[Matt ALRI]

Wow. Didn't expect to see you here. Thanks for pulling me out of the mire.

BTW, where are my shoes you smelly bastard? :-)

Matt

[Matt ALRI]

Glenn,

Are there other things I left out that you might add?

Matt

ps - The interview with Rip is going awesome. You'll blush like a little girl when you read it. There is a quote in there about what happens when a kid truly follows his program that is so incredible and inspiring. I wanted to put it in this thread but decided I better wait until the article comes out.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I appreciate him coming and defending his position (not at all surprised) but its still opinion and everyone knows the saying that goes along with that. As far as strength training many of the points are valid but I would rather see a scientific explanation rather than opinion if you want to express certain "rules".

In general Matt, the way this board operates for the most part is that if you have an opinion, taht is fine but if you want to state "rules" on what works for everyone you need to come to the table with evidence. Experience certainly helps but it certainly is not conclusive given too amny facors to deal with.

[ryansm]

Originally Posted by glennpendlay

well since this thread makes reference to me and has created a bit of controversy, i thought i would comment... please take these comments for what they are, one persons opinion. i do think that i have enough experience as a coach and athlete to make my opinions count, but certainly i nor anyone else has a stranglehold on "truth" or knows everything.

1. i agree with this point. i have trained in russia, at the olympic sports complex in moscow, and can vouch for how hard they train. but by training "hard" i dont mean forced reps or things like that... just lots of basics, lots of basic hard work. a set of 5 hard reps on the squat, even if you end the set with a rep or two left in you, is harder than a set of curls to failure, at least in my opinion.

2. again i agree. training the legs and back as hard as the chest and arms, is, in my opinion, important whether you want to to grow a little or a lot, whether you really want to be lean, or whether you dont care about looks. many people DONT put the same effort into say, pullups and rows that they do into benches and flys. i think this is a mistake for just about all who do it.

3. basic, compound exercises have always worked best for me and anyone i have trained. i dont discount the worth of every isolation exercise, but i dont think they should make up the bulk of a program, i cant think of a goal in the weightroom that would be better served by using only isolation exercises.

4. training frequency is a controversial topic. depending on how you train, your age and condition, your drug usage, etc, almost any frequency can be made to work, and likewise almost any frequency can be made to fail. this having been said, however, i feel that giving a muscle group stimulation 2-3 times a week is usually best. you might not train it equally hard each session, but still train it. if you use the types of exercises matt mentioned, its hard not to give most of ;your muscle groups at least some stimulation each time you are in the gym.

5. im not a fan of training to failure.

6. i do think that deeper squats are better for most people. we could argue about parrallel vs. below parrallel, but the fact is that most people i see in commercial gyms, if they do squats, are doing little bitty range of motion things that couldnt really be called squats. i doubt anyone would argue that this is the best way to go. for most people, squats are a great exercise if done correctly.

7. again, i agree that for most people, compound exercises should make up the bulk of the program. there are too many reasons why to list.

8. i agree with this, i have been a proponent of 5 sets of 5 for a long time. it just seems to work really well if you want to gain muscle.

9. thats a quote from me so i have to agree... many of the people who dont make progress in the weightroom dont do so because they are trying to do EVERY exercise, hit EVERY muscle from EVERY angle... if you are really training hard you simply CANT do 15 exercises in a workout. and yes, no matter what your goals, i do think that training hard is neccessary.

10. again, a quote from me so i cant disagree. young kids who want to get big but never quite get there seem to share some characteristics...

11. TUT is, in my opinion, a variable that isnt worth manipulating directly, since it gets manipulated naturally by the differing sets and reps of a normal program. if you do 3 sets of 5 at a normal rep speed, and want more TUT, then do 4 or 5 sets instead.

12. again i agree. i dont think a burn or a pump is the end all of progress indicators... certainly most people encounter these things if they train, but the people who use them as the sole criteria for a "successfull" workout are, in my opinion, misguided. and yes, i think there are quite a lot of those people.

13. i agree that most people pay too much attention to DOMS. like a good pump, getting DOMS doesnt mean you had a successfull workout, and not getting DOMS doesnt mean you had a bad workout.

14. if you lift weights overhead, and you squat, you get a core workout. if you train exercises like these heavy and hard, you get quite a good core workout. not everyone wants to be a good deadlifter or squatter, but ive never seen someone good at these lifts who didnt have a lot of abdominal and lower back muslce and strength. if you want a good strong core, doing these types of exercises is a good step towards getting one.

15. ill agree about the traits of a good gym.

