "breaking the rules"? If you are only doing 6 sets for bi's & 6 sets for tri's isn't that only around one or 2 exercises each for bi's & tri's? You need at least 2 seperate bicep exercises & 2 seperate tricep exercises.


----------



## Saturday Fever (May 11, 2004)

I know the importance of close-grip press, I didn't ask that. You keep mixing terms like size and strength and power. All unique in their own right.

Look, if you wanna see if something works, put a measuring tape around your arm right now. Use your routine every week for 4 weeks, and put a measuring tape back on it. If it's grown a notable amount, cool. If it hasn't, you know it doesn't work.


----------



## CowPimp (May 11, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> But maybe I was better doing just 9 sets for bi's, & 9 sets for tri's instead of 12 sets for bi's & 12 for tri's. I find that I'm training arms a little too hard so I'll go back to just 18 sets total for arms.
> 
> gopro just out of curiosity, how come you consider super setting arms "breaking the rules"? If you are only doing 6 sets for bi's & 6 sets for tri's isn't that only around one or 2 exercises each for bi's & tri's? You need at least 2 seperate bicep exercises & 2 seperate tricep exercises.



First of all, if 24 total sets is working for you, then don't change it.  Just because it doesn't work for other people means nothing.  Bodybuilding is all about finding what works for you.

I assume that when Gopro said "breaking the rules" he meant going against standard lifting techniques.  The quotes were probably there to emphasize that there really are no rules to the way you can train because of everyone's different genetics.  At least this is how I interpreted his statement.  Gopro, please correct me if I am wrong.

Also, you don't necessarily need 2 different bicep and tricep exercises because of the peripheral work they get from other lifts.  Also, there is nothing set in stone that says you must do 3 sets of every lift.  For triceps I do 3 sets of one, 2 sets of another, and one more set of a different lift.  It has worked well for me.  I based my scheme off Gopro's P/RR/S routine skeleton.


----------



## Johnnny (May 11, 2004)

All I know is doing a mass builder exercise for bi's & tri's, a secondary bicep & tricep exercise, & a shaping bicep & tricep exercise which would be 3 exercises for bi's, & 3 exercises for tri's. But I think I will go back to 18 sets total for arms instead of 24 sets. I've been doing 24 sets for a few weeks & I think it's a tad too much. I'm going back to 18 sets, 9 sets for bi's & 9 sets for tri's.


----------



## plouffe (May 11, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> plouffe you should try super setting arms with the type of arm routine I mentioned at the beginning of this thread. You'll find your arms grow much more. I guess you are a football player eh?




Yeah, I play football.


----------



## Johnnny (May 11, 2004)

I used to play running back. I was 227lbs (before my hyper thyroid problems caused by ephedrine/ephedra supplements with no prior thyroid condition) at 5ft9 with descent definition & strength/power & I ran the 40yard dash in about 4.4-4.5 or so give or take a few .seconds.


----------



## gopro (May 11, 2004)

-When I said "breaking the rules" I meant that some people can grossly overtrain, but for them, it works...or some people can cheat on every exercise, but for them, it works...or some people can not even use a set program and train whatever they feel like on any given day, and for them, it works...those are just some examples of how some people may go against traditional bodybuilding dogma, yet still succeed (ONLY QUESTION IS...IF THEY DID FOLLOW THE RULES, COULD THEY HAVE BEEN EVEN BETTER...BUT I DIGRESS).

-As far as exercises, I usually do 3-4 per bodypart, but may only do 1-2 sets per exercise (in a sense this breaks the traditional "rule" of 3 sets per exercise).


----------



## Johnnny (May 12, 2004)

Gopro you said "As far as exercises, I usually do 3-4 per bodypart, but may only do 1-2 sets per exercise (in a sense this breaks the traditional "rule" of 3 sets per exercise)."

That seems to be working very well for. For me I find I need more, if I do less than 6 sets total for biceps &  6 sets total for triceps than I don't really feel my arms working as well with 6 or 9 sets totaling 12 or 18 sets 3 exercises each.

But I will cut back down to doing 3 exercises for biceps 9 sets total & 3 exercises for triceps 9 sets totaling 18 sets. 12 sets for each totaling 24 sets for arms I think is too much. I've only been doing that for 2 or 3 weeks. 

For back including hyper extensions or deadlifts I need to do 20 sets 6 exercises 3 sets each to really feel my back working.

For chest I need to do 4 exercises either 3 or 4 sets each to really get it working totaling either 12 or 16 sets.

Shoulders I need to do 2 pressing exercises 4 sets each along with 4 sets of side raises & 4 sets of rear delts followed by 8 sets for traps 2 exercises. Totaling 16 sets, but I count more the pressing exercises as the main part of the shoulder workout.

Legs I need 2 quad exercises 4 sets each & 2 hamstring exercises 4 sets each, calves I need 2 exercises 4 sets each.

To some this maybe over training, maybe I am a little. I train 5 days a week. But this is what I need to grow & get stronger. I'd still like to hear some input.


----------



## gopro (May 12, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> Gopro you said "As far as exercises, I usually do 3-4 per bodypart, but may only do 1-2 sets per exercise (in a sense this breaks the traditional "rule" of 3 sets per exercise)."
> 
> That seems to be working very well for. For me I find I need more, if I do less than 6 sets total for biceps &  6 sets total for triceps than I don't really feel my arms working as well with 6 or 9 sets totaling 12 or 18 sets 3 exercises each.
> ...



Some people have better recovery ability than others, and you may be one of them. Personally, I hit each set so hard, with such focus and intensity, that I could not even imagine doing more than say 7 sets for quads or 8 for lats or 7 for chest, etc. I am so pumped and spent after these sets that I know the job is done and that if I do any more I will cross over into overtraining land.

I have always been a huge proponent of "train hard, don't train long." 

Again, if you are growing from what you do, please continue. Myself, over the years have slowly moved down in total sets until I reached the point I'm at now, of which I've stayed with for the last 4-5 years or so. I'm sure your training will evolve more as you go along.


----------



## Johnnny (May 12, 2004)

gopro when I used to do only 3 exrcises 4 sets each for chest, my chest would hardly feel a good sore for more than half a day. Same goes for when only used to do 12 or 15 sets for back, it would hardly feel worked the next day. Even with 18 total sets super setting bi's & tri's my arms aren't all that sore for very long but I know I'm hitting my arms hard enough as the following week I'm able to lift more on each individual exercise.

So for legs would only 4 sets of squats & 4 sets of stiff leg deadlifts be enough for legs?

Is the best way to tell if you're over training that you're not as strong as you normally are &/or feeling tired? Is it also possible to be overtraining just one or 2 muscles out of 5 days?


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> gopro when I used to do only 3 exrcises 4 sets each for chest, my chest would hardly feel a good sore for more than half a day. Same goes for when only used to do 12 or 15 sets for back, it would hardly feel worked the next day. Even with 18 total sets super setting bi's & tri's my arms aren't all that sore for very long but I know I'm hitting my arms hard enough as the following week I'm able to lift more on each individual exercise.
> 
> So for legs would only 4 sets of squats & 4 sets of stiff leg deadlifts be enough for legs?
> ...



Being able to lift more each week is a very good sign, and will usually end up resulting in more growth. Losing strength from one week to the next IS an indicator of possible overtraining or underrecovering, but could also occur from more transient factors. You CAN overtrain individual muscles, but more often, overtraining is a systemic phenomenon.

For some people 4 sets of squats and 4 of stiff legged deads may be enough for good growth if they are pushing hard enough, but so little variety will not lead to complete thigh development.


----------



## Johnnny (May 13, 2004)

Sometimes I lose strength from one week to the next but that's mainly do to my thyroid going up & down. They just had to lower my synthroid dosages from .10mg a day down to .88mg a day as it was getting into the hyper state. When it's in the hyper state you're in the catabolic risk area.

When I was doing less work than the last month for certain muscle groups, sometimes I felt like I was under training. Is this possible? I assume yes.


If someone is doing 20 sets total for chest, 25-30 sets for back, 25 sets for arms, 20-25 sets for legs & 15 sets for traps, would this sound like someone training while on steroids? One friend of mine who has told me he's taken steroids before like deca, suspension & other things. Do the amounts of sets he does, sound like the type of routine for someon on juice? I'm just wondering if he's lying to me about being natural. He says he wishes he could get his hands on some stuff. To me what he does sounds like way to much for a natural person.


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> Sometimes I lose strength from one week to the next but that's mainly do to my thyroid going up & down. They just had to lower my synthroid dosages from .10mg a day down to .88mg a day as it was getting into the hyper state. When it's in the hyper state you're in the catabolic risk area.
> 
> When I was doing less work than the last month for certain muscle groups, sometimes I felt like I was under training. Is this possible? I assume yes.
> ...



Well, if he's training like this and actually growing, he is either a genetic marvel or on steroids.


----------



## Johnnny (May 13, 2004)

Well this guy (not the same guy as in my PM's)  was in my class all through highschool. Like I said he's taken several different steroids before. Some of the time he was honest about it. Other times he was dishonest & I found out through other ppl that he's been on stuff but didn't want to say. Presently he says he's natural & he does the same amount of set scheme as mentioned above. In highschool he was small & a bit fat. In grade 10 he did bench 205lbs for several reps. But I doubt he is a genetic marvel.
He's even trying to get me to train like him for some reason even though he knows I'm not on roids.

There's this 30yr old guy I know at the gym who is about the same height as me, but only 190lbs pretty lean. He told me that he only took steroids just a few times during Cegep & never touched them again. I just found out from the guy I'm talking about above that he heard this 30yr old guy is still off & on taking steroids he gets from one of the personal trainers Roy Callender at our gym. He's been lying to us all along. Last year he gained 20lbs in about 6 weeks & he said it was from 1-AD & then he lost half of it a month later. Well the guy mentioned above found out from someone else that he was on steroids during the time that he said he was on 1-AD.

Point is I don't know whether or not to believe the guy at the top of this reply about being natural or not & not do as many sets as him per body part & cause over training.


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> Well this guy (not the same guy as in my PM's)  was in my class all through highschool. Like I said he's taken several different steroids before. Some of the time he was honest about it. Other times he was dishonest & I found out through other ppl that he's been on stuff but didn't want to say. Presently he says he's natural & he does the same amount of set scheme as mentioned above. In highschool he was small & a bit fat. In grade 10 he did bench 205lbs for several reps. But I doubt he is a genetic marvel.
> He's even trying to get me to train like him for some reason even though he knows I'm not on roids.
> 
> ...



Don't worry about that guy or anyone else and stick to what YOU KNOW works for YOU.


----------



## Johnnny (May 13, 2004)

I know, I know you have to focus on yourself & set short term goals eventually long term or you'll never improve.

But it gets discouraging if you've worked hard for 4-6 months & managed to gain 5lbs of muscle when your buddy someone you know gains 15-20lbs in 6 weeks & keeps 5-10lbs or so post cycle depending on the person.


----------



## gopro (May 13, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> I know, I know you have to focus on yourself & set short term goals eventually long term or you'll never improve.
> 
> But it gets discouraging if you've worked hard for 4-6 months & managed to gain 5lbs of muscle when your buddy someone you know gains 15-20lbs in 6 weeks & keeps 5-10lbs or so post cycle depending on the person.



Hey, I've busted my ass for years upon years in the gym and have watched so many people surpass me along the way with 1/10 th my dedication...it sucks, but you have to push on and accept it if your decision is to remain natural. In the end though, you'll probably end up with a better physique than most that rely on drugs.


----------



## Johnnny (May 13, 2004)

Yeah I've heard that. I see guys come off roids after being on them for 5-10yrs, & after several months after withdrawl, they usually look better & some ppl even lifting almost as much as they were on roids.


----------



## Johnnny (May 21, 2004)

I hate when guys either don't know what they're doing give bad advice, or when steroid users give advice on training that's only suited for steroid users expecting everyone to be on roids giving natural training ppl training advice on routines etc.... that's normally used for steroid users.

As I said I've been super setting bi's & tri's for almost 5yrs & had pretty good gains. I got the advice from a guy who I thought was training naturally as he wasn't freaky or overly huge &/or ripped. Just a guy who was around 5ft11 & weighed 230lbs with great condtion. There were times he was ripped at that weight & other times not, & sometimes his weight would increase by 10lbs or so periodically. He always said he was natural & was a personal trainer. Well I just found out yesterday coincedently on arm day from this other personal trainer (also a fireman) who did some local bodybuilding & was on roids for a long time but has been training naturally for the last couple of years told me

NOT TO SUPER SET ARMS AS IT WILL CAUSE YOU TO OVERTRAIN YOUR GUNS. I believe this dude as he told me the guy I got my advice from is a big steroid freak & has been for several years & gave me an arm routine for someone on steroids.

He said it's best to do chest & biceps never triceps as your chest also has tricep involvement. He said it's best believe it or not to do tricep's either after back or on leg day. Never do triceps on shoulder day or a day before or after shoudler & never on the same day as chest. He also said never do back & biceps on the same day as your back involves your biceps a great deal.

He told me my arms might have been growing much more than they have been. So now I have to change my whole routine. 

Steroid users can't expect natural training ppl to train the same way & grow the same way.


----------



## CowPimp (May 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> I hate when guys either don't know what they're doing give bad advice, or when steroid users give advice on training that's only suited for steroid users expecting everyone to be on roids giving natural training ppl training advice on routines etc.... that's normally used for steroid users.



Agreed.  That's why I just do as much research as I possibly can and design my own routines.  I often use the ideas of others, but adapt them to myself.  Currently my routine is a variation of Gopro's well-renowned P/RR/S routine.



> As I said I've been super setting bi's & tri's for almost 5yrs & had pretty good gains. I got the advice from a guy who I thought was training naturally as he wasn't freaky or overly huge &/or ripped. Just a guy who was around 5ft11 & weighed 230lbs with great condtion. There were times he was ripped at that weight & other times not, & sometimes his weight would increase by 10lbs or so periodically. He always said he was natural & was a personal trainer. Well I just found out yesterday coincedently on arm day from this other personal trainer (also a fireman) who did some local bodybuilding & was on roids for a long time but has been training naturally for the last couple of years told me
> 
> NOT TO SUPER SET ARMS AS IT WILL CAUSE YOU TO OVERTRAIN YOUR GUNS. I believe this dude as he told me the guy I got my advice from is a big steroid freak & has been for several years & gave me an arm routine for someone on steroids.



