Let's talk - Natural Mr Olympia gives advice

[oziem]

Mr. Hansen
forgive me if you have answered this but do you hold to a particular method of training for natural bb in general and
also have you found any supplements to be (extremely) useful for the expense?

[Defiant1]

why is it you sheep think this guy is anything
but what he is, a former drug user with an agenda under
the guise of being a natural bodybuilder.
he's only here to sell you something. AND after
the fleecing is done he, his possible own thread
will disappear like all the rest and you sheep will
be lining up for the next fleecing.

baaa at ya ltrz
may the negs begin

I have to agree with ellomis.
the first post I saw from his was this.
which was placed in an unapropriate section of the board and
no doubt done without inquiring with the owners.
I ran a webmaster board for 5 years and I can
tell you that's how sheep herders work.
smart ones would have inquired with the owners and
attempted to gain their backing and support which
would easily equate to more page views, clicks and
sales, but sheep herders who dont give a damn about
you just spam like this clown.

I dont see where he claimed this guy was on when he
did the nat. olympia.
as to why other big guys who may have been on not doing
the show,
prolly cuz they were doing shows with real meaning
like oh say the nationals.
the majority of npc natural shows are ran and judged just
like the new york pro. they are a joke.

your not kidding anyone saying you could
have picked something else if you wanted to money
to be your number 1 goal. You make a very very nice
income from what you do and your job number 1 is
to write articles in a fashion that attracts new mag
subscriptions as well as maintains and renews old ones.


I'm 51 and have known about you since you first started
writing for ironman. So cut the bull**** mr. me so honest.
your jumping on a bandwagon (training dvd's) in the hope
of making a buck. if not then yours would contain something
other than rehashed old bull**** thats available all over for free
because there is basically nothing new out their either.

the best indicator that I'm 100% right is look who you are catering
the dvd to. the most gullible impressionable group there is in
the world of bodybuilding, the beginner. the easiest sheep in
the flock to fleece.


edited to say
baaaaa

Not having seen the DVD, but having John Hansens book "Natural Bodybuilding", I will say this...

I have a RIDICULOUS amount of training information. You name the book, I have it. From the most "Scientific" point of view (Supertraining, Zatsiorskys book etc) down to the most mundane/gym ratish. Not counting the A & P courses from school.

I have the education to understand them, and the experience to evaluate them.

I also am a lifetime natural with results.


His book is one of the best on the sport. Period. I'm not kissing anyones ass. It is simply a fact. I wish more kids would read it. I recommend it frequently. A balance of science and pragmatism.

And it is not written with a "gimmick" like every other new book/philosophy that comes out. Not "3 exercises only" or "1 set", or "compounds only" or some catchy acronymed name.

It is basic, proven bodybuilding from a natural perspective.

Now how the hell is there anything wrong with that?

If the above posters are really interested in natural bodybuilding, then they would welcome someone writing from that perspective.




Defiant.

[Lowdown5]

Not having seen the DVD, but having John Hansens book "Natural Bodybuilding", I will say this...

I have a RIDICULOUS amount of training information. You name the book, I have it. From the most "Scientific" point of view (Supertraining, Zatsiorskys book etc) down to the most mundane/gym ratish. Not counting the A & P courses from school.

I have the education to understand them, and the experience to evaluate them.

I also am a lifetime natural with results.


His book is one of the best on the sport. Period. I'm not kissing anyones ass. It is simply a fact. I wish more kids would read it. I recommend it frequently. A balance of science and pragmatism.

And it is not written with a "gimmick" like every other new book/philosophy that comes out. Not "3 exercises only" or "1 set", or "compounds only" or some catchy acronymed name.

It is basic, proven bodybuilding from a natural perspective.

Now how the hell is there anything wrong with that?

If the above posters are really interested in natural bodybuilding, then they would welcome someone writing from that perspective.




Defiant.

Great post Defiant, repped!