Did you train Olympic weightlifting? I am currently training with a former olympian, actually a couple, and also with National, and World level athletes. Very much different from powerlifting, and certainly a different world to BB'ing.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by glennpendlay

well since this thread makes reference to me and has created a bit of controversy, i thought i would comment... please take these comments for what they are, one persons opinion. i do think that i have enough experience as a coach and athlete to make my opinions count, but certainly i nor anyone else has a stranglehold on "truth" or knows everything.



3. basic, compound exercises have always worked best for me and anyone i have trained. i dont discount the worth of every isolation exercise, but i dont think they should make up the bulk of a program, i cant think of a goal in the weightroom that would be better served by using only isolation exercises.

4. training frequency is a controversial topic. depending on how you train, your age and condition, your drug usage, etc, almost any frequency can be made to work, and likewise almost any frequency can be made to fail. this having been said, however, i feel that giving a muscle group stimulation 2-3 times a week is usually best. you might not train it equally hard each session, but still train it. if you use the types of exercises matt mentioned, its hard not to give most of ;your muscle groups at least some stimulation each time you are in the gym.


7. again, i agree that for most people, compound exercises should make up the bulk of the program. there are too many reasons why to list.



11. TUT is, in my opinion, a variable that isnt worth manipulating directly, since it gets manipulated naturally by the differing sets and reps of a normal program. if you do 3 sets of 5 at a normal rep speed, and want more TUT, then do 4 or 5 sets instead.

12. again i agree. i dont think a burn or a pump is the end all of progress indicators... certainly most people encounter these things if they train, but the people who use them as the sole criteria for a "successfull" workout are, in my opinion, misguided. and yes, i think there are quite a lot of those people.

13. i agree that most people pay too much attention to DOMS. like a good pump, getting DOMS doesnt mean you had a successfull workout, and not getting DOMS doesnt mean you had a bad workout.

14. if you lift weights overhead, and you squat, you get a core workout. if you train exercises like these heavy and hard, you get quite a good core workout. not everyone wants to be a good deadlifter or squatter, but ive never seen someone good at these lifts who didnt have a lot of abdominal and lower back muslce and strength. if you want a good strong core, doing these types of exercises is a good step towards getting one.

15. ill agree about the traits of a good gym.

1. This depends on the goal. For someone looking for symmetry and asthetic look of a bodybuilder then the bulk of a program shouldn't include many exercies that overstimulate the core. This doens't mean eliminate them at all, just use them for their purpose as well as other types of exercises.

2. Once again, this simply depends on what type of training, goal and fibral makeup you have. Yo can easily train a bodypart once/week DIRECTLY while indirectly trianing them again through multiple compound exercises. Its is almost impossible to strictly train a body part only once DIRECTLY/INCDIRECTLY. BUt I achieve results in MANY people with only trianing them once per week directly.

3. I don't agree at all and looking at the result along with results it most certainly does not have to be the bulk of a program at all.

4. If you want the full papers on this subject I would gladly send them to you. The increase in TUT from an increased ECC action has been widely documented. Just adding volume with the same fast CON/ECC time is not the same thing. I am surprised you would even state something like that.

5. If anyone gauges a workout by the "pump" then they do have a problem but it certainly can be a factor in determing results if you primary focus is slower ECC actions.

6. That is because DOMS as a whole is an area in which research is all over the board. There simply isn't one answer or conclusion.

7. As Is aid earlier, there are many ways at increasing core strenght that are just as effective as squats and deadlifts.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by Bobo

I appreciate him coming and defending his position (not at all surprised) but its still opinion and everyone knows the saying that goes along with that. As far as strength training many of the points are valid but I would rather see a scientific explanation rather than opinion if you want to express certain "rules".

In general Matt, the way this board operates for the most part is that if you have an opinion, taht is fine but if you want to state "rules" on what works for everyone you need to come to the table with evidence. Experience certainly helps but it certainly is not conclusive given too amny facors to deal with.

To clarify, I don't want to sound negative but its kind of a pet peeve if mine for people to explain things from a scientific vantage point.

You seem to value experience yet discount mine (at least it seems this way). I base my opinions on what is the evidence suggests then how it transfers to real world results. I don't just quote studies and claim proof. I specifially work with bodybuilders and my recommendations are solely for this area. I wouldn't sit here and tell you what the best PL'ing program because I simply do not put enough time in that area so it does get frustrating when Strength and Condition coaches come in here and tell me what works in MY area. You do not work with bodybuilders on a competitive levels. You do not design program around specific goals such as symmetry and proportion while maximizing gains. I could easily pack on more lbs doing ALL compund exercises because you would increasing core size much more than most bodybuilder want. The people I trian don't WANT a thick waist and aren't really concerned about strenght. The want strict LBM that give them better proportion. Its not quantity, but quality. I HAVE to look at things from a more specific vantage point than you do.