This may be true, but if you have been gaining there is nothing to worry about.  If it works for you, then it doesn't matter if it's a roid-routine.  Your body is probably one that recovers very quickly.  If you don't take advantage of this fact, then you aren't training optimally.  You might want to try a different routine for a little bit just for change of pace, but if you make better gains supersettings then stick with it.



> He said it's best to do chest & biceps never triceps as your chest also has tricep involvement. He said it's best believe it or not to do tricep's either after back or on leg day. Never do triceps on shoulder day or a day before or after shoudler & never on the same day as chest. He also said never do back & biceps on the same day as your back involves your biceps a great deal.



This is one method of training, but not the only one.  Some people do a push, pull, legs routine which is where they do chest, shoulders, and triceps all on the same day.  As well, back and biceps are done on the same day.  As long as you leave ample time for recovery you should be fine.  There is no right way; try both methods and see which one works for you.  Currently, I do chest and shoulders on the same day and they are my best body parts.



> He told me my arms might have been growing much more than they have been. So now I have to change my whole routine.
> 
> Steroid users can't expect natural training ppl to train the same way & grow the same way.



Only one way to find out...  Try different stuff.


----------



## Mudge (May 21, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> Steroid users can't expect natural training ppl to train the same way & grow the same way.



It varies too much to pass a comment like that. I use low volume and heavy on some bodyparts, lighter on others, that is what works for me on or off cycle. Deep into a cycle I can use higher volume but I find little to no difference in any kind of gains, for me its intensity that forces new strength or size. This is why for me a spotter is neccessary on some things to make great gains.

As for being sore, that doesn't mean a whole lot. My bench can go up 5 or 10 pounds a week and not be tied to soreness at all. Right now on cycle I do find my training, which has been shifting, is making me sore for a few days at a time.

I like lockout benches better than CG for triceps, if I do CG it hits my chest to much, and I train arms on a seperate day.

I agree fully though that virtually everyone has to find what works for them, off the shelf routines dont work for everybody.


----------



## Johnnny (May 21, 2004)

CowPimp 





> This is one method of training, but not the only one. Some people do a push, pull, legs routine which is where they do chest, shoulders, and triceps all on the same day. As well, back and biceps are done on the same day. As long as you leave ample time for recovery you should be fine. There is no right way; try both methods and see which one works for you. Currently, I do chest and shoulders on the same day and they are my best body parts.




This in my personal experience is a biiiig no no. You never want to train chest & shoulders on the same day or on back to back days. This personal trainer/local bodybuilder dude said that & also said never to train triceps on the same day as chest or shoulders as there is a descent amount of triceps involved when doing chest & shoulders so your triceps will be over worked & not have the same strong workout as they would trained seperately.

But I'm going to train them seperately & see what happens. If it works better & make even faster gains, than I'll keep it this way.


----------



## Johnnny (May 21, 2004)

Mudge but what about those guys who train overly hard on steroids for 2+hrs in the gym a day & recover & grow like that?

Mudge so you wouldn't recommend super setting bi's/tri's either?


----------



## Mudge (May 21, 2004)

I dont superset but I'm sure I would like it as a changeup, if it works I can't tell someone to stop doing it.

I think training 2 hours + is just stupid, but thats JMO.


----------



## Johnnny (May 21, 2004)

Mudge 





> I dont superset but I'm sure I would like it as a changeup, if it works I can't tell someone to stop doing it.



Well, I'm going to change it up back to a 4 day a week routine as now in this routine I don't have one day just for arms. But I'm hoping my arm strength & size will change. If I gain much more than I have been, that says something & I'm gonna stick to seperating them.

Mudge  





> I think training 2 hours + is just stupid, but thats JMO.



Most of the dudes I know who are on juice train at least 1.5hrs if not 2hrs. They really seem to gain & grow as opposed to training just 45mins or 1hr. Steroids as you know really cause fast recovery & fast growth. Back in the day Arnold, Franco, Lou & all of those guys were in the gym around 4hrs a day 4-5 times a week & look what results it produced. As you also know the amount of steroids the guys back then are no where near the amount of steroids & other hormones that the guys are on now.


----------



## Mudge (May 21, 2004)

I can't train long unless I am deep into a cycle, right now low volume is what works for me.


----------



## Johnnny (May 22, 2004)

Mudge so you start off light & work your way up to heavy lowering the reps each set? Or do you do one or 2 very light warm up sets & then get into the heavy right away & then lower the weight each set & increase the reps?

I started a thread on this, personally for me if I start off light & work my way up to heavy, I have not that much energy for the heavy set for 2-4 reps. I personally for every muscle stretch alot & do one or 2 very light warm up sets & then I do the 2-4 heavy set right away & then lower the weight & increase the reps each set. This works for me.

Mudge what do you think about how back in the day Arnold, Franco & Lou used to train for 4hrs a day?


----------



## Mudge (May 22, 2004)

Generally I pick a weight and I stick with it. I dont lower the weight per set. This primarily works for benches where if I start light (10 reps) and then my reps dip, where if I started with a 6 rep set and did the same number of sets, I would only be doing 1-2 reps at the end of my sets.

When I bench, reps are generally 10/9/7/4, same weight.

I saw no factual commentary about 4 hour a day workouts from either of them. Being a steel worker, Lou had no time for 4 hour workouts. Most of that stuff is nothing more than legend. Most of the overtraining practices stemmed from the 1980s, however like I have said before I can go longer and run more sets when I am deep into a cycle. For those guys who are spending 8 months in a row cycling, they would definitely be able to train much more often without 'feeling' it until you start looking at connective tissues.


----------



## Johnnny (May 22, 2004)

Mudge I've heard Arnold say in my Pumping Iron DVD & on Jay Leno that he would be in the gym for hours a day. 2hrs in the morning, & 2hrs in the evening.

Mudge what would you do if you were at a weight for 2-4reps? Would you remain at that weight for the rest of the sets?


----------



## Mudge (May 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> Mudge what would you do if you were at a weight for 2-4reps? Would you remain at that weight for the rest of the sets?



Normally I lose at least 1 rep per set, if I take longer rest periods sometimes I will not. When I am deep in a cycle I almost never lose more than 1 rep, this could perhaps be high red blood cell count, I dont really know. Unless I have gone into something 3 months plus which I have only done once., then my training is not very different from being natural. Since many of the pros are on year round, longer training is going to be somewhat natural for them to do.

I dont know what out of Arnold's mouth is believable and what is not. He has changed his stories on steroid use every 2-3 years, now his stance is along the lines of "I only used it for 4 weeks out from a very difficult competition," his PR person added 'if he knew then what he knows now he would not have used them.'

Being in politics almost requires lying to gain acceptance, and so I feel his is not honest about many things. It is easy to say "I am better than you because I didn't need steroids, I was in the gym 4 hours a day and thats why I looked that way, not because of steroids."

2 hours a day is not terribly abnormal, either in a split situation or all in one go. There are legends of 50 sets per bodypart style training but I dont feel that era lasted very long, nor did it produce superior results as we see todays bodybuilders are much bigger and do far less.

Troy Zuccolotto laughed at the ghost written piece that was done on his calf routine, he only does 5 sets, not 20+. I think this is half of the bullcrap cover provided as to why normal people can't look like bodybuilders, because they "are in the gym 5 times longer than you are."

If I were wrong I wouldn't care, regardless I dont think its smart or required. 20 sets for some bodyparts? Sure, but not 50. Muscles are only one part of the picture here, if your tendons and ligaments are shot you wont last long.


----------



## jaim91 (May 23, 2004)

"When I bench, reps are generally 10/9/7/4, same weight." - What does this do? It's not high volume/weight, or high reps?


----------



## Johnnny (May 23, 2004)

Mudge yeah I agree with everything. But the ligaments I agree with they can only take so much. What's the best way to strengthen your knees?

I was just curious how long ago was your first injection or first pill pop? & what did you take & how did it feel & how were the results?


----------



## CowPimp (May 23, 2004)

Sometimes I have to lose quite a few reps on subsequent sets.  If I use a slow tempo and only wait one minute in between sets, then sometimes my reps will drop from 10 to 6 or something of the sort.  When I started using a slower tempo I had to adjust weights for certain exercises because when I don't do them first I can't do nearly as much.


----------



## Mudge (May 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by jaim91 *_
> "When I bench, reps are generally 10/9/7/4, same weight." - What does this do? It's not high volume/weight, or high reps?



I dont do high volume as I've said (currently) and I dont do high reps outside of 10. For bench I can't pull it off without losing strength. That is what works for me bench wise, for my back and my legs my routine is heavier, and also low volume.


----------



## Mudge (May 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> What's the best way to strengthen your knees?
> 
> I was just curious how long ago was your first injection or first pill pop? & what did you take & how did it feel & how were the results?



Well if knees are a problem wraps might be a good idea for your heavy leg work.

24th of last month, so around 4 weeks. I am up about 21 pounds. How does it feel, other than mentally speaking there is no real feel. Mentally speaking its just a boost to gain weight and strength so quickly. I am not at a point yet where I feel like superman, haven't been on long enough.

I started on prop and anadrol and recently added fina.


----------



## Johnnny (May 23, 2004)

Mudge when did you first start juice & what types? D-Bol, Suspensions perhaps or Deca perhaps?

I don't really believe in knee wraps, but I'm just wondering if there's any way to increase the strength of your knees for just overall purpose & safety?


----------



## Johnnny (May 23, 2004)

Oh Mudge, back on track on what days do you do your arms & with what groups?

I'm switching to Chest & biceps & probably back & triceps.


----------



## Arnold (May 23, 2004)

Biceps and triceps get their own training day for me.


----------



## Mudge (May 23, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> I don't really believe in knee wraps, but I'm just wondering if there's any way to increase the strength of your knees for just overall purpose & safety?



I am not using enough weight for wraps, if you were doing 600 though I'd recommend them.

Not really the place to ask my entire gear history, the short story is I have used off and on for about 22 months.

1) Chest Calves
2) Back
3) Delts Traps Neck
4) Arms Abs Forearms
5) Quads Hams
6/7) OFF

Thats my general schedule.

I finally broke down and bought some gloves with wrist support, which I need.


----------



## Johnnny (May 23, 2004)

Mudge I guess if you're on juice than 6 days a week isn't too much.

When you do arms, do you superset them? Or do biceps 1st, then triceps?


----------



## Mudge (May 23, 2004)

I do not superset. You aren't me and I'm not you, so telling me what is too much and what isn't is not going to get me changing my routine. As I keep mentioning over, and over again, deep into a cycle I can train very differently. I can run a higher volume routine as frequently as every 5 days with no time off for a couple weeks until I feel like it. I will never be sore and I will always go in stronger. As of this moment that is not the case, once a week is enough for me given my volume, intensity, and apparent recouperation abilities.

Its possible this will change in another 4 weeks, at this point there is no use for me to even guess.

I will definitely consider supersetting for a changeup, it has my curiosity, but as of now I dont use this for anything.


----------



## jaim91 (May 24, 2004)

What's the differene between close grip bench press, and lying french press? 
Dimaggio - "Supersets Training Principles

Working opposing muscle groups in back to back fashion, taking as little rest as possible between each set. E.g. Alternating sets for opposing muscle groups ??? such as biceps and triceps or chest and back ??? greatly increases intensity. While you train one muscle group, the other is recovering as you complete the set. With two muscles or muscle groups begin worked, more blood is pumped to the area." - This is the Weider principle of supersetting. I thought you said you train bis and tris on different days...


----------



## Mudge (May 24, 2004)

Lee Priest, 20 sets per bodypart maximum FWIW.


----------



## Johnnny (May 24, 2004)

Mudge I wasn't telling you to change your routine, I was simply asking if you super set your arms as you train them on the same day.

I was also simply saying that for me some of what you're doing is too much. That's all.


----------



## Johnnny (May 25, 2004)

I just did my biceps seperately from triceps for the first time in a long time.

I did them after my chest & I'm very surprised but my biceps got much more pumped then when I was super setting.

I think the guy I'm getting my most recent advice from is right, that supersetting your biceps & triceps will cause you to overtrain your arms.

He suggests doing triceps on back day either super setting your 3 tricep exercises during the beginning of your back or at the end.

He said biceps are better done on chest & you can't train back the day after or before your biceps as your biceps are greatly involved durning your back routine.

& you shouldn't do triceps on shoulder day or chest day as triceps are greatly involved while working out both chest or shoulders & you won't have the same tricep workout as if you were to do it on seperate days of chest & shoulders. Same reason you don't train chest & shoulders on the same day or on back to back days as they both interchange.


----------



## Novo (May 25, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> I think the guy I'm getting my most recent advice from is right, that supersetting your biceps & triceps will cause you to overtrain your arms.
> 
> He suggests doing triceps on back day either super setting your 3 tricep exercises during the beginning of your back or at the end....


Mudge? There's a thread within this forum that features both a picture of this guy, and the interesting debate that ensued. You may like to check it out?


 Just ... couldn't .... stop .... myself, sorry!!


----------



## Johnnny (May 25, 2004)

Novo what's your problem? If you read any of the other replies by me in this thread you'd see that I got some bad advice about 5yrs ago & was told that super setting arms was good & would promote growth.

I was convinced that it was good even when some ppl here said it wasn't.

Well the guy in the picture on his business card told me last week that I'm overtraining my arms by super setting them. He said that type of arm workout is mainly good for someone who uses steroids as that is what he used to do when he was on steroids & now he trains his arms seperately now that he's off steroids.

That's all.


----------



## jaim91 (May 26, 2004)

So is the consensus that Johnnny does or does not like supersetting, and that it is or is not good for the growth of the arms?


----------



## Johnnny (May 26, 2004)

jaim91 if you understood what I said, at the beginning of the thread which was probably 2-3 weeks ago I thought supersetting bi's & tri's was good & promoted better growth as I had made some very descent gains over the last 5yrs while doing it.

It wasn't until last week I found out that super setting bi's & tri's is more for ppl who are on a heavy mass building steroid cycle & for a natural training person it would cause over training in your arms. Therefore not good. I was told that I could've gained a lot more strength & size to my arms than I had been when I was supersetting bi's & tri's.

