What does HIT give that Non HIT doesn't?

[Manwhore]

Just want to know what everyone thinks training to failure does for the body that not training to failure doesn't....

 

[CROWLER]

IMO opinion different things work for different people.

If you don't believe in a particular workout don't try it. Or you can just try it for a month and see if it works for you.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I think a common mistake many people make is they think there is only one way to train. Often time when trying various routines a person will experience a growth/ strength spurt and make the mistake of thinking that they found the holy grail of weight lifting. The reality is that success will not last on any routine. That being said that HIT never worked very well for me. IMO it is best suited for a post cycle routine when your endocrine system is out of whack or after doing a extreme high volume routine and are in an over trained state. Followers of a HITtraining protocol are almost like a cult. They will have you believe that if you do more than one set you will be over training, when the reality is over training is a physiologic state that takes some time to get to.

 

[Psoas10]

HIT training just burns the nervous system. Also why would you want teach body to fail.

 

[Manwhore]

HIT training just burns the nervous system. Also why would you want teach body to fail.

Sorry,i didn't understand that last comment.

 

[ZackMurphy]

Sorry,i didn't understand that last comment.

I think he means "why would you want to show your CNS exactly where failure is, thereby putting yourself in a position where a CNS rut is more likely".

This is a common criticism of HIT - a criticism of failure training. I'm not a HIT expert and have never done it, but methinks you would have to carefully periodize weight increases with HIT to negate this issue.

 

[ironviking]

Yes with HIT you rarely do the exact same thing twice. You incorporate static holds, preexhaust techniques, maybe a forced rep to break a plateau, or incorporate super slow tempo reps. The exercises may stay the same but the techniques should change from time to time. HIT is mistakenly thought of as do one set to failure and go home, although you may do that from time to time on an HIT routine it is rare.

HIT has proven itself many times but, as said before, everyone is different.

 

[glenihan]

HIT works for most as most people don't have the best genetics for gaining lbm ... HIT works for everyone but is great for those who take longer to recover (which is the vast majority of people) that said i prefer my own variant of max-ot which is similiar to HIT but still a little different

i hate high reps low weight, for me and i truly believe for almost anyone if you wanna really get big, you have to get strong, and the best way to get strong is to LIFT HEAVY FUCKING WEIGHTS

 

[Manwhore]

Well,i can honestly say HIT was responsible for the best strength increases i have ever experienced.... Everyone who knows HIT should know that it doesn't always mean 1 set per exercise taken to failure,but all HIT is brief infrequent and intense.... Some also say that HIT will lead to nervous system failure and those same people say 1 set isn't enough for strength increases. I don't exactly know what they are trying to say because it's the nervous system that causes strength increases,if 1 set wasn't enough but that 1 set is causing nervous system failure than how can you possibly do anymore? Also,everyone who knows HIT knows that it should be used INFREQUENTLY,and that alone would stop any type of overtraining. It's definitaly not for everyone,but for those who can work through the pain,i think it's worth it

 

[Bean]

HIT works pretty well... but then again, so does volume training, GVT, HST, Max-OT, DC-style, etc, etc, etc... a body can get used to HIT and the same for any other type of training... we are very adaptable creatures...

there is no be-all end-all for training methods... the sooner a person gets this simple fact into his/her skull, the sooner they can make more and better gains...

 

[VanillaGorilla]

HIT works for everyone but is great for those who take longer to recover

It didn't work at all for me

 

[Manwhore]

It didn't work at all for me

Alot of people may have had that problem,which is why there are now so many types of HIT. Dorian took it to 2 sets per exercise,DC switched it up,and so many others have changed it to their liking

 

[Manwhore]

we are very adaptable creatures

Which is why taking each set to failure works so well. You know you've done all you can possibly do to stimulate growth. If your making progress with each training session while taking each set to failure,how can your body adapt. It can't adapt to stress it hasn't already felt.

 

[judge-mental]

injuries and fatigue? and grinding your teeth?

 

[rajscorps]

HIT worked well for me. I bought Mike Mentzer's HIT book and followed the suggested routine. From my experience its best to switch the methods of training every once in a while. I switch to high volume (no failure) for 3 months after my HIT routine. I am also quite fond of the 20 rep squat routine, which I use during winters. The Max-OT style is quite popular too.

Bodybuilding is a lifetime endeavour and there is no method that will guarantee results forever. I think it takes at least 52 weeks of complete study for a person to estimate which methods are best suited to his body type. He needs to cycle the various (at least 2) training protocols for a year or so. These results can then be used for a lifetime. One other weak area for most guys is that they tend to switch training protocols far too often without actually giving the protocol enough time. This has happened to all of us at some point or the other (workout of the month - magazines). If you're trying HIT give it at least 3 months. Perhaps then you can decide if you never want to incorporate it again. The same goes for any other training method.

 

[exnihilo]

Going to failure on heavy core lifts has VERY limited value IMO. It does provide some adaptive stress that is not induced by stopping short of failure, but that adaptive stress is neurological in nature (the last motor units to fatigue are RED fibers, not white, and these demonstrate little capacity for hypertrophy) and training EVERY set to failure in all exercises is asking for it.

If you're going to train to failure, your best bet is to track time rather than reps, and train with weights that allow you a minute or more of time under tension with minimal rest between reps. This will provide improve endurance, provide a minor hypertrophy stimulus, and may contribute to the efficiency of the nervous system by a different mechanism than lifting heavy loads.

 

[Bean]

Which is why taking each set to failure works so well. You know you've done all you can possibly do to stimulate growth. If your making progress with each training session while taking each set to failure,how can your body adapt. It can't adapt to stress it hasn't already felt.

umm your nervous system CAN adapt to that sort of training to lie to your brain THINKING you've given all you've got when you really havent... PLUS your muscles can also develop much more endurance therefore needing MORE sets to reach that state... load, frequency, intensity, and volume are all seperate variables; tweak one and you have to tweak another, but one by itself does not a exercise plan make...

trust me.. hit is just another type of training; it can be changed and evolved many different ways as expressed above in DC's style, and basic style, etc...

 

[raisingthebar]

actually HIT reduces wear on the CNS, reduces the chance on injury, cuts the risk of elevated cotisol levels and boosts GH levels.

for athletes it allows them to spend LESS time in the weight room and MORE time praticing their particualr sport.

