But Ex. most of the trainees that use these routines don't have enough muscle to "sculpt".
I agree. Most people have a better chance of having a sculpted body if they have something to work with ie: muscle. Most trainees don't have enough muscle to sculpt.
Ok, you finally agreed PL is more strength oriented. I think that sums it up.Ok, just a few quick points because I don't feel like writing any more books.
I stand by the point that if diet is held constant, a good pl routine will add as much size to a natural trainee as any routine out there. It just won't be symmetrical size. Fair enough. If you are more interested in symmetry than strength then go for a pure BB routine, that's a personal decision.
Because hypertrophy is caused by so many different things, you see a lot of brotelligence in bodybuilding (just as an example of how weird hypertrophy is - one experiment found more hypertrophy with 30% of 1rm performed not to failure than any other protocol used!). In powerlifting, things which develop strength for one person tend to work for others as well - in the realm of training for strength anecdotal evidence has a great deal of validity. WSB is based on a combination of a solid scientific foundation - i.e. the principles of verkoshansky, mel siff and others (those authors provide plenty of references for those so inclined) and massive volumes of anecdotal evidence in a controlled setting (the westside barbell club). In fact, one could say that WSB is a 20+ year experiment with an n=50 or so, though I can't imagine louie in a lab coat that's the purpose he is serving.
As for those pictures you posted... They're in need of about 40lbs of muscleNot to mention that a lot of guys just don't have frames that will ever look like that no matter how lean they get. Huge and strong is where it's at for me, let a couple of girls say they think it's unattractive, they still come talk to me at parties because of the amount of deference and respect guys give me. It's kind of neat to have people just walk up to me on the street, give me props and start talking about lifting, LOL. I'll trade getting looks at the beach for that any day.
We’re all fucking whacked. BBs are massive too. I’ve mentioned 300 plus pounds of weight as bulky. How many BBs you know who weigh that much? The emphasis of the discussion has been on PL and BB and how we need to employ these programs. Aesthetic appeal also was taken into account, but PLs don’t give a rats ass about that.
So you’re telling me BBs don’t have wide shoulders, big chests and thick backs. Or someone at 200 pounds can’t have those. The guys in the pictures above are 180 lbs. You perhaps took it personally when I mentioned not everyone desires to be bulky. I also stated the choice to be bulky or lean is purely personal. No offence against anyone.
Only some? That’s a shame. Most BBs I know have the hottest women.
Ok, first off, never said pl wasn't more strength oriented :nono: It's a tradeoff - symmetry for strength, I've been saying that since post 1. The point I've been trying to make is that size will be about the same regardless. Most guys that come up and talk to me ask about getting bigger, not getting symmetrical. I'd say that the ideal here is being big, not being super lean and symmetrical - the pictures you posted indicate you would be more at home at a mens health style board, this is a BODYBUILDING board, I would say most people on here have an ideal which is probably closer to the 'Arnold' look.
OK, here’s what you said previously.
You agreed PLs train for strength – “in the realm of training for strength�. Now whether you accept it or not PL has always been a “strength specific� sport. The WSB homepage will tell you that. All the PL articles in there and everywhere else will seldom talk about hypertrophy. WSB or any other PL program has never been focussed on hypertrophy. Its obvious one has to get bigger to grow stronger and vice-versa. But PLs want strength first and BBs want size first. There is a clear separation here. BB will get definitely you BIG. That is why it’s so popular. Men’s health boards or a BB board, BB is common to both; PL is not. So whether one wants to be simply lean or big BB can achieve that purpose. PL is barely discussed in BB boards. How many threads in here discuss PL programs? When Bobo hands out his routines to BBs here does he give them PL routines?