So no supersetting bi's & tri's is not good, it will cause your arms to over train.


----------



## tucker01 (May 26, 2004)

Suoersetting Bi's and Tri's is fine natural or not,  I just wouldn't do it every workout.  maybe every four weeks or something. 

Remember Variety is the spice of life,  you got to keep your body guessing in order to help premote growth.


----------



## Johnnny (May 26, 2004)

IainDaniel now I'm doing chest & biceps & back & triceps. My biceps actually got really pumped, much more than supersetting arms for the first time in awhile.


----------



## tucker01 (May 26, 2004)

Exactly, the change in routine, provided a different stimulus.

Assuming you stick to this for a while and then change again you would more than likely get the same kind of feeling.


----------



## Johnnny (May 26, 2004)

IainDaniel change in the routine, & not overtraining my arms.


----------



## jaim91 (May 27, 2004)

Ah...thank you for the clarification Johnny. As a woman not looking to put on THAT much muscle (and not using steroids), I will refrain from supersetting.

What' the difference between anabolic 'roids, and the ones that are illegal?


----------



## Johnnny (May 27, 2004)

jaim91



> Ah...thank you for the clarification Johnny. As a woman not looking to put on THAT much muscle (and not using steroids), I will refrain from supersetting.



If you've even read the thread you'd understand that super setting your arms will be over training your arms causing the opposite of growth for a natural training person even for someone who is looking for the lean, slender look. As with over training, your muscles won't grow as effectively or at all as if they would without overtraining. So supersetting your biceps & triceps as I've stated I recently found out it will eventually lead to overtraining your arms which isn't good for anyone even ppl who want the long lean look.



> What' the difference between anabolic 'roids, and the ones that are illegal?



What I get from this is that you think anabolic steroids are legal & there are other types of drugs used in bodybuilding that are illegal.

Well anabolic steroids are illegal & are classified under this same category as anabolic steroids.

I've met & known some bodybuilders who use horse hormones. If they fall under the steroid category I'm not sure.


----------



## tucker01 (May 27, 2004)

Supersets are fine for a natural or Anabolic enhanced bodybuilder.

They offer variation and a different stimulus.

Doing 24 sets however with supersets is a little too much for a natural lifter on  regular basis.  Again as stated before,  do what works for you, try different approaches as long as you are making progress why change things.


----------



## Johnnny (May 27, 2004)

IainDaniel like I said after just one bicep workout, I found it was working much better as I wasn't over training my arms as before.

I will see how good a tricep workout I'll have today after I do my back. I bet my triceps will be pumped & I'll be able to do more than 250lbs on my close grip or at least more reps.


----------



## tucker01 (May 27, 2004)

Pump means nothing to me other than a good feeling which is nice sometimes,  Just monitor your progress ie.  are your wieghts increasing, and body measurements


----------



## Johnnny (May 27, 2004)

IainDaniel


> Pump means nothing to me other than a good feeling which is nice sometimes, Just monitor your progress ie. are your wieghts increasing, and body measurements



The pump should me something to you. It's a sign that you're getting enough muscle stimulation to cause muscle growth.
You want that feeling like your bicep is going to burst out of the skin or that rock hard feeling in your lats after several sets of barbell rows.


----------



## CowPimp (May 27, 2004)

> _*Originally posted by Johnnny *_
> IainDaniel
> 
> 
> ...



To my knowledge, pump has nothing to do with hypertrophy.  Pump is simply the feeling and increase in size that comes from increased blood flow to a muscle or group of muscles.  The only real way to see if you are experiencing gains is to measure your muscles or log the weights you use over time.


----------



## Johnnny (May 27, 2004)

CowPimp



> To my knowledge, pump has nothing to do with hypertrophy. Pump is simply the feeling and increase in size that comes from increased blood flow to a muscle or group of muscles. The only real way to see if you are experiencing gains is to measure your muscles or log the weights you use over time.



Like I said getting pumped is a signe that your muscles are getting enough muscle stimulation to grow.

Back when I first started training 10yrs ago in my first few months of training I wasn't really getting pumped or growing  that much of the time. A trainer asked me how I was training. He is I wasn't getting enough stimulation to grow & told me during my routine I should be concentrating on peak muscular contraction.

After I did this I felt everything getting more pumped & I started getting much stronger & growing better.

The muscle pump is a sign that you're getting enough muscle stimulation to grow.

Arnold always focused on getting the pump in the muscle whether it was doing biceps, or legs. He always said that if he was getting a good muscle pump during his session, he was getting the job done.

Getting a good muscle pump is very important in terms of growing in size & strength.


----------



## jaim91 (May 28, 2004)

Arnold describes the "pump" as a feeling...combined with vascularity...


----------



## Johnnny (May 28, 2004)

jaim91 yep he does.


----------



## mostang (May 28, 2004)

Hey Johnny that's about the same line up of exercises I do for arms, but at the end after the 24 sets I'll add isolating my tri's by doing to sets of burnout dips and do one more set on the Cybex machine for my bi's starting as heavy as I can go and burn out, drop two plates and do it again until I'm only doing like 40lbs.  My arms carry that pump for over 36 hours.


----------



## Johnnny (May 28, 2004)

Mostang.



> Hey Johnny that's about the same line up of exercises I do for arms, but at the end after the 24 sets I'll add isolating my tri's by doing to sets of burnout dips and do one more set on the Cybex machine for my bi's starting as heavy as I can go and burn out, drop two plates and do it again until I'm only doing like 40lbs. My arms carry that pump for over 36 hours.




Are you talking about the supersetting bi's/tri's or doing arms seperately chest & biceps & back & triceps? Because I do them seperately such as this as I said earlier I found out about 10 days ago that super setting your arms will cause you to over train them.


----------



## mostang (May 28, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Mostang.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do the regular chest on Monday's and that's it.  I wait till Friday and yes I do both Bi's and Tri's on Fridays bouncing back and forth useually starting with alt. seated DB curls then skulls..back to bi's....tri's until I'm done.


----------



## tucker01 (May 28, 2004)

Johnnny Supersetting Doesn"t Cause Overtraining, Already!!!!!


----------



## Mudge (May 28, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Like I said getting pumped is a signe that your muscles are getting enough muscle stimulation to grow.



You can get pumped with the pink dumbells bro, all it means is there is a lot of blood in the muscle 'engorging' it.


----------



## jaim91 (May 29, 2004)

"You can get pumped with the pink dumbells bro"

What does that mean?


----------



## Johnnny (May 29, 2004)

Mudge



> You can get pumped with the pink dumbells bro, all it means is there is a lot of blood in the muscle 'engorging' it.



What the hell are pink dumbbells? But yes you are right about the meaning of "getting the pump"

As I've said getting the pump is a sign that your muscles are getting enough stimulation to grow & get stronger as well.

Arnold always says if you're not getting the pump, you're not training hard enough during each set for whatever muscle you're working.


----------



## Mudge (May 29, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> What does that mean?



Pinks and blues are not found in every gym. They are 1 and 3 pounds or something like that. Pumped or not doesn't mean you are getting an effective workout, a lot of powerlifters will not experience bodybuilder-like pumps MOST of the time, yet they still grow just fine.


----------



## Johnnny (May 29, 2004)

Mudge, it's possible, but for me if I don't get pumped in my back if it's back day or my chest on chest or biceps on bi day & so on I don't find I grow that well or get stronger.


----------



## Mudge (May 29, 2004)

It has nothing to do with pump, if your body responds to a certain rep range thats another story completely unrelated. I dont like going very heavy on chest, unless I kept my sets very very low, I end up losing strength. So I get great chest pump because I start out at ~10 reps for my opening work set.


----------



## Johnnny (May 29, 2004)

Mudge

So it is your opinion that getting the muscle pumped isn't important?


What if it's a guy who doest hit it that hard when he trains, never gets pumped & doesn't gain in size or strength? I had a friend like this & realized he wasn't training hard enough each work out. He started training harder & he was always getting pumped & from then on he started growing in size & strength without steroids.


----------



## CowPimp (May 29, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Mudge
> 
> So it is your opinion that getting the muscle pumped isn't important?
> 
> ...



Well, just because one person doesn't get the pump, and then they change their workout and they do get the pump and experience better gains, doesn't mean that pump definitely leads to better gains.  You will get the best pump of your life if you do endurance type exercises.  However, as we all know, endurance rep ranges don't lead to much hypertrophy and/or strength gains.


----------



## Johnnny (May 29, 2004)

CowPimp

I use the 2-8 rep range or the 10-15 rep range if I'm trying to get leaner.

But either way with the 2-8 rep range or the 10-15rep range, I always do about 16mins of 15second sprints inlcine, decline & regular level set on the tredmill at a sprint speed for incline 7.5mph, decline 12mph, flat level 10mph.


----------



## Mudge (May 29, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> What if it's a guy who doest hit it that hard when he trains, never gets pumped & doesn't gain in size or strength?



Then his training or diet does not fit his bodytype. There is a book with a title something along the lines of "Training by Your Bloodtype." There are some articles here about training based on fiber type. I do not believe at all there there is some single answer that one can give to something like "I dont get pumped and I dont make gains." If it were THAT easy then a lot more people would be in better shape because there would be an ABC chart out there to getting 'buff.'

It takes time to find what works for you.


----------



## jaim91 (May 29, 2004)

I'd say it is important to get the pump because that's a huge motivator. So, when you get it, it makes you want to conitnue, and do more.


----------



## CowPimp (May 30, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> I'd say it is important to get the pump because that's a huge motivator. So, when you get it, it makes you want to conitnue, and do more.



This may be true.  However, that still doesn't mean that getting the pump has any correlation to your workout being as effective as it could be scientifically speaking.


----------



## Johnnny (May 30, 2004)

I still think getting the "pump" is still very important.


----------



## CowPimp (May 30, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> I still think getting the "pump" is still very important.



It may be one of many useful barometers to tell whether or not your workout was as effective as it could be.  However, I wouldn't use the pump to determine whether or not a workout is effective for you in and of itself.


----------



## jaim91 (May 31, 2004)

That's true pimp...


----------



## Mudge (May 31, 2004)

If I sit down and bench 335x3 I wont get as much pump as 225x20, but I would much rather do 3 reps than 20. I'm not in the gym to get pumped and put my hands all over myself feeling how pumped I am.


----------



## Johnnny (May 31, 2004)

Mudge



> If I sit down and bench 335x3 I wont get as much pump as 225x20, but I would much rather do 3 reps than 20. I'm not in the gym to get pumped and put my hands all over myself feeling how pumped I am.



When I was able to bench 320lbs for 4 reps my chest did get pumped, & then when I would lower the weight & work down to 225 or 205lbs my pecs would get amazingly pumped. If you're thinking I spend my time feeling myself up on how pumped I got, I don't.

Cowpimp



> It may be one of many useful barometers to tell whether or not your workout was as effective as it could be. However, I wouldn't use the pump to determine whether or not a workout is effective for you in and of itself.



If when I don't check to see if I got pumped or not, I always get really pumped from every set I do whether it's a weight for 4 reps, or a weight for 15 reps. I always get the "pump".


----------



## jaim91 (Jun 1, 2004)

You also get "the pump" if you do your reps quickly...


----------



## nikegurl (Jun 1, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> CowPimp
> 
> I use the 2-8 rep range or the 10-15 rep range if I'm trying to get leaner.


Using higher reps when you are cutting is a myth.  Higher reps don't get you lean - diet does.  If anything dieting is the time it's most important to continue to train heavy so you hang onto as much muscle as possible.


----------



## Novo (Jun 1, 2004)

NG, silly - high reps, low reps, whatever ... it's all about the PUMP (apparently?!)

Now, get back here in the kitchen with me where we belong, hush woman ....


----------



## gopro (Jun 1, 2004)

Mudge said:
			
		

> I'm not in the gym to get pumped and put my hands all over myself feeling how pumped I am.


You're not? Hmmm, I better rethink this whole thing...


----------



## Saturday Fever (Jun 1, 2004)

And here I thought Mudge thoroughly enjoyed feeling himself.


----------



## V Player (Jun 1, 2004)

nikegurl said:
			
		

> If anything dieting is the time it's most important to continue to train heavy so you hang onto as much muscle as possible.


That makes about the best sense I have ever heard on this issue. Glad I decided to read this thread. Im going to have to seriously re-think my cutting cycle that starts in 2 weeks.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 5, 2004)

Nikegirl

I know that you think the 10-15 or more rep range with a weight that you can do that many reps to get leaner & tighter is a myth. But I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I've been only doing one set with a really heavy weight in the 2-4 rep range with everything else being in the 8-15 or more rep range. In just a couple of weeks I find myself getting much tighter than when doing everything in the 2-4 rep range. When I do everything in the 2-4 rep range I get bulky. Like you guys say, you have to find what works for your body depending on what you want.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 5, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Nikegirl
> 
> I know that you think the 10-15 or more rep range with a weight that you can do that many reps to get leaner & tighter is a myth. But I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I've been only doing one set with a really heavy weight in the 2-4 rep range with everything else being in the 8-15 or more rep range. In just a couple of weeks I find myself getting much tighter than when doing everything in the 2-4 rep range. When I do everything in the 2-4 rep range I get bulky. Like you guys say, you have to find what works for your body depending on what you want.


you'd better go take a physiology class, and learn about hypertrophy.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 5, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> And here I thought Mudge thoroughly enjoyed feeling himself.


To some degree yes, but I love the feeling of filling out my sweaty shirt more than anything else I guess. I'm there to work out though, not look in the mirror and think I've reached my goals, but I swear every summer lifter seems to think in 2 weeks they have reached some huge goal judging by the way they look in the mirror and walk around.

We've got guys that work out with the little weights in limited ranges of motion and get up from the bench/squat area and scream.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 5, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio


You always promote telling us to find out what works for our bodies depending on what our goals are.

Are you telling me my results from this change are not real?

I haven't changed my diet at all. Nor have I changed my cardio. I still do 15mins of intervals on the treadmill with sprints.

With this said, I've in just 3 weeks or so managed to get my body tighter than when I was training with 2-4 reps on every excersize with every set.

With all of this said, in your professional opinion how come I've managed to get tighter training with a minimum of 10 reps or more of each set for every exercise, for every muscle instead of very heavy with the 2-4 rep range on every exercise for every set without changing my diet or my cardio?

