The Tough Old Days

[Defiant1]

Sometimes I get the impression that a lot of people think that the only reason "pro" bodybuilders can do long, hard routines is because of "drugs", and that prior to wide-spread AAS use, bodybuilders trained with "short" workouts of few sets. I see this frequently when "Arnolds" routines are brought up. This is actually a misconception. I was reading an article by Bob Kennedy, publisher of MMI, and respected for his "honest" view of bodybuilding. He states:

"You'll have to forgive for delving into the past with my articles, but seriously, my head is full of lessons from the past. Sometimes I even turn my movie reel back as much as fifty years.

But let me tell you something. The bodybuilders of yesteryear, even though they didn't have the mass-building steroids or the cut-up drugs, trained far harder than the champs we see in the gyms today. This is a fact, not even up for discussion."

Bob Kennedy has been involved in the iron game for a LONG time.

The point of this is is that I see guys wondering if they are "overtraining", or people putting down the pros routines cause they are "on steroids". If you REALLY can't do a routine, then fine. But don't dismiss hard work because you THINK you can't do it. The pros didn't suddenly get to where they are and say "Oh gee, now I can do 25 sets per bodypart"-it's the drive and determination to GET them through those workouts that make them the pros. Not the other way around. You don't have to follow their advice, but don't dismiss them because of some pre-conceived notion.

The old time natural guys trained just as hard, even harder.

So get in there, and bust your ass.

[smkydabandt]

I can do those routines. And have done those routines with tons of intensity including everything from supersets to 2x-3x a week workout per muscle. The problem is that I didnt gain from those routines.

I get my gains from doing less. Working hard is great and feels good and is often hard to leave behind. But many people dont gain from working hard, many actually gain from very little. For many people, 4-5 lifts, 45 min or under, and a 2-3 week in the gym is enough for most people.

[Defiant1]

I can do those routines. And have done those routines with tons of intensity including everything from supersets to 2x-3x a week workout per muscle. The problem is that I didnt gain from those routines.

I get my gains from doing less. Working hard is great and feels good and is often hard to leave behind. But many people dont gain from working hard, many actually gain from very little. For many people, 4-5 lifts, 45 min or under, and a 2-3 week in the gym is enough for most people.

I think when Kennedy was saying "hard"-he meant long routines, not necessarily "full intensity" routines.

Guys from the old "muscle-beach" used to train all damned day. One of the "knocks" against them was they were basically bums who trained all day and worked just enough to get by.

I don't dispute what works for you, but it is directed at the guys who doubt themselves and have to "apologize" for getting results from "long" workouts. How many threads start out "Am I overtraining? I'm getting results but...."

I am also talking about training for MAXIMUM results, and not just training to stay in shape.

[W8isGR8]

interesting

[Serpens Aeon]

Agreed.

For now, I can think of two prongs probably contributing to this mis-perception. For one, overtraining and overreaching are often confused. It's much more arduous to throw the body into overtraining syndrome than people seem to generally think. As an adjunct to this, I suspect that, especially in the magazines, there's little mention, if any, of the concept of work capacity and how to increase it. Bodybuilding's the only sport where I've seen people so scared to do more that I've been involved in.

Maybe it comes from the majority of the community having to teach themselves? In all the organized sports I've been involved in (football, rugby, baseball, basketball, muay thai among others) my coaches have always moved in the direction of increasing training volume as time goes on. I never questioned it, though, because they had the accolades to prove their methods, and additionally, I wasn't absorbing loads of poor information either. And of course, how can we forget this sport's interest in the minutiae?

And of course, since I'm a cultural pessimist, I think people have just become further steeped in the idea of doing less for more. Or perhaps its just the result of figurative miasma of misinformation to wade through coupled with insecurity due to the sheer loads of minor informational tidbits that go along with bodybuilding media?

[/Mental Masturbation]

[John Prophet]

society is getting lazier as a whole....that affects the common gym goer as well

like I have said before....I am amazed how often the term "overtraining" is used today...it didnt used to be that way


but even so, the average gym guy DOES do too much, lol. IMO they do too much intensity...at least thats what I see day in and out


there's a guy in my gym right now...really nice guy, but to me he trains with WAY too much intensity....he does intensity and volume. Fine and dandy, let him do what he wants....BUT people tend to go to him for advice and he leads them into the same thing.

Like right now he is training this girl...total newb even though she is already sort of lean/muscular. So they do chest and she is already on like the standard, written in stone "4 sets of 4 different exercises...all to failure"

so I see her doing incline press and instead of using common sense and going one rep short of failure...which is PLENTY intense for a newb, he has her going to total failure where her form is breaking down etc. And thats just one out of 4 chest exercises.

