Old school vs New school(Discussion)

[BluntD]

Pick it pack it fire it up, come along, and take a hit from the bong
Put the blunt down just for a second, don't get me wrong it's not a new method

[rocketman44]

The first problem is defining what "old school" actually is.

To me personally, "old school" is more of a mindset than anything else.

It's not so much the equipment/methods one uses, but the attitude they carry into each workout.

[Defiant1]

Pick it pack it fire it up, come along, and take a hit from the bong
Put the blunt down just for a second, don't get me wrong it's not a new method

Negged for basically plagiarizing what I said.

[TRYIN2GETBIG88]

I know that there are alot of different training methods, but from what I've been reading most of the old school body builders only trained 3 maybe 4 days a week. Giving there bodies adequate rest to demolish their muscles another day. I'm not knocking any type of split what so ever... But the majority of people that I know at the gym hit a 5 day split and look almost the same as they did a year ago. I know it could be a number of things such as lack of sleep, diet isn't on, lack of intensity, rep ranges, rep tempo.. Etc.. I was wondering what peoples views were on this subject.

I'm going to be trying something out for 12 weeks and see what intensity, diet, and sleep will get me. No supps what so ever. I'll post the work out if anyone is even interested in this thread.

actually old school body builders such as arnold use to train as many as 6 days a week depending if it was off season or getting ready for a competition. He would sometimes work major muscles out 3 times a week.

[NOVA888]

If you're basing pro routines on what's the current training style, the only thing that's changed is the amount of drugs. Guys have been doing high volume splits since the 60's until now

Definitely some truth there!

[Leyton Stone_old]

actually old school body builders such as arnold use to train as many as 6 days a week depending if it was off season or getting ready for a competition. He would sometimes work major muscles out 3 times a week.

x2. Sometimes twice a day.

Also, Arnold prescribed full body routines replete with basic exercises for beginners three times a week.

[jgreystoke]

If you look at the guys who are really big, you'll see they all train pretty much the same way- heavy basic exercises, mixed in with some machine work, too. They all eat pretty much alike, too- a lot, and often. I just don't see that much difference between then/now, as far as those who actually have put on muscle. The human body hasn't changed; it still responds to the same stressors as it always did. Just my 2c.

Perfect post puts it all in perspective!

[tacoop]

Tropo is correct, alot of new people to the gym think that because its a big fancy machine, that its going to work their muscles way better (shamfuly I was like that 2 or 3 years ago) but the truth is, you CANNOT beat heavy free weight movement i.e. squats, they may look daggy and old fashioned(poor) but what you see is NOT wat you get... the harder it is, the better...IMO..Old school forever.

I am with you. I have been down that road. Tried all the fancy equipment, fancy routines, and crazy approach to try and build muscle.

Nothing has worked as well as basic freeweight exercises, eating healthy, and allowing plenty of rest.

[R_Bid]

I defy anyone to show me how "science" changed training.

D1--i generally am in strong agreement with you, and i think we may also be in agreement here, but i do have to point out something that may just turn out to be a matter of semantics.

while i agree entirely that the science of training itself has evolved VERY little, the advances in supplementation and nutrition--and more importantly, the availability of information relating to all of the above (and in this case, including training)--have proven themselves over the years as athletes of all levels have grown steadily stronger and faster. even the drug-free ones.

[tropo]

Where did you read that "old school" training only goes for 3-4 days?? Some people do 3-4 days now, not all do 5 (which is only one extra day).

And in this day and age, not everything is fancy new machines, but there are so many more things we know these days compared to the old days. Old school training was highly based on, lift this attitude. Whereas these days, we know more about it all, exactly how to activate what, what exercises, different angles, safety cautions.

For those of you who are saying "yeah old school rocks" or whatever, you clearly dont understand the advances we have made in the muscle building area. Both pratical and scientific advances have made the whole process a safer, more effective and efficient experience.

The fancy machines comment was tongue in cheek. Of course a lot of older gyms are unable to make the investment and use old stuff that's even worse the the expensive new fancy stuff.

I knew this thread would eventually come down to a free weights vs machines discussion.

There's absolutely no doubt that old school free weight exercises eclipse any benefits from machines. It's not even close. Machines just don't exercise the muscles in a functional way and don't exercise any stabilizing muscles. It's non-functional strength that doesn't carry over into the real world.