 

[exnihilo]

HIT RAISES wear on the CNS my friend, failure is extremely stressful - why do you think that HITheads need to take a week off between workouts? As for reducing injury, anecdotally, dorian yates was injured very frequently given his training protocol, and the breakdown in form that occurs near failure is the prime time for injuries to occur, especially when working with heavy weights.

Light weights for high reps (15-20) raises GH but so what? This accomplishes nothing. As for cortisol, just eat - insulin solves that problem. And honestly I'm not even sure that cortisol levels post workout are lower after a HIT style workout than a normal workout - studies I have read show that given the type of workout the researchers had the subjects performing, cortisol levels became elevated after an hour or some such - but I don't recall any of those studies comparing different exercise protocols.

 

[rajscorps]

We could argue about this till the end of time. HIT and high volume both have their advantages. One cannot rely completely on any one method and expect results thruout.

Dorian was perhaps the only high intensity trainer who tore himself apart. The number of bodybuilders who've injured themselves due to high volume training are countless. The list includes yours truly. According to Mentzer, HIT is less stressful on the CNS since the bodybuilder is only managing 3 working sets for any given bodypart, on any given workout day. He also allows ample time for recovery. Mentzer has emphasized on the need to recover the CNS prior to hitting weights again. He hasn't at all ignored that. His protocol recommends working a bodypart no more than once every 10 days. 1 or 2 sets to failure stress the CNS, but allowing for sufficient recovery puts things back on track. The high volume method recommends hitting a bodypart once every week with multiple sets and exercises. This could lead to overtraining even though it may not tax the CNS to breakdown point. Muscle fatigue should also be accounted for. One can easily defeat this flaw by tweaking the program (reducing no. of sets, decreasing intensity, increasing the no. of rest days).

From what I've studied, all popular programs recommend going to positive failure on the last rep (HIT, Max-OT, 20 rep squats). Forced reps have been suggested, but only for the elite. IMO forced reps are the culprits to overtraining and injury, not working out to failure on the final rep. Even programs like HIT or 20 rep squats need to be rotated to avoid going into a plateau.

The bottomline: adequate rest is quintessential to any program, HIT or non-HIT.

 

[exnihilo]

I just don't like how religious HIT guys are, that's all

Training to failure provides some stimulus for neural adaptation (so it will potentially make you stronger) which may have long term benefits. However, training to failure on heavy lifts invites injury, and training to failure on core lifts (esp. for a powerlifter) will tend to introduce form issues towards the end of the set which can be incorporated into your every day form in a worst case scenario. Also, the soviets found that training to failure in lifts would tend to cause a lifter to fail early in the lift, as some sort of psychological mechanism, though there isn't solid research to back this up. Failure isn't required. Mentzer was wrong about this, HIT guys are wrong about this, and this is probably my biggest issue with them. A little bit of failure on light assistance exercises is a good thing, given moderation.

Rest is also important, but it's the fanatical belief in taking every set to failure and beyond that neccesitates 7-10 days of rest between workouts. I agree with the HIT mantras of low volume and adequate recovery, but if you aren't trying to kill yourself under the weights adequate recovery is from 3 to 5 days for EVERYONE. The Mentzer'esque idea of low volume is a bit too low as well - Yates had this about right, 3-4 exercises for a given area, with 1-2 sets for each, for a total of about 6-8 sets at most.

If you want to see a program that is both scientific and based on massive volumes of anecdotal evidence, check out Westside Barbell. Louis simmons and chuck vogelpohl took a friend of chuck's from off the street to a 600 bench in just over three years. I think he's lifting in the 275 class too which means the guy has some size.

 

[skoal]

I think people are correct, to a point, when they say their is less chance to get injuried from HIT. But that's simply because there are fewer repititions being done. But there's a difference between oppurtunity and probablity. As exnihilo has pointed out, using too heavy a weight can lead to bad form, which will usually result in injury. You simply have to make sure you use good form, especially on the heavy lifts.

I'm a fan of HIT because of it's scientific approach but use a modified version. I'll do about 7 sets for a body part, low reps, heavy weight. Some might call this MAX-OT but my brother and I were playing around with this back in the early 90's before it had a name. So I'll do say 2 sets of an exercise, the both sets to failure. If I get 8 or more reps on the first set, I up the weight for the next set. If I don't get 8, I'll start my next workout with that weight.

I think part of the reason the West Side style works so well is that they work different things at different times. West Side still says to use heavy weights, but not all the time. And they also work on developing speed. Their approach reminds me a lot of the way lifting cycles used to be. The earlier part of the cycle was spent working on form and assistance exercises. Not every workout required you to go heavy and to failure all the time.

 

[Bean]

I just don't like how religious HIT guys are, that's all

more like fanatical

"HIT is the only way 99% of people can gain muscle mass, i dont care what worked for you; you have good genetics", etc, etc, etc

sound familiar? HIT didnt work for me, neither did just volume... mixing it up worked for me... i'm mixing up my volume training right now by dropping the reps down to 5-6

i dont make excuses for my genetics either anymore... i've got what i was born with and i'll bust my ass to work hard with what i've got...

 

[rajscorps]

WSB is for power lifters and strongmen. I doubt budding bodybuilders and those concerned primarily with size and definition, and not strength, show sweeping interest in WSB regimes. Most power lifters have a lack of definition, which is why WSB is not extremely popular with bodybuilders.

Both HIT and non-HIT users are equally fanatic about their respective training protocols. Volume training uses too will have you believe that their set of rules is the holy grail. Likewise HST/Max-OT/WSB/20-rep-squat users will all fervidly argue that their regime is most excellent.

I believe mixing the routines together over a period of time produces good results. Sometimes you may train to failure, and other times you need not. The body adapts easily and it takes time to identify what cycles/protocols may be best for your body.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

.....
If you want to see a program that is both scientific and based on massive volumes of anecdotal evidence, check out Westside Barbell. Louis simmons and chuck vogelpohl took a friend of chuck's from off the street to a 600 bench in just over three years. I think he's lifting in the 275 class too which means the guy has some size.....

And, to those who think WSB is too PL aimed (which it is, but will still give size) DoggCrapp is like PL for bodybuilders. I've not used it, yet, but most people are happy with his training when they've done it correctly (under he or one of his approved DC trainers).