First, you are slightly confused about PL style training. It's not some magical thing which is totally different than the weightlifting bodybuilders do. We do many of the same lifts, and we do a lot of work in the 5-10 range as ASSISTANCE work which is done after a max effort or dynamic effort. Hell, sometimes we even get up to 15 reps on smaller support and stabilization exercises. We also do some exercises you guys don't do that resemble the main lifts. We do about the same number of sets as a medium volume bodybuilder would, we just focus on different things. Because the squat, bench and deadlift hit like 85% of the muscles on the body AT LEAST, we grow quite well. Since certain muscles are more important than othersout for success at the three lifts (triceps, glutes, hams, core) we hammer the hell out of them, and they tend to be larger than the same muscles on a bodybuilder using the same drugs (we don't hit the slin at all really and we don't hit the gh much, and most PLs only hit the sauce hard 3-4 weeks before a meet if they are saucing). Heck, it's funny that you mention McRoberts because he is fairly evenly focused on getting stronger AND bigger in unison, there's a lot of ink devoted to getting stronger in beyond brawn... In fact I think McRoberts calls what he does weight lifting and strength training as often as he calls it bodybuilding, but I couldn't be sure since I haven't read the book in a while.
Seriously,good post. I would get on a PLers program but i just don't have the weight in my home gym. If there were a gym in walking distance,i'd join but because parking sucks so bad,i can't leave my house after a certain time or i'll be ridding around all night trying to park. I don't like gyms because i don't like crowds but one thing i always found was good in most gyms was that the power racks and squat racks are usually open,unless someone needs to do curls Bro, I seriously meant no disrespect for PLs. On the contrary I respect them a lot more than most BBs around. I brought it up in my previous posts too that touching even a total of 1500 scares me.
And of course it’s true in BB significant importance is given to strength too. At the end of it PLs and BBs have been equally successful with their respective training protocols. I guess most take that with a pinch of salt. hey raj, sorry, this is way off topic....
I think you're whacked because of how you preceived/judge bodybuilders and powerlifters when there is really little difference between the two.
Well, I think you are an individual who doesn’t care to read on the subject. That makes you more whacked. There is a significant amount of difference between PLs and BBs. But you wouldn’t know that. You can only voice opinions and never point to references. Can you show me where it may be explained how BB and PL are the same? Don’t tell me both lift weights so they’re the same. Or may be you would; I don’t actually think you know any better.I think you're whacked because of how you preceived/judge bodybuilders and powerlifters when there is really little difference between the two.
Most BB'ers typicvalyl start their "lifting" in a powerlifting style and then transition their workouts to a more muscle building style over pure strength. Their core, typically, is founded in PL style training.
That's all
I am sorry i have a question i was going to sent you a privit message but i could not get through......
This is what I meant by judging. I am definitely not a powerlifter. Not even close to it but thanks for the props
You seem to have it in your head that strength/size are mutually exclusive, that going for one precludes the other, I find that amazingly funny.
Do read the entire thread before you start shooting your mouth, else it makes you look amazingly funny. Here’s a previous post of mine from this thread.
You were fixated with King Kamali. That is what is so laughable. Comparing yourself to elite bodybuilders who’re all the time on juice and adopting their routines to suit your purposes can only be labelled dim. If he is powerlifting let him. Don’t espouse his routine and if you do don’t brag about it. Someone with even minimal knowledge would then rebuke you. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your knowledge on how BB and PL are similar. How about asking King Kamali?
Yes, something else to laugh at, fixated? sure , comparing myself? well I dont think I did that, but okay if you want I'll go through this entire thread and pick out how many pro's you decided to cherry pick to support your claims... However what makes you the most funny in this entire thread is again, the way you seem to think PL'ing or pursuit of strength, precludes hypertrophy, the best was the 'not valid' statement
, enlighten you? I'm not a religious pontiff or philosopher, however I will be rude and answer a question with a question, how about you ask Garry Frank, Shane Hamman, or Ryan Kennelly how they got so big, or maybe you think they are pure fat? (I dont think you believe this) because they all train with methods that are 'not valid' for hypertrophy (powerlifting routine) according to you they should not have significant muscle mass, however its obvious they do have huge mass. I'm not 'fixated' on these people, I'm merely offering them up as examples of individuals whom have used powerlifting routines to attain good size and strength, are they bodybuilder level of fat or symmetry? of course not! but nobody will claim they are whos sane. Now you might again argue 'they used tons of drugs' or whatever you want to argue, but how many guys in forums use insane amounts of drugs and NEVER get as big OR as strong as those three guys, and Hamman I'll remind you was olympic tested, say what ya will about olympians and drugs but he couldnt have been running much for those years. I've seen plenty of huge powerlifters, and I think everyone here has, so its fairly obvious that powerlifting does indeed build mass (induce hypertrophy) and claiming otherwise is laughable. This is my last post in this thread, period.