BB's and DB's should be the foundation of any strength routine. Machines should only be supplemental. BTW, I'm talking about training for healthy individuals. Invalids or people with injuries would probably do better with machines.

[Defiant1]

D1--i generally am in strong agreement with you, and i think we may also be in agreement here, but i do have to point out something that may just turn out to be a matter of semantics.

while i agree entirely that the science of training itself has evolved VERY little, the advances in supplementation and nutrition--and more importantly, the availability of information relating to all of the above (and in this case, including training)--have proven themselves over the years as athletes of all levels have grown steadily stronger and faster. even the drug-free ones.

Depends on what you mean by the "science" of nutrition.

If you mean that better supps are available, I agree, but this is a free-market/experience thing, not a "science" thing. At least mainstream science.

Examples: How long have bodybuilders done low carb diets? How long has "science" acknowledged they were effective? (I'm talking mainstream science). How long have bodybuilders believed in extra protein? How long (or even if) has "science" supported this?

Creatine?
BCAAs?

the list goes on.

[tropo]

When I said "old school" training I was refering to Cassy Viator, Arnold, Sergio Olivia, Franco Columbu... Etc. And for everyone that said that there isn't much of a difference should read up on some material. The old school kind of routines I've been reading have been 3 days a week, the same full body workout for 5-6 weeks, 8 solid reps with perfect form, and after that cheat reps to failure and forced reps after forced reps. Completely different. 4 days a week to rest...... Compared to ALOT of people who over train and don't let their body recover. And no one is talking **** about iso, so calm down ya guru.

I don't have to read up about it even. I was training when some of those guys were still competing in the 70's lol.

A triple body split twice a week is what Arnold used to advocate in his famous book "The education of a body builder". That's 6 days a week.

If anything, most guys used to train more often back then and with more volume. Nobody had a clue about overtraining. It was normal for us to go to the gym for 2 or 3 hours every night. Sunday off. 2 hours was minimum.

"no pain, no gain" was the normal catch phrase. We used to hurt everywhere all of the time...and that includes the knees, shoulder joints, elbows, lower back. We didn't know any better.

[tropo]

I personally like the old school method too. It took me a long time to finally realize: newer doesn't always mean better.

I think we're "too" scientific almost. Over analyzing every little thing. People might thing that "we're more advanced now than ever" but in 10 years they'll be doing it all differently again. I like to stick with what works.

I do 3 full body workouts a week. Each full body workout is different but I stick to the same routine for at least 3 weeks.

Training the whole body 3x a week is not old school. This system has been around the whole time...it never went away.

[N@tural1]

In line with the topic of discussion, anyone seen or read this?

http://www.musclesmokeandmirrors.com/

Rated highly on a HIT board, wondered if anyone new anything about the book?

[nads786]

Depends on what you mean by the "science" of nutrition.

If you mean that better supps are available, I agree, but this is a free-market/experience thing, not a "science" thing. At least mainstream science.

Examples: How long have bodybuilders done low carb diets? How long has "science" acknowledged they were effective? (I'm talking mainstream science). How long have bodybuilders believed in extra protein? How long (or even if) has "science" supported this?

Creatine?
BCAAs?

the list goes on.

i dont think science has yet to acknowledge high protein diets

[Emmortal]

i dont think science has yet to acknowledge high protein diets

Science hasn't fully acknowledged the advantages of steroids but we all know that they exist.

[tropo]

Science hasn't fully acknowledged the advantages of steroids but we all know that they exist.

That's hardly a good analogy. No one puts on 20 lbs of muscle and witnesses a huge gain in strength in a couple of months by just changing to a high protein diet as is often (almost always) witnessed with steroid use.

The question still remains. Is the quantity of protein necessary to build muscle overstated and merely pseudo science?

Vegans can be pretty strong and muscular (and healthy). I've seem guys doing ok on just a fruit diet. Amino acids are the key, not protein. There's amino acids in just about every living food. Maybe we're all just making the protein supplement industry rich and pissing out most of the protein. I know I stink of ammonia quite often when I sweat in the gym...excess protein?

[Phil2009]

That's hardly a good analogy. No one puts on 20 lbs of muscle and witnesses a huge gain in strength in a couple of months by just changing to a high protein diet as is often (almost always) witnessed with steroid use.