[glennpendlay]

Bobo said [To clarify, I don't want to sound negative but its kind of a pet peeve if mine for people to explain things from a scientific vantage point.]

reply... well, i can, if needed, go the science route. believe it or not, i have a masters degree in ex phys, was a faculty member at a university with a pretty good kinesiology dept, have taught things from graduate level ex phys to cardiac physiology, and have done extensive research on several topics related to gaining strength and size... and no i dont mean the layman definition of "research" (reading internet boards and talking to friends), but actuall research at a university, which involves using human subjects, drawing blood, computing statistics, and then sending the whole thing to a review board to hopefully get published in a peer reviewed journal and become one of those "articles" that you offered to send me. now, im not saying this to brag or put you down at all, but so that you will understand that i am not operating from a position of no knowledge of physiology or science. the problem with using studies and science in a discussion like this is that its all open to interpretation, there are problems with any study, and any arguement about methods usually turns into an article about whether or not a study was valid... so nothing gets solved.



Bobo said [You seem to value experience yet discount mine (at least it seems this way).]

reply... i dont think i have done that. what i think i did was state a few of my opinions, or rather my agreement with anothers opinions... and prefaced the whole thing with an emphasis that it was in fact just my opinion. im well aware of the vast amount of ways there are to train with weights, and the vast amount of ways in which people have made progress. the simple fact is that my experience has led me to believe that a certain way is best for most people. this is my opinion, however, anyone who knows me knows that i always tell people to do what works. if someone were to tell me they were doing one set of leg extensions and one set of leg curls to failure every 14 days and their legs were growing like crazy, and that that was in fact their goal, for the legs to get bigger (and not neccessarily to get stronger) then i would say, stick to it till it stops working. anything that works is good. i just have a pretty strong opinion on what is most likely to work, as you seem to. i think that either of us can safely state their own opinion without discounting anothers opinion.


Bobo said [I could easily pack on more lbs doing ALL compund exercises because you would increasing core size much more than most bodybuilder want. The people I trian don't WANT a thick waist and aren't really concerned about strenght. The want strict LBM that give them better proportion. Its not quantity, but quality. I HAVE to look at things from a more specific vantage point than you do.]

reply... i think this is the heart of the matter. i guess we basically agree that you can get bigger, faster, with compound exercises, assuming i read your reply correctly. i know many 700 or 800 squatters, and a couple of 900-1000 squatters, and ive never really seen anyone who got a waist that was so packed with muscle as to be aesthetically unpleasing. yeah, there are some fat powerlifters, but fat has nothing to do with abs or with whether you train the squat or leg extension. i also know a lot of weightlifters, who squat 3 or 4 days a week, and have never seen one who has so much abdominal muscle that it would be considered unpleasing to the eye. most bodybuilders i have seen have quite a bit of ab muscle. in fact, just like the biceps or lats, they have more hypertrophy of the abs than most strength athletes.

if you have honest to god discovered a way to build abdominal muscle so quickly and easily as to become displeasing to the eye, i would like very badly to know about it!

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by glennpendlay

Bobo said [To clarify, I don't want to sound negative but its kind of a pet peeve if mine for people to explain things from a scientific vantage point.]

reply... well, i can, if needed, go the science route. believe it or not, i have a masters degree in ex phys, was a faculty member at a university with a pretty good kinesiology dept, have taught things from graduate level ex phys to cardiac physiology, and have done extensive research on several topics related to gaining strength and size... and no i dont mean the layman definition of "research" (reading internet boards and talking to friends), but actuall research at a university, which involves using human subjects, drawing blood, computing statistics, and then sending the whole thing to a review board to hopefully get published in a peer reviewed journal and become one of those "articles" that you offered to send me. now, im not saying this to brag or put you down at all, but so that you will understand that i am not operating from a position of no knowledge of physiology or science. the problem with using studies and science in a discussion like this is that its all open to interpretation, there are problems with any study, and any arguement about methods usually turns into an article about whether or not a study was valid... so nothing gets solved.