I just wonder what dante looks like NOW. I've seen pics of him over at avant that are a little old, but I don't know if he'd want them posted

edit: Oh, and that "lack of definition" is a bodyfat issue. Cardio will fix that, not some high volume routine or something fancy. lol.

 

[rajscorps]

And, to those who think WSB is too PL aimed (which it is, but will still give size) DoggCrapp is like PL for bodybuilders. I've not used it, yet, but most people are happy with his training when they've done it correctly (under he or one of his approved DC trainers).

I just vonder what dante looks like NOW. I've seen pics of him over at avant that are a little old, but I don't know if he'd want them posted

edit: Oh, and that "lack of definition" is a bodyfat issue. Cardio will fix that, not some high volume routine or something fancy. lol.

Cardio is not essential. The diet would be the primary cog in reducing bodyfat. You can get big and preserve definition without cardio. The same applies to people looking to get rid of bodyfat. 80% of losing fat is about the diet. Tom Venuto’s amplified this in “Burn the fat, feed the muscle�. Weight training coupled with a sound diet and cardio would obviously work best. For bodybuilders cardio is the least “necessary� element. The bodybuilder can do without cardio, but can’t without diet or weight lifting. PLs are not generally bodybuilders, so they don’t excite us anyway. WSB or otherwise. BTW, any “strength training program� will induce size. Even with that WSB isn’t admired in bodybuilding circles. WSB is exclusively for strength, not for size/hypertrophy.

As for DoggCrapp/DC, Bryan Haycock (of HST fame) had some rather interesting comments.

“DC's suggestions betray his strength training background. Methods based on fatigue/exhaustion (training to failure and rest/pause stuff) are really methods of increasing strength.

So in essence, he is shifting the emphasis towards strength gains. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that if that is your goal. All you have to do is induce more fatigue, and train less frequently.

Using a variety of exercise won't protect your tendons from injury. Using the same exercises doesn't increase your risk of injury either. Otherwise all Olympic lifters would be injured all the time. The variety thing is more an influence of BB magazines. Although, if boredom is an issue, switch things up all your want, just make sure that the muscle is experiencing the same relative tension and demands across different exercises.

DC (I don't know him personally) is only one of many variations of HST that you will see in the near future. Especially from more experienced lifters. Why? Because HST is true (so to speak). It isn't based on "tradition", a "style", "Russian secrets", or even an "opinion". HST is based on the way muscles actually grow in response to training. As a result, there will be a gradual yet natural shift of bodybuilding training styles towards HST.�

HST seems to be the most logical study around for bodybuilders. Bryan has sidelined DoggCrapp’s methods as well as HIT methods. The principle of HIT is to induce size gains, not strength gains. So WSB/Korte’s 3x3 and others strength training programs have little place in any bodybuilding program. For bodybuilders (or at least sticking with the topic in question), WSB is of little or no use. Also, do a search in MFW for DoggCrapp. You may not find more than 5 results, archives included. The popularity is crushing.

As for training protocols, EVERYTHING is fancy (AC, BC or DC). It just seems to us that what we do isn’t fancy, but what others do certainly is. Truly a folly of the human nature. LOL.

 

[Stroyer]

HIT

Well in a nutshell simply put, for me = RESULTS.

Stroy

Just want to know what everyone thinks training to failure does for the body that not training to failure doesn't....

 

[Manwhore]

Cardio is not essential. The diet would be the primary cog in reducing bodyfat. You can get big and preserve definition without cardio. The same applies to people looking to get rid of bodyfat. 80% of losing fat is about the diet. Tom Venuto’s amplified this in “Burn the fat, feed the muscle�. Weight training coupled with a sound diet and cardio would obviously work best. For bodybuilders cardio is the least “necessary� element.

tell that to the Pros Alot of people think it's better to cut calories with cardio than to cut calories through diet and chance slowing the metabolism. Lee Priest cheats during his cutting phase and uses cardio to make up for it.

 

[Manwhore]

Well in a nutshell simply put, for me = RESULTS.

Stroy

What type of results are we talking about and how long have you been on the HIT program?

 

[exnihilo]

WSB is for power lifters and strongmen. I doubt budding bodybuilders and those concerned primarily with size and definition, and not strength, show sweeping interest in WSB regimes. Most power lifters have a lack of definition, which is why WSB is not extremely popular with bodybuilders.

Both HIT and non-HIT users are equally fanatic about their respective training protocols. Volume training uses too will have you believe that their set of rules is the holy grail. Likewise HST/Max-OT/WSB/20-rep-squat users will all fervidly argue that their regime is most excellent.

I believe mixing the routines together over a period of time produces good results. Sometimes you may train to failure, and other times you need not. The body adapts easily and it takes time to identify what cycles/protocols may be best for your body.

The main failing of a good PL routine for a bodybuilder is that PL routines don't tend to encourage symmetry. You will put on just as much size training with WSB as anything else out there and be MUCH stronger. The reality of bodybuilding is pretty much that how you look = how you eat, as your eating determines how fat and how big you get, as long as you aren't training incorrectly. Research has shown however, that progressive increases in bar tension are required for continual growth (which is why HST has a detraining phase), so your options are either to continually get stronger, or do as HST does and take time off every once in a while, if you want to keep getting bigger.

 

[LCSULLA]

WSB is for power lifters and strongmen. I doubt budding bodybuilders and those concerned primarily with size and definition, and not strength, show sweeping interest in WSB regimes. Most power lifters have a lack of definition, which is why WSB is not extremely popular with bodybuilders.

Both HIT and non-HIT users are equally fanatic about their respective training protocols. Volume training uses too will have you believe that their set of rules is the holy grail. Likewise HST/Max-OT/WSB/20-rep-squat users will all fervidly argue that their regime is most excellent.

I believe mixing the routines together over a period of time produces good results. Sometimes you may train to failure, and other times you need not. The body adapts easily and it takes time to identify what cycles/protocols may be best for your body.

I disagree with the first statment. I don't think most traniees should concern themselves with "sculpting". They need to get bigger period. And second most PL's don't concern themselves with diet. But there are a few that do and they are much more denser then most BBer. And definition is a byproduct of diet and cardio-not your lifting routine

 

[Manwhore]

When you say DIET do you mean cutting bulking or just EATING in general? When you say MOST PLers do you mean most YOU know most PROS or just most all around? I think alot of PLers(not the fat ones)watch what they eat to some degree and i agree that alot of BBers just need to worry about size in general.