The question still remains. Is the quantity of protein necessary to build muscle overstated and merely pseudo science?

Vegans can be pretty strong and muscular (and healthy). I've seem guys doing ok on just a fruit diet. Amino acids are the key, not protein. There's amino acids in just about every living food. Maybe we're all just making the protein supplement industry rich and pissing out most of the protein. I know I stink of ammonia quite often when I sweat in the gym...excess protein?

True. Breakdown of protein will result in increased ammonia, which can be noticed in sweat and urine too. This is because the nitrogen broken down from proteins cannot be used as a source of energy. We just dont have the storage ability for high amounts of protein. Protein will be used, and the excess will go through the Krebs or TCA cycle to store as fat, or excreted as ammonia.

A lot think the more protein you eat, the bigger you get. While thats true, there is a limit (studies show that 0.83g/kg of protein is highly sufficient). Same goes for multivitamins, how often does your urine look almost fluorescent when on MV's? Nearly all the time? Because your body is excreting most of it out.

[tropo]

A lot think the more protein you eat, the bigger you get. While thats true, there is a limit (studies show that 0.83g/kg of protein is highly sufficient).

Do you have that study handy? I'd really like to see it.

Is the estimated 0.83g/kg the protein requirement for the average Joe, or hard training athletes. If not, how much extra do you think a hard training bodybuilder would need?

[Phil2009]

Do you have that study handy? I'd really like to see it.

Is the estimated 0.83g/kg the protein requirement for the average Joe, or hard training athletes. If not, how much extra do you think a hard training bodybuilder would need?

The website link requires my subscription log in. So I had to upload the file. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=32YRR6E8

For those who dont want to read the article here is the abstract:

The present study examined the effects of training status (endurance exercise or body building) on nitrogen balance, body composition, and urea excretion during periods of habitual and altered protein intakes. Experiments were performed on six elite bodybuilders, six elite endurance athletes, and six sedentary controls during a 10-day period of normal protein intake followed by a 10-day period of altered protein intake. The nitrogen balance data revealed that bodybuilders required 1.12 times and endurance athletes required 1.67 times more daily protein than sedentary controls. Lean body mass (density) was maintained in bodybuilders consuming 1.05 g protein.kg-1.day-1. Endurance athletes excreted more total daily urea than either bodybuilders or controls. We conclude that bodybuilders during habitual training require a daily protein intake only slightly greater than that for sedentary individuals in the maintenance of lean body mass and that endurance athletes require daily protein intakes greater than either bodybuilders or sedentary individuals to meet the needs of protein catabolism during exercise.

Tarnopolsky MA, et al. Influence on protein intake and training status on nitrogen balance and lean body mass. J Appl Phyiol 1988;64:187

And Ill just add this:

"Despite the beliefs of many coaches, trainers, and athletes, little benefit accrues from consuming excessive protein. Muscle mass does not increase simply by eating high protein foods. The diets of endurance- and resistance-trained athletes often exceed two to three times the recommended intake, usually as meat. This occurs because athletes' diets normally emphasize high-protein foods. Furthermore, an athlete's caloric intake and energy output usually surpass those of a sedentary counterpart. If lean tissue synthesis resulted from all of the extra protein consumed by the typical athlete, then muscle mass would increase tremendously. For example, consuming an extra 100g of protein (400kCal) daily would translate to a daily 500g (1.1lb) increase in muscle mass. This obviously does not happen. Execessive dietary protein intake above recommended values can trigger harmful side effects, particularly strained liver and kidney function from elimination of urea and other compounds."

McArdle, W, Katch, F & Katch, V (2007). Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition & Human Performance. 6th ed. Maryland: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

[W8isGR8]

The website link requires my subscription log in. So I had to upload the file. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=32YRR6E8

For those who dont want to read the article here is the abstract:

The present study examined the effects of training status (endurance exercise or body building) on nitrogen balance, body composition, and urea excretion during periods of habitual and altered protein intakes. Experiments were performed on six elite bodybuilders, six elite endurance athletes, and six sedentary controls during a 10-day period of normal protein intake followed by a 10-day period of altered protein intake. The nitrogen balance data revealed that bodybuilders required 1.12 times and endurance athletes required 1.67 times more daily protein than sedentary controls. Lean body mass (density) was maintained in bodybuilders consuming 1.05 g protein.kg-1.day-1. Endurance athletes excreted more total daily urea than either bodybuilders or controls. We conclude that bodybuilders during habitual training require a daily protein intake only slightly greater than that for sedentary individuals in the maintenance of lean body mass and that endurance athletes require daily protein intakes greater than either bodybuilders or sedentary individuals to meet the needs of protein catabolism during exercise.