[alaska21]

I was just wondering how big of arms do natural pro's have on average?

[percussion8903]

Do you mean the natural bodybuilding competitors? I would guess around 5% if they are really ripped. As I'm sure you know, it doesn't matter what your bodyfat % is just as it doesn't matter what you weigh or how big your arms are. The most important thing is how you look. The guy or girl who looks the best in the line-up (usually the hardest competitor) will win the contest. I like to measure my waist and weigh myself as I am preparing for a contest to gauge if I am on target and I am making progress. When my waist gets to 33", I am usually ripped and ready for my contest. Sometimes, if you are looking in a mirror to judge your condition, you may be seeing what you want to see and not really seeing the truth. That's why I like to have some type of objective measurement that will tell me if I am on track or not.

i agree. Its a relative measure. another example is I wouldnt have guessed in regular clothing that i'm 235-240

where can I get your book on Natural Bodybuilding? I plan on getting it in December

[Natural_O]

Mr. Hansen
forgive me if you have answered this but do you hold to a particular method of training for natural bb in general and
also have you found any supplements to be (extremely) useful for the expense?

I believe in using the basic exercises with barbells and dumbbells for a moderate amount of sets and 6-10 reps each exercise (6-8 reps for gaining size). If you train the basic exercises hard enough for the right amount of reps, you will not need a lot of sets to effectively work each muscle group. You should use 10-13 sets for the bigger muscle groups like chest, back and legs and 6-10 sets for smaller muscle groups like calves, arms and delts. I also believe in progressive resistance so you must use either more weight or more reps each successive workout to get the muscles to respond and grow. I also don't recommend training 5-6 days in a row, even if you are training different muscle groups. I think the body as a whole needs rest after 2-3 days of hard and heavy training.

As for supplements, protein powder is very convenient for getting enough protein each day to grow. I like protein powders that are a combination of casein, egg and whey proteins as they are digested slower than just straight whey protein. I also like a recover drink after the workout that contains whey and simple carbs from dextrose. I like flaxseed oil in my protein drinks for the essential fatty acids and I also recommend creatine and glutamine. Hope that helps!

[Natural_O]

Not having seen the DVD, but having John Hansens book "Natural Bodybuilding", I will say this...

I have a RIDICULOUS amount of training information. You name the book, I have it. From the most "Scientific" point of view (Supertraining, Zatsiorskys book etc) down to the most mundane/gym ratish. Not counting the A & P courses from school.

I have the education to understand them, and the experience to evaluate them.

I also am a lifetime natural with results.


His book is one of the best on the sport. Period. I'm not kissing anyones ass. It is simply a fact. I wish more kids would read it. I recommend it frequently. A balance of science and pragmatism.

And it is not written with a "gimmick" like every other new book/philosophy that comes out. Not "3 exercises only" or "1 set", or "compounds only" or some catchy acronymed name.

It is basic, proven bodybuilding from a natural perspective.

Now how the hell is there anything wrong with that?

If the above posters are really interested in natural bodybuilding, then they would welcome someone writing from that perspective.




Defiant.

Thank you for that Defiant! I appreciate the post and I'm glad you liked the book so much. I put a lot of work into it and I tried to make it as comprehensive as I could to supply the information that would be helpful to anyone who read the book.

Thanks again!

[Natural_O]

I was just wondering how big of arms do natural pro's have on average?

Bodybuilding is the sport of illusion. If you have enough muscle and it is proportionately distributed on the physique AND you are ripped and hard, you will always look a lot bigger than you actually are when you are posing onstage. Many people who have never been to a bodybuilding contest before are shocked to see how small some of the bodybuilders are who looked so big onstage. The more ripped you are, the bigger you will look onstage. Having said that, my arms have been as big as 19" onstage. My arms were one of my easiest responding bodyparts and, before I tore my bicep in 2000, I used to only train my biceps about 3 months before a contest. I remember they were 19 1/4" when I won the 1996 Natural Mr. Universe in the pro division. I weighed 208 for that show and I was as heavy as 243 in the off season that year.