 

[rajscorps]

The main failing of a good PL routine for a bodybuilder is that PL routines don't tend to encourage symmetry. You will put on just as much size training with WSB as anything else out there and be MUCH stronger. The reality of bodybuilding is pretty much that how you look = how you eat, as your eating determines how fat and how big you get, as long as you aren't training incorrectly. Research has shown however, that progressive increases in bar tension are required for continual growth (which is why HST has a detraining phase), so your options are either to continually get stronger, or do as HST does and take time off every once in a while, if you want to keep getting bigger.

BB and PL programs are different for several reasons, not just for hypertrophy and definition.

The main failing of a good PL routine is that it is solely designed for “Strength Training purposes� and NOT for Hypertrophy. Excellent symmetry can be still developed in a power lifter. Sure PL will make you much stronger, but BBs prefer size over strength. The purpose of a BB program is to first get you big, without getting too strong (as quoted in HST). Both are excellent methods, but with notably different objectives. Equally important is that a PL routine is not concerned with exercises for upper back, calves, biceps, neck, abs, forearms, etc. This makes it incomplete for bodybuilding purposes. Further, mixing PL with BB has not been recommended in any popular BB program (20 rep squats/ MAX-OT/HST/HIT).

As Bryan Haycock puts it; “there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (strength training) if that is your goal. All you have to do is induce more fatigue, and train less frequently�.

You will note here both inducing fatigue and frequency of training are radically different in PL and BB programs.

PL = more fatigue + less frequency = strength training
BB = less fatigue + more frequency = hypertrophy (HST)

Different goals = different programs. This is important because no single program is optimal for all goals. WSB and a routine BB program have clear cut objectives. It’d be disputable to mix the two. Quoting from MFW; “BB and PL routines have different goals for two entirely different populations of exercisers. There is nothing similar in terms of intensity, progression, etc. with the exception of the fact that they both train 3 times a week and both add weight over time (the latter of which most if not all training protocols use).�

The idea for both is long term progress, one that is (obviously) recurrent. And that is why SD (Strategic deconditioning) or periodization comes into place. It has nothing to do with BB or PL. Any physically intensive activity (sports/BB/PL) would require a deconditioning phase.

And as I mentioned earlier any PL program will bring about size. However, much faster muscle gains will come from a BB program. PLs are involved in explosive lifts (explosiveness/acceleration) with insignificant focus on muscular contraction and more on technique of the explosive lift; whereas a BB would focus on muscular contraction and controlling the weight so as to encourage hypertrophy.

This is merely the tip of the iceberg. Much has been written about the considerable differences in PL and BB in both MFW and HST. And the conclusion is that BB programs should not include power lifts on a regular basis. Researching on MFW would corroborate this. Advanced bodybuilders do include them, but it’d be futile for a novice or intermediate BB since he is concerned with size.

One must also remember PLs are normally categorized into weight classes. This is significant because they don’t want to put on too much size so as to retain their desirable weight category. The lower the weight category for a PL, the better his chances at winning. Hence hypertrophy is the last thing on their mind.

 

[rajscorps]

I disagree with the first statment. I don't think most traniees should concern themselves with "sculpting". They need to get bigger period.

Where did you hear/read that? Nearly all BB trainees want a sculpted and big physique. It's not popular among BBs to simply grow big without achieving a fairly sculpted look. If that would have been true then most (if not all) would be plump. That is why they all have a bulking and a cutting phase, so as to get the sculpted look. This holds true not just for pros but also for intermediates and many on this very forum.

Of course it may be your personal opinion to not have a sculpted physique, or size may precede definition forever. But the general consensus among BBs remains that size with definition is what appeals most. Looking at the picture section on any BB forum will tell you this.

And second most PL's don't concern themselves with diet. But there are a few that do and they are much more denser then most BBer. And definition is a byproduct of diet and cardio-not your lifting routine

PLs are rather particular about their diet. They KNOW what goes into their bodies and what makes them strong. Further, they also manage their diets so as to retain their weight categories. To say they don’t care about their diets is simply false. Also, your lifting routine is paramount in achieving definition. Definition is a result of mostly diet + hypertrophy. Without hypertrophy definition is a lost cause; whether you’re shedding weight or gaining weight. That is why weightlifting is highly recommended even for fat loss. The body’s metabolism skyrockets if muscle mass is added and the "soft" look also disappears. Cardio is good, but not obligatory. Most programs catering to hypertrophy do not recommend cardio (moderate cardio at best). Even Pros take up cardio mainly during competition season.

And take a look at marathon runners. Their physique is certainly not the model description of definition. They rarely weight train and do a lot of cardio. A sprinters or a gymnasts body would be the ideal prototype here. Both (sprinters and gymnasts) engage in weight lifting and cardio. Current 200m Olympic record holder Shawn Crawford bench presses over 350 pounds. He’s got awesome definition with size. Weight lifting hence should pave the way for definition. Tom Venuto's BFFM is a must read to understand weight lifting benefits for fat loss and definition.

 

[LCSULLA]

Where did you hear/read that? Nearly all BB trainees want a sculpted and big physique. It's not popular among BBs to simply grow big without achieving a fairly sculpted look. If that would have been true then most (if not all) would be plump. That is why they all have a bulking and a cutting phase, so as to get the sculpted look. This holds true not just for pros but also for intermediates and many on this very forum.

Of course it may be your personal opinion to not have a sculpted physique, or size may precede definition forever. But the general consensus among BBs remains that size with definition is what appeals most. Looking at the picture section on any BB forum will tell you this.



PLs are rather particular about their diet. They KNOW what goes into their bodies and what makes them strong. Further, they also manage their diets so as to retain their weight categories. To say they don’t care about their diets is simply false. Also, your lifting routine is paramount in achieving definition. Definition is a result of mostly diet + hypertrophy. Without hypertrophy definition is a lost cause; whether you’re shedding weight or gaining weight. That is why weightlifting is highly recommended even for fat loss. The body’s metabolism skyrockets if muscle mass is added and the "soft" look also disappears. Cardio is good, but not obligatory. Most programs catering to hypertrophy do not recommend cardio (moderate cardio at best). Even Pros take up cardio mainly during competition season.

