PDA

View Full Version : 30 Lies About Bodybuilding Part 1



Bendawich
02-19-2003, 07:57 PM
1 -- You can get as big as a pro bodybuilder. without taking steroids; it just takes longer.

Despite what many of the magazines say, all professional bodybuilders use either steroids or steroids in combination with other growth-enhancing drugs. Without manipulating hormones, it just isn't possible to get that degree of muscularity, the paper-thin skin, and the continuing ability to pack on mass, despite sometimes having poor workout habits and relative ignorance of the principles involved that many pro bodybuilders have. Many supplement distributors, in order to sell their products, would have you believe otherwise.

Still, that's no reason to give up. By using state-of-the-art training principles, consuming a nutrient-rich diet, and by getting proper amounts of rest, almost every person can make incredible changes in his or her physique. The competitive bodybuilder circuit may not be in your future, but building the kind of physique that gains you respect is certainly achievable, as are self-respect and robust health.

2 -- In order to get really big, you have to eat a super-high-calorie diet.

Well, that's true; you'll get really big if you eat a super high-calorie diet, but you'll look like the Michelin Man's fraternal twin. However, if you want to get big, lean-tissue wise, then super-high-calorie diets are probably not for you unless you are one of those very few people with metabolicrates so fast you can burn off these calories instead of depositing them as fat. Unfortunately, studies show that, in most people, about 65% of the new tissue gains brought about by high-calorie diets consists of fat! Of the remaining 35%, approximately 15% consists of increased intracellular fluid volume, leaving a very modest percentage attributable to increased lean muscle mass.
According to Dr Scott Connelly (MM2K, Spring 1992, p. 21), only about 20% to 25% of increased muscle growth stems from increased protein synthesis. The rest of the muscle growth is directly attributable to increased proliferation of the satellite cells in the basal lamina of muscle tissue, and dietary energy (calories) is not a key factor in the differentiation of these cells into new myofibres (muscle cells).

Of all factors determining muscle growth, prevention of protein breakdown (anti-catabolism) seems to be the most relevant, but adding adipose [fat] tissue through constant overfeeding can actually increase muscle pro- teolysis (breakdown). Furthermore, additional adipose mass can radically alter hormone balances which are responsible for controlling protein breakdown in muscle. Insulin balance, for one, which partially controls anti-catabolism in the body, is impaired by consistent overfeeding. So much for the eat-big-to-get-big philosophy!

Stay away from the super-high calorie diets unless you're a genetic freak, or you're woefully lean and don't mind putting on fat [or you're using appropriate pharmaceutical supplements].

3 -- If you eat a low-fat diet, it doesn't matter how many calories you take in, you won't gain any fat.

The bottom line is, if you exceed your energy requirements, you'll gradually get fatter and fatter. It's true that eating a diet rich in fat will pack on the pounds quicker for a variety of reasons, the most significant being that a gram of fat has nine calories as opposed to the four calories per gram that carbohydrates and proteins carry. Fat is also metabolized differently in the body. It takes a lesser amount of calories to assimilate the energy in ingested fat than it does to assimilate an equal (weight wise) amount of carbohydrates. Consequently, more fat calories get stored than carbohydrate calories. However, the gross intake of carbohydrates, as facilitated by many of the weight-gain powders, will make you fat very quickly.

4 -- The more you work out, the more you'll grow.

No, no no. This is one of the most damaging myths that ever reared its ugly head. 95% of the pros will tell you that the biggest bodybuilding mistake they ever made was to over-train--and this happened even when they were taking steroids. Imagine how easy it is for the natural athlete to overtrain! When you train your muscles too often for them to heal, the end-result is zero growth and perhaps even losses. Working out every day, if you're truly using the proper amount of intensity, will lead to gross overtraining. A body part, worked properly, ie. worked to complete, total muscular failure that recruited as many muscle fibers as physiologically possible, can take 5-10 days to heal.
To take it a step further, even working a different body part in the next few days might constitute overtraining. If you truly work your quads to absolute fiber-tearing failure, doing another power workout the next day that entails heavy bench-presses or deadlifts is going to, in all probability, inhibit gains. After a serious leg workout, your whole system mobilizes to heal and recover from the blow you've dealt it. How, then, can the body be expected to heal from an equally brutal workout the next day? It can't, at least not without using some drugs to help deal with the catabolic processes going on in your body [and even they're usually not enough .]

Learn to accept rest as a valuable part of your workout. You should probably spend as many days out of the gym as you do in it.

5 -- The longer you work out, the better.

It just isn't necessary to do 20-30 sets for a body part, or even 10 sets like many 'experts' would have you believe. In fact, research has shown that it's possible to completely fatigue a muscle in one set, provided that that set taxes a muscle completely, ie. incorporates as many muscle fibers as possible and takes them to the point of ischemic rigour where, rather than contract and relax, the muscle fibers freeze up, sort of like a microscopic version of rigor mortis. Any further contraction causes microscopic tearing. Hypertrophy is just one adaption to this kind of stress and it's naturally the kind most bodybuilders are interested in.

This kind of intensity can usually be achieved by doing drop or break-down sets where you rep out, lower the weight, and continue doing reps until you either can't do another rep or you've run out of weight. It can also be achieved by doing your maximum number of reps on a particular exercise: by a combination of will, tenacity, and short rest periods, you complete ten more reps. You achieve the short rest periods by locking out the weight-bearing joint in question without putting the weight down. In other words, completely surpass your normal pain and energy thresholds.

If you can truly work your muscle to the point described, it will afford you little, if any, benefit to do another set (Westcott, 1986). The exception would be the body parts that are so big that they have distinct geographical areas, like the back, which obviously has an upper, middle and lower part. The chest might also fall into this category, as it has a distinct upper and lower part, each with different insertion points.

6 -- You don't have to be strong to be big

For a variety of reasons, people, even those with an equal amount of muscle mass, vary in strength enormously. It might have something to do with fast-twitch/slow-twitch muscle ratios, or it might have something to do with the efficiency of nerve pathways or even limb length and the resultant torque. But it is still a relative term. To get bigger muscles, you have to lift heavier weight, and you, not the guy next door, have to become stronger -- stronger than you were. Increasing muscle strength in the natural athlete, except in a very few, rare instances, requires that the tension applied to muscle fibers be high. If the tension applied to muscle fibers are light, maximal growth will not occur (Lieber, 1992).

7 -- The training programmes that work best for pro bodybuilders are best for everyone.

You see it happen every day in gyms across the country. Some bodybuilding neophyte will walk up to a guy who looks like he's an escaped attraction from Jurassic Park and ask him how he trains. The biggest guy in the gym likely got that way from either taking a tremendous amount of drugs and/or by being genetically pre-dispositioned to get big. Follow a horse home and you'll find horse parents. The guy in your gym who is best bodybuilder is the guy who has made the most progress and done the most to his physique using natural techniques. He may still be a pencil neck, but he may have put on 40 pounds [19kg] of lean body mass to get where he is, and that, in all probability, took some know-how. That person probably doesn't overtrain, keeps his sets down to a minimum, and uses great form and concentration on the eccentric (negative) portion of each exercise repetition.
Many pros spend hours and hours doing innumerable sets--so many it would far surpass the average person's recuperative abilities. If average people followed the routines of average pro bodybuilders, they would, in effect, start to whittle down what muscle mass they did have or, at best, make only a tiny bit of progress after a couple of years.

ultramuscle22
02-22-2003, 10:40 AM
nice!

Må®ïñå
02-23-2003, 08:58 PM
Great article, bring on Part 2 :)

Marina

T-Bar
02-26-2003, 10:31 AM
Very good.

John Henry
03-04-2003, 09:04 AM
#6 is bull****. Don't confuse BBing with strength training.

p0w3rlift3r
03-16-2003, 08:42 AM
#2 is why 90% of this board is as small and think there "HARD GAINERS"

Teen bodybuilders today are so damn afriad of getting fat that there bulking diets look like cutting diets and they gain no mass at all.

Quinner
05-02-2003, 06:39 AM
If what you mean by steroids is an extremely small portion taken unintentionally, that could be true. The greats, like Lee Priest, may take steroids, but you don't need them to be big.
You could cut up down to a lean body fat %, but the truth is, most bodybuilders, especially the biggest, bulk up to unbelieavable weights before cutting. Lee Priest has gotten over 300 pounds.

supersatellite
05-24-2003, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by John Henry
#6 is bull****. Don't confuse BBing with strength training.
Totally agree with you on that one.

yamahaSHO
07-06-2003, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by supersatellite
Totally agree with you on that one.

Agreed - Strength is directly proportionate to size.

ituxs
07-22-2003, 11:31 PM
What's the difference between body building and strength training?

Skoorbmax
08-06-2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by ituxs
What's the difference between body building and strength training? One aims for maximal size, regardless of strength (BB) and one aims for maximal strength, regardless of size (strength training).

The largest muscles are those on top Bodybuilders. You'll also note that they are not the strongest guys in the world.

The strongest guys in the world, on the other hand, do not have the biggest muscles.

However you'll see that the huge BBers are still darn strong, and the world's strongest men are still darn big. Why? Because, regardless of genetics or your training techniques, there is a massive crossover and correlation between strength and size.

The original poster's point as I got it was that if you're trying to build strength you will find an appreciable increase in size and vice versa. You cannot train ONLY for strength (piling on strength without any increase in muscular size) just as you cannot train ONLY for size (piling on size without any increase in strength). Both are heavily related even if they are not linked 100%.

ShaneG85
08-09-2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by yamahaSHO
Agreed - Strength is directly proportionate to size.

ummm..... i shouldn't even respond to such an ignorant post. Just read around about the CNS and read about what low reps stimulate and how your body adapts to the workload.

Shane

ituxs
08-11-2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by ShaneG85
ummm..... i shouldn't even respond to such an ignorant post. Just read around about the CNS and read about what low reps stimulate and how your body adapts to the workload.

Shane

Shane, I think he was being sarcastic?

Marshalll
08-21-2003, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by p0w3rlift3r
#2 is why 90% of this board is as small and think there "HARD GAINERS"

Teen bodybuilders today are so damn afriad of getting fat that there bulking diets look like cutting diets and they gain no mass at all.

Uhh you kinda got it backwards.
He's against super-high-calorie diets.

hugoshi
09-20-2003, 08:11 PM
wait I'm confused, so how do strength training workouts differ from mass gaining workouts?

Patfan
10-03-2003, 08:43 AM
Regarding #2, depending on your definition of "super high calorie diet" is inaccurate. For a person to gain mass, whether it be lean muscle or fat, an increase in calories will be needed (or dramatic reduction in activity). For a 130 beginner, they are going to have to take in what they will consider a super high calorie diet, a diet with a calorie amount noticeable higher than their maintenance, just to add mass. I agree with the person that said most beginners are scared to add fat. Well guess what, you're not going to get big eating 2,000 calories/day, even if you're only 130 lbs. Gotta eat to grow...

NotOnSteroids
10-13-2003, 03:12 PM
In regards to number 4, I think that if you work each muscle to infrequently, they will stay sore for longer. If you work a muscle every 3 to 5 days, you stay in a groove. If you just work each muscle every seven days, they will not adapt to a workout and be sore for longer. Soreness isn't really related to muscle growth however, but the same rules I mentioned above apply to muscle recovery as well. You really shouldn't feel sore after every workout anyway. Not after you get into it. Maybe starting out or after a long break you should feel sore though.

I posted my routine in the post your pictures section if anyone wants to see it.

sydbarett69
10-23-2003, 04:58 PM
i dont agree with #1 totally...i think you can gain as much muscle mass over a period of time...but will you be shredded like ronnie coleman? im not sure you can...but you can have all that muscle mass but it will be hard as friggin hell to get shredded without illegal substances...those that dont believe they can get as big as steroid users shoot themselves in the foot...if you can conceive you can achieve...i truly believe that...it takes knowledge, commen sense, persistence, consitency, high self esteem, support from friends and family, DESIRE, and seeing no limitations whatsoever in yourself....anything is possible...being shredded at 260 pounds without steroids is not impossible...look how long it took to create the grand canyon...its a personal decision, pact you make with yourself...but for me? no way in hell could i do it...i just dont believe in myself like that. but i put no limitations on how strong i can get...there isnt one strenght record in existence that i know of that i dont think i could achieve if i put my mind and time into it....the strenght feat im going for now is kaz's 90 pound lateral raise...i know i can beat that...nothing will stop me and it wont take a lifetime to achieve...the only thing stopping me is buying the weights for my dumbells to do it...also i slip on my protein a lot...i also believe someday i will clean and jerk way past any records, someday...im thirty now...ive made my own personal goal to beat many strenght records by the time im forty...other people reading this and dont believe in themselves in this respect would say im full of hot air, and full of bull****....so i wont tell a person thats impossible to be 260 pounds shredded and could take top ten at the olympia, without steroids...there is just no way in hell i would take that stance...

the nice monste
12-08-2003, 08:28 AM
Good to know

kj2833
01-13-2004, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by p0w3rlift3r
#2 is why 90% of this board is as small and think there "HARD GAINERS"

Teen bodybuilders today are so damn afriad of getting fat that there bulking diets look like cutting diets and they gain no mass at all.

True, the way i see it if you can put together the determination to gain all kinds of weight, i can see no reason you could not rid yourself of any resultant fat after bulking.

scrace
05-13-2008, 11:49 AM
this guy is ****ing dumb, basically if your big you had to have taken steroids, theres a huge difference between normal big guys in the gym and the freakshows that show up.

lth
05-13-2008, 12:49 PM
#3....explain why then, people have been getting such great results off of keto? Or why Chuck Rudolph of Scivation has helped so many bber's win contests of his cut diet, which is low in carbs and high in protein and fat.

Muscle-T-17yrs
05-16-2008, 08:56 AM
I didn't even read the whole article the Op posted...but all I can say is that after reading a few of those stupid points is that You and people who believe this stuff will get nowhere or will get very little results

do much negativity, impossbile is nothing

Grinners
05-16-2008, 08:18 PM
#3....explain why then, people have been getting such great results off of keto? Or why Chuck Rudolph of Scivation has helped so many bber's win contests of his cut diet, which is low in carbs and high in protein and fat.

He is saying that 'low fat guarentees weight loss' is a myth.

You are agreeing.

pphilly51
05-16-2008, 10:56 PM
1 is completely true. no way in any natural lifters life will they get anywhere to where a pro bodybuilder like coleman or cutler victor or preist or whoever without steroids prohormones or a stack of growth hormones whatever...stop trying to act like yah after 40 yrs of training and dieting you will be as big as ronnie just maybe fat and sloppy.....thats not being as big as a pro its being sloppy....thats why theres natural and professional shows

oneeightyseven
05-16-2008, 11:35 PM
this thread had potential but ....

bigreezey
05-17-2008, 04:06 AM
"Of all factors determining muscle growth, prevention of protein breakdown (anti-catabolism) seems to be the most relevant,"

I thought diets which put you in a calorie defecit promote catabolism where as diets which give you a calorie surplus have the opposite efefct? If this is the case then over-eating is the key to achieving the above goal

fRà
05-17-2008, 09:29 AM
this thread had potential but ....


...but people don't seem to be getting the meaning of the sentences.

@ the guy who said strength is proportionnal to size = sheer ignorance
Haven't you ever seen a guy twice your size lift the same weight as you? I have.

jgood
05-17-2008, 10:17 AM
1 is completely true. no way in any natural lifters life will they get anywhere to where a pro bodybuilder like coleman or cutler victor or preist or whoever without steroids prohormones or a stack of growth hormones whatever...stop trying to act like yah after 40 yrs of training and dieting you will be as big as ronnie just maybe fat and sloppy.....thats not being as big as a pro its being sloppy....thats why theres natural and professional shows
Man haha ... I saw a video of ronnie taking down a whole lot of corn bread and other crap thats great.

Hesh
05-19-2008, 09:10 AM
excellent article!

I only wish I had read it earlier!

Much of the stuff I read from articles on this site and in mags mislead me

rugby121
05-19-2008, 10:00 AM
interesting article. regarding #2, i must be a "genetic freak" (lol) as that is the only way i can grow- 4000+ cals per day, 90% clean. I dont think its a good idea to get skinny people here thinking they dont need to eat alot to grow.
Also, as many off days as gym days? pfft

asmashedpumpkin
05-19-2008, 11:14 AM
(sigh) for all the people ragging on #6, http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1/Topics/Training_Primer.htm#Training_and_Size_vs._Strength :

ZincYellow03
05-19-2008, 11:28 AM
arnold worked out 7 days a week, 4-5 hours a day and he got HUGE!

enimatpyrt
05-19-2008, 12:10 PM
...but people don't seem to be getting the meaning of the sentences.

@ the guy who said strength is proportionnal to size = sheer ignorance
Haven't you ever seen a guy twice your size lift the same weight as you? I have.

That doesn't mean he can't lift more...

aaaaa55555
05-19-2008, 04:34 PM
That doesn't mean he can't lift more...

ya but 140 lb powerlifters are stronger than most bigger people

WhipItRealHard
05-19-2008, 04:36 PM
terrible article.

freudslip
05-19-2008, 08:52 PM
half of those are counter myths to the original bb myths


don't agree with one set only for each muscle group...anyone who trains one set for each muscle group once a week is a pussy...

OH KNOWS! IF I DO ONE MORE SET ILL OVERTRAIN AND CONTRACT HIV

M-linebacker
05-19-2008, 09:15 PM
arnold worked out 7 days a week, 4-5 hours a day and he got HUGE!

Arnold was also taking a massive amount of roids

EDIT: Also I've read this article before, it was written by Bill Phillips(the dude behind the "Body-For-Life" program, he works for EAS) and sorry if I offend anyone but he has alot more credibility than most of the people arguing with the myths in the article.

Professional Accredited Personal Trainer > than any dude with some weights and computer

Looch
05-20-2008, 06:17 AM
interesting article. regarding #2, i must be a "genetic freak" (lol) as that is the only way i can grow- 4000+ cals per day, 90% clean. I dont think its a good idea to get skinny people here thinking they dont need to eat alot to grow.
Also, as many off days as gym days? pfft

You're not a genetic freak. You're 16. Wait until you hit your 20's. Your metabolism may not slow to a crawl, but it will slow.

siersy
05-20-2008, 07:27 AM
If what you mean by steroids is an extremely small portion taken unintentionally, that could be true. The greats, like Lee Priest, may take steroids, but you don't need them to be big.
You could cut up down to a lean body fat %, but the truth is, most bodybuilders, especially the biggest, bulk up to unbelieavable weights before cutting. Lee Priest has gotten over 300 pounds.

gtfo as if lee could ever have got over 300 pounds hes 5'4 i think around 270 he got to once... but he competes at around 200 area anyway imagine how rediculious he would look at a ronnie coleman weight on a 5'4 frame

SikNINg
05-20-2008, 08:33 AM
arnold worked out 7 days a week, 4-5 hours a day and he got HUGE!

You and everyone else could work out 24 hours a day and get huge if we were taking rhinoceros steroids too...

Zipsfb
05-20-2008, 09:06 AM
Good article!

GAMEOVER-
05-20-2008, 09:57 AM
Silly people, its not how much you lift its how much you LOOK like you can lift.

KeepUp
05-20-2008, 08:06 PM
Nice article :] Whens the rest coming out? When you have time? Will I belive you from your sources.

flaknwood
05-28-2008, 12:34 PM
One aims for maximal size, regardless of strength (BB) and one aims for maximal strength, regardless of size (strength training).

The largest muscles are those on top Bodybuilders. You'll also note that they are not the strongest guys in the world.

The strongest guys in the world, on the other hand, do not have the biggest muscles.

However you'll see that the huge BBers are still darn strong, and the world's strongest men are still darn big. Why? Because, regardless of genetics or your training techniques, there is a massive crossover and correlation between strength and size.

The original poster's point as I got it was that if you're trying to build strength you will find an appreciable increase in size and vice versa. You cannot train ONLY for strength (piling on strength without any increase in muscular size) just as you cannot train ONLY for size (piling on size without any increase in strength). Both are heavily related even if they are not linked 100%.

Good post. You got it. And might I add how much body science we still don't know. We have to remember we are judging our laws of the gym like we estimate the weather: We have general ideas but none set in stone. If we pay attention to our body, we relalize most of ther basic common knowledge is basically true

flaknwood
05-28-2008, 12:36 PM
Silly people, its not how much you lift its how much you LOOK like you can lift.

funny:) You are being sarcastic right? Good.

flaknwood
05-28-2008, 12:39 PM
gtfo as if lee could ever have got over 300 pounds hes 5'4 i think around 270 he got to once... but he competes at around 200 area anyway imagine how rediculious he would look at a ronnie coleman weight on a 5'4 frame

I saw one of his videos during the off season and he told that he was over 300 pounds (320 I think). Of course he cut down for show time but yes, he looked freaky. Like a fat ball of butter. But He likes to blow up and grow a beard in the off season. He's a genetic freak too. He competed at the age of 13. I looked like a bitch when I was 13, although I'm still quite small

dieselvenomblue
05-28-2008, 02:46 PM
Arnold was also taking a massive amount of roids

he was a genetic freak AND took steroids. AND visually because of his height and advancements in science, he looked about half the size of the olympia competitors today.

i'm not sure about #3. it's a misconception that eating fat makes you fat. i agree that half of these are just counter myths. its not as simple as black and white.

maxamilion
05-28-2008, 04:20 PM
Number 2 is total bull****. Try being a skinny/fat ecto with the metabolism of 5 elephants.