[str8flexed]

your not kidding anyone saying you could
have picked something else if you wanted to money
to be your number 1 goal. You make a very very nice
income from what you do and your job number 1 is
to write articles in a fashion that attracts new mag
subscriptions as well as maintains and renews old ones.


I'm 51 and have known about you since you first started
writing for ironman. So cut the bull**** mr. me so honest.
your jumping on a bandwagon (training dvd's) in the hope
of making a buck. if not then yours would contain something
other than rehashed old bull**** thats available all over for free
because there is basically nothing new out their either.

the best indicator that I'm 100% right is look who you are catering
the dvd to. the most gullible impressionable group there is in
the world of bodybuilding, the beginner. the easiest sheep in
the flock to fleece.


edited to say
baaaaa

so I take it he should not make money and just live off well wishes and good tidings

nice to have you here John, just realize we have more than a few village idiots

-Layne

[Natural_O]

Thanks Layne, I appreciate it!
I'm looking forward to seeing you at my show on July 28th!

[NaturaLPumP]

Jon nice to have you here bro. My goal is to get my drug free pro card and do a pro show. Like Layne said though, there are more than a couple retards on here. Hope you stick around.

pump

[Lowdown5]

Between Layne and John and the other great naturals here, those of us who want to learn have a ton of great resources available to us!!

[str8flexed]

i appreciate that but I don't think my name belongs in the same sentence as john yet lol

[Lowdown5]

I think you underestimate yourself Layne.

[Natural_O]

i appreciate that but I don't think my name belongs in the same sentence as john yet lol

Thanks for that Layne but you are too modest. You've got a lot of great information to share with those of us who are interested in building the physique naturally.

[spirit3530]

Not having seen the DVD, but having John Hansens book "Natural Bodybuilding", I will say this...

I have a RIDICULOUS amount of training information. You name the book, I have it. From the most "Scientific" point of view (Supertraining, Zatsiorskys book etc) down to the most mundane/gym ratish. Not counting the A & P courses from school.

I have the education to understand them, and the experience to evaluate them.

I also am a lifetime natural with results.


His book is one of the best on the sport. Period. I'm not kissing anyones ass. It is simply a fact. I wish more kids would read it. I recommend it frequently. A balance of science and pragmatism.

And it is not written with a "gimmick" like every other new book/philosophy that comes out. Not "3 exercises only" or "1 set", or "compounds only" or some catchy acronymed name.

It is basic, proven bodybuilding from a natural perspective.

Now how the hell is there anything wrong with that?

If the above posters are really interested in natural bodybuilding, then they would welcome someone writing from that perspective.




Defiant.

co-signed.

[Guardian]

John I read above you advocate what I would consider higher volume training for naturals stating 11-13 sets for larger muscle groups. Isnt this alittle more then most naturals should be doing? Hell now a days alot of pros use a lower volume scheme of 4-8 sets and they are enhanced!

I had to chime in because imo that many sets for most naturals is to much. The goal of bodybuilding is to stimulate, not destruct. Dont you think perhaps to much volume may prolong ones recovery of both the cns and myofibers?

[chenko]

John I read above you advocate what I would consider higher volume training for naturals stating 11-13 sets for larger muscle groups. Isnt this alittle more then most naturals should be doing? Hell now a days alot of pros use a lower volume scheme of 4-8 sets and they are enhanced!

I had to chime in because imo that many sets for most naturals is to much. The goal of bodybuilding is to stimulate, not destruct. Dont you think perhaps to much volume may prolong ones recovery of both the cns and myofibers?

Good point. To me i would be fried using that much volume but individual recovery abilities no doubt vary.

A broader question for John, what in your experience do the majority of top level naturals use for average sets per workout?

And would you say more generally a higher intensity Mentzer style is more prevalent or an old school Serge Nubret volume style?