And take a look at marathon runners. Their physique is certainly not the model description of definition. They rarely weight train and do a lot of cardio. A sprinters or a gymnasts body would be the ideal prototype here. Both (sprinters and gymnasts) engage in weight lifting and cardio. Current 200m Olympic record holder Shawn Crawford bench presses over 350 pounds. He’s got awesome definition with size. Weight lifting hence should pave the way for definition. Tom Venuto's BFFM is a must read to understand weight lifting benefits for fat loss and definition.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. It seems to me hwta you are saying is that if you have the "right type" of lifting routine you can be cut? If that is what you are saying then I believe you are wrong. There a many guys here that lift: high volume. low volume, and etc, who never see their abs. And to see these abs they need to change up their diet and add cardio. I am not denying that you need a solid lifting routine (and I thought that since we were have this discussion on a lifting board that would be a given), but to become lean you need cardio and a solid diet.
As for the sculpted look. How may trainees have you seen cocentrate on pec deck, dumbbell kickbacks and etc, but weigh 165lbs or so. First you should put on size, then you should refine your body. Thats how Arnold did it. He competed in many PL tournys when he was younger.
As for a PLers diet, a prime example is Dave Tate. Dave only until the last 3 years, has become more devote in his diet. I recall him replying to a Q&A about training and someone asked him about diet. He laughed and said that PLer are not BBers. Then he pointed to a World Record holder who he claimed only took in around 150 grams of protein a day. On another board a Senior PLer World Record holder for the most part eats a everyday American diet, just more of it. As I said there are PLers who do a very dialed it diet (Scott Mendleson, for example). But there are many who don't. As for PLing not sculpting someone, take a look at the guy spotting...
Most guys on this board would kill someone to loo like him.

 

[houseman]

HIT training just burns the nervous system. Also why would you want teach body to fail.

By teaching the body to fail you teach it to progress.

The body is amazing of adapting to stress and pressures we place it under.

In order for muscle to grow, they have to FORCED to grow. The only way (as I logically see it) to force muscle to grow is to make them fail by progressively overloading them.

 

[exnihilo]

BB and PL programs are different for several reasons, not just for hypertrophy and definition.

The main failing of a good PL routine is that it is solely designed for “Strength Training purposes� and NOT for Hypertrophy. Excellent symmetry can be still developed in a power lifter. Sure PL will make you much stronger, but BBs prefer size over strength. The purpose of a BB program is to first get you big, without getting too strong (as quoted in HST). Both are excellent methods, but with notably different objectives. Equally important is that a PL routine is not concerned with exercises for upper back, calves, biceps, neck, abs, forearms, etc. This makes it incomplete for bodybuilding purposes. Further, mixing PL with BB has not been recommended in any popular BB program (20 rep squats/ MAX-OT/HST/HIT).

As Bryan Haycock puts it; “there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (strength training) if that is your goal. All you have to do is induce more fatigue, and train less frequently�.

You will note here both inducing fatigue and frequency of training are radically different in PL and BB programs.

PL = more fatigue + less frequency = strength training
BB = less fatigue + more frequency = hypertrophy (HST)

Different goals = different programs. This is important because no single program is optimal for all goals. WSB and a routine BB program have clear cut objectives. It’d be disputable to mix the two. Quoting from MFW; “BB and PL routines have different goals for two entirely different populations of exercisers. There is nothing similar in terms of intensity, progression, etc. with the exception of the fact that they both train 3 times a week and both add weight over time (the latter of which most if not all training protocols use).�

The idea for both is long term progress, one that is (obviously) recurrent. And that is why SD (Strategic deconditioning) or periodization comes into place. It has nothing to do with BB or PL. Any physically intensive activity (sports/BB/PL) would require a deconditioning phase.

And as I mentioned earlier any PL program will bring about size. However, much faster muscle gains will come from a BB program. PLs are involved in explosive lifts (explosiveness/acceleration) with insignificant focus on muscular contraction and more on technique of the explosive lift; whereas a BB would focus on muscular contraction and controlling the weight so as to encourage hypertrophy.

This is merely the tip of the iceberg. Much has been written about the considerable differences in PL and BB in both MFW and HST. And the conclusion is that BB programs should not include power lifts on a regular basis. Researching on MFW would corroborate this. Advanced bodybuilders do include them, but it’d be futile for a novice or intermediate BB since he is concerned with size.

One must also remember PLs are normally categorized into weight classes. This is significant because they don’t want to put on too much size so as to retain their desirable weight category. The lower the weight category for a PL, the better his chances at winning. Hence hypertrophy is the last thing on their mind.

Ok, you reinforced my statement about powerlifting tending to produce asymmetrical physiques. We agree there (though the upper back and traps are well developed by powerlifting routines, and powerlifters have HUGE powerful abs and obliques - you'd know this if you met any good powerlifters and watched them train).

You like to reference brian haycock on hypertrophy, that's fine, but why don't you ask him if the exact mechanims that induce hypertrophy have been elucidated. He will tell you "no" but give you a bunch of studies that show hypertrophy occuring in various different circumstances (hence correlation). If I could find it, I could cite you a nice study that shows that the main difference between bodybuilders who use steroids and bodybuilders that don't (based on muscle biopsies) is that there was significant red fiber hypertrophy in bodybuilders who used steroids, and comparatively little in non-steroid using bodybuilders, and the white fibers were similar in both. So, maybe, just maybe, high volume fatigue training is only likely to induce significant hypertrophy in instances where red muscle fibers have been made more prone to hypertrophy (like when someone is sauced to the gills perhaps?). Add to this my own anecdotal observation (and that of others) that the largest non-steroid using lifters tend to lift in the lower rep ranges with heaver weights (i.e. 4-6 reps) and the fact that the great majority of pro bodybuilders do higher rep high volume workouts and you have a plausible if speculative case for why natural powerlifters tend to be as big or bigger than natural bodybuilders, and the inverse is true powerlifters and bodybuilders on the sauce (well, that and the fact that bodybuilders also have more aggressive drug regimines). A moderate-low volume, low rep, high %1rm routine consisting entirely of compound exercises (ala any powerlifter routine) will produce better gains for about 90% of non-juiced than a higher volume lower %1rm with more isolation exercises, I will put money on that. I think when gear is added to the equation, things change radically and this throws a lot of people off...

As for strategic deconditioning, in PL, we load and deload instead, usually based on personal judgment, with progressively harder loading phases as meets approach (i.e. circa maxima phase).