Like I said I haven't changed my cardio or my diet which is always clean & getting enough complex carbs & protein, fruit/vegetables & water. 

All I did change was my training. I used weights that I could do 10-15 reps with.

I'm taking your advice from the past about finding out what works for us individually depending on what our goals are physique wise. & now my goals physique wise is to get really tight & hard. What I've done the last month has been working much more to help me achieve my goals.

I'm going to stick with this method for the next while as it's providing me with good results & hopefully I'll be getting pictures up sooner than I planned.


----------



## CowPimp (Jun 5, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Robert DiMaggio
> With this said, I've in just 3 weeks or so managed to get my body tighter than when I was training with 2-4 reps on every excersize with every set.


If you have really been training as long as you said you have, then I doubt you will have noticed any perceptable difference in your physique in 3 weeks.  As well, I think you are just telling yourself you got tighter, therefore you believe it is true.  The word psychosomatic comes to mind, but it is usually used in the context of disease or illness.


----------



## JLB001 (Jun 5, 2004)

*More blah blah blah....*


----------



## Novo (Jun 5, 2004)

OMG, we're all stuck in some sort of horrific Twilight Zone? This inane topic was beaten to death in the "I want leaner legs" thread - closed for good reason. And Johnnny's revived it?? 

We KNOW your views on rep ranges, we KNOW you believe you can "stretch out your bulkiness", and we KNOW you don't advocate girls lift heavy unless they want to look like female hulks. I can _quote_ your views from memory they made such an impression on me! A bad impression, but an impression nonetheless.

But to revive the topic here? The horse is dead Johnnny, let it go now.


----------



## gr81 (Jun 5, 2004)

^^


----------



## Randy (Jun 5, 2004)

Mudge said:
			
		

> 24 sets to me is still freaky, but I feel my arms are in proportion to the rest of me @ 18 7/8".
> 
> Albert Beckles trains arms once every 2 weeks. Honestly, it seems that everyone who says more is better, or less is better, eventually looks about the same. Persistence is the main thing. Sure a program like that might work in the short term which is awesome, but I can't see that tiny little muscles really require that kind of load.
> 
> I wouldn't mind a temporary growth spurt, I may try it, but lower volume.


I've always done 24 sets on my arm day. I usually don't do supersets, but more of a mass routine. I will soon be adapting my program to fit with gopros p/rr/s. For me though, instead of having to change my routine every 3 weeks using p/rr/s, I am going to do a p/p/rr/rr/s which will extend my program for 5 weeks .


----------



## Randy (Jun 5, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> You also get "the pump" if you do your reps quickly...


Jaimie,  What pump are you referring to 

Sorry...Couldn't resist!


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 6, 2004)

Randy

The pump we are referring to is for example the feeling your bicep gets when it feels like it's going to burst through the skin. Same with any muscle.

I always get that feeling on ever workout for every muscle especially in my lats & chest. But my biceps & triceps get really pumped even after just a warm up set & get even more pumped & full by the end of the session.

Novo

I'm not trying to re-vive anything here. The subject came up.

Cowpimp

Like I said I've been training for about 10yrs & have always trained in the 2-4 rep range for mass & strength while following a good diet so I don't get even more bulky.

But since I've altered my training methods about 5 weeks ago I can't remember exactly when, I've seen a big difference in my shape. I'm getting much tighter & leaner & at the rate I'm going I'll be ready for pictures much sooner than I expected.

Like I said I haven't changed my diet at all, I haven't changed my cardio at all. All I have changed is my training method & it has made a big difference in my shape.

But I guess that doesn't matter even though it is working for me as what I want right now is a harder, leaner, more shaped body.

I haven't lost much weight either. I'm still around 210lbs.

All I can say is like it or not, believe it or not, that theory is working for me right now. Prince has always said to find what works for you depending on what your goals are physique wise. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 6, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Robert DiMaggio
> You always promote telling us to find out what works for our bodies depending on what our goals are.
> 
> Are you telling me my results from this change are not real?


that is correct, we are al individuals and have to find out what works best for our bodies.

you may be responding better to higher reps either because it's something different and/or because your body type responds better to higher reps due to muscle fibers. 

what I was referring to when I said you need to take a physiology course was where you said that higher reps make your muscles tighter. 

do you also believe that crunches make your abs leaner?


----------



## Randy (Jun 6, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> do you also believe that crunches make your abs leaner?


I sure wish they did.


----------



## JLB001 (Jun 6, 2004)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Robert DiMaggio*
_
do you also believe that crunches make your abs leaner?_


I swear that is how mine got lean.


----------



## Randy (Jun 6, 2004)

If you are already somewhat lean then crunches will help define your ab muscles.
If you have a high percent of body fat then you can do 1000 a day and it won't burn the fat. You need diet, nutrician, and cardio to do that. That's my take anyway.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 6, 2004)

It would "define" them by making them larger and thusly more visible. You can't turn fat into muscle so, yes you'd have to be lean to see them. I can see my abs somewhat though even when I'm fat.


----------



## Randy (Jun 6, 2004)

Mudge said:
			
		

> I can see my abs somewhat though even when I'm fat.


Wish I could... All I see is a big gut


----------



## gopro (Jun 7, 2004)

Randy said:
			
		

> Wish I could... All I see is a big gut


And the violins begin playing for Randy...LOL!


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 7, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio



> that is correct, we are al individuals and have to find out what works best for our bodies.


I totally agree with you, but I'm not saying that using much heavier weights & the 2-4 rep scheme didn't work. It did work for building strength, power, thickness, b/c it sure did. Before my hyper thyroid fiascal caused by those supplements as you know I still had descent shape. But not like I'm starting to develop now. I'm starting to see veins coming into my arms, upper chest, front & rear delts, & in my lats around the arm pit area which is something I never had before.



> you may be responding better to higher reps either because it's something different and/or because your body type responds better to higher reps due to muscle fibers


For developing better shape I think my body is responding to this method much better, plus it's something I hadn't done very often. But I still do one set really heavy with 2-4 reps usually the 1st set of an exercise for just one set & the following sets go as high as 12-15 reps with about 20lbs lighter at most than a weight that I would do 2-4 reps.



> what I was referring to when I said you need to take a physiology course was where you said that higher reps make your muscles tighter.


Well for me this method is making my body much tighter for some reason. Like I said I haven't changed my diet or cardio. I've only changed my training method.



> do you also believe that crunches make your abs leaner?


No I don't. Keeping a good diet & doing cardio 3-4 times a week keeps fat off & gets you lean to start showing abs. But if you don't develop your ab muscles, than even if you're lean enough, you won't see any abs if there are no muscles there.

I've seen some really lean guys, but had next to no abs it was just flat completely.

Mudge



> It would "define" them by making them larger and thusly more visible. You can't turn fat into muscle so, yes you'd have to be lean to see them. I can see my abs somewhat though even when I'm fat.


Completely agree with you. You have to follow a good diet & burn the fat off.
But as I said if you have no ab muscles, it won't matter how lean you are.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> And the violins begin playing for Randy...LOL!


Thanks for your utmost concern Gopro


----------



## Saturday Fever (Jun 7, 2004)

> what I was referring to when I said you need to take a physiology course


 Everyone should take a physiology course. It would cut down on a lot of stupid conversations.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> Everyone should take a physiology course. It would cut down on a lot of stupid conversations.


Saturday,

I suppose we can use you as the perfect role model


----------



## Saturday Fever (Jun 7, 2004)

Randy said:
			
		

> Wish I could... All I see is a big gut


 You're obviously intelligent. You not only speak with the maturity of a 6 year old, you can't even train correctly. When you can lift what I can lift, come back and tell me what I know is less than what you know. Until then, live in your mediocrity. Thanks, drive through.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> You're obviously intelligent. You not only speak with the maturity of a 6 year old, you can't even train correctly. When you can lift what I can lift, come back and tell me what I know is less than what you know. Until then, live in your mediocrity. Thanks, drive through.


I speak with the maturity of a 6 year old. Who are you to judge? I think you should first examine what you just wrote? First off you, you don't know me from Adam. So how do you know what I can lift? And if I didn't lift as much as you, does that mean I am less superior? . I think that statement alone speaks for your maturity. 

Now your closing statement, "Thanks, drive though?" What the hell does that mean Mr. Maturity Model?


----------



## Saturday Fever (Jun 7, 2004)

It means you don't know shit.

 You ride a bandwagon. I derailed that bandwagon discussing dips last week and all you could think to say was, "wheres my coffee?"

 You couldn't lift my coffee. Discuss my maturity level all you want. I know it's comparable to a child's. Where you and I differ is that my intelligence far exceeds that of a child whereas your intelligence is solely dependant on what you're told by your idol.

 So go take a physiology course, learn some real facts. Learn something.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> It means you don't know shit.
> 
> You ride a bandwagon. I derailed that bandwagon discussing dips last week and all you could think to say was, "wheres my coffee?"
> 
> ...


Saturday, if only I could have grown up to be like you


----------



## Saturday Fever (Jun 7, 2004)

If only. But you're in California. California community colleges offer UC-level anatomy and physiology courses for like $60, unless tuition got jacked again.

 There's no reason not to take the class when it teaches such an advanced level and costs so little.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> Everyone should take a physiology course. It would cut down on a lot of stupid conversations.


Saturday... I don't think many here would disagree with the benefits of education. The issue here is your smart-ass derogatory comment above. Try to think about that a minute. Who are you to judge the conversations here on this forum? There are people from all walks of life here, people from all skill levels, and various ages. What is stupid to you may not be stupid to them. Those that have true knowledge don't have to go around flaunting their knowledge to others, and putting others down for having less knowledge. This is a bodybuilding forum for people to learn, discuss bodybuilding, motivate, and share tips with others. If there is a conversation that you think is stupid, then why don't you move on to another thread instead of cast your derogatory comments?


----------



## Saturday Fever (Jun 7, 2004)

I do not call anyone stupid due to their being a beginner or coming here to learn. When I call someone stupid it's because they've been given the answer(s), sometimes numerous times, and yet they refuse to accept it.

 However, in the interest of not scaring off newcomers, I will get more specific in future posts.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2004)

I can accept that


----------



## jaim91 (Jun 7, 2004)

Guys, can we keep this strictly to a training post?


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2004)

We are Jaimie, we're training our mouths


----------



## Saturday Fever (Jun 7, 2004)

Hell yeah, check out the cuts on m right jaw.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 7, 2004)

So I'm currently training with more reps & not as much weight, but about 20lbs lighter than what I would use for 2-4 reps depending on what I'm training that day.

But certainly for when I do my biceps on chest day & triceps on back day the higher reps have made a big different in the shape to both areas for my arms. There are more veins becoming more visible which is a sign of getting good condition. I know some ppl here don't believe getting whatever muscle your working pumped isn't that important, but when I train in higher reps I find myself getting much more pumped than when training everything with a weight of 2-4 reps.

As I've already said, I haven't changed my diet, or cardio. Just my training methods.

I seem to be responding to this method in terms of condition/shape.


----------



## Randy (Jun 7, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> Hell yeah, check out the cuts on m right jaw.


And look at my avatar, my mouth is still moving 
I guess you can also say that we are exercising free speech


----------



## jaim91 (Jun 8, 2004)

Randy, how can your comp detect the sympatico.ca and ISP thing?


----------



## gopro (Jun 8, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> It means you don't know shit.
> 
> You ride a bandwagon. I derailed that bandwagon discussing dips last week and all you could think to say was, "wheres my coffee?"
> 
> So go take a physiology course, learn some real facts. Learn something.


Just wanted to add here that you derailed NOTHING with the discussion of dips. Also, about your comment to Randy about "when he lifts as much as you he can then speak to you...etc, etc," that is the most pathetic thing you have said yet. Ok, so next time you and I are in a debate I guess I can say, "When you are half my size only then can you discuss anything with me...until then live in YOUR mediocrity!"


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 8, 2004)

Gopro

I was just curious how tall are you & how much do you weigh depending on your condition?


----------



## gopro (Jun 8, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Gopro
> 
> I was just curious how tall are you & how much do you weigh depending on your condition?


I am 5'11" 

I have weighed as much as 273, but was at my all time biggest in Jan of 2003 at 268 (far more muscular than when I was a little heavier). Currently I am about 245 or so. I will begin reducing my bodyweight soon for competition.

My goal at one time was to be the biggest guy, but that has changed. Now, while I still want to hold size, my ultimate goal is to have the most "perfect" looking physique I can, whether weighing 200, 210, 220, whatever.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 8, 2004)

Gopro

No criticism intended, but were you still lean at 275lbs? b/c at your height that weight is very big. I've seen a lot of guys at that size not fat, but not ripped with some good conditioning with just a little bit of a pot. They trimmed down to 220lbs or 230lbs & were looking very good, much better than their 260lbs or 270lbs.

When I was almost 230lbs at 5ft9 I was very thick & still had descent condition for that weight, but I find now post hyper thyroid problem I'm getting in much better condition at 5ft9 210lbs with good size for a natural training person (not meaning you're on steroids, just for myself).

But it sounds like you've accomplished some real good training goals.


----------



## Randy (Jun 8, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> Randy, how can your comp detect the sympatico.ca and ISP thing?


Because that information is being broadcast by your ISP.
This utility captures those broadcasts.


----------



## gopro (Jun 8, 2004)

Depends on what you consider lean. Was I stage ready lean...NO WAY IN HECK! Was I fat...nope. When I was at 268 in 2003 I could still see my abs if I tightened them really hard. Well, anyway, right now I am about 245 and holding about 8% bodyfat. We will see what weight I can hit the stage at soon.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 8, 2004)

gopro





> Depends on what you consider lean. Was I stage ready lean...NO WAY IN HECK! Was I fat...nope. When I was at 268 in 2003 I could still see my abs if I tightened them really hard. Well, anyway, right now I am about 245 and holding about 8% bodyfat. We will see what weight I can hit the stage at soon.


How did you get so big & lean at your 5ft11 height? At what age did you start training?


----------



## aztecwolf (Jun 8, 2004)

i'm 5'11 and you got a damn near 85 lbs. on me.


----------



## Randy (Jun 8, 2004)

I just ate 3 pigs and I'm 6'1" and 235lbs.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 9, 2004)

aztecwolf



> i'm 5'11 and you got a damn near 85 lbs. on me.