[str8flexed]

John I read above you advocate what I would consider higher volume training for naturals stating 11-13 sets for larger muscle groups. Isnt this alittle more then most naturals should be doing? Hell now a days alot of pros use a lower volume scheme of 4-8 sets and they are enhanced!

I had to chime in because imo that many sets for most naturals is to much. The goal of bodybuilding is to stimulate, not destruct. Dont you think perhaps to much volume may prolong ones recovery of both the cns and myofibers?

i use a lot of volume and I know many other natural pros who do as well. If you are natural you actually need MORE frequency not less. Steroids allow you to maintain elevated rates of protein synthesis constantly... regardless of workouts so you can workout less frequently. If you workout at that frequency as a natural your synthetic response to a workout is only about 48-72 hours MAX. If you only work a bodypart once per week, it's only growing for about 2-3 days, then the rest of the time it's just sitting there

[str8flexed]

Good point. To me i would be fried using that much volume but individual recovery abilities no doubt vary.

A broader question for John, what in your experience do the majority of top level naturals use for average sets per workout?

And would you say more generally a higher intensity Mentzer style is more prevalent or an old school Serge Nubret volume style?

this is somewhat of a myth. You may overtrain in the short term on high volume, but after 3-4 weeks of it your body will adapt and you will start noticing big time strength gains & noticible muscle gains. The problem is during the first 3-4 weeks you may lose some strength while your body adapts and you will be sore and feel like crap... so everyone just quits after a few weeks before their body has time to adapt. If you'd stick with it you'd find that it is very effective. Everyone is so phobic about overtraining... but experts in exercise physiology cannot even accurately describe what overtraining is and there is some debate as to whether or not it even exists. Overtraining is a nice term to toss around to the lay person by trainers who simply don't know what the heck is going on when a client is not growing so they just use the default answer of 'overtraining'.

start thinking outside the box and you might just start growing

[chenko]

this is somewhat of a myth. You may overtrain in the short term on high volume, but after 3-4 weeks of it your body will adapt and you will start noticing big time strength gains & noticible muscle gains. The problem is during the first 3-4 weeks you may lose some strength while your body adapts and you will be sore and feel like crap... so everyone just quits after a few weeks before their body has time to adapt. If you'd stick with it you'd find that it is very effective. Everyone is so phobic about overtraining... but experts in exercise physiology cannot even accurately describe what overtraining is and there is some debate as to whether or not it even exists. Overtraining is a nice term to toss around to the lay person by trainers who simply don't know what the heck is going on when a client is not growing so they just use the default answer of 'overtraining'.

start thinking outside the box and you might just start growing

"Overtraining" doesnt always manifest itself in the muscles or physique though and i feel the affects more in how my CNS is overstimulated, and personally after 17 years of training off and on mostly on i have a good appreciation as to what works for me and my recovery abilities.

Things i know from training too much either volume or frequency:

I will get sick, whatever cold or bug is around
I dont sleep well
Agitated
Reduced appetite
Lower moods

These things i know are a direct result of pushing my body too far and cannot be adapted.

As a side note i tend to use a high intensity low volume style and i cant fathom how anyone who has good intuitive mind muscle link and is training to failure minimum with rep range 6-12 can survive high volume as well.

Doesn't growth come only after your BB has full recuperated? Saying a bodypart is sitting there in a once a week split doing bugger all is curious to say the least.

Dont steroids enhance the recovery process? Meaning the body can cope with more volume without breaking down.

Skip La Cour (whether complete natural or not) i know advocates taking breaks every few months of a week or two to let the body re-charge and grow.

I am no pro BB and dont aspire to be but have been following the game for 17 years and have picked up a few things along the way. The main one being you have to find what works for yourself and slowly learn from your own body which methods can be best applied.

I just find the high volume approach very confusing based on personal empirical evidence i have encountered.