In reference to the weight classes statement, usually natural powerlifters have a natural weight at which they are strongest against a ratio of their bodyweight. A lifter who is very concerned about his weight will just keep his diet in check before a meet. If a lifter isn't extremely concerned about his weight but wants to hit a particular weight for a certain meet, they might get larger and then not eat/dehydrate/take a laxative/etc before the weigh in, then rehydrate and eat like crazy. After that meet they can just work on getting their weight up so they come in towards the top end of the next weight class in the next meet. There's a lot of different strategies for taking advantage of weight classes, just like in any sport.

Also, when you reference misc.fitness.weights, please state WHO is saying it, as that place is a cesspool and there are only a few posters there (elzi volk is the only one who immediately comes to mind) who would be qualified to make any statements about the science of hypertrophy (I believe she's working on her PhD thesis on that very subject at this very moment). 99% of the people who post there are eloquent morons who parrot things they've read elsewhere which have no scientific basis in fact. I also don't think there's anyone on misc.fitness.weights (that I've ever seen anyhow, I admit there might be a couple) that's really qualified to comment on powerlifting.

If you have any actual studies to back up the stuff I disagree with you on, I'd be happy to take a look at them, I'm always trying to learn.

 

[exnihilo]

Oh, just to chime in on the size and definition argument...

If you worry too much about maintaining definition all the time as a natural (like most people on internet bodybuilding forums) you will probably get the chip'n'dales look at best, maybe a bit larger if you have decent genes for size, and maybe a bit leaner if you have decent genes for leanness. To really get the bodybuilder look, you have to EAT LIKE CRAZY. Not to say you have to get FAT but realistically if you want to make any long term progress you are going to have to accept being smooth most of the time. Also, most naturals are going to burn a good portion of their gains made while bulking to get lean, and you end up with the 2-5lb yearly gains (in a good year) that a lot of naturals in gyms make. Of course, gear changes this scenario entirely, but you already knew that.

So, to sum it all up, if you want to look like a bodybuilder when you've got clothes on, you are probably going to need to accept being smooth with your clothes off. If you want to be cut, you are probably going to have to accept people not being able to tell you work out when you have your shirt on. People with great genes or who are on gear are the exception of course.

 

[Manwhore]

Oh, just to chime in on the size and definition argument...

If you worry too much about maintaining definition all the time as a natural (like most people on internet bodybuilding forums) you will probably get the chip'n'dales look at best, maybe a bit larger if you have decent genes for size, and maybe a bit leaner if you have decent genes for leanness. To really get the bodybuilder look, you have to EAT LIKE CRAZY. Not to say you have to get FAT but realistically if you want to make any long term progress you are going to have to accept being smooth most of the time. Also, most naturals are going to burn a good portion of their gains made while bulking to get lean, and you end up with the 2-5lb yearly gains (in a good year) that a lot of naturals in gyms make. Of course, gear changes this scenario entirely, but you already knew that.

So, to sum it all up, if you want to look like a bodybuilder when you've got clothes on, you are probably going to need to accept being smooth with your clothes off. If you want to be cut, you are probably going to have to accept people not being able to tell you work out when you have your shirt on. People with great genes or who are on gear are the exception of course.

Just don't wear a shirt and stay cut You don't think Chip n dale dancers are big enough to enter natural BBing competitions? The ones i know are. We'll they used to be with chip n dales but now it's Hunkmania. I can get you a ticket if you'd like :run:

 

[LCSULLA]

Just don't wear a shirt and stay cut You don't think Chip n dale dancers are big enough to enter natural BBing competitions? The ones i know are. We'll they used to be with chip n dales but now it's Hunkmania. I can get you a ticket if you'd like :run:

Alot of those guys use gear to achive that body. Theres a thread some where in the the cycle section by a guy who uses gear for modeling ie: Men's Health and etc. Don't get me wrong some are natural, but most I think are not.

 

[exnihilo]

Just don't wear a shirt and stay cut You don't think Chip n dale dancers are big enough to enter natural BBing competitions? The ones i know are. We'll they used to be with chip n dales but now it's Hunkmania. I can get you a ticket if you'd like :run:

Um, just googling, they look like mens health cover guys - that's the sort of guy that you can't tell works out if they have a shirt that's not super tight on *fate worse than death*

When I think bodybuilder I think massive and symmetrical, how lean they are is less of a factor in my mind - leanness can be gained quickly in contest prep. As long as you don't have a gut...

 

[houseman]

Coleman has a big ole gut

 

[Manwhore]

Alot of those guys use gear to achive that body. Theres a thread some where in the the cycle section by a guy who uses gear for modeling ie: Men's Health and etc. Don't get me wrong some are natural, but most I think are not.

O ok well these guys do use gear

 

[Manwhore]

Um, just googling, they look like mens health cover guys - that's the sort of guy that you can't tell works out if they have a shirt that's not super tight on *fate worse than death*

When I think bodybuilder I think massive and symmetrical, how lean they are is less of a factor in my mind - leanness can be gained quickly in contest prep. As long as you don't have a gut...

These guys can enter and probably win a few BBing competitions but they do use gear.... Then again,so does everyone else. When i think BULK,i think PLing. I would rather have a Frank Zane body over Ronnies any day. Not that Frank is a small guy,but there's a big difference between those two.

 

[Manwhore]

Coleman has a big ole gut

That is one of the main problems with todays Pros. it makes them look like cartoon characters

 

[exnihilo]

That is one of the main problems with todays Pros. it makes them look like cartoon characters

I personally think that's a consequence of being on large doses of sauce all the time. It seems likely to me that the comination of insulin and lots of test causes visceral fat accumulation. Lots of pros before Yates hit up the gear hard, Haney was hitting the GH like a madman, but it wasn't until insulin came on the scene that the huge guts started popping up - Right around the time pros started stepping on stage at 260 plus...

 

[rajscorps]

Ok, you reinforced my statement about powerlifting tending to produce asymmetrical physiques. ......... If you have any actual studies to back up the stuff I disagree with you on, I'd be happy to take a look at them, I'm always trying to learn.