Just want to chime in here again because I believe you're misinterpreting things to some degree, and I really don't want to leave this thread with any confusion about facts even if I don't make any converts.
Yes, something else to laugh at, fixated? sure , comparing myself? well I dont think I did that, but okay if you want I'll go through this entire thread and pick out how many pro's you decided to cherry pick to support your claims... However what makes you the most funny in this entire thread is again, the way you seem to think PL'ing or pursuit of strength, precludes hypertrophy, the best was the 'not valid' statement
Lyle actually promotes HST over WSB or any other regimen for hypertrophy. He has co-authored a FAQ on HST.
The thing that really makes HST different from any other program is the SD/weight progression, which seeks to avoid forcing the athlete to get continually stronger in order to get continually bigger. Of course that's how it works in theory anyhow... If you look around the HST forums you will see a lot of people who made no gains in the 15 and 10 rep portions of the cycle and very good gains in the 5 rep portion, and bryan acknowledges this and merely addresses it by saying something along the order of "many trainees find the 5 rep portion of the HST cycle to be the most productive, and if you find this to be the case you should continue it until it becomes unproductive". HST also advocates high frequency (I work out up to 10 times a week, 4 main workouts and 4-6 GPP workouts) and not training to failure (Powerlifters rarely do). WSB practicing powerlifters simply prefer to get our size from continually getting stronger rather than taking the strength hit that something like a 9-14 day SD then working with lowered weights entails. To date there is no science behind which works better, though progressively getting stronger (the same method McRobers advocates, powerlifters just know how to do it better) is proven, and the HST style method seems to work for a fair portion of those who try it and execute it correctly.
Check out his website, bodyrecomposition.net I believe it is. Lyle bags on powerlifting a lot (but he bags on everything, he's really kind of a jackass who just happens to have a few useful things to say) but when he trains people (I remember the logs of a few women he trained) for size and strength, he uses a hybrid-ish HST with a lot of WSB style stuff thrown in.
The bodybuilding world doesn't have ANY common routine, which I think goes to show how poorly bodybuilders understand hypertrophy (not that scientists understand it completely either). Bodybuilders at all levels use everything from powerlifting style low rep heavy weight compound exercise routines (albiet adding some exercises for areas powerlifters typically ignore) to high rep high volume high frequency routines to once every ten days super low volume beyond failure routines. Guess what... There are plenty of examples of people using each type of routine that get huge using that routine. I think beyond the basics (eating enough and working out hard) it has more to do with drugs and genetics than anything else. Bryan Haycock has pushed HST as sort of a "solution" to hypertrophy, but as I've said before, given that understanding of what induces hypertrophy from a scientific standpoint is still unknown, and so his solution is derived from an incomplete data set so to speak. I just want to make that clear, because you seem to be holding it up as a perfect program of sorts which induces hypertrophy on an unseen scale to which nothing else compares, and though it works fairly well for a lot of people, but to use your own argument against you, it doesn't seem to be all the rage in the pro circles, and these people are paid to be as big as possible - if it worked much better than other programs they'd all have to switch to HST to stay competitive.
If you want to get bigger faster (genetics permitting), do lots of steroids, lift hard and eat a lot (yes I realize this is a gross simplification). The type of routine you do (as long as you are working hard) just from anecdotal evidence, isn't going to make that much of a difference as far as size is concerned (though I will admit the existance of McRoberts style hardgainers for which controlling overall volume is very important to development).
After reading more about PL styles, however, one can see that concepts in HST such as SD and progressive load are commonly found in PL programs, just altered to suit strength needs, and may be focused differently as CNS adaption is still really the desired outcome.