Are you talking to me or Gopro? Gopro is the one who is 5ft11 & was around 270lbs with definition & is now 245lbs with even more definition.

I am currently about 210lbs & regaining my condition very quickly now for some reason at a height of about 5ft10.

Randy


> I just ate 3 pigs and I'm 6'1" and 235lbs


I assume you're joking? B/c pigs are full of fat. It's like porkchops, & ham, & bacon. Just disgusting & full of fat. I never eat them.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 9, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> gopro
> How did you get so big & lean at your 5ft11 height? At what age did you start training?


He's been training for something like 14 years.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 9, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Randy
> 
> I assume you're joking? B/c pigs are full of fat. It's like porkchops, & ham, & bacon. Just disgusting & full of fat. I never eat them.


The big bad wolf avatar is your clue


----------



## gopro (Jun 9, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> gopro
> How did you get so big & lean at your 5ft11 height? At what age did you start training?


Despite what people may think, I was once skinny as skinny could get...5' 11" and 125 lbs. with little to no muscle at all! My genetics are pretty crappy really, except for a decent body structure (in terms of symmetry).

How did I get as big as I am? I busted my ass day in and day out for many many years and used a very careful, scientific, well thought out approach to training, diet and supplementation. Some things that I do I still have never revealed to anybody 100%. (That may be saved for a book in the future).

But if I could reveal the biggest reason for my success, it would have to be the 3 D's and a C...dedication, desire, discipline, and consistency!


----------



## Randy (Jun 9, 2004)

4 d's You forgot Diet 

If I can just practice what I preach


----------



## gopro (Jun 9, 2004)

Randy said:
			
		

> 4 d's You forgot Diet
> 
> If I can just practice what I preach


Well, the DIET is all part of the dedication, desire, and discipline. You must...

DEDICATE yourself to eating right.

DESIRE to eat right.

Have the DISCIPLINE to eat right.


----------



## Randy (Jun 9, 2004)

Ok Gopro, you have me there 
But now can you use those 3 d's to motivate yourself to read my document?


----------



## gopro (Jun 9, 2004)

Randy said:
			
		

> Ok Gopro, you have me there
> But now can you use those 3 d's to motivate yourself to read my document?


LOL...I'm getting to it!!


----------



## Saturday Fever (Jun 9, 2004)

Amazing to me that everyone is so quick to say "genetically gifted." I think a much more accurate statement would be to say someone is "dedicationally gifted."


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 9, 2004)

Gopro



> Despite what people may think, I was once skinny as skinny could get...5' 11" and 125 lbs. with little to no muscle at all! My genetics are pretty crappy really, except for a decent body structure (in terms of symmetry).


Well it's good you had the overall symmetry.



> How did I get as big as I am? I busted my ass day in and day out for many many years and used a very careful, scientific, well thought out approach to training, diet and supplementation. Some things that I do I still have never revealed to anybody 100%. (That may be saved for a book in the future).


Well hard work will pay off. This is no criticism at all, I'm just curious but what you say you've done & still do you've never %100 revealed to anyone? Could it possibly been in the anabolic category? Again no criticism I'm just curious as you know I've been tempted many times to use them & already know some of your thoughts about them.



> But if I could reveal the biggest reason for my success, it would have to be the 3 D's and a C...dedication, desire, discipline, and consistency!


 
What are you referring to with this? Thanks take care & have a good evening.


----------



## plouffe (Jun 9, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> Depends on what you consider lean. Was I stage ready lean...NO WAY IN HECK! Was I fat...nope. When I was at 268 in 2003 I could still see my abs if I tightened them really hard. Well, anyway, right now I am about 245 and holding about 8% bodyfat. We will see what weight I can hit the stage at soon.


damn, you're a thick mother fucker. Post some shots man, I'm real interested on how the physique is lookin.


----------



## Randy (Jun 9, 2004)

plouffe said:
			
		

> damn, you're a thick mother fucker. Post some shots man, I'm real interested on how the physique is lookin.


Plouffe,  Tone down the language...this is a family forum


----------



## jaim91 (Jun 10, 2004)

I just got my bodyfat tested using the "Body Dynamics" machine. They put these little alligator clips on these stickers (strodes?) on 4 places on your body. Can anyone vouch for its accuracy? Gopro? It said I was at 3% bodyfat, and he conducted the test 3 times with the same results.


----------



## gopro (Jun 10, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> Amazing to me that everyone is so quick to say "genetically gifted." I think a much more accurate statement would be to say someone is "dedicationally gifted."


"Dedicationally gifted." I like that...and really, that describes how I am to a tee.


----------



## gopro (Jun 10, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> I just got my bodyfat tested using the "Body Dynamics" machine. They put these little alligator clips on these stickers (strodes?) on 4 places on your body. Can anyone vouch for its accuracy? Gopro? It said I was at 3% bodyfat, and he conducted the test 3 times with the same results.


Well, you can judge for yourself. Look at a bodybuilding magazine and find a picture of an IFBB pro in contest shape. If you are as ripped, vascular, and striated as he is, then you could be 3%.

Basically, I'm saying this is quite doubtful. I have been as low as 3.5% as tested by calipers and I was so ripped you could almost watch my pancreas secreting insulin!


----------



## gopro (Jun 10, 2004)

plouffe said:
			
		

> damn, you're a thick mother fucker. Post some shots man, I'm real interested on how the physique is lookin.


Soon enough.


----------



## Paynne (Jun 10, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> I have been as low as 3.5% as tested by calipers and I was so ripped you could almost watch my pancreas secreting insulin!



That sure would be useful.  Uh oh, too much insulin, quick eat some fiber!  



I've not used the electrical method for BF testing but I haven't heard good things about it.  My wife has a metal rod in her back and swears that it throws the reading off.


----------



## gopro (Jun 10, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Gopro
> 
> 
> Well it's good you had the overall symmetry.
> ...


The MOST important thing to me is my shape, proportion, and symmetry. I strive for a look along the lines of a Flex Wheeler and NOT a Marcus Ruhl (as amazing as he is).

No, I was NOT referring to anabolics at all when I made that comment. You and I have discussed my thoughts about steroids in PMs and you know I'm against them (for me personally). In fact, even when it comes to prohormones I have not used very much...far less than many many other people on this board. What I WAS referring to was certain training techniques, nutritional strategies, and supplementation protocols.

What was I speaking about here is very simple really...you need to have incredible desire, dedication, and discipline to make radical changes in your physique...and you must be consistent...eating and training every day, every week, every year...to reach your goals.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 10, 2004)

Gopro

I completly agree with you on how importan shape is. But size is important as having shape at 150lbs compared to 210 or more lbs isn't comparable.

I still think you have to have good size muscle before you start cutting. If you have no muscle to cut, one would be really small & skinny.

Funny you mentioned Markus Rhul. Did I ever tell you I got to meet him & talk to him for about 5 mins in 2001 in Toronto at that gym I went to?

He is very huge with very good condition but not like Flex Wheeler has had. I've heard that's why Markus will never take 1st place in the Big O.


----------



## gopro (Jun 10, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Gopro
> 
> I completly agree with you on how importan shape is. But size is important as having shape at 150lbs compared to 210 or more lbs isn't comparable.
> 
> ...


Well, I've always wanted to be big, and I guess I've achieved that, but my greatest desire has always been to look like a piece of art, rather than a huge slab of mass. But I agree, you have to build at least some degree of muscle before you get cut...unless your goal is just a skinny, surfer dude look with a six pack.

Markus is truly amazing and is one of the biggest muscular humans on earth. He is also among the top 10 pros in the world, and while he can and has, won some smaller IFBB shows, I do not think he will ever win the O. He is a fan favorite though and in great demand regardless of this.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 10, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> I have been as low as 3.5% as tested by calipers and I was so ripped you could almost watch my pancreas secreting insulin!


do you really think that calipers are even accurate once you get below 6-7% bf?

I don't.


----------



## Randy (Jun 10, 2004)

I have read somewhere that the most accurate approach to testing body fat is underwater    At least I believe I read that somewhere.


----------



## Randy (Jun 10, 2004)

Anyone have a swimming pool?


----------



## gopro (Jun 10, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> do you really think that calipers are even accurate once you get below 6-7% bf?
> 
> I don't.


I think that a very experienced tester can still be accurate until about 4%. I had a few clients that I measured in this range that also did hydrostatic weighing, and I was only off by maybe .5%


----------



## Mudge (Jun 10, 2004)

FWIW, Duchaine believed 6% was the last area where you'd be accurate and that at that point he simply tracked the millimeters and no calculations were made.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 10, 2004)

Gopro,

In regards to Markus Rhul being one of the biggest & most muscular pro IFBB bodybuilders in the world, what about Canadian grea IFBB pro Greg Kovacs?

He is about 6ft3 & now more than 300lbs ripped to the bone. He was about 290lbs ripped to the bone about 5yrs ago. My cousin who also played football went to the same highschool as Greg Kovacs. My cousin was in grade 9 & Greg was in grade 11 2yrs older. He was already 240lbs at about 18yrs old with good condition & benching 315lbs for reps. I have some pics of him when he first came around in the Canadian magazine Muscle Mag. They are the same company that make the Muscle Tech products. They are in Missisauga I believe.

He has a ripped 25inc arm & has a bench press over 600lbs & over a 300lbs seated military press in the front.

I know he's on juice, & the growth hormone/insulin stack but even so he is bigger & just as ripped as Markus (who I also like).


----------



## gopro (Jun 10, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Gopro,
> 
> In regards to Markus Rhul being one of the biggest & most muscular pro IFBB bodybuilders in the world, what about Canadian grea IFBB pro Greg Kovacs?
> 
> ...


Physiquewise he is nowhere near Markus as evidenced by the fact that Greg has NEVER placed even top 15 in any pro show he ever entered. In fact, he has gotten worse, not better, since turning pro. He may outweigh Markus, but that is only b/c he is taller...and he does not get nearly as hard as Markus. If Markus was as tall as Greg with the same proportions he would actually make Greg look small.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 10, 2004)

gopro





> Physiquewise he is nowhere near Markus as evidenced by the fact that Greg has NEVER placed even top 15 in any pro show he ever entered. In fact, he has gotten worse, not better, since turning pro. He may outweigh Markus, but that is only b/c he is taller...and he does not get nearly as hard as Markus. If Markus was as tall as Greg with the same proportions he would actually make Greg look small.


You are right about his rankings & being taller. I was just wondering if you liked him & what you thought of him?

Do you think there are alot of good bodybuilders in pro ranks & other ranks that are good or should place higher whatever the category is or where the show takes place & aren't always being judged fairly?

Sometimes I think so.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 10, 2004)

Kovacs is 6'2" unless he has somehow stretched out, yes he is a big facker but his gut is beyond big. 3 inches also adds weight fast, I know because I'm 6'2" also. I would also say that he is much stronger than you are quoting unless the stories of old were lies.

Kevine Levrone does 405 behind the neck for a few reps, 315 is STANDARD for a bodybuilder, the little guys do that stuff. I can pump 225 to the front for 5 and I'm only about half as strong as the big guys.

While Ruhl is huge I'm no big fan of his either, his triceps unfortunately suck.


----------



## Randy (Jun 10, 2004)

Here it is..  I thought there was underwater body fat testing...

*HYDROSTATIC WEIGHING (Hydrodensitometry, Underwater Weighing, Dunk Tank)*



This method is considered by many to be the ???gold standard??? of all the body fat testing devices. This is the big one, the head honcho, and the most accurate method to date. Why is it so reliable? 



Fist off, there is a very large variety of equipment available that is designed to use this method. Some use a stainless steel tank; others use a simple cot or chair mounted on underwater scales. Others still with a chair and scale that is lowered into a small pool or hot tub. 



Before you get ???dunked???, you must first be weighed outside the tank. You are then totally submerged under water where you will be weighed again. The density of bone and muscles are higher than the density of water, fat however is less dense than water. So technically, a person with more Lean Body Mass (LBM) will weigh more in water than a person with less LBM. This means that they have a higher Body Density (DB) and lower body fat percentage. 



With the use of standardized formulas, the volume of the boy is calculated (using the results of the underwater scales). Then, using the Siri formula (remember: BF% = [(4.57/DB) ??? 4.142] x 100), the body fat percentage is calculated. 



Hydrostatic weighing is based on the Archimedes???s Principle. This principle simply states that _the weight loss under water is directly proportional to the volume of water displaced, where body volume is equal to the body weight minus the underwater weight divided by the density of water_. Using this method, the examiner measures the amount of water you displace when you first enter the tank. 



There are some factors, however, that can throw off the results. The amount of fluid in your body (water retention, like if you are taking creatine), skin temperature, not exhaling enough air out of your lungs when you are submerged, volume of intestinal gas, water temperature (too high or low) can affect the results. If everything is perfect, then hydrostatic weighing should calculate your body fat within 1% of its actual percentage.


----------



## gopro (Jun 10, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> gopro
> You are right about his rankings & being taller. I was just wondering if you liked him & what you thought of him?
> 
> Do you think there are alot of good bodybuilders in pro ranks & other ranks that are good or should place higher whatever the category is or where the show takes place & aren't always being judged fairly?
> ...


Well, in his last show he looked awful. His stomach and obliques look deformed. He will never be a factor in a pro show. But he is one huge and strong mofo for sure.

And yes, I see contests at all levels where people are either not judged fairly or my taste in physique just doesn't mesh with the judges.

Hell, I usually get to sit in the press pit of every pro show now b/c of my job and I just watched the Night of Champions this way and totally disagreed with the winner!


----------



## Saturday Fever (Jun 10, 2004)

Great post Randy. I believe that is the only true test of bodyfat. The rest are all fun but shouldn't be taken too seriously, in my opinion.


----------



## Randy (Jun 10, 2004)

Thank you Saturday.


----------



## gopro (Jun 10, 2004)

Randy said:
			
		

> Thank you Saturday.


Thank him today Randy, why wait till Saturday?


----------



## Randy (Jun 10, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> Thank him today Randy, why wait till Saturday?


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 10, 2004)

Mudge



> Kovacs is 6'2" unless he has somehow stretched out, yes he is a big facker but his gut is beyond big. 3 inches also adds weight fast, I know because I'm 6'2" also. I would also say that he is much stronger than you are quoting unless the stories of old were lies.