Tarnopolsky MA, et al. Influence on protein intake and training status on nitrogen balance and lean body mass. J Appl Phyiol 1988;64:187

And Ill just add this:

"Despite the beliefs of many coaches, trainers, and athletes, little benefit accrues from consuming excessive protein. Muscle mass does not increase simply by eating high protein foods. The diets of endurance- and resistance-trained athletes often exceed two to three times the recommended intake, usually as meat. This occurs because athletes' diets normally emphasize high-protein foods. Furthermore, an athlete's caloric intake and energy output usually surpass those of a sedentary counterpart. If lean tissue synthesis resulted from all of the extra protein consumed by the typical athlete, then muscle mass would increase tremendously. For example, consuming an extra 100g of protein (400kCal) daily would translate to a daily 500g (1.1lb) increase in muscle mass. This obviously does not happen. Execessive dietary protein intake above recommended values can trigger harmful side effects, particularly strained liver and kidney function from elimination of urea and other compounds."

McArdle, W, Katch, F & Katch, V (2007). Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition & Human Performance. 6th ed. Maryland: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

It's more of a "better safe than sorry", in all honesty. Extra protein might not build more muscle, but not enough will definitely hinder progress

[tropo]

The website link requires my subscription log in. So I had to upload the file. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=32YRR6E8

For those who dont want to read the article here is the abstract:

The present study examined the effects of training status (endurance exercise or body building) on nitrogen balance, body composition, and urea excretion during periods of habitual and altered protein intakes. Experiments were performed on six elite bodybuilders, six elite endurance athletes, and six sedentary controls during a 10-day period of normal protein intake followed by a 10-day period of altered protein intake. The nitrogen balance data revealed that bodybuilders required 1.12 times and endurance athletes required 1.67 times more daily protein than sedentary controls. Lean body mass (density) was maintained in bodybuilders consuming 1.05 g protein.kg-1.day-1. Endurance athletes excreted more total daily urea than either bodybuilders or controls. We conclude that bodybuilders during habitual training require a daily protein intake only slightly greater than that for sedentary individuals in the maintenance of lean body mass and that endurance athletes require daily protein intakes greater than either bodybuilders or sedentary individuals to meet the needs of protein catabolism during exercise.

Tarnopolsky MA, et al. Influence on protein intake and training status on nitrogen balance and lean body mass. J Appl Phyiol 1988;64:187

And Ill just add this:

"Despite the beliefs of many coaches, trainers, and athletes, little benefit accrues from consuming excessive protein. Muscle mass does not increase simply by eating high protein foods. The diets of endurance- and resistance-trained athletes often exceed two to three times the recommended intake, usually as meat. This occurs because athletes' diets normally emphasize high-protein foods. Furthermore, an athlete's caloric intake and energy output usually surpass those of a sedentary counterpart. If lean tissue synthesis resulted from all of the extra protein consumed by the typical athlete, then muscle mass would increase tremendously. For example, consuming an extra 100g of protein (400kCal) daily would translate to a daily 500g (1.1lb) increase in muscle mass. This obviously does not happen. Execessive dietary protein intake above recommended values can trigger harmful side effects, particularly strained liver and kidney function from elimination of urea and other compounds."

McArdle, W, Katch, F & Katch, V (2007). Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition & Human Performance. 6th ed. Maryland: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

Thanks a lot! Very interesting indeed.

I hope anyone refuting this study includes a study to the contrary rather than just dismissing it out of hand. Is the high protein consumption recommendation purely a product of the protein supplement industry...very possibly yes...especially considering this study has been around since 1988.

So a natural trainer can get away with 1.12 x 0.83/kg.

[Phil2009]

It's more of a "better safe than sorry", in all honesty. Extra protein might not build more muscle, but not enough will definitely hinder progress

Thats true, not enough will hinder progress. I was merely speaking of excess protein which so many are accustomed to.