Absolutely. For size a BB routine such as HST would be superior. As for the 15/10 reps not promoting size, here’s what Bryan has to say.After reading about 80-85% of this thread (minaly the points by exnihilo and rajscorps), I came to the conclusion I thought I would:
We know that the discussion of which style of programs is best for size and/or strength can be continued forever with no clear "winner" or "end", which is why I even hesitate to post right now
I think the bottom line, in my time spent in the gym and researching, is: PL styles and HST methods seem to be interrelated and in some cases interdependant, although in the grand scheme of things a few general approaces are tweaked for each specific goal. I have been training with HST for almost a year now, natural and on-cycle. I have done typical 5 and 4 day split BB style workouts, HIT routines, GVT, and some modified 5x5 PL style lifting over the years.
My conclusion is that after researching it at length, and doing several cycles now, I am happier with HST than I have been with any other routine, but I am not a powerlifter, size is more important to me than how much I lift
As for HST trainees having the most gains in the low rep, high weight portion of the program, this is true. I would point out, however, that this seems to be a response to the progressive load (RBE) principle and the hypertrophy incurred for the first several weeks of the cycle, not IMO because it's just low reps, high weight. HIT training I have done used low rep ranges and high weight, but were not tailored with RBE and chronic stimuli in mind, needless to say the results were not nearly the same. Given a periodization shcme of HIT training, most seem to respond better to HIT style weight, which shows us what? That the progressive load concept is at play, which of course is stressed in HST.
I am simply saying that for everything I have read and tried HST gives me more growth vs. strength, which for me is desireable. Size is gained through PL routines of course (some PL's are huge guys, even at reasonable bf levels), but my recommendation to a trainee who wants to get bigger will not be a PL routine, simply because that is not the overall, specific focus, with all attention paid towards it. I do not believe that PL routines, all other things contant, will yield the same size gains in the same time frame as a periodized or HST style routine. After readin Haycock's work, I have yet to see anyone really go against it or show a better way to work with the 4 main principles for hypertrophy (size gain): RBE (progressive load), chronic stimuli, SD, and mechanical load. Just my 2 cents, and I am well aware that many could completely disagree with me here and continue the discussion forever.
I'm not sure I understand this?? :think: How is progressive load, I.E. lifting heavier weights throughout the cycle while decreasing reps, allowing the lifter to get "weaker"? Are you referring to the common zigzagging of weights from the 10's to the 5's, for example? (which is not necessary in HST, I don't do it, I never let the weight go down; I'll stick at the higher weight a few workouts before increasing).
The 9-14 day deconditioning and the fact that you start the cycle on light weights and very slowly increase the weight over the course of many weeks, while promoting hypertrophy, allows neuromuscular coordination to wane. Heavy eccentrics also cause a reduction in concentric strength. What you end up with is small strength gain from cycle to cycle. But bodybuilders don't care about strength just looks right, so I digress.
I'm constantly getting stronger, thus I am constantly experiencing progressive overload, I easily get in 6+ workouts a week, 4 for strength and 2+ GPP workouts, I think the frequency is there, And my diet is about as dialed in at this point as anybody's. I'm massive and growing natty right now on a PL routine. I'm also much stronger than you (but you don't care about that, right?)... Mission accomplished.
Or maybe a lot of bodybuilders pro and otherwise who are successfull do routines that resemble the routines that PLs do, minus special exercises and speed work, and they don't call it PL because while they are trying to get stronger they aren't thinking of competing in powerlifting meets. Don't forget also that a lot of pros actually do routines like the ones they have in flex man... If we're talking what works and what doesn't as far as anecdotal evidence there are some anomalies to work out.
This is what I'm talking about, right here. You said:
Okay, now we need to define "weaker", apparently. If the trainee is slowly, from cycle to cycle, gaining strength (which normally happens), how is this "weaker"??
If you were to graph a function of a lifter's 1RM over the course of a HST cycle, it would dip down about a week into negatives, the SD and 15s, probably break even somewhere in the 10s and one would see some small progress at the end of the 10s and the 5s until you got to the negatives again. In the long run a lifter may get stronger, in the short term you are detraining so that the same load (basically) induces load based adaptations (hypertrophy) again, rather than being forced to get stronger in order to continue growing. In theory. After a while I imagine you'll probably stop getting stronger from cycle to cycle too...