Bobo said [You seem to value experience yet discount mine (at least it seems this way).]

reply... i dont think i have done that. what i think i did was state a few of my opinions, or rather my agreement with anothers opinions... and prefaced the whole thing with an emphasis that it was in fact just my opinion. im well aware of the vast amount of ways there are to train with weights, and the vast amount of ways in which people have made progress. the simple fact is that my experience has led me to believe that a certain way is best for most people. this is my opinion, however, anyone who knows me knows that i always tell people to do what works. if someone were to tell me they were doing one set of leg extensions and one set of leg curls to failure every 14 days and their legs were growing like crazy, and that that was in fact their goal, for the legs to get bigger (and not neccessarily to get stronger) then i would say, stick to it till it stops working. anything that works is good. i just have a pretty strong opinion on what is most likely to work, as you seem to. i think that either of us can safely state their own opinion without discounting anothers opinion.


Bobo said [I could easily pack on more lbs doing ALL compund exercises because you would increasing core size much more than most bodybuilder want. The people I trian don't WANT a thick waist and aren't really concerned about strenght. The want strict LBM that give them better proportion. Its not quantity, but quality. I HAVE to look at things from a more specific vantage point than you do.]

reply... i think this is the heart of the matter. i guess we basically agree that you can get bigger, faster, with compound exercises, assuming i read your reply correctly. i know many 700 or 800 squatters, and a couple of 900-1000 squatters, and ive never really seen anyone who got a waist that was so packed with muscle as to be aesthetically unpleasing. yeah, there are some fat powerlifters, but fat has nothing to do with abs or with whether you train the squat or leg extension. i also know a lot of weightlifters, who squat 3 or 4 days a week, and have never seen one who has so much abdominal muscle that it would be considered unpleasing to the eye. most bodybuilders i have seen have quite a bit of ab muscle. in fact, just like the biceps or lats, they have more hypertrophy of the abs than most strength athletes.

if you have honest to god discovered a way to build abdominal muscle so quickly and easily as to become displeasing to the eye, i would like very badly to know about it!

1. Glenn I have read your bio and that is why I asked for the clarification. I, like you, have studied this in a formal setting both at the undergrad and grad level. So if you want to get into this in a more detailed level we most certainly can. Please don't presume my education is acquired from the message board I own. You can certainly ask Author as well. If you have scientific evidence to go along with your quotes then please do so. If you want those papers that were published in the JOP then I will get them sent to you.

2. I was talking more to Matt than you.

3. Glen, that has to do more with the use of growth factors and enlarging of the intestinal track that actual ab muscle. The fact of the matter is that the majority of powerlifters develop more in and around the core BECAUSE of their routine. Once again its quality, not quantitiy. Where did I ever say I could build abdominal muscle faster? I said the result of extensive core work is a larger midsection resulting is more overall growth than someone not incorportain extensive core routines. Bodybuilder in general don't want 36+ inch waist. Asthetically pleasing is one thing. Winning competitions is another. I tihnk for someone to have "rules" about trianing that encompass bodybuilders they should have at least trained them.

[CDB]

Bottom line is any routine that's not completely half assed is going to work to some extent. Plus you guys have two very different goals when it comes to training people, as Bobo expressed. And you've both got experience on all levels to back yourselves up, including studies I'm sure.

So to hell with this. Let's arm wrestle!

[glennpendlay]

1. i think maybe everyone is taking offense when none is intended. for example, i certainly was NOT trying to imply that you got your knowledge reading this board. what i was saying was that when i say i have "studied" something, i mean a certain thing. no offense intended.

2. see above, apparently same thing applies!

3. i am familiar with the "growth factors" and how they affect the stomach. my point was that in training and knowing a lot of strong people, i havnt ran into anyone ever who had their stomach hypertrophy from squats and deadlifts so much that it would be a detriment to their "symmetry". my comment about your ability to build ab muscle was a little tongue in cheek because you had commented on those types of exercises bulking up the waist. i wont argue that squats build the abs, i agree wholeheartedly with that, i just dont see them doing it to a degree that would be disagreeable to most people.

look, let me be totally honest with you, i am NOT a bodybuilder, nor do i train bodybuilders, or wish to. HOWEVER, it is my belief that the vast majority of people who train with weights (at least the men) wish to become stronger and/or have bigger muscles, that most of these people will never compete in bodybuilding, and that most of these people would reach their goals quicker, or get closer to their goals if they worry mostly about building muscle and less about "shape and symmetry". show me a 150lb teenager who is more concerned about using concentration curls to get a better "peak" on his bicep than he is worried about increasing the weight on the bar during squats and bench presses and i will wager that this is a guy who is not likely to ever weigh 200 muscular pounds and be happy with his progress.