Well I was just giving a rough estimate on his height as I couldn't remember his exact height.

You say being tall adds weight? Obviously being taller adds more weight, but do you also mean that taller ppl build muscle faster? I would think that shorter ppl would as their range of motion is greatly reduced as their arms & legs aren't as long.

Same goes for his strength. I was giving just rough estimates from articles & pictures I saw from 1999. I've seen him with 6 45lb weights on each side of the bar for bench press & I saw 4 45lb weights on each side of the bar for military press in the front on the heavy barred smith machine.



> Kevine Levrone does 405 behind the neck for a few reps, 315 is STANDARD for a bodybuilder, the little guys do that stuff. I can pump 225 to the front for 5 and I'm only about half as strong as the big guys.


I always thought that behind the neck press is very hard on your rotator cuffs, neck & spine. As for 225lbs military press in the front, I was doing that for about 4-6 reps when I was much stronger (never taken drugs) at a weight of about 227lbs at 5ft9 with descent condition. Currently I'm doing about 205lbs for 4-5 reps in the front. I'm trying to get back.



> While Ruhl is huge I'm no big fan of his either, his triceps unfortunately suck.


I personally like him & his size/condition. I can personally say that his triceps don't suck as I've met him in person seen his triceps, & watched him train triceps & they are very good.

Gopro



> Well, in his last show he looked awful. His stomach and obliques look deformed. He will never be a factor in a pro show. But he is one huge and strong mofo for sure.


You are right about his abs being all screwed up even though they were ripped. They were even criticising him in the Canadian magazine Muscle Mag this month about his weirdly shaped abs. But he is one huge & strong mofo as you put it.



> And yes, I see contests at all levels where people are either not judged fairly or my taste in physique just doesn't mesh with the judges.


Maybe the judges have something personal against certain bodybuilders & rank them poorly or something. One guy I always liked from back in the day
was Samir Banout who only one won Mr.O & I think he should've & could've one more. Same goes for Frank Zane & Lou Ferrigno.



> Hell, I usually get to sit in the press pit of every pro show now b/c of my job and I just watched the Night of Champions this way and totally disagreed with the winner!


How do you get those gigs? That's pretty cool. Have you ever met Arnold?
& what other ppl have you met?


----------



## Mudge (Jun 10, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> You say being tall adds weight? Obviously being taller adds more weight, but do you also mean that taller ppl build muscle faster?


No, the rate is generally the same but it will show up much faster on a shorter person. Filling out a tall frame is a crappy task, ask me about it sometime. 



> I always thought that behind the neck press is very hard on your rotator cuffs, neck & spine.


Dont go down past the ears if you want to save the rotators, I dont do them at all.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 11, 2004)

Mudge





> No, the rate is generally the same but it will show up much faster on a shorter person. Filling out a tall frame is a crappy task, ask me about it sometime.


This is true about shorter & taller ppl. The range of motion is one factor making it harder for taller ppl. I have one friend who is around 6ft3 & in highschool was only 185lbs & an ectomorph on top of it. By the time he finished highschool & started college he got his sh!t straight. Learned how to train & eat properly eating about 7 or 8 times a day. It took 4yrs to naturally reach 220lbs.

You can imagine that he never touched a treadmill or set foot on a stairmaster not even once as if he did he'd lose some mass as that happened to him one time.

Then about 3yrs ago he started taking juice & blew up to about 245lbs at 6ft3. He is currently on a break & weighs about 230lbs.


----------



## jaim91 (Jun 11, 2004)

I can't afford underwater bodyfat testing. But I've done all the others 7 point caliper, 3 point, scale...I just figured that out of all of them this thing that shoots electronic waves into yoru body would be the most accurate. in reagrds to seeing the insulin produced in my body, I'm not there yet. But I have veings coming out of my stomach and everywhere else. The vascularity is unbelievable...


----------



## gopro (Jun 11, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> I can't afford underwater bodyfat testing. But I've done all the others 7 point caliper, 3 point, scale...I just figured that out of all of them this thing that shoots electronic waves into yoru body would be the most accurate. in reagrds to seeing the insulin produced in my body, I'm not there yet. But I have veings coming out of my stomach and everywhere else. The vascularity is unbelievable...


The fat testing method you are referring to...Biolectrical Impedence...is actually one of the most INNACURATE testing methods! It can measure you completely different morning to night depending on your level of hydration. Aside from under water weighing, if you have a good, experienced person using calipers, that is your best bet.


----------



## gopro (Jun 11, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Mudge
> 
> Gopro
> 
> ...


Yes, Samir was excellent, but only achieved that awesome condition at the 1983 Olympia. After that he declined as far as physique goes. Also, it was the following year that Lee Haney came into the sport and dominated the Mr O after that until 1991. Samir had little chance against him, and in fact dropped to 6th place in 1984.

I get those gigs because I work for one of the largest sports supplement companies in the business, and one of my jobs is to review some of the biggest pro shows of the year...The Ironman, Arnold Classis, NOC, Show of Strength, Olympia...and write about it in Human Muscle Performance magazine. So, when I go to these shows me and our photographer sit in the press pit which is literally on top of the stage,and I watch and take my notes for my articles. Sometimes I go backstage as well.

I HAVE met Arnold, Lou, Franco, and almost every other pro you could mention, as well as most of the ladies as well. I am particularly close with Nasser El Sonbaty and had dinner with him (and 2 pretty fitness models) at the 2003 Olympia.


----------



## jaim91 (Jun 11, 2004)

Thank, but you live in California...

Why is it so innacurate Gopro?


----------



## Arnold (Jun 11, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> Why is it so innacurate Gopro?


he answered that, it's affected by water:



			
				gopro said:
			
		

> It can measure you completely different morning to night depending on your level of hydration.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Jun 11, 2004)

It reads incorrectly if your body temperature is higher. If you are full of water, if you just ate food, if you just worked out.

 There are far too many variables that the bioimpedance doesn't cope with. It is a great tool for getting a rough idea, though.


----------



## Saturday Fever (Jun 11, 2004)

For what it's worth, I've done bioimpedance pre-workout and had it read 6% only to have it read 14% post-workout. Damned if I didn't run around telling people I was 6% though.


----------



## gopro (Jun 11, 2004)

Saturday Fever said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, I've done bioimpedance pre-workout and had it read 6% only to have it read 14% post-workout. Damned if I didn't run around telling people I was 6% though.


And there's my point...ridiculous variations can occur!!


----------



## Mudge (Jun 11, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> Why is it so innacurate Gopro?


It measures the resistance in your body, anything could throw it off. From eating vs running on empty to just plain near anything. Get some calipers.


----------



## jaim91 (Jun 12, 2004)

There were no variables. I only had one meal before it was done. I had one cup of water, and I hadn't worked out yet. So should I just assume my bf is between 3 - 10?


----------



## Mudge (Jun 12, 2004)

The time of day itself is a variable.

If you were 3% you would most likely have some kind of serious issue, if you were 10% you would be pretty lean and should be able to see all of your abs relatively well. I would love to be 10%.


----------



## gopro (Jun 12, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> There were no variables. I only had one meal before it was done. I had one cup of water, and I hadn't worked out yet. So should I just assume my bf is between 3 - 10?


Pretty safe to say that you were 6-9%.


----------



## Randy (Jun 12, 2004)

Mudge said:
			
		

> The time of day itself is a variable.
> 
> If you were 3% you would most likely have some kind of serious issue, if you were 10% you would be pretty lean and should be able to see all of your abs relatively well. I would love to be 10%.


We call Mudge the Sumo man 

Here he is giving his son a wedgie 








Mudge gives his sons a challenge...  He tells them that if they can
push him out of the ring then they will not have to do yard work for a month.


----------



## jaim91 (Jun 13, 2004)

lol...alright. Thanks for the advice guys, I'll stick with the 6-9 %...quite happy with that. I appreciate it!


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 13, 2004)

I go away over night with my girlfriend to Ottawa for one night & a thread about arms & conditioning & now also about certain pro bodybuilders turns into a sumo match. LOL.

Gopro




> Yes, Samir was excellent, but only achieved that awesome condition at the 1983 Olympia. After that he declined as far as physique goes. Also, it was the following year that Lee Haney came into the sport and dominated the Mr O after that until 1991. Samir had little chance against him, and in fact dropped to 6th place in 1984.


I don't know if his physique compeletely declined as I've seen pictures of him even now & within the last 5yrs & he was still looking good. But that is true with Lee Haney in the picture. Even Dorian Yates & Lou Ferrigno lost to Lee Haney in 1993. Roy Callender did place pretty high agains him I believe 2nd or 3rd one year as at my old gym (I switched last summer) there's pictures of Roy Callender posing next to Lee Haney.



> I get those gigs because I work for one of the largest sports supplement companies in the business, and one of my jobs is to review some of the biggest pro shows of the year...The Ironman, Arnold Classics, NOC, Show of Strength, Olympia...and write about it in Human Muscle Performance magazine. So, when I go to these shows me and our photographer sit in the press pit which is literally on top of the stage,and I watch and take my notes for my articles. Sometimes I go backstage as well.


I know a couple of other ppl who work for supplement companies. How did you & would one get that type of job? I guess you'd first have to be in good condition whether you're in advertisements or not. I'm not meaning you here so don't take this the wrong way, but the couple of ppl I know they aren't anything or anyone special & they have a good job for a company.



> I HAVE met Arnold, Lou, Franco, and almost every other pro you could mention, as well as most of the ladies as well. I am particularly close with Nasser El Sonbaty and had dinner with him (and 2 pretty fitness models) at the 2003 Olympia..


How hard would it be for a guy such as myself not working for such a company to meet Arnold or Lou? Personally I've always wanted to met him as he is my idol. It was b/c of him as well as football that I turned my physique & life around. & I'd like to tell him what an impact he had on me. I've also been following his career for almost 18yrs now.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 13, 2004)

Randy said:
			
		

> We call Mudge the Sumo man


Nice pix Randy, I wonder where you find all of these sometimes.


----------



## Randy (Jun 13, 2004)

Thanks Mudge...  
Just call me a resourceful guy .


----------



## gopro (Jun 13, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> I go away over night with my girlfriend to Ottawa for one night & a thread about arms & conditioning & now also about certain pro bodybuilders turns into a sumo match. LOL.
> 
> Gopro
> 
> ...


-Yes, Samir still looks good, but is a shadow of the man that won the 1983 Mr O.
-You have your years mixed up...Haney last competed in 1991, where he DID defeat Yates, but that was Yate's first Mr O. In 1992 Yates won his first Mr O, and Lou cameback and placed 12th I believe. In 1993, Yates won again, and Lou came in 10th. That was Lou's final year, although he did do the Master's O in 94. Yates of course retired undefeated.


----------



## jaim91 (Jun 14, 2004)

You can't expect him to have the same phsyique now as he did back in 1983....


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 14, 2004)

Gopro



> You have your years mixed up...Haney last competed in 1991, where he DID defeat Yates, but that was Yate's first Mr O. In 1992 Yates won his first Mr O, and Lou cameback and placed 12th I believe.


I should've been more clear as I put an & inbetween Dorian & Yates. What I meant was both of them lost to Lee Haney but not at the same time.

But Dorian did retire undefeated. I personally think that first Mr. O for him he looked his best at what was it 210 or 220lbs ripped than a huge 265lbs ripped. For me it's cool & all that he's that huge & ripped, but for me good shape at a descent weight is much more appealing.

But you didn't answer my question at the bottom of that reply I said:
"How hard would it be for a guy such as myself not working for such a company to meet Arnold or Lou? Personally I've always wanted to met him as he is my idol. It was b/c of him as well as football that I turned my physique & life around. & I'd like to tell him what an impact he had on me. I've also been following his career for almost 18yrs now".

I am asking as you've had the pleasure of meeting Arnold.


jaim91




> You can't expect him to have the same phsyique now as he did back in 1983....


Gee really? 

I was only saying that even now he still looks good for his age.


----------



## gopro (Jun 14, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Gopro
> 
> 
> I should've been more clear as I put an & inbetween Dorian & Yates. What I meant was both of them lost to Lee Haney but not at the same time.
> ...


Dorian weighed about 240 for his first Mr O and won in 1992 at 242. He then exploded the following year to 257, which was his best ever in my opinion.

Yes, Samir still looks fantastic and actually made a comeback to the stage about a month ago. However, he was way off condition and did not place. Still, for a man in his 40s he looks unbelievable.

Meeting Arnold is very difficult these days, but Lou attends most of the big shows to sell his pics and stuff, so its not hard to meet him really. He is not very nice though. He will not sign and autograph for free, or take a pic unless he is paid. I don't like his attitude at all.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 14, 2004)

gopro



> Dorian weighed about 240 for his first Mr O and won in 1992 at 242. He then exploded the following year to 257, which was his best ever in my opinion.


yes he was 240lbs against Lee Haney. I made a mistake, in 1985 he was 210lbs & then 2yrs later 220lbs & it was after these 2 shows that he recieved his IFBB pro card. I have the Blood & Guts movie on CD rom & it was 1985 when he weighed 210lbs. I think he looked much better back then if you asked me. There's big & then there's too much.



> Yes, Samir still looks fantastic and actually made a comeback to the stage about a month ago. However, he was way off condition and did not place. Still, for a man in his 40s he looks unbelievable.


He's still competing? I didn't know that. But all I can say is for his age he still looks good even if he doesn't win in his comeback shows.



> Meeting Arnold is very difficult these days, but Lou attends most of the big shows to sell his pics and stuff, so its not hard to meet him really. He is not very nice though. He will not sign and autograph for free, or take a pic unless he is paid. I don't like his attitude at all.


So I guess meeting Arnold is out of the question at least for another couple of years when his govenorship is finished? 

I also heard Arnold charges to get his picture taken with you & autographed I heard $60 US.

How much does Lou Ferrigno charge? But yeah I don't like that attitude either. What is he asking $100 a picture? Personally I think it's a bit petty with the amount of money these 2 guys have if Arnold actually charges or not.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 14, 2004)

I just read that Arnold signed on as _editor in chief_ of Muscle & Fitness and Flex magazines.