It seems that the argument isn't really bodybuilding versus powerlifting training so much as it is HST versus gaining size through progressive overload induced by increases in strength, so lets reframe it as such so we don't get side tracked. HST works great for some, and that's good. Progressive overload induced by increases in strength (along with steroids
) has produced pretty much all the top physiques in the world over the last 35 years. Which is better? Bryan says HST, and draws this conclusion by playing connect the dots with large amount of varied scientific data - only problem is connect the dots produces a guess at what the final picture will look like, it doesn't produce the final picture itself. From an anecdotal standpoint, one could say that the fact that pro bodybuilders everywhere aren't adopting HST en mass to stay viable indicates that at the very least, when one is juiced to the gills, HST is not to any significant degree superior over classical training methodologies.okay, just to put another perspective on the table here, this is anabolicminds.com, gear use is rampant and training is varied, if HST produces more mass gains than other conventional training, isnt it logical that while 'on' guys doing hst would grow more?, I dont see that, I see roughly similer gains in size per cycle from people training a multitude of various ways (assuming they eat roughly the same and train enough) . I dont contend HST sucks, but I think you are absolutely right that powerlifters are just as muscular, obese shw guys aside they got a good solid look, I've yet to see a powerlifter who cycled roids, ate proper, and trained hard who was a peanut.If you were to graph a function of a lifter's 1RM over the course of a HST cycle, it would dip down about a week into negatives, the SD and 15s, probably break even somewhere in the 10s and one would see some small progress at the end of the 10s and the 5s until you got to the negatives again. In the long run a lifter may get stronger, in the short term you are detraining so that the same load (basically) induces load based adaptations (hypertrophy) again, rather than being forced to get stronger in order to continue growing. In theory. After a while I imagine you'll probably stop getting stronger from cycle to cycle too...
It seems that the argument isn't really bodybuilding versus powerlifting training so much as it is HST versus gaining size through progressive overload induced by increases in strength, so lets reframe it as such so we don't get side tracked. HST works great for some, and that's good. Progressive overload induced by increases in strength (along with steroids
Anyhow, what it really comes down to is this: If it is working for you, to accomplish your goals better than what you were doing before, great. The whole reason I advocated PL style training in this thread is that a lot of lifters want to get both big and strong but get fed bodybuilding advice all the time because that is what is mainstream, and I can tell you from large volumes of anecdotal experience that if you are looking to get both big and strong, WSB style training will accomplish both of those goals quite well - could you get slightly bigger doing HST instead? MAYBE - at this point it's all speculation. Would the WSB style trainee dwarf the HST style trainee's lifts to an almost ridiculous degree? For sure. If *ALL* you care about is size, go ahead and roll the dice and see if you come up a winner with HST. If you are interested in both (even if you are somewhat more interested in size than strength) you really can't go wrong with a WSB style PL routine.
I think what this thread is coming down to is faith in the fact that HST really does produce more and faster gains (because at this point, given the things bryan cites that point only rates "quite possibly" as opposed to "definately"), versus a belief in what is "tried and true", and of course differing long term goals. I think what is ruffling my feathers here more than anything (since I don't have a problem with agreeing to disagree) is that PL/WSB style training is being mis-characterized by people who don't really understand or know much of anything about it beyond the fact that we do some sort of max single for bench and squat/deadlift and low rep not to failure speed work for bench and squat/deadlift each week. If it was properly understood, you could see how the "size" aspect of this argument, at least in respect to classical bodybuilding routines versus WSB style training comes down more to differences in diet and drug regimens. As far as HST vs everything else, on that point until I see a significant amount of anecdotal evidence we'll have to agree to disagree.
It seems you are speculating that the lifter will stop getting strength gains in time from HST training, which appears to be difficult to back up with hard evidence. I think we do agree on one certain thing: diet and cardio can be a MAJOR contributing factor here.
Being big is fun too though, I'm glad that I've managed to succeed in both realms.