[str8flexed]

steroids prevent disuse atrophy. If you ever tried training long enough on high frequency your body would adapt to it and you wouldn't get those symptoms it is called the repeated bout effect (RBE) and it has DOCUMENTED scientifically.

[Natural_O]

John I read above you advocate what I would consider higher volume training for naturals stating 11-13 sets for larger muscle groups. Isnt this alittle more then most naturals should be doing? Hell now a days alot of pros use a lower volume scheme of 4-8 sets and they are enhanced!

I had to chime in because imo that many sets for most naturals is to much. The goal of bodybuilding is to stimulate, not destruct. Dont you think perhaps to much volume may prolong ones recovery of both the cns and myofibers?

I don't think doing 11-13 sets for the larger muscle groups is overtraining. For my chest workouts, I usually do 3-4 sets for the bench press, 3 sets for incline db presses, 2-3 sets for flyes and 2 sets of db pull-overs. This adds up to 10-12 sets total. For my back workout, if I did 2 sets of close-grip pulldowns, 4 sets of barbell rows, 3 sets of seated cable rows and 3 sets of deadlifts, this would add up to 12 sets total.

This includes all the sets I am doing (except for the one warm-up on the bench press that I didn't count) and not just the "working sets". For example, on barbell rows, I would start with 185x12, then 225x10, 275x8 and 295x6. Some people only count the last 2 heavy sets as a set but I am including all the sets I do for the exercise.

Now, with biceps, I will only do 3 sets of incline curls and 2-3 sets of barbell curls followed by 2 sets of hammer curls. This adds up to 7-8 sets total. You don't need nearly as many sets to work the biceps as you would the back.

[Natural_O]

Good point. To me i would be fried using that much volume but individual recovery abilities no doubt vary.

A broader question for John, what in your experience do the majority of top level naturals use for average sets per workout?

And would you say more generally a higher intensity Mentzer style is more prevalent or an old school Serge Nubret volume style?

I'm not really sure how many sets the top level naturals use because I don't talk to many of them on a regular basis. I am good friends with Joe Silzer who is a really good natural bodybuilder in the Chicago area. I know for a fact that Joe is natural and we talk quite frequently about training and dieting. Joe does about the same amount of volume that I do and he also trains four days a week, training each bodypart about once a week. He trains hardcore using the basic exercises and training as heavy as he can go.

I wouldn't categorize my training style as either Mentzer style training or Serge Nubret style training. Mentzer advocated very low sets and extreme high intensity using forced reps, rest pause, etc. I would say I tend to use that style of training more but without the forced reps and rest pause. I just train the basic exercises heavy for 6-8 reps and maybe a forced rep here and there and I keep the sets moderate, not super low.

The type of training Serge Nubret did would only work for those using steroids or for the very genetically gifted. He did more a pump type workout using moderate weights with high reps and high sets. I think you need more resistance to get the muscles bigger and thicker. When you are using steroids, you can just pump, pump, pump the muscles and you will blow up.

[Natural_O]

"Overtraining" doesnt always manifest itself in the muscles or physique though and i feel the affects more in how my CNS is overstimulated, and personally after 17 years of training off and on mostly on i have a good appreciation as to what works for me and my recovery abilities.

Things i know from training too much either volume or frequency:

I will get sick, whatever cold or bug is around
I dont sleep well
Agitated
Reduced appetite
Lower moods

These things i know are a direct result of pushing my body too far and cannot be adapted.

As a side note i tend to use a high intensity low volume style and i cant fathom how anyone who has good intuitive mind muscle link and is training to failure minimum with rep range 6-12 can survive high volume as well.

Doesn't growth come only after your BB has full recuperated? Saying a bodypart is sitting there in a once a week split doing bugger all is curious to say the least.

Dont steroids enhance the recovery process? Meaning the body can cope with more volume without breaking down.

Skip La Cour (whether complete natural or not) i know advocates taking breaks every few months of a week or two to let the body re-charge and grow.