Thanks a lot! Very interesting indeed.

I hope anyone refuting this study includes a study to the contrary rather than just dismissing it out of hand. Is the high protein consumption recommendation purely a product of the protein supplement industry...very possibly yes...especially considering this study has been around since 1988.

So a natural trainer can get away with 1.12 x 0.83/kg.

No worries.
I think the protein supplement industry tries to emphasize quality of protein, rather than quantity. This relates to, essential amino acids, absorption rates, etc.

[W8isGR8]

Thats true, not enough will hinder progress. I was merely speaking of excess protein which so many are accustomed to.
.

agreed 100%



I think "protein needs" are highly overexaggerated

[nads786]

True. Breakdown of protein will result in increased ammonia, which can be noticed in sweat and urine too. This is because the nitrogen broken down from proteins cannot be used as a source of energy. We just dont have the storage ability for high amounts of protein. Protein will be used, and the excess will go through the Krebs or TCA cycle to store as fat, or excreted as ammonia.

A lot think the more protein you eat, the bigger you get. While thats true, there is a limit (studies show that 0.83g/kg of protein is highly sufficient). Same goes for multivitamins, how often does your urine look almost fluorescent when on MV's? Nearly all the time? Because your body is excreting most of it out.

plus you have to add that if your eating alot of carbs, they are muscle sparing

.83/kg is pretty damn low when you compare it for per lb

that isnt even 1gram per body weight

[tropo]

I thought the following 3 paragraphs from the study maybe of some interest to readers:

Note: EA = Endurance athletes
BB = bodybuilders

"From the minimal intakes estimated from our data,
safe levels of intake were estimated. Individual differences
necessitate that a safety margin be included in
suggesting safe levels of protein intake. The finding that
two of the body builders were in negative NBAL on the
LP diet demonstrates that degree of interindividual differences
in a group of athletes, hence the need for safety
margins. The safe mixed protein intake for BB was found
to be 1.2 g protein. kg-l *day-? and for EA was found to
be 1.6 g protein. kg-? . day-l. These calculations represent
one SD from the extrapolated minimal intakes. Since
the extrapolated minimal intakes were an overestimation,
one SD was used rather than the usual two SD
values used for setting safe levels for a population from
actual minimal requirements.

The estimated safe level of protein intake for the BB
group of 1.2 g protein l kg-? *day-l is less than the 1.3-2 0
g protein. kg-? *day-l suggested for strength athletes by
some investigators (16), much less than the 3.0 g protein l
kg-l. day-l reported for zero balance in elite weight lifters
(5) and much less than the 2.7 g protein. kg-? *day-l
habitually consumed by the BB group of this study. The
chronic protein supplementation that is common among
many bodybuilders IS costly, both in terms of dollars and
the possible ultimate contribution of high-protein intakes
to kidney degeneration (2).

The safe protein intakes estimated for EA and BB can
only be recommended for males consuming a high-energy
and carbohydrate diet and who are in steady-state training
intensity. Factors such as I) levels of very high
trainmg intensity (16), 2) reduced energy intake (13,26),
and 3) reduced dietary carbohydrate-to-fat ratio (25)
would decrease the efficiency of protein utilization, altering
the above recommendations for some athletes."

If a BB is doing a lot of HIIT, or HIT cardio, then higher levels of protein intake could be justified.

[Phil2009]

plus you have to add that if your eating alot of carbs, they are muscle sparing

.83/kg is pretty damn low when you compare it for per lb

that isnt even 1gram per body weight

Huh?

.83g/kg is about 66.4 grams for an 80kg person.

[nads786]

Huh?

.83g/kg is about 66.4 grams for an 80kg person.

when compared to the standard rule of "1 gram per bw (in pounds)"

its lower, or are my conversions wrong (2.2=1kg)

[JoeyDaFool]

problem nowadays is everybody concentrates way too much on the eating part and not enough on training. no matter how much protein you eat, with a **** program, **** intensity, **** exercises, you will go nowhere

[Phil2009]

when compared to the standard rule of "1 gram per bw (in pounds)"

its lower, or are my conversions wrong (2.2=1kg)

Oh yeah I see what you mean.