Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 58

Thread: Aesthetics inspired. Looking for a good bodyweight workout that's better... page 4

  1. #31
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,742
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSchhool View Post
    That's true, I believe that is what the late great Mike Mentzer was known to do.

    I will only do a few reps of an exercise as a warm up, just to ' grease the groove ' so to speak. If you are performing your reps slowly and strictly then there is no real reason to perform multiple warm up sets. If I do a set and manage 8 reps then the first 7 of those were my warm up.
    Doggcrap or Dorian Yates style HIT as well, naming it "HIT" or "Volume" becomes a matter of semantic's! Personally I often train like that as well, pyramiding up to an all-out set, first going to breakdown of form, maybe 8 reps, then 1-2 mini sets with very short pause, and then rest pause singles, and then maybe(if in the mood!), eccentric only to complete failure...

  2. #32
    Bobert's Avatar
    Bobert is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    148
    Lift heavy like 5 sets 5 rep maxes. Reverse pyramid style. Major lifts. All you need it a weight vest, pull up bar and a rope

    Sprint post lift. tabata style...till your lungs burn like hell

    Do some balance/flexibility like yoga, Pilates, gymnatics, etc...to work on the weak points

    Keep your protein high, along with your primal diet.

    Slow move whenever you can, elevated heart rate but not cortisol high

    3 weeks you will see a major difference.

  3. #33
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    I did that volume crap (Franco Columbu's) when I was 20 and got myself conically overtrained. I was working out 6 days per week for up to 2 hours per day on a split routine. Got a chronic low back injury from it and had to quit for a year to year and a half. I had more motivation then sense. When I got back to lifting again Mike Mentzer was writing to muscle and fitness. His workout was working out 40 min 4 days per week on a split routine. When I followed his HIT stuff my bodyweight went up to over 200lbs. Later a gym-owner friend and I did Ellington Darden's High Intensity Bodybuilding routine. It was a full-body routine 3 days per week. The goal was to cut the workout time down and do every set to failure; we got the workout down to 40 min. I gained weight at a rate of about 2lbs per week (202-216lb) over a period of 6 weeks; I'm 5ft 11". My friend gained more. He had been doing a traditional routine. On day one he threw up his lunch. Weight used and sets completed were all documented. When you get 10 reps (20 on squats) you added (IIRC) 5% weight on the next workout. I gained on every lift. IMO Darden's routine was still too much. By the end of 6 - 8 weeks we were overtraining and had to back off. We ended up going back to our own workout. I followed a HIT split routine of 4 days per week.

    Today I might do 2 sets depending on how I feel and since I no longer have a training partner I can't do negatives so I strip the weight off or just lower the weight as slowly (even stopping) on the final rep. The goal with HIT has more to do with totally fatiguing the muscle in less than a couple minutes making sure your using enough weight.

    Just my opinion but I believe guys like Arnold and Franco could get away with their high volume training since they were on steroids and did little else (probably sleep alot, too). I just know that when I did it my weight gain stopped at 185lbs. If I tried to eat more (that's what you were supposed to do) I only put on fat.

    In my late 40's (around 47) I cut back to once a week per bodypart on a 3 days per week split workout. I got to my personal best in the bench press at 365lbs and was wondering why I hadn't been doing that all along. My shoulders joints went to hurting and had to back off that. I have some arthritis in my shoulders (confirmed by a body scan at the Cooper Aerobics Center during a physical at age 50), probably from doing too much chronic lifting during the week over a long period of time/years.

    Today, I'm 56, I weight ~210, my percent of BF is maybe 15% (goal is ~10%) and my workout is full body on Mondays with isolation exercises on Tuesdays. I walk about 4 miler per day which includes 8 Tabata-style sprints on Thursdays. I'll throw in some P90X DVD stretches once, maybe twice per week. I think it's true that a muscle (if worked hard enough) can take 5 to 10 days to recover and grow/adapt. So if I'm giving myself 6 days off of weights I don't see a problem with doing the same bodypart 2 days in a row. I know that when I've taken a month off I didn't loose any muscle or have to go down on the weight I'd been using. From a Primal/Paleo POV I think Grok would be much better served by having stamina over a lot of bulk. That maybe why most women prefer that body build....would likely have given a hunter/fighter better survivability over the MR Olympias you see today.
    Last edited by Scott F; 09-20-2013 at 11:35 AM.
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  4. #34
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    This is all well and good for the average person who doesnt like to spend time in the gym and wants decent gains with minimal time. It doesnt make it the best possible way of training for everything else though, which is my only grudge with HIT fanatics. The fact that no elite level powerlifter, strongman, weightlifter and dare i say, bodybuilder trains that way is proof enough tha HIT is not optimal for high level strength and size.