I am no pro BB and dont aspire to be but have been following the game for 17 years and have picked up a few things along the way. The main one being you have to find what works for yourself and slowly learn from your own body which methods can be best applied.

I just find the high volume approach very confusing based on personal empirical evidence i have encountered.

You make a good point about the central nervous system also being affected by training. I make this point in my seminars and in my IronMan column to not train every day (5-6 days in a row) because your body as a whole (CNS) needs a day off after training heavy and hard. Everytime I've tried to train that many days in a row, I notice that my energy and strength just isn't at it's highest level toward the end of the week. Anyone who has squatted really heavy and/or intense or done a heavy back workout (barbell rows, t-bar rows and deadlifts) knows how wiped out you feel the next day. Does it make sense to go in again and train even though you are working a different bodypart? You are also training the whole body because the central nervouse system is also affected.

Steroids do enhance the recovery process. You can train much more often and do higher volume when on steroids. If you've ever read the book, "The PreContest Bible", look at how much volume the pro bodybuilders do when they are preparing for competitions. Many of them train every day (some twice a day) and most of them are doing cardio every day (some twice a day). You could never do this as a natural bodybuilder without overtraining. In my new DVD, Natural Bodybuilding Seminar and Competitions, I show video footage of me competing in two contests. For the first one, I was running behind in my preparation so I did cardio twice a day. The result was I was flat and didn't look hard enough. For the second contest, I simply dieted longer and didn't do any cardio and I came in much harder and more ripped. Overtraining is a big factor when it pertains to the natural bodybuilder.

[Defiant1]

John I read above you advocate what I would consider higher volume training for naturals stating 11-13 sets for larger muscle groups. Isnt this alittle more then most naturals should be doing? Hell now a days alot of pros use a lower volume scheme of 4-8 sets and they are enhanced!

I had to chime in because imo that many sets for most naturals is to much. The goal of bodybuilding is to stimulate, not destruct. Dont you think perhaps to much volume may prolong ones recovery of both the cns and myofibers?

You know I'm a natty Guardian (or maybe you didn't realize it). I know you've seen my posts.

G, CNS EFFORT/STRESS causes overtraining, not muscular volume. Failure->increased NE output (fight or flight)->chronic cortisol production->overtraining

Evidence: Why did Mentzer et. al. advocate so few sessions? Yet athletes who moderate momentary effort can train with INCREDIBLE volume and frequency?

You can "overtrain" by having a stressful life. Conversely, BBs in the 70s used to do tremendous volume but with moderated effort (despite what many say).

[Lowdown5]

This thread should be stickied. I log on, I read, I learn something. Thanks Layne, John, Defiant and all the others for your great information sharing!!

[MassIsAhead]

This thread should be stickied. I log on, I read, I learn something. Thanks Layne, John, Defiant and all the others for your great information sharing!!

x2.

[adpayne]

As a side note i tend to use a high intensity low volume style and i cant fathom how anyone who has good intuitive mind muscle link and is training to failure minimum with rep range 6-12 can survive high volume as well.

Were you still going to failure when attempting a higher volume routine? If so, that is likely the cause for your illness, etc. Effort must be modulated as volume/frequency is increased. Since I stopped going to failure, I'm able to handle much greater frequency, and volume. I've used up to 80 sets per bodypart a week, with excellent results (a deload is an obvious byproduct of course. ).

Nice to see you here, John!

Art

[Radok]

As for contest weight, it really all depends on how you look. You don't want to try and go for a specific weight, you just want to compete at the weight you look your best at. It all depends on how much fat you have now. I used to be 230 in the off season and I would compete in the low 200's (201-205). I liked bulking up a little in the off season so I could lift heavier and put on more size as opposed to staying lean all the time which makes it difficult to add more muscle and get stronger, especially for guys like us who find putting on more muscle mass challenging.

Care to tell your numbers for squat, bench, deadlift? You definitely look like you could put up some huge numbers, which is what bodybuilding's about anyway.