Great Article

After the third horsecrap statement (the two behind the one quoting a flawed study) I lost interest in his generalizations. He could have done a great article with just the truth. Sorry bro, but that's just the way it hit me. Once flawed, I can't trust anything else he says.
Three strikes, yer OUT!
 
Fair enough
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 02 2007,08:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">After the third horsecrap statement (the two behind the one quoting a flawed study) I lost interest in his generalizations. He could have done a great article with just the truth. Sorry bro, but that's just the way it hit me. Once flawed, I can't trust anything else he says.
Three strikes, yer OUT!</div>
I may have missed something, as I kind of skimmed things. I couldn't tell from what you said what statements you disagreed with. Was one statement the one about 2x/week vs. 3x/week per body part?

Baggett generally seems pretty sound, and a whole lot better than the &quot;confuse teh muscles&quot; and other weird nonsense crowd. I might question a few things in the article, but most of it seemed better than a lot of what you see around.
 
<div>
(Lifting N Tx @ Feb. 02 2007,12:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 02 2007,08:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">After the third horsecrap statement (the two behind the one quoting a flawed study) I lost interest in his generalizations. He could have done a great article with just the truth. Sorry bro, but that's just the way it hit me. Once flawed, I can't trust anything else he says.
Three strikes, yer OUT!</div>
I may have missed something, as I kind of skimmed things. I couldn't tell from what you said what statements you disagreed with. Was one statement the one about 2x/week vs. 3x/week per body part?

Baggett generally seems pretty sound, and a whole lot better than the &quot;confuse teh muscles&quot; and other weird nonsense crowd. I might question a few things in the article, but most of it seemed better than a lot of what you see around.</div>
I thought so!
biggrin.gif
 
On taking another quick look, some parts remind me a lot of HST. Granted it's fairly simplified, the sort of thing you'd point someone who has been influenced by the typical bodybuilding nonsense to in order to get better information. It pretty well tries to cover A-Z so it's necessarily a bit oversimplified. Otherwise it'd be a book, not an article.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">30. So, what is the optimal training frequency?

If training a muscle group once per week is too infrequent and training a muscle group every other day is too frequent, then what’s the solution? Well, research investigating training frequency has found that, in all but beginners, twice per week training for a muscle group works just as well for size gains and tends to give better strength gains then 3 times per week training for a body-part.
</div>

This may be what Quad was referencing. See my previous comment about being necessarily oversimplified. I don't think you can optimize frequency, volume, and load, so you try to optimize the whole, which does not optimize any one of them. In an HST routine 3x/week may be best to optimize the overall training effect, in other routines something like 2x/week like Baggett suggests may be best. But that's not a simple answer and would lend itself to more of a book than an article.

By the way, if you have an account on the bodyrecompostion.com forums (Lyle McDonald's site) they've been having some discussion in the &quot;Training resources&quot; subforum about Baggett's latest book, &quot;The No-Bull Muscle Building Plan&quot;. Some are trying it and it'll be interesting to see if they start a log and what the reports are.
 
This is where HST principles win-out again... Kelly trys to &quot;define&quot; the ultimate MO for workin' out, again some of his points are spot-on;some are yer ol' pile o' poo (not forgetting he is being touted of late by the poo flinger himself)
laugh.gif


Bugger, LTN beat me to it (the ol' laptop battery ran out)
 
Aw, I should have kept my opinions to myself!
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">– In one study testosterone use alone was shown to stimulate up to a 17 pound increase in muscle mass over a 20 week period of time in the absence of any training.</div>
This is immediately misleading and I recall a lot of controversy over that study.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Studies have been done on overfeeding where people were fed an additional 1000 calories per day for 100 days without any training whatsoever. Of the weight they gained, even in the absence of exercise, an average of 35% was lean muscle mass. </div>
I have to wonder what miraculous food they FED them!
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The more total work and temporary fatigue (due to lack of oxygen), you create in a muscle, (through high volume training, high rep sets, drop sets, static holds, rest-pause etc.) the bigger the “pump” you tend to get. These methods are typically associated with various “Weider” principles.</div>
That was all he said about pump - which would leave a noob thinking that perhaps it's important? All in all, I admit it's a good article. I guess it just hit me wrong when I started seeing some inconsistencies and/or omissions. Between being sick and having back pains I'm not in much of a mood lately.
 
Kelly had emailed me his draft of this before it was released and I helped him with some points that weren't that accurate. Overall I give it an 8 out of 10 and consider it 10X better than the crap you'll see elsewhere.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In an HST routine 3x/week may be best to optimize the overall training effect, in other routines something like 2x/week like Baggett suggests may be best. But that's not a simple answer and would lend itself to more of a book than an article.</div>That's right it's not a simple answer in fact in my Hypertrophy-research series of articles &quot;The Basics&quot; many points are very similar including frequency.
 
i just skimmed thru it for now like others (ill try to really read it later) so im not in a position to overly praise it or take it apart in small detail.

what i did like was the general direction/advice of the whole article. even these days with internet access etc. there is a lot of bogus/old/misleading/wrong info out there usually trying to sell you something. its nice to see a common sense mostly factual (it seems) article put forth, perhaps a little general/oversimplified but many just starting out could really benefit from an article like this.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 02 2007,17:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Between being sick and having back pains I'm not in much of a mood lately.</div>
Well I hope you get to feeling better

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Aw, I should have kept my opinions to myself!
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">– In one study testosterone use alone was shown to stimulate up to a 17 pound increase in muscle mass over a 20 week period of time in the absence of any training.</div>
This is immediately misleading and I recall a lot of controversy over that study.</div>Nope it's true and has been followed up and repeated.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Studies have been done on overfeeding where people were fed an additional 1000 calories per day for 100 days without any training whatsoever. Of the weight they gained, even in the absence of exercise, an average of 35% was lean muscle mass. </div>
I have to wonder what miraculous food they FED them!
</div>Just food, again this is true and has been repeated numerous times I'm sure I can pull it again and provide you with the exact composition if you wish.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Feb. 02 2007,17:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Kelly had emailed me his draft of this before it was released and I helped him with some points that weren't that accurate. Overall I give it an 8 out of 10 and consider it 10X better than the crap you'll see elsewhere.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In an HST routine 3x/week may be best to optimize the overall training effect, in other routines something like 2x/week like Baggett suggests may be best. But that's not a simple answer and would lend itself to more of a book than an article.</div>That's right it's not a simple answer in fact in my Hypertrophy-research series of articles &quot;The Basics&quot; many points are very similar including frequency.</div>
It still amazes me how many of the gurus comunicate not only within each other but among us as a whole forum.

I guess after 2 years or so on this forum I deserve to get access to some of the best minds in training
biggrin.gif
....however it's still pretty cool that is down to earth and free.

Dan you guys should starts some marketing like (Gunter Peterson) or somebody! With your expertise you could make a killen $$$
biggrin.gif


I have mad repect for you guys!
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 02 2007,22:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Studies have been done on overfeeding where people were fed an additional 1000 calories per day for 100 days without any training whatsoever. Of the weight they gained, even in the absence of exercise, an average of 35% was lean muscle mass. </div></div>
Am I right in thinking that generally a 50:50 ratio between fat and lean mass gain is considered pretty good when bulking?

Because if so...well it training hardly seems worth the effort just for that extra 15% of muscle growth...I may as well just sit around and eat - I'll grow quicker because I won't be expending calories and then when I cut I can start lifting and will benefit from the newbie effect of losing fat and gaining muscle!

Have I hit upon the 'one true way'?!

If so do you think I should start a website, write a book or make a dvd first?!
cool.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Am I right in thinking that generally a 50:50 ratio between fat and lean mass gain is considered pretty good when bulking?</div>

I would not think so.
 
<div>
(robefc @ Feb. 02 2007,21:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 02 2007,22:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Studies have been done on overfeeding where people were fed an additional 1000 calories per day for 100 days without any training whatsoever. Of the weight they gained, even in the absence of exercise, an average of 35% was lean muscle mass. </div></div>
Am I right in thinking that generally a 50:50 ratio between fat and lean mass gain is considered pretty good when bulking?