----------



## nikegurl (Jun 14, 2004)

I've heard the same thing about Lou.  However, I've never seen him at an expo or contest.  I did see him a couple of times when I was training at Gold's Venice.  He was very nice and approachable and spoke with me briefly there - so it could be he's in "business" mode at the shows.  

I've also heard people blame it all on his wife (seriously).  I have no idea if there's any truth in it - but he was very nice at the gym.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 14, 2004)

nikegurl said:
			
		

> I've also heard people blame it all on his wife (seriously). I have no idea if there's any truth in it - but he was very nice at the gym.


very possible, Lou is certainly no genius, she is probably the reason that he makes money.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 14, 2004)

nikegurl

Was it Arnold you met or Lou or both? 

I sure wish I could meet Arnold as he's the reason I turned my physique & health around. Football was the 2nd reason. I'd love to tell Arnold what a positive impact he had on my life.

But I guess I won't have the chance to meet him. I guess there's no way to be in contact with him for this sort of thing?

I've been a loyal fan & have been following his career since I was about 8yrs old which would be 18yrs & I also took the time to look into his past as well.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 14, 2004)

nikegurl said:
			
		

> I've heard the same thing about Lou.


I think by the first sentence we can infer that she met Lou.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 14, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio

I was just making sure.


----------



## gopro (Jun 14, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> gopro
> 
> 
> yes he was 240lbs against Lee Haney. I made a mistake, in 1985 he was 210lbs & then 2yrs later 220lbs & it was after these 2 shows that he recieved his IFBB pro card. I have the Blood & Guts movie on CD rom & it was 1985 when he weighed 210lbs. I think he looked much better back then if you asked me. There's big & then there's too much.
> ...


I don't know exactly how much Lou charges, but when I was at the Mr O last year and witnessed a little girl, maybe 8 years old, ask him to autograph a picture of him that she had, and he said no b/c she had to pay I lost all respect for him as a person. She said to him, "but I have no money," and he said, "well, then sorry." I wanted to go punch him in the face right then and there.


----------



## Randy (Jun 14, 2004)

Come to California, he's our governor 



			
				Johnnny said:
			
		

> nikegurl
> 
> Was it Arnold you met or Lou or both?
> 
> ...


----------



## Randy (Jun 14, 2004)

Man this guy sounds like a real prick...
I lost respect for him just by hearing this story  


			
				gopro said:
			
		

> I don't know exactly how much Lou charges, but when I was at the Mr O last year and witnessed a little girl, maybe 8 years old, ask him to autograph a picture of him that she had, and he said no b/c she had to pay I lost all respect for him as a person. She said to him, "but I have no money," and he said, "well, then sorry." I wanted to go punch him in the face right then and there.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 14, 2004)

leave poor Louie alone, he has had to live in Arnold's shadow for his entire life, imagine how that must feel!


----------



## Randy (Jun 14, 2004)

Poor Louie


----------



## gopro (Jun 14, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> leave poor Louie alone, he has had to live in Arnold's shadow for his entire life, imagine how that must feel!


He's done just fine. And how can you refuse an 8 year old girl an autograph?


----------



## Randy (Jun 14, 2004)

I guess that depends on the girl Gopro  
Maybe she shot him in the head with a spit wad or something 



			
				gopro said:
			
		

> He's done just fine. And how can you refuse an 8 year old girl an autograph?


----------



## Mudge (Jun 14, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> I don't know exactly how much Lou charges, but when I was at the Mr O last year and witnessed a little girl, maybe 8 years old, ask him to autograph a picture of him that she had, and he said no b/c she had to pay I lost all respect for him as a person. She said to him, "but I have no money," and he said, "well, then sorry." I wanted to go punch him in the face right then and there.


You never know what he was thinking that day either, or how many times he has been scammed by little girls who were getting an autograph for daddy. Who fargin knows, but yeah either way it looks bad.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 14, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> He's done just fine.


well, he obviously has not done that well, or he would not still be at these shows charging for autographs.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 14, 2004)

Gopro



> I don't know exactly how much Lou charges, but when I was at the Mr O last year and witnessed a little girl, maybe 8 years old, ask him to autograph a picture of him that she had, and he said no b/c she had to pay I lost all respect for him as a person. She said to him, "but I have no money," and he said, "well, then sorry." I wanted to go punch him in the face right then and there.


Well I used to admire him & the struggles he went through to get to what he accomplished, but from what you've just told me, I'm sorry but my respect for him has been greatly reduced.

What about Arnold? I heard he charges around $60 US just to get your picture taken with him & autographed. I don't know if it is true or not do you?

But if I had the chance to meet Arnold, tell him I've been following his career for the las 18yrs & that it was b/c of him that I turned from a small, weak & narrow 5ft7 220lb, 43 inch waist, to a 5ft10 227lbs with descent condition naturally for football & then struggled with my physique due to a newly developed hyprer thyroid condition losing 30lbs in 3-4 weeks & battling back to 210lbs re-developing my good condition & about half way back to where I was at 227lbs. 

What do you think Arnold would do or say if someone like myself with my struggles? Do you think he'd even talk to me or just blow me off? Or we he charge me $80 US for an autographed pictured with him?


----------



## Arnold (Jun 14, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> What do you think Arnold would do or say if someone like myself with my struggles? Do you think he'd even talk to me or just blow me off? Or we he charge me $80 US for an autographed pictured with him?


First of all I doubt you could get even get near him, if you did it would be for a 3 second picture. You would not get the chance to have a lengthy conversation.

I once saw him doing pics (on TV) and it looked like an assembly line, they had Arnold standing there and a line of people, each one would step up, Arnold would put his arm around their shoulder/back the photographer snaps a pic, and on to the next person, literally. It was similar to sitting on Santa's lap, but you only got to stand next to him for 3 seconds. 

I have no idea if he charges, I highly doubt it, the guy is worth tens, maybe even hundreds of millions, but who knows, further more who gives a shit. 

I guess I was never the "star struck" type, don't really care.


----------



## JLB001 (Jun 14, 2004)

I met Lou when I went to LA with my friend Kenny about a year and 1/2 ago. He was at Gold's training with Michael O'Hearn. He seemed like a real asshole. From what I was told, he's a real jerk and does charge for everything he signs. Doesn't matter who it is, he'll charge them. O'Hearn was funny, watched the screening of his first movie with them, boy he needs to learn how to ride a horse if he is gonna do those barbarian type movies. He isn't as goofy looking in person as his pics make him out to be.

Kenny will be MCing this weekend at the Jr. USA's in Chicago. What a life!


----------



## Arnold (Jun 14, 2004)

this thread has gone from "super setting biceps and triceps" to talking about Arnold and Lou charging for autographs!


----------



## nikegurl (Jun 14, 2004)

Johnny - It was Lou (just Lou) I met at the gym.  Maybe he was only nice b/c no one was asking for an autograph.  

I agree with what Robert told you about Arnold.  I doubt you'd get near him and you definitely wouldn't be able to discuss training methods or get advice from him.  He's a major role model for most aspiring bodybuilders so he could spend every waking moment talking to people about their training etc.  But one thing to keep in mind - the way he trained is most likely NOT the best way for you to train.  (or the rest of us)

Don't fool yourself into thinking "if only I could talk to Arnold" that you'd have some training epiphany.  It would be great to meet him - but I really don't think it would impact your progress.  So train hard and learn more...then say "hi" to Arnold if you ever get the chance to meet him.  I'm sure if you (or me or anyone else here) followed his exact routine we wouldn't wind up with his chest development - as one example.


----------



## JLB001 (Jun 14, 2004)

You couldn't get within 10 foot of Arnold, way too many body guards and such.  Hell, Kenny knows everyone and couldn't get close to him.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 14, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio



> First of all I doubt you could get even get near him, if you did it would be for a 3 second picture. You would not get the chance to have a lengthy conversation.


I would only need maybe 10 or 15mins at most of his valueable time just to chat with him for a few mins. I had a friend about 11yrs ago who's Dad was in Terminator 2 & he got to have dinner with Arnold. He had a short part towards the end of the movie where they had just left the cyberdyne building & they were in the police truck being chased by the T-1000 in a helicopter & then they took some guys pick up truck while the T-1000 killed the driver of a liquid nitrogen truck. That driver was this guys Dad. I thought that was pretty cool when I was 14yrs old.

I wouldn't say I'm star struck, I just want to let him know what a positive impact he had on my life. That's all.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 14, 2004)

Like I said I wouldn't want to speak to him for hours about training, or try to get advice or whatever from him.

I would just want to let him know in just 10-15mins what an impact he had on me & how he changed my life. 

But I agree with NikeGurl as his training methods wouldn't be suited for many of us.


----------



## JLB001 (Jun 14, 2004)

You and everyone else he meets would all be saying pretty much the samething...hence the bodyguards.


----------



## gopro (Jun 14, 2004)

Arnold is surrounded by so much security these days its ridiculous. When he walks around the EXPO at the Arnold Classic, he takes a very fast picture with each supplement company, and you get all of 30 seconds to get everyone set up and ready for the pic. At VPX we even have practices getting everyone in place so that we get the shot we want for the magazine. This year, ESPN actually used the picture he took with VPX in an article. Apparently, Arnold liked the pic he took with us the best. I guess our practices paid off, LOL.


----------



## Randy (Jun 14, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> well, he obviously has not done that well, or he would not still be at these shows charging for autographs.


  I hear that


----------



## Randy (Jun 14, 2004)

This is because of his secondary obligation as Governor?  
So between bodybuilder,  Movie star, and now Governor of California, he is just adding to his popularity...   And where there is popularity, you need security .



			
				gopro said:
			
		

> Arnold is surrounded by so much security these days its ridiculous. When he walks around the EXPO at the Arnold Classic, he takes a very fast picture with each supplement company, and you get all of 30 seconds to get everyone set up and ready for the pic. At VPX we even have practices getting everyone in place so that we get the shot we want for the magazine. This year, ESPN actually used the picture he took with VPX in an article. Apparently, Arnold liked the pic he took with us the best. I guess our practices paid off, LOL.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 14, 2004)

Randy said:
			
		

> This is because of his secondary obligation as Governor?
> So between bodybuilder, Movie star, and now Governor of California, he is just adding to his popularity... And where there is popularity, you need security .


you left out _editor in chief_ of Muscle & Fitness and Flex magazines.


----------



## Arnold (Jun 14, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> I would just want to let him know in just 10-15mins what an impact he had on me & how he changed my life.


bro, get out of  dream land, it ain't gonna happen.

I guess you could write him a letter, and maybe out of the 10,000 letters he gets daily he might read it.


----------



## Randy (Jun 14, 2004)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> you left out _editor in chief_ of Muscle & Fitness and Flex magazines.


Yeah that too


----------



## jaim91 (Jun 15, 2004)

They made Lou seem so stupid in Pumping Iron...he actually spoke like the hulk


----------



## gopro (Jun 15, 2004)

Randy said:
			
		

> This is because of his secondary obligation as Governor?
> So between bodybuilder, Movie star, and now Governor of California, he is just adding to his popularity... And where there is popularity, you need security .


Heck, as a supermoderator here at IM I need 2 bodyguards myself


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 15, 2004)

Gopro



> Arnold is surrounded by so much security these days its ridiculous. When he walks around the EXPO at the Arnold Classic, he takes a very fast picture with each supplement company, and you get all of 30 seconds to get everyone set up and ready for the pic. At VPX we even have practices getting everyone in place so that we get the shot we want for the magazine. This year, ESPN actually used the picture he took with VPX in an article. Apparently, Arnold liked the pic he took with us the best. I guess our practices paid off, LOL.


I guess being Governor of California requires much more security same for president.

Gopro I also asked you how someone would get some sort of job for a supplement company? Thanks.

No interests on what I said about a friend I had when I was 14yrs old who's Dad was the liquid Nitrogen truck drive who the T-1000 killed at the end & they got to have dinner with Arnold for a couple of hours?


----------



## nikegurl (Jun 15, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> They made Lou seem so stupid in Pumping Iron...he actually spoke like the hulk


Did you know he has a serious hearing impairment.  That's why his speech sounds like it does....nothing to do with his intelligence or lack thereof.


----------



## gopro (Jun 15, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Gopro
> Gopro I also asked you how someone would get some sort of job for a supplement company? Thanks.


Well, I got "head hunted" by VPX and a couple of other companies. They came to me, I did not go to them. But in general, I guess you would just send your resume into any of them and see if you get a response. If you do, take it from there!


----------



## Randy (Jun 15, 2004)

I got your back gopro....

I have just the thing... (SMITH & WESSON).
Those are my 2 body guards. 

Here is my backup unit....It's all about redundancy you know 








Now if you still don't feel safe I will wheel in another option...









			
				gopro said:
			
		

> Heck, as a supermoderator here at IM I need 2 bodyguards myself


----------



## gopro (Jun 15, 2004)

Randy said:
			
		

> I got your back gopro....
> 
> I have just the thing... (SMITH & WESSON).
> Those are my 2 body guards.


I am feeling safer already!


----------



## Mudge (Jun 15, 2004)

nikegurl said:
			
		

> Did you know he has a serious hearing impairment. That's why his speech sounds like it does....nothing to do with his intelligence or lack thereof.


Yep, when he was 3 years old he had a severe ear infection that did not go noticed for awhile. By the time he was treated he lost most of his hearing, I think in his good ear he is/was 85% or something, pretty much deaf.

That, plus the way his father treated him, probably left him pretty bitter.


----------



## nikegurl (Jun 15, 2004)

Mudge is right  .  Just didn't want jaim91 figuring his speech pattern has anything to do with his intelligence.  I thought everyone knew about his hearing loss....but it sounded like maybe she didn't.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 15, 2004)

By the way, as a child his hearing aid was a big box he had to wear around his neck. I'm sure that didn't help his popularity as a kid. He used training as his way to fight back at the world so to speak, and his father was probably only seen in Pumping Iron (according to Lou) because his dad wanted to become a star himself.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 15, 2004)

gopro



> Well, I got "head hunted" by VPX and a couple of other companies. They came to me, I did not go to them. But in general, I guess you would just send your resume into any of them and see if you get a response. If you do, take it from there!


How'd you get that lucky? Did they see your physique or hear about your personal training or something? 

Just sending a resume eh? The old fashioned way.