I agree they work their traps etc. I was mainly referring to the fact that all PL programs focus on the big three lifts. The purpose is to take the total of the big three as high as possible. I have nothing against WSB. I have read numerous articles on WSB and have a great amount of respect for those who have reached the Elite standard. The thought of touching a total of even 1500 jolts me. All I am saying is that for BB purposes, WSB is not practical. You can become big and strong and sturdy and rugged and elite, but for the “bodybuilders look� a sound BB program is preferred, and for the most part adopted. And it’s not just me; every BB will tell you the same. In fact I don’t know any popular BB (natural or otherwise) who adopts a WSB regime. Likewise no PL would adopt a BB routine. And before I digress, let me also mention WSB participants never focus on hypertrophy. The only purpose is to increase their lift totals. I reiterate; different goals = different programs.

Bryan Haycock is an exercise physiologist. His methods are grounded on provable data about muscle physiology. The reason I want to support Haycock is because there is simply far more science on the side of Haycocks approach than any other program. HST is relatively new, but apparently has worked for numerous BBs. I have looked up WSB and Louie Simmons but have found no study (not a single scientific one) which forms the foundation of a WSB regime. WSB is a method founded 50 years ago. WSB works. I don’t dispute that. However, they have figured the training routines/protocols through trial and error, much like most BB programs in place today. From what I read WSB is being changed even today. HST is 5 odd years old and employs many references from various studies pertaining to nutrition, exercise physiology, strength and hypertrophy. While HST could still be disputed, it is perhaps the only study (in this domain) that uses scientific references. You could look up the HST website to understand muscle hypertrophy function. There are ample studies and references thrown in to clarify the underlying concepts. Also, since you mentioned studies/references, I would be interested to read any studies that form the base for WSB.

Review my previous posts. All thru I’ve maintained no one program can perform miracles. Sometimes high volume and at other times low volume is necessary. The body adapts and hence varying the protocols are a must. HST does this very effectively. The 15/10/5 system seems to be a sound one.

WSB is an excellent method, but it simply doesn’t serve BB purposes. It’ll sure bulk you up and even define you, but it still isn’t an effective BB method. I have looked up and did not find a single BB who has stated using WSB techniques has given him the physique he displays today. Further, no novice or intermediate BB should use WSB. If the person wants to be a PL then by all means yes. But he will surely find more effective methods for attaining a BBs physique. The members in this forum I believe are primarily BB buffs. I don’t see many of them recommending a WSB routine. Most of them may not have even bothered to look it up. This is pretty much the case in all BB forums. They have a separate section altogether for PL.

All related articles I’ve read state low rep training bring fatigue and strain the CNS - which should be the purpose of strength training. Hypertrophy or not is always secondary. If hypertrophy is the objective a BB routine which uses higher reps would be necessary. I’d elaborated on that in the previous post. Just for clarification I quote Bobo’s comments on the same.

“Lower reps don't increase myofibrillar hypertrophy that much. Rep range from 6-10 are more for that stimulus. Low reps heavy weight stimulate CNS more than anything (strenght training). High reps stimulate sarcoplasmi hypertrophy (nutrient capacity).�

The thread is here - http://anabolicminds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22668

I believe we both may be stating personal opinions. That is the reason I want to quote Haycock and MFW (Lyle McDonald to address your query), so as to deviate from making an individual opinion. We could have as many opinions as members (some 10,000 at least) and we could debate till the end of time about which program is best (HIT/HST/WSB/DC or whatever). What works for some, may not work for others. But at the very least we have defined objectives, and for those objectives we have defined programs. So if I wish to be a PL I have a defined regimen (such as WSB/Korte) and if I am a BB enthusiast I have HIT/HST etc. This has been well accepted and many PLs and BBs have used respective programs to grow strong or big. Intertwining the two may not provide the best results, else it’d have been popularised a long time ago. If a method works for a particular purpose, word spreads on its own. Hard selling isn’t required. If BBs (natural and otherwise) thought WSB was suitable most BBs would have been using WSB instead of conventional BB routines.

 

[rajscorps]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. It seems to me hwta you are saying is that if you have the "right type" of lifting routine you can be cut? If that is what you are saying then I believe you are wrong. There a many guys here that lift: high volume. low volume, and etc, who never see their abs. And to see these abs they need to change up their diet and add cardio. I am not denying that you need a solid lifting routine (and I thought that since we were have this discussion on a lifting board that would be a given), but to become lean you need cardio and a solid diet.
As for the sculpted look. How may trainees have you seen cocentrate on pec deck, dumbbell kickbacks and etc, but weigh 165lbs or so. First you should put on size, then you should refine your body. Thats how Arnold did it. He competed in many PL tournys when he was younger.
As for a PLers diet, a prime example is Dave Tate. Dave only until the last 3 years, has become more devote in his diet. I recall him replying to a Q&A about training and someone asked him about diet. He laughed and said that PLer are not BBers. Then he pointed to a World Record holder who he claimed only took in around 150 grams of protein a day. On another board a Senior PLer World Record holder for the most part eats a everyday American diet, just more of it. As I said there are PLers who do a very dialed it diet (Scott Mendleson, for example). But there are many who don't.

These guys never see their abs because either they don’t work them or they don’t diet right. You don’t NEED cardio to become lean. Cardio is important; I don’t differ with you there. But more than cardio a lifting routine in necessary. In fact, the order of preference for a BB would be:

1. BB Routine & Diet
2. Cardio

The BB routine and diet are mandatory for size or definition. Many guys get lean and cut without cardio, but how many muscle guys have you seen just on cardio and a good diet? You’ve said a lifting routine is given. Even then the preference would be diet over cardio. Cardio is the last component and is normally reserved to get rid of the very last/stubborn layer of fat. There are several BBs who get lean and cut without cardio. I use HIIT as a form of cardio, but that’s only two sessions a year. However, diet is given importance to all round the year.

Everyone tries and retains as much definition as possible even while bulking; especially around the hip/waist area. Else cutting becomes an ordeal. Arnold put on size first, but looking at his early pictures will tell you he also maintained enviable definition. Since he wanted to compete he needed size over definition initially. Despite that he was lean enough always.

As for PLing not sculpting someone, take a look at the guy spotting...
Most guys on this board would kill someone to loo like him.

I don’t think that is the physique most people in here want. It’s not sculpted to BB standards. I agree with Manwhore here that bulk is not the craze today. Every one wants to be defined, even if that means less size. Monsters of today (BB and PL) do not have an aesthetic appeal. Take a look at the attached images and compare them all. I don’t know about you, but I think most in here would prefer these bodies over a PLs. After all women and people on the street don’t care how much you bench or lift. That’s only a craze amongst us weight lifters.