  5. #35
    Dickson's Avatar
    Dickson is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Lombard, IL
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    From a Primal/Paleo POV I think Grok would be much better served by having stamina over a lot of bulk. That maybe why most women prefer that body build....would likely have given a hunter/fighter better survivability over the MR Olympias you see today.
    This seems to have became a prevailing wisdom, that somehow being like a 5'10 gymnast would be genetically advantageous. I think time and time again, being bigger and stronger is better. Not unnaturally inflatted like a 'roided out bodybuilder, but I think nature would prefer a 6'7 280 defensive end build. Or look at Doug Young, and you can see what an early human would want to look like. You really can't be too strong, and without steroids you really can't get to the point where the extra strength or size becomes a disadvantage. It might not be worth it to be a 350lb powerlifter, but you can't tell me you'd want to have to have to fight him in nature. Especially in the era before weapons, yikes.

  6. #36
    bcbcbc2's Avatar
    bcbcbc2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach View Post
    This is all well and good for the average person who doesnt like to spend time in the gym and wants decent gains with minimal time. It doesnt make it the best possible way of training for everything else though, which is my only grudge with HIT fanatics. The fact that no elite level powerlifter, strongman, weightlifter and dare i say, bodybuilder trains that way is proof enough tha HIT is not optimal for high level strength and size.
    Yep. in the '80s I actually thought time would prove HIT superior but it just didn't happen.
    There is also an equally bone-headed group that maintains HIT is utterly worthless.

  7. #37
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Dickson View Post
    This seems to have became a prevailing wisdom, that somehow being like a 5'10 gymnast would be genetically advantageous. I think time and time again, being bigger and stronger is better. Not unnaturally inflatted like a 'roided out bodybuilder, but I think nature would prefer a 6'7 280 defensive end build.
    Maybe it depends on what "eco-system" or historical epoch you are living in? I may be wrong, but I think that if you want to mate in a modern urban eco-system that most females will prefer a less freakish build though...

  8. #38
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,197
    Quote Originally Posted by bcbcbc2 View Post
    Yep. in the '80s I actually thought time would prove HIT superior but it just didn't happen.
    There is also an equally bone-headed group that maintains HIT is utterly worthless.
    Well, I think the concept of HIT is a better idea than the Nautilus machines ever were.

  9. #39
    bcbcbc2's Avatar
    bcbcbc2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Dickson View Post
    This seems to have became a prevailing wisdom, that somehow being like a 5'10 gymnast would be genetically advantageous. I think time and time again, being bigger and stronger is better. Not unnaturally inflatted like a 'roided out bodybuilder, but I think nature would prefer a 6'7 280 defensive end build. Or look at Doug Young, and you can see what an early human would want to look like. You really can't be too strong, and without steroids you really can't get to the point where the extra strength or size becomes a disadvantage. It might not be worth it to be a 350lb powerlifter, but you can't tell me you'd want to have to have to fight him in nature. Especially in the era before weapons, yikes.
    I strongly disagree.
    Extant pictures of real hunter gatherers show muscular but light builds that SSers would describe as skinny and weak.
    So much of living as a hunter is moving your own bodyweight through space a lot.
    I think if a powerlifter type were magically transported to that lifestyle he would walk and run off the extra mass rapidly.

    Domestic dogs can be bred very muscular with someone to feed them.
    The wild canines are built light to feed themselves.

    There's no such thing as a human era without weapons.

  10. #40
    Dickson's Avatar
    Dickson is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Lombard, IL
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    Maybe it depends on what "eco-system" or historical epoch you are living in? I may be wrong, but I think that if you want to mate in a modern urban eco-system that most females will prefer a less freakish build though...
    I don't know, Wilt Chamberlain claims to have had over 10,000 mates in his lifetime and he fits the specs I mentioned (but bigger)...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •