Zach G. - The Omnimorphic Training Guide (OTG)!

**webmaster** · 08-27-2003, 05:40 PM

Welcome to the omnimorphic training guide. Here I'll be outlining exercises, routines, diet, little tips and tricks, and pretty much everything the omnimorph will need to achieve optimal success in the gym. We're starting out with mass building. This won't be some science manual like many other articles.

http://www.teenbodybuilding.com/zach10.htm

HOW TO REVIEW: Post Your Review Of This Article - CLICK ON POST REPLY BELOW! You do NOT need to be a registered member to post a reply in this section!

Tete · 08-27-2003, 06:54 PM

As always a great article writen by a great bodybuilder!

keep up the good work Zach

**Beast** · 08-27-2003, 07:25 PM

(Deletes the article I just started)...

LOL, yo Zach, I just started to put an article like this together yesterday. But, there is no need now. I was doing it because a lot of beginners always ask me to design routines for them. I figured by writing the article, they could learn how to design a routine themselves. So now I'll direct them to your article. Good addition to BB.com.

BigKazWSM747 · 08-27-2003, 09:21 PM

great job Zach!

Irishfurey · 08-28-2003, 10:31 AM

How does OTG differ from Steve Holman's Positions of Flexion?

EAE · 08-28-2003, 03:12 PM

Another great article by Zach, keep it up bro

ZachG_85 · 08-28-2003, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beast
(Deletes the article I just started)...

LOL, yo Zach, I just started to put an article like this together yesterday. But, there is no need now. I was doing it because a lot of beginners always ask me to design routines for them. I figured by writing the article, they could learn how to design a routine themselves. So now I'll direct them to your article. Good addition to BB.com.

Wow, thanks bro! That means a hell of a lot comin' from you.

As for how it differs from POF, it takes a few of the ideas (namely just the three types of movements) but that's really where they differ. I know very little about the system itself, only what I read in an issue of Ironman while I stood at a cash register once, and caught the idea, but just expanded upon it how I felt it should be done. The sequencing is all of my own.

Not to mention I'll get into diet and just general lifestyle in the two next segments.

Marshalll · 08-29-2003, 10:48 PM

If your such an experienced bodybuilder, why do you not understand what the soleus muscle is?

ZachG_85 · 08-30-2003, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marshalll
If your such an experienced bodybuilder, why do you not understand what the soleus muscle is?

The article is meant for beginners, to give functional and useable advice that's easy to understand.

I keep getting e-mails talking about deadlifts hitting the spinae erectors isometrically rather than isotonically, plantar extension of the foot and my lack of description as such, the fact that I use far too much plain English and don't delve into the scientific matters of things.

If I just said "soleus" when talking about seated calf raises, I'd end up with guys scratching their heads wondering what the hell a soleus is. I didn't talk much of: teres major, spinae erector, infraspinatus, intercostals, serratus major, bracchioradialis, brachialis, pectoralis minor, adductors, abductors, and the like, because that confuses people.

Some people seem to forget a great quote by Chad Nichols: "If everything worked like it does in the book, everyone would be Mr. Olympia." I get so much bull**** e-mail from guys who fling HST and these weird-ass training methods at me that have absolutely no basis in reality, whereas I'm helping to get guys on a solid base that has always proven effective. Period.

Summary: I don't use the scientific terms of things, because beginners won't get it. I also can guarantee that a routine based on my article will work for at least 90% of you guys out there, and it will work well with a good diet.

Soarer · 08-30-2003, 01:43 AM

Well done Zach

Definatley an excellent article for the begginers perhaps a sticky in the teen forums

It is a vast improvement over the shoulders article and things are explained simply and detailed well. Cheers for going to the effort to write such articles.

Marcus

Marshalll · 08-30-2003, 11:54 PM

Alright, that was my only beef, that you didn't explain that the calf is made up of two muscles and that the soleus runs up and down the full length of the lower leg, other than that it's a good article.

**Beast** · 08-31-2003, 06:53 AM

Exactly, a beginner will have no idea what some of those muscles are. Zach wanted to give them a place to start learning.

ZachG_85 · 08-31-2003, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marshalll
Alright, that was my only beef, that you didn't explain that the calf is made up of two muscles and that the soleus runs up and down the full length of the lower leg, other than that it's a good article.

In my defense, though I didn't name the soleus, I did say that seated calf raises will work a different area than the standing.

**Bignbuff** · 08-31-2003, 11:33 AM

Excellent article Zach as always.

**str8flexed** · 08-31-2003, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZachG_85

The article is meant for beginners, to give functional and useable advice that's easy to understand.

I keep getting e-mails talking about deadlifts hitting the spinae erectors isometrically rather than isotonically, plantar extension of the foot and my lack of description as such, the fact that I use far too much plain English and don't delve into the scientific matters of things.

If I just said "soleus" when talking about seated calf raises, I'd end up with guys scratching their heads wondering what the hell a soleus is. I didn't talk much of: teres major, spinae erector, infraspinatus, intercostals, serratus major, bracchioradialis, brachialis, pectoralis minor, adductors, abductors, and the like, because that confuses people.

Some people seem to forget a great quote by Chad Nichols: "If everything worked like it does in the book, everyone would be Mr. Olympia." I get so much bull**** e-mail from guys who fling HST and these weird-ass training methods at me that have absolutely no basis in reality, whereas I'm helping to get guys on a solid base that has always proven effective. Period.

Summary: I don't use the scientific terms of things, because beginners won't get it. I also can guarantee that a routine based on my article will work for at least 90% of you guys out there, and it will work well with a good diet.

actually HST is pretty good zach

optimum results are merely due to the proper application of science

ZachG_85 · 08-31-2003, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by str8flexed

optimum results are merely due to the proper application of science

So you claim that everyone's body works the way the book says?

BigKazWSM747 · 08-31-2003, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZachG_85
So you claim that everyone's body works the way the book says?

nothing is to a T, but im sure you'd agree some ways of training are certainly superior to others.

**str8flexed** · 09-01-2003, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZachG_85
So you claim that everyone's body works the way the book says?

everyone's dna is 99% the same. "I do what works best for me" only goes so far. I tend to think it is a bull**** line people make up to explain their pseudo-scientific theories

However, I think "everyone is different" is probably a little more true with nutrition as there are many disorders, enzyme deficiencies... etc.

ZachG_85 · 09-01-2003, 10:06 AM

Everyone's DNA is 99% the same.

Human's DNA is 99% similar to mice.

I think 1% makes an assload of difference.

BigKazWSM747 · 09-01-2003, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by str8flexed
everyone's dna is 99% the same. "I do what works best for me" only goes so far. I tend to think it is a bull**** line people make up to explain their pseudo-scientific theories

However, I think "everyone is different" is probably a little more true with nutrition as there are many disorders, enzyme deficiencies... etc.

bizump, i agree 100%.

**str8flexed** · 09-01-2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZachG_85
Everyone's DNA is 99% the same.

Human's DNA is 99% similar to mice.

I think 1% makes an assload of difference.

if it made that much of a difference then we'd all be pretty ****ed since most medications and drugs are made for the entire human race.

Layne "ooh, ooh, his cyclooxygenase 2 enzyme is different than mine... so can we re-structure this inhibitor please? How about an extra methyl group as MY enzyme is different and has a bigger hydrophobic pocket"

ZachG_85 · 09-01-2003, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by str8flexed
if it made that much of a difference then we'd all be pretty ****ed since most medications and drugs are made for the entire human race.

Layne "ooh, ooh, his cyclooxygenase 2 enzyme is different than mine... so can we re-structure this inhibitor please? How about an extra methyl group as MY enzyme is different and has a bigger hydrophobic pocket"

Sigh...

I don't know why you've been such a dick to me lately. Fine. Everyone is pretty much the same. We all benefit equally from the same training. There are no variations. If you read books, you're fine. There's no need to actually find out how your body responds. All those people that said they respond to low reps and sets and all the people that claim high reps and sets work are lying. They can't be different. Because we're all the same. If everyone follows the exact same training program, we'll all get the exact same results.

Hoo-****ing-ray, we've hit a breakthrough. I'll remember to quit posting articles and ****, quit posting any advice. After all, we all need only look toward Layne, who knows what will work for 99% of us, it seems.

I want to like you, Layne, I really do. You're a smart guy, you've helped me in the past, but this bull**** is getting annoying. Hell, I've even defended you when everyone else bitched about your attitude, now I'm starting to wonder why.

And being able to heave big words around may impress some people, but not me.

**str8flexed** · 09-01-2003, 11:23 PM

I'm not trying to be a prick to you... never was. I just don't buy this whole "everyone is different thing" I think everyone is different to an extent... but not to the extent many people try to make out of it. I'm not singling you out and I have defended you numerous times... several times when you weren't even on the thread to defend yourself. Perhaps you should not make ASSumptions about myself or my intentions.

And the big worded **** by my Layne "......." was meant to be funny.

Layne "I guess being a prick must come easy since I'm not trying"

ZachG_85 · 09-02-2003, 07:36 AM

People are different. Not to any giant extent, but if you look at it, the training styles really aren't vastly different, either.

Every training style, basically, is some variation of heavy resistance to muscle contraction. Most involve such minor details as number of reps per set, number of sets per day, days per week, or time of reps.

Most all agree that above 15 reps and below 5 is unnecessary. Most agree that more than 5 days a week is overdoing it, the weight has to be heavy enough that in a given rep range you're at least marginally close to failing, and that more than an hour at a time is too much.

I think, in light of that, any variations that still adhere to the above are well-covered by even the most minor genetic differences.

HUGE_I_AM · 09-02-2003, 11:10 AM

good article

i am debating either making a routine of my own up (with the way you designed yours in the article, c/m/s/c or somin like that) or the one by rob, REST ONLY BRIEFLY

what are your thoughts on the ROB approach? he basically says to do a high volume with little rest inbtwn each set, do you agree with this, why and why not?

also, how much time would you rest inbtwn sets on a c/m/s/c or a c/m/m/s/c routine?

btw, i want pure SIZE/MASS, i could care leass about strength

thx

ZachG_85 · 09-02-2003, 11:52 AM

Depends on your total sets, I'd say.

If you do low volume, rest more. If you do high volume, rest less. For instance, I myself will do 16+ sets for back, so I'll only rest about a minute. There are guys that do a total of four, so they rest a lot.

**str8flexed** · 09-08-2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZachG_85
People are different. Not to any giant extent, but if you look at it, the training styles really aren't vastly different, either.

Every training style, basically, is some variation of heavy resistance to muscle contraction. Most involve such minor details as number of reps per set, number of sets per day, days per week, or time of reps.

Most all agree that above 15 reps and below 5 is unnecessary. Most agree that more than 5 days a week is overdoing it, the weight has to be heavy enough that in a given rep range you're at least marginally close to failing, and that more than an hour at a time is too much.

I think, in light of that, any variations that still adhere to the above are well-covered by even the most minor genetic differences.

1. low rep training has merit as does high rep training. Neither should be a basis for training regime but should be included.

2. Why is more than 5 days per week overdoing it?

3. Why is more than an hour too much time?

I'm not trying to be a dick here zach, trying to make people accountable for their statements.
-Layne

ZachG_85 · 09-08-2003, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by str8flexed
2. Why is more than 5 days per week overdoing it?

3. Why is more than an hour too much time?

Because, for 99% of the population, more than five days per week is far too much of a strain on the CNS and recovery system for them to handle.

At 45 minutes, give or take a minute or two, cortisol starts flowing. In more experienced athletes (10 years or so), it happens at upwards of 74 minutes. Hence, for anyone in their first few years of training, over an hour is probably no good.

Pirub88 · 09-08-2003, 07:00 PM

Everyone is similar, yes. Our basic biological makeup is very close. To me "it works for me" translates into "i have good genetics and I am lazy to listen to you."

Why is 5 days necessary for a bodybuilding split? Why is even 4 days necessary? I'd wager to say 3 days at very most per week should one preform hypertrophy training. If you cannot stimulate all muscle fibers for growth in a 3 day split, you're doing something absolutely wrong.

Now more than an hour in the gym?? Are you in the gym to socialize or to stimulate muscle growth? I can go to the gym on chest and back day and perform my 4 sets which include machine flies - incline bench superset and dumbbell pullover - lat pulldown superset and be out in less than 30 minutes. Anything more than that is just taking time away from my muscles ability to recover and in fact overtraining your muscles at the same time.

**str8flexed** · 09-08-2003, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZachG_85
Because, for 99% of the population, more than five days per week is far too much of a strain on the CNS and recovery system for them to handle.

At 45 minutes, give or take a minute or two, cortisol starts flowing. In more experienced athletes (10 years or so), it happens at upwards of 74 minutes. Hence, for anyone in their first few years of training, over an hour is probably no good.

cortisol doesn't work on the clock. It is dependant on several factors... intensity of exercise, amount of nutrients presant, caloric status, I agree that too much time in the gym is detrimental but I think it is far more complex than making it a clear blanket statement.

-Layne