 

[LCSULLA]

These guys never see their abs because either they don’t work them or they don’t diet right. You don’t NEED cardio to become lean. Cardio is important; I don’t differ with you there. But more than cardio a lifting routine in necessary. In fact, the order of preference for a BB would be:

1. BB Routine & Diet
2. Cardio

The BB routine and diet are mandatory for size or definition. Many guys get lean and cut without cardio, but how many muscle guys have you seen just on cardio and a good diet? You’ve said a lifting routine is given. Even then the preference would be diet over cardio. Cardio is the last component and is normally reserved to get rid of the very last/stubborn layer of fat. There are several BBs who get lean and cut without cardio. I use HIIT as a form of cardio, but that’s only two sessions a year. However, diet is given importance to all round the year.

Everyone tries and retains as much definition as possible even while bulking; especially around the hip/waist area. Else cutting becomes an ordeal. Arnold put on size first, but looking at his early pictures will tell you he also maintained enviable definition. Since he wanted to compete he needed size over definition initially. Despite that he was lean enough always.



I don’t think that is the physique most people in here want. It’s not sculpted to BB standards. I agree with Manwhore here that bulk is not the craze today. Every one wants to be defined, even if that means less size. Monsters of today (BB and PL) do not have an aesthetic appeal. Take a look at the attached images and compare them all. I don’t know about you, but I think most in here would prefer these bodies over a PLs. After all women and people on the street don’t care how much you bench or lift. That’s only a craze amongst us weight lifters.

All I have to say is look at the cycle forum. Most of the guys that come here want to be bigger, but they wrongly use bbing routines ie "sculpting". And what happens..they get no where. They can't break the 180lb barrier. And you may say all I want is to be cut. Everyone says that, but they always complain about their arms not be big enough or their bench press not being high enough. And those bodies that you point out. Most go on mass gains and use compound exercises and then diet, cardio and sculpting routine to remove all the fat. And do you think these cover models walk around all day looking like that? No they don't because I have meet a few of them. When they are not on a shoot they have a much higher fat percentage and they lift heavy. Again go to the cycle forum and there is a member there who does do modeling for the major mags and he takes gear to achive that look.

 

[exnihilo]

I agree they work their traps etc. I was mainly referring to the fact that all PL programs focus on the big three lifts. The purpose is to take the total of the big three as high as possible. I have nothing against WSB. I have read numerous articles on WSB and have a great amount of respect for those who have reached the Elite standard. The thought of touching a total of even 1500 jolts me. All I am saying is that for BB purposes, WSB is not practical. You can become big and strong and sturdy and rugged and elite, but for the “bodybuilders look� a sound BB program is preferred, and for the most part adopted. And it’s not just me; every BB will tell you the same. In fact I don’t know any popular BB (natural or otherwise) who adopts a WSB regime. Likewise no PL would adopt a BB routine. And before I digress, let me also mention WSB participants never focus on hypertrophy. The only purpose is to increase their lift totals. I reiterate; different goals = different programs.

Bryan Haycock is an exercise physiologist. His methods are grounded on provable data about muscle physiology. The reason I want to support Haycock is because there is simply far more science on the side of Haycocks approach than any other program. HST is relatively new, but apparently has worked for numerous BBs. I have looked up WSB and Louie Simmons but have found no study (not a single scientific one) which forms the foundation of a WSB regime. WSB is a method founded 50 years ago. WSB works. I don’t dispute that. However, they have figured the training routines/protocols through trial and error, much like most BB programs in place today. From what I read WSB is being changed even today. HST is 5 odd years old and employs many references from various studies pertaining to nutrition, exercise physiology, strength and hypertrophy. While HST could still be disputed, it is perhaps the only sttdy (in this domain) that uses scientific references. You could look up the HST website to understand muscle hypertrophy function. There are ample studies and references thrown in to clarify the underlying concepts. Also, since you mentioned studies/references, I would be interested to read any studies that form the base for WSB.

Review my previous posts. All thru I’ve maintained no one program can perform miracles. Sometimes high volume and at other times low volume is necessary. The body adapts and hence varying the protocols are a must. HST does this very effectively. The 15/10/5 system seems to be a sound one.

WSB is an excellent method, but it simply doesn’t serve BB purposes. It’ll sure bulk you up and even define you, but it still isn’t an effective BB method. I have looked up and did not find a single BB who has stated using WSB techniques has given him the physique he displays today. Further, no novice or intermediate BB should use WSB. If the person wants to be a PL then by all means yes. But he will surely find more effective methods for attaining a BBs physique. The members in this forum I believe are primarily BB buffs. I don’t see many of them recommending a WSB routine. Most of them may not have even bothered to look it up. This is pretty much the case in all BB forums. They have a separate section altogether for PL.

All related articles I’ve read state low rep training bring fatigue and strain the CNS - which should be the purpose of strength training. Hypertrophy or not is always secondary. If hypertrophy is the objective a BB routine which uses higher reps would be necessary. I’d elaborated on that in the previous post. Just for clarification I quote Bobo’s comments on the same.

“Lower reps don't increase myofibrillar hypertrophy that much. Rep range from 6-10 are more for that stimulus. Low reps heavy weight stimulate CNS more than anything (strenght training). High reps stimulate sarcoplasmi hypertrophy (nutrient capacity).�

The thread is here - http://anabolicminds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22668

I believe we both may be stating personal opinions. That is the reason I want to quote Haycock and MFW (Lyle McDonald to address your query), so as to deviate from making an individual opinion. We could have as many opinions as members (some 10,000 at least) and we could debate till the end of time about which program is best (HIT/HST/WSB/DC or whatever). What works for some, may not work for others. But at the very least we have defined objectives, and for those objectives we have defined programs. So if I wish to be a PL I have a defined regimen (such as WSB/Korte) and if I am a BB enthusiast I have HIT/HST etc. This has been well accepted and many PLs and BBs have used respective programs to grow strong or big. Intertwining the two may not provide the best results, else it’d have been popularised a long time ago. If a method works for a particular purpose, word spreads on its own. Hard selling isn’t required. If BBs (natural and otherwise) thought WSB was suitable most BBs would have been using WSB instead of conventional BB routines.

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 mubh 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 muscle Not 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.