it is easy, very very easy, to disagree with anything anyone ever says, by thinking of one particular situation that is the exception to the rule, or pointing to one study that disagrees. the fact is, i think matts "rules" apply pretty well to the average guy who wants to get bigger and stronger. do they apply to the elite in any sport? the competitive bodybuilder who is pumped full of "growth factors"? no, maybe not. do they apply to national level olympic weightlifters? no, they train with way more frequency than he, or i for that matter, would ever recomend for the average gym rat.

this shouldnt be an argument. i doubt we disagree as much as it would appear. its always easy and tempting to speak in absolutes even when your not really thinking in absolutes, i guess i for one just assume that everyone knows that a certain thing isnt ideal for EVERYONE.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Originally Posted by glennpendlay

1. i think maybe everyone is taking offense when none is intended. for example, i certainly was NOT trying to imply that you got your knowledge reading this board. what i was saying was that when i say i have "studied" something, i mean a certain thing. no offense intended.

2. see above, apparently same thing applies!

3. i am familiar with the "growth factors" and how they affect the stomach. my point was that in training and knowing a lot of strong people, i havnt ran into anyone ever who had their stomach hypertrophy from squats and deadlifts so much that it would be a detriment to their "symmetry". my comment about your ability to build ab muscle was a little tongue in cheek because you had commented on those types of exercises bulking up the waist. i wont argue that squats build the abs, i agree wholeheartedly with that, i just dont see them doing it to a degree that would be disagreeable to most people.

look, let me be totally honest with you, i am NOT a bodybuilder, nor do i train bodybuilders, or wish to. HOWEVER, it is my belief that the vast majority of people who train with weights (at least the men) wish to become stronger and/or have bigger muscles, that most of these people will never compete in bodybuilding, and that most of these people would reach their goals quicker, or get closer to their goals if they worry mostly about building muscle and less about "shape and symmetry". show me a 150lb teenager who is more concerned about using concentration curls to get a better "peak" on his bicep than he is worried about increasing the weight on the bar during squats and bench presses and i will wager that this is a guy who is not likely to ever weigh 200 muscular pounds and be happy with his progress.

it is easy, very very easy, to disagree with anything anyone ever says, by thinking of one particular situation that is the exception to the rule, or pointing to one study that disagrees. the fact is, i think matts "rules" apply pretty well to the average guy who wants to get bigger and stronger. do they apply to the elite in any sport? the competitive bodybuilder who is pumped full of "growth factors"? no, maybe not. do they apply to national level olympic weightlifters? no, they train with way more frequency than he, or i for that matter, would ever recomend for the average gym rat.

this shouldnt be an argument. i doubt we disagree as much as it would appear. its always easy and tempting to speak in absolutes even when your not really thinking in absolutes, i guess i for one just assume that everyone knows that a certain thing isnt ideal for EVERYONE.

1. Glen this is the reason why I was wanting a further explanation because I was familiar with your backround. It was not to imply you could not explain your methods in a scientific manner. Not at all.

2. Well its the difference between someone who is an amatuer or a professional. 1-2 inches can mean a world of difference when it comes to proportion and judging on stage. You could be one those blessed with a 29 inch waist (Pete Fox you are evil) and adding 2-3 inches over the years can make a large difference in overall asthetics. The point being that someone who trains for 10+ years concentrating on compunds exercises will most likekly have more "girth" in their midseciton compareds the the person who does not train this way. It won't be grossly dissproportionate but it certainly can be noteable. I seen this with many PL'ers. They simply don't care about it because asthetics has nothing to do with performance.

3. I agree when you are talking about 150lb teenagers but I am not talking about them. I agree they shouldn't be concentrating on their "peak" but rather overall size. This is why I incorporate many methods to achieve multiple goals. Bodybuilding is a sport that doens't have one goal. It has many.


4. I agree with the overall assessment but I still do disagree with some of the points simply because you are coming at it from a PL'er perspective, which is fine. We could pick at each other all night but some of the points simply are not true from what I have seen with bodybuilders. I wouldn't expect him to know these things because he doesn't live in that particular, sometimes distorted world.


The whole problem as I see it stems from the fact that a PL'er and strenght and conditioning coach is making generalized statements for bodybuilders. You would have the same hesitation if I would to come to your clients and state rules basing everything from a bodybuilding perspective. They simply are two different goals that incorporate two different training methods. Exercise and Sport Nutrition almost never has 100% guaranteed rules that apply for everyone. If it was that easy, I wouldn't have a company to run and your wouldn't have a job.

[exnihilo]

Matt and G