Mudge



> By the way, as a child his hearing aid was a big box he had to wear around his neck. I'm sure that didn't help his popularity as a kid. He used training as his way to fight back at the world so to speak, and his father was probably only seen in Pumping Iron (according to Lou) because his dad wanted to become a star himself.


That is true. He had to learn to try & speak properly. & he was really skinny & not very good at sports. I guess all that juice changed that. & I bet nobody bothered him again.

You are right about his serious ear infection leading to some hearing loss. This is what caused his speech difficulty, that is true.


----------



## gopro (Jun 15, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> gopro
> 
> 
> How'd you get that lucky? Did they see your physique or hear about your personal training or something?


Luck had very little to do with it. Years of hard work and varied accomplishments got me this position.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 15, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> You are right about his serious ear infection leading to some hearing loss. This is what caused his speech difficulty, that is true.


Massive hearing loss.


----------



## Randy (Jun 15, 2004)

gopro said:
			
		

> Luck had very little to do with it. Years of hard work and varied accomplishments got me this position.


And with the help of his link master


----------



## jaim91 (Jun 16, 2004)

Thank you for clarifying the Ferrigno thing.

P.S. Does anyone know if the new Ephedra free Hydroxycut is any good?


----------



## gopro (Jun 16, 2004)

Randy said:
			
		

> And with the help of his link master


Well, you came into the picture just a bit later, but all future accomplishments I'm sure you will play a huge role in!


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 16, 2004)

Gopro





> Luck had very little to do with it. Years of hard work and varied accomplishments got me this position.


 
So this company just noticed you & wanted you to work for them?

Where is the company located? Did you have to move or do you do their work from home?


----------



## gopro (Jun 16, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Gopro
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Someone from the company had been reading a few of the articles I had published in the mags and also followed my writings on the various message boards I moderate on. He told the CEO of the company about me and they flew me to Florida (which is where VPX is located) twice. Once in April 2003 to meet with me, and once in June 2003 to make me an offer. The second time they put me up in a hotel for 4 days and let me look around and enjoy myself a bit. I negotiated with them for about a month and then moved in late July 2003.


----------



## nikegurl (Jun 16, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> & he was really skinny & not very good at sports. I guess all that juice changed that.


  c'mon Johnny.  you know better.  steroids aren't magic.  if 100 guys started taking the same exact stuff at the same exact time how many do you think would have matched lou's accomplishments in bodybuilding?


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 16, 2004)

gopro



> Someone from the company had been reading a few of the articles I had published in the mags and also followed my writings on the various message boards I moderate on. He told the CEO of the company about me and they flew me to Florida (which is where VPX is located) twice. Once in April 2003 to meet with me, and once in June 2003 to make me an offer. The second time they put me up in a hotel for 4 days and let me look around and enjoy myself a bit. I negotiated with them for about a month and then moved in late July 2003.


 
What magazine did you write the few articles for & what where they about?

Where did you live before & I guess it was hard to just pack up & go?

I've never heard of the company VPX until you mentioned them here. Are they a newer company?


----------



## gopro (Jun 16, 2004)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> gopro
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Musclemag International and Ironman...they were all training articles.

I lived in NY. I have packed up and moved to California too, so Florida was a breeze (except for the fact that I had to sell my business in NY while living in Fla, which was a pain).

VPX is one of the biggest sports nutrition companies in the industry and have been around for about 10 + years.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 16, 2004)

nikegirl



> c'mon Johnny. you know better. steroids aren't magic. if 100 guys started taking the same exact stuff at the same exact time how many do you think would have matched lou's accomplishments in bodybuilding?


Yeah I know there are a lot of juicers who don't improve much or need juice just to get to a size that some ppl are naturally. There are many ppl in the gyms I've been to who've taken steroids & they were still much smaller & weaker than me naturally. & there were guys who took steroids & surpassed me when I was about 227lbs at 5ft9 with descent condition & power.

But have you really seen Lou when he was much younger how skinny & small he was? Plus he looked like an ectomorph before he started training plus he was around 6ft4 or so which made it even harder to gain mass.

I've said it before on another thread. I have a friend who is now around 6ft3 & about 230lbs of steroids which he started taking in 2000 4yrs ago & is now almost 27yrs old. In highschool he was no more than 180lbs at 6ft3. He started lifting in our senior year of highschool in 1995. From then it took 4yrs to get to around 215-220lbs without drugs. He trained hard & ate a sh!tload of food for another year or 2. He then realized he wasn't going to grow much more without drugs & he started taking drugs when he went to his hous in Croatia for 3 months & got them over the counter. He exploded to about 245lbs. He got as heavy as 255lbs at 6ft3 & he never got fat due to his body type.

So with that said Lou couldn't have gotten as big & ripped & strong as he did without drugs. He maybe could've got to around 230lbs naturally.


I've even discussed steroids with Gopro & wanted his opinion on how much mass I would've gained if I ever took them (but never will) when I was 227lbs naturally & now at 210lbs at 5ft10 natural. He said that if I took several hardcore mass cycles & watched my diet & drank lots of water when i was 227lbs, I could've grown to at least 240lbs if not more which is only 13lbs away. & if I took them now at 210lbs, I'd probably hit 230lbs pretty easily.

So the juice does make a huge difference in getting massive.


----------



## nikegurl (Jun 16, 2004)

we're in agreement then.  for sure it makes a difference.  i'd never say it didn't.  but it won't make anyone a champion imho


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 16, 2004)

nikegurl



> we're in agreement then. for sure it makes a difference. i'd never say it didn't. but it won't make anyone a champion imho


I'm sure it would make someone champion material if they took enough juice, ate enough protein & food everyday & trained really hard & properly.

All the IFBB pro's had to start somewhere.

Dorian Yate's first contest was in 1985 & he was 210lbs ripped. If he was 210lbs ripped in 1985 than that means that he probably started taking steroids like  D-Bol, parabolan, & testosterone Suspension or Cypionate to name a few at least 5yrs back in 1980 if not more.

So that means that by 1990 or 1995 Dorian (& other pro's) was at a point where he was on such a high amount of steroids just enough to maintain his physique at that point therefore needing the growth hormone/insulin stack on top of all the other anabolic steroids to continue growing.

You reach a point after a certain number of years that steroids don't even work to help you grow, just maintain & at that point you need growth hormone & insulin.

When Lou Ferrigno came back 1993, he had started growth hormone/insulin stack probably for a good 2yrs if not more b/c he was even bigger.

Even Roy Callender told me he was on Growth Hormone/Insulin & he even had some vials of it at the gym as one local bodybuilder wanted some so he showed it to us.

Point being even IFBB champions need steroids & the growth hormone/insulin stack. Training alone won't get you that huge say 290lbs ripped without all of those anabolics & hormones. It's just not possible.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 16, 2004)

nikegurl said:
			
		

> we're in agreement then. for sure it makes a difference. i'd never say it didn't. but it won't make anyone a champion imho


I would agree. Many things make a champ though, some you just can't fix with drugs (asthetics). One thing is for sure, those that make great gains in the short term, aside from genetics, go through a period of haaaaaardcore eating to hit those huge bodyweight numbers.


----------



## Randy (Jun 22, 2004)

Mudge said:
			
		

> go through a period of haaaaaardcore eating to hit those huge bodyweight numbers.


 
I have no problem with that one


----------



## jaim91 (Jun 23, 2004)

I have a problem...well, it's not really considering I'm 16. I find that the only way I can gain mass/ muscle is by eating junk. With 9% bodyfat, my metabolism revs like a mofo, and eating "healthy","clean" food just aggrivates it. I need cookies/ice cream/ pizza to slow it down. Not that that works...I know that this won't always be the case for me, so I will hav to soon get out of the habit, but I was wondering if it was harmful to me, right now...


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 23, 2004)

jaim91 


> I have a problem...well, it's not really considering I'm 16. I find that the only way I can gain mass/ muscle is by eating junk. With 9% bodyfat, my metabolism revs like a mofo, and eating "healthy","clean" food just aggrivates it. I need cookies/ice cream/ pizza to slow it down. Not that that works...I know that this won't always be the case for me, so I will hav to soon get out of the habit, but I was wondering if it was harmful to me, right now...


You might want to try posting this in the diet & nutrition section, you might get more help posting this in there. But all I can say is you don't need junk food to gain mass.


----------



## Randy (Jun 23, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> I have a problem...well, it's not really considering I'm 16. I find that the only way I can gain mass/ muscle is by eating junk. With 9% bodyfat, my metabolism revs like a mofo, and eating "healthy","clean" food just aggrivates it. I need cookies/ice cream/ pizza to slow it down. Not that that works...I know that this won't always be the case for me, so I will hav to soon get out of the habit, but I was wondering if it was harmful to me, right now...


  I think common sense tells you that eating garbage like this is not good for you now or any other time.  At your age like you stated your metabolism burns off more calories and stuff than a middle aged person, but that doesn't mean you need to eat garbage just because your bodyfat is 9%.   Now I know that most kids do these days, but that doesn't mean it is healthy.   There is much more that it does than just putting on noticeable weight.  It effects your cholestrol and blood sugar and all kinds of stuff.  You don't have to be a nutricianist to know to stay away from cookies and ice cream and all the other junk that we all love to eat..    But even body builders have their cheat days...  Once in awhile is ok, just don't live on the stuff


----------



## Saturday Fever (Jun 23, 2004)

I'll bet if you wrote down everything you ate in a day and counted the calories, you'd discover you're not eating much at all.

 When I first joined a gym 3 years ago, I thought I ate a lot. After writing and totalling everything one day I found out I was around 2100 calories. So much for eating a lot.

 Bottom line is that you will gain eating clean, you just need to eat enough.


----------



## Johnnny (Jun 23, 2004)

Randy




> I think common sense tells you that eating garbage like this is not good for you now or any other time. At your age like you stated your metabolism burns off more calories and stuff than a middle aged person, but that doesn't mean you need to eat garbage just because your bodyfat is 9%. Now I know that most kids do these days, but that doesn't mean it is healthy. There is much more that it does than just putting on noticeable weight. It effects your cholestrol and blood sugar and all kinds of stuff. You don't have to be a nutricianist to know to stay away from cookies and ice cream and all the other junk that we all love to eat.. But even body builders have their cheat days... Once in awhile is ok, just don't live on the stuff
> Today 01:17 PM



Even though this should've been posted in the diet section, I agree with Randy. I'm sure if you eat 6 or 7 healthy meals a day, you would gain mass.
From what you say it doesn't sound like you're giving your body enough protein from meat & fish sources or enough complex carbohydrates.


----------



## Randy (Jun 23, 2004)

Yes, and I agree with the both of you as well...

To maintain health you need to eat several small nutritious meals a day and get the proper exercise your body needs. Whether your focus is gaining mass or leaning, you need to count your calories. If you want to gain weight you need to eat more than your average requirement. If you want to lose weight you eat less then your average requirement. You couple that with the appropriate exercise  and you can maintain a lean, mean, body machine


----------



## Big-Gee (Feb 1, 2005)

Hi all

I'm working out for mass gains at the moment.  I want to try to break my workouts down so that i'm doing chest and abs on monday, back and shoulders on wednesday, arms and legs on friday.  These workouts are really intense. I'l be doing about 4-5 excercises per body part (roughly 6 reps/ 5 sets), in some cases supersetting, i.e biceps and triceps and mostly training to failure.  Do you recon that only training each body part once a week will be enough, i.e will seven days rest between bicep, chest, deltoid etc workouts be too long?

 Gee


----------



## BlueZeru (Mar 11, 2005)

This is all good stuff.  I guess I have been "super-settings" ALL my exercises.  My idea is to isolate a group of muscle and work them till exhaustion and dont touch them until a week later.  I notice I fully recover and in most cases increase the weight in almost all routines.  On the average I do 4 sets of 10 reps for a given muscle group.  My routine looks like this now;
Sunday - Back and Shoulders
Tuesday - Legs and Chest
Thursday - Bi's and Tri
I may vary the actual exercises (cables instead of dumbells, incline vs. flat...etc) but not the routine.  I have been doing this for a full month with good results.  Can't wait to see how much weight I will be using for next month and on to the rest of the year.  Of course, a little help from my friends (Creatine, Decavar and Paradec) goes a long way as well.


----------



## BlackDogStrut (Jul 13, 2005)

when do you work out chest and biceps then? 
If youre already doing your arms in one day


----------



## GFR (Jul 13, 2005)

BlackDogStrut said:
			
		

> when do you work out chest and biceps then?
> If youre already doing your arms in one day


Yopu could do arms on Monday and chest and back on Thursday or Friday. I did it that way for awhile and it was a great workout.


----------



## cheesegrater (Jul 13, 2005)

Johnnny said:
			
		

> Super setting biceps & triceps I've found provides amazing growth in size, strength & shape.
> 
> The best way is to take one day once a week just for arms if you can spare the time.
> 
> ...



isn't a super set you do say bi curls at heavy weight, no rest, move down a weight, no rest, move down another weight?


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jul 13, 2005)

cheesegrater said:
			
		

> isn't a super set you do say bi curls at heavy weight, no rest, move down a weight, no rest, move down another weight?


 No, it's when you do a set of something and then with no rest do another set of a different exercise.


----------



## cheesegrater (Jul 13, 2005)

like another body part or another exercise of the same muscle?


----------



## LAM (Jul 13, 2005)

cheesegrater said:
			
		

> isn't a super set you do say bi curls at heavy weight, no rest, move down a weight, no rest, move down another weight?



that is a drop set


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Jul 13, 2005)

cheesegrater said:
			
		

> like another body part or another exercise of the same muscle?


 Either.


----------



## camarosuper6 (Jul 13, 2005)

what a thread


----------



## P-funk (Jul 14, 2005)

camarosuper6 said:
			
		

> what a thread


----------



## Witmaster (Jul 14, 2005)

Someone feeling Nostalgic?


----------



## god hand (Jul 14, 2005)

Why did Johnny get banned?


----------



## camarosuper6 (Jul 14, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Why did Johnny get banned?



because he is a retard.


----------



## LAM (Jul 15, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Why did Johnny get banned?



he was a complete toolbox !


----------



## CowPimp (Jul 16, 2005)

god hand said:
			
		

> Why did Johnny get banned?



He rampantly spread misinformation and became confrontational over nothing.  So, yeah, he was a tool.


----------