Then I see them on triceps and its the same deal....they go thru all these tricep exercises an dlike an hour later I look over and he has her "finishing off" with dips with her whole body shaking etc

to me its totally ludicrous

IMO part of it comes from the "each bodypart 1x per week" mentality....they know they are only going to do chest...so tthere aint no way in hades they are going to do 2 exercises and leave the gym after 15 minutes....no, they are going to stay for at least an hour and bomb that bodypart...even if they have only been training for 2 months, lol


I am supposed to train one of these guys Monday...just a chest workout....he has been at it for about a year now training with some of the hyper macho guys. They just finished up some chest thing where they did heavy negatives every week for like 12 weeks, lol. I hope dude wont be dissapointed because I see me having him do like 3 exercises which will take like 30 minutes tops

[Dazed/Confused]

I think arguments about the amount of exercise that is "optimal" are just rhetoric. It seems clear to me that it is different for different people. Unless scientific studies are done that show that a certain amount of volume tends to be most effective, then there is no clear answer as to what is best. What people have to do is use trial and error. Try radically different approaches and determine what works. And if you do find something that works, then stick with it as long as you can.

[VikingMan]

Great post defiant. Like most things related to physical exertion, doing lots of work just takes working up to. Slowly, over weeks, months, and years, we should strive to be able to perform more work in the gym while still being able to recover from it. It's the work capacity SA was talking about.

The more stimulation you can put yourself through and not self destruct from, the better, because you've got that much more valuable stimulus to adapt to.

On the other hand, I have seriously been thinking about switching to HIT for the rest of my life. What do you think?

[JoeyTS]

society is getting lazier as a whole....that affects the common gym goer as well

Bingo!

They look at the clock and can't wait for the workout to end. We look at the clock and wish we could fit more in.

Most people nowadays seem to want all the gains but put as little work into it as they can. I hate to use the quote but "Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder but aint no one want to lift no heavy ass weight." -Ronnie Coleman

The time and effort and money people will put into Supplements, determining the best split, and the excuses why they don't work as hard as they should--it is all crap. The problem is, these people don't like training.

The fun is not the result. Sure I know we all love the results and that is good, but the true enjoyment should be doing the training itself. I like lifting weight, the heavier the better. I don't get dressed up all fancy to go to the gym, I look like a caveman as I grunt and I enjoy lifting what is heavy ass weight for me. I get pissed at all these yuppies that bitch--oh ther' to hard--about why they hate squats; the reason I like them is because I know I did some work after a heavy set.

I don't think "back in the day" there were gyms with little pink weights and rubber balls to roll around on. Only people that did the balancing act circus **** where in the circus--the gym had big heavy weights and guys that liked lifting them, and that how it should be!

[DallasLynx]

Bingo!

They look at the clock and can't wait for the workout to end. We look at the clock and wish we could fit more in.

Most people nowadays seem to want all the gains but put as little work into it as they can. I hate to use the quote but "Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder but aint no one want to lift no heavy ass weight." -Ronnie Coleman

The time and effort and money people will put into Supplements, determining the best split, and the excuses why they don't work as hard as they should--it is all crap. The problem is, these people don't like training.

The fun is not the result. Sure I know we all love the results and that is good, but the true enjoyment should be doing the training itself. I like lifting weight, the heavier the better. I don't get dressed up all fancy to go to the gym, I look like a caveman as I grunt and I enjoy lifting what is heavy ass weight for me. I get pissed at all these yuppies that bitch--oh ther' to hard--about why they hate squats; the reason I like them is because I know I did some work after a heavy set.

I don't think "back in the day" there were gyms with little pink weights and rubber balls to roll around on. Only people that did the balancing act circus **** where in the circus--the gym had big heavy weights and guys that liked lifting them, and that how it should be!

This was a great post. Made me laugh out loud. I couldn't agree with you more.

[Liquidtensi0n]

I also think this explains part of why there's an urge for something like HIT to work. People are lazy and want something easy and minimalistic to provide results. Mentzer was smart enough to realize that and set up a business model that catered to that crowd. With enough elegant speech and "logic" he convinced enough people to make himself some $$$ and quite a history.

[HITMOF]

dude like thousands every day are turning to mentzer hit. athletes, bodybuilders of all levels, powerlifters, probably every third grandma, everybody practically and not because its laziness-volume training is laziness with all the wimpy submaximal sets. hit isnt for nerds

[all pro]

dude like thousands every day are turning to mentzer hit. athletes, bodybuilders of all levels, powerlifters, probably every third grandma, everybody practically and not because its laziness-volume training is laziness with all the wimpy submaximal sets. hit isnt for nerds

OH NO !
Now you've done it. You came into Defiant1's thread to pimp a 1 set to failure, once a week, limp wristed pansy work out.

[Serpens Aeon]

I also think this explains part of why there's an urge for something like HIT to work. People are lazy and want something easy and minimalistic to provide results. Mentzer was smart enough to realize that and set up a business model that catered to that crowd. With enough elegant speech and "logic" he convinced enough people to make himself some $$$ and quite a history.

Too bad he was bat**** crazy.

[DallasLynx]

hit isnt for nerds

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haha!!!

[Defiant1]

I also think this explains part of why there's an urge for something like HIT to work. People are lazy and want something easy and minimalistic to provide results. Mentzer was smart enough to realize that and set up a business model that catered to that crowd. With enough elegant speech and "logic" he convinced enough people to make himself some $$$ and quite a history.

Great post.

[JoeyTS]

dude like thousands every day are turning to mentzer hit. athletes, bodybuilders of all levels, powerlifters, probably every third grandma, everybody practically and not because its laziness-volume training is laziness with all the wimpy submaximal sets. hit isnt for nerds

TO each his or her own. I don't know why the HIT thing or anti-HIT thing is such a war. Its not like you get $100 for everyone you convince to train your way. Just find what works for you and do it. Tell people what works for you, but don't act like its the only way to go.

I personally like the old school methods because they worked then, and they work now. I don't fix what aint broken.

[kingfish3]

one reason why alot of old school lifters had smaller legs is because they trained their upper body too much when it didn't need it causing the legs to suffer. Some even squatted to often with little or no results to show from it and just accepted the fact that it was genetic . If this was 1977 today and i came on here and said to train each bodypart one day a week and do 3 sets per exercise i would be called nuts and banned.

[raysmith]

i would be called nuts

We do

and banned.

Getting there.

[John Prophet]

be careful using HIT...it tends to cause deep redness

[Liquidtensi0n]

one reason why alot of old school lifters had smaller legs is because they trained their upper body too much when it didn't need it causing the legs to suffer. Some even squatted to often with little or no results to show from it and just accepted the fact that it was genetic . If this was 1977 today and i came on here and said to train each bodypart one day a week and do 3 sets per exercise i would be called nuts and banned.

Thanks for showing up and making yourself look bad. You're awesome at this game.

[kingfish3]

i just said the truth and you know it. People were laughing at mentzer when he was recommending 4 sets in the 70s and saying it wasn't even close to being enough.

[Bringindapain]

i just said the truth and you know it. People were laughing at mentzer when he was recommending 4 sets in the 70s and saying it wasn't even close to being enough.

and people are still laughing at him, mainly because of you.

[raysmith]

be careful using HIT...it tends to cause deep redness

Extreme red.

<<<<<<<<<

[Michael M]

On a serious note, I think the majority of bodybuilders want to workout MORE. I, for one, put myself in that category. If the body worked as simply as more weightlifting=more muscle, everyone would be at the gym all day. Obviously, as you know, it's not that simple.

Many times in my life (I'm 36) I would go in the gym for a period- in my teens, twenties... I'd take my garden variety body part splits, do 15+ exercises for major muscle group and one day a week for arms. It always began the same; I'd put on 20lbs of newbie weight and then nothing. It wasn't until I began doing programs that incorporate progressive load at a controlled weight that I began getting results where I busted through plateus.

Right now I'm doing the Linear 5x5- just trying to add weight to the bar every week, and It's working. My body weight hasn't stalled at 155-160lbs as it did durring my 15-20 set workouts.

I'm not suggesting that heavy weight + volume isn't profitable for some. But, I tend to lean toward the montra of Stuart McRobert, "err on the side of less not more." Perhaps he overemphasizes the rest- we all need to find our levels. But, generally speaking, I believe that you need to get stronger to get bigger and you need to make it your goal to put more weight on the bar each week. Even if that means dusting off your 1/4lb.fractional plates.

I think that, in general, that's where most need to be rather than the "how many sets can I do to failure on my chest in one day" mentality. From a basic physiological perspective it makes sense; "if I don't cause microtrauma in 3-5 sets to stimulate hypertrophy, how many more sets am I going to need- 10-20?"

[bania]

Sometimes I get the impression that a lot of people think that the only reason "pro" bodybuilders can do long, hard routines is because of "drugs", and that prior to wide-spread AAS use, bodybuilders trained with "short" workouts of few sets.

Hi there,

That's because they did. If you look at the old timer routines like Peary Rader's you'll see frequency of typically 2-3 times/week, with a fairly low volume training with high effort.

That success formula has worked very well for decades now. Most recently, if you look on Iron Addict's page, you'll see this is what he recommends for his traineers.

I see this frequently when "Arnolds" routines are brought up. This is actually a misconception. I was reading an article by Bob Kennedy, publisher of MMI, and respected for his "honest" view of bodybuilding. He states:

"You'll have to forgive for delving into the past with my articles, but seriously, my head is full of lessons from the past. Sometimes I even turn my movie reel back as much as fifty years.

But let me tell you something. The bodybuilders of yesteryear, even though they didn't have the mass-building steroids or the cut-up drugs, trained far harder than the champs we see in the gyms today. This is a fact, not even up for discussion."

Okay. So how does that translate to meaning they trained LONGER in the gym?

Bob Kennedy has been involved in the iron game for a LONG time.

If you read Kennedy's old books, I believe he recommends lower volume/frequency routines.

Then again, Kennedy is a guy who is always trying to sell people something, specifically bodybuilding supplements. I don't see any difference between him and Joe Weider.

Both have been around for a long time. Both are totally commercially motivated selling people things they don't need by promoting a lifestyle that isn't attainable by the vast majority.

The point of this is is that I see guys wondering if they are "overtraining", or people putting down the pros routines cause they are "on steroids".

The pros routines are generally useless for those who aren't taking drugs. Anyone who has trained natural bodybuilders over any extent of time (like IA) know this is true. There are always exceptions, of course, but they are in a small minority.

If you REALLY can't do a routine, then fine. But don't dismiss hard work because you THINK you can't do it. The pros didn't suddenly get to where they are and say "Oh gee, now I can do 25 sets per bodypart"-it's the drive and determination to GET them through those workouts that make them the pros. Not the other way around. You don't have to follow their advice, but don't dismiss them because of some pre-conceived notion.

No offense (as I don't know you and maybe you are a pro), but I and many others would have been a lot better off if we never heard ANY advice from the "pros". From the very beginning if I just followed the old routines that prescribed infrequent hard work, I'd have saved a lot of time and avoided injuries.

The old time natural guys trained just as hard, even harder.

Probably true.

So get in there, and bust your ass.

Agree with you 100% there!

It's effort that matters. I see so many guys in the gym who just go through the motions. Hard work is what builds muscle. The people who work HARD on the basic lifts like squats deads, pressing, etc. are the ones who are rewarded with the most muscle in the fastest time.

[romeyjdogg]

I think the newbies think about ovetraining because of all the people that warn about it so damn much. Newbs don't understand it's a function of frequency and intensity, so they just assume they are overtraining after a week when their bench doesn't go up 50lbs.

I personally don't like high volume, but I wouldn't call myself lazy in the gym. I like to take my 3-4 compounds and perform them with high intensity, then throw in a supplementary or 2 with lower intensity. I just can't sustain a high intensity with 10 different exercises. Just my 2 cents

[BOLT.]

So after 2 years, Defiant1, do you still stand by this?



I would agree with him, though. People put too much hype into roids. Steroids are about putting the razor edge on an already sharp lifting and diet routine, not about making one person able to do 4x as much work than another.

[BOLT.]

I think the newbies think about ovetraining because of all the people that warn about it so damn much. Newbs don't understand it's a function of frequency and intensity, so they just assume they are overtraining after a week when their bench doesn't go up 50lbs.

I personally don't like high volume, but I wouldn't call myself lazy in the gym. I like to take my 3-4 compounds and perform them with high intensity, then throw in a supplementary or 2 with lower intensity. I just can't sustain a high intensity with 10 different exercises. Just my 2 cents

Overtraining is highly overrated IMO and was created to give people the peace in heart that they don't have to train hard.

With one football team that I work with (highschool), all the freshmen, after doing a very intense either upper of lower day, do these things called "4th quarters". Where they will take an light weight and do it for as many reps as they can for a set period. They end up going beyond failure due to their spotters being directed to help force reps, then they move on to the next station. There are about 8 stations.

So the point I'm trying to make it, especially in beginners, it is hard to overtrain when you are not very strong to begin with. And the whole "failure vs. no failure" is overrated in my opinion. It may make a difference to people who are very strong. But for raw beginners, it should be the last thing in mind, the first thing in mind being progression.