Because if so...well it training hardly seems worth the effort just for that extra 15% of muscle growth...I may as well just sit around and eat - I'll grow quicker because I won't be expending calories and then when I cut I can start lifting and will benefit from the newbie effect of losing fat and gaining muscle!

Have I hit upon the 'one true way'?!

If so do you think I should start a website, write a book or make a dvd first?!  
cool.gif
</div>
Actually the 50/50 rule can be swayed and in no way fits every one. For instance in a study were non-obese ate 1000Kcals/day in excess for 8 weeks they found that on average, 432 kcal/day of the excess energy ingested was stored and 531 kcal/day was dissipated through increased energy expenditure, thereby accounting for 97% of the additional 1000 kcal/day
But fat gain varied 10-fold, ranging from a gain of only 0.36 kg to a gain of 4.23 kg among the subjects.

Of the total mass gained (1.4 –7.2 Kg) this would have been from 25% to 60% increase in fat mass. So obviously their is some interindividual differences.

Now if you add in the cost of exercise and lean tissue deposition the amount that is going to storage is going to be considerably less.

As I've said before, exercise is one of the most powerful partitioners we have available to us.

So my point is a 50:50 is welcomed but naturally a higher lean ratio is even more welcome and in many they will acheive a higher than 50:50 ratio.

Now if Kelly was a little misleading in his statement it would be that the 35% is all muscle tissue as this isn't the case and in most studies looking at P ratios they look at total lean mass not muscle mass speciifcally but he may have a study that I'm not familiar with.
 
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Feb. 02 2007,20:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It still amazes me how many of the gurus comunicate not only within each other</div>
Well don't think that this community is just chock full of love, as it isn't and many many many let ego's rule and reign supreme.

A while back I talked with Bryan about writing and he warned me then that there are a many a gunslinger waiting to shot you down because they feel outed if you write something that is against the mass concensus or what they themselves have written. I can honestly say I have witnessed this first hand and believe me it can get pretty nasty.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Feb. 03 2007,13:48)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So my point is a 50:50 is welcomed but naturally a higher lean ratio is even more welcome and in many they will acheive a higher than 50:50 ratio.

.</div>
b*gger - it's back to the gym for me then...and I'll have to come up with another way to earn my fortune!
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Feb. 03 2007,08:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Feb. 02 2007,20:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It still amazes me how many of the gurus comunicate not only within each other</div>
Well don't think that this community is just chock full of love, as it isn't and many many many let ego's rule and reign supreme.

A while back I talked with Bryan about writing and he warned me then that there are a many a gunslinger waiting to shot you down because they feel outed if you write something that is against the mass concensus or what they themselves have written. I can honestly say I have witnessed this first hand and believe me it can get pretty nasty.</div>
I can only imagine.

Don't think that I meant its one big happy family...but I do think its pretty cool that:

I have learned a lot through HST which is free....which has led me to many great members hear.

Also through HST I have met you (Dan) who I have lots of respect for which has led me to hypertrophy-research which by the way is free.

And through others I have had the chance to speak through computer land to Michael Novak who like yourself is pretty damn good at this stuff.

And I have also made my way over to Lyles. I am registered but I have never posted...simply b/c I don't feel like asking something stupid and someone telling me (to go screw my self
biggrin.gif
)....just joking but Lyles sense of humor is one in a million.

But in all serious-ness between HST, hypertrophy-research...Bodyrecompostion you can pretty much find every answer in the world and its all FREE.

So that in fact is pretty cool.
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Feb. 03 2007,08:48)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(robefc @ Feb. 02 2007,21:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 02 2007,22:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Studies have been done on overfeeding where people were fed an additional 1000 calories per day for 100 days without any training whatsoever. Of the weight they gained, even in the absence of exercise, an average of 35% was lean muscle mass. </div></div>
Am I right in thinking that generally a 50:50 ratio between fat and lean mass gain is considered pretty good when bulking?

Because if so...well it training hardly seems worth the effort just for that extra 15% of muscle growth...I may as well just sit around and eat - I'll grow quicker because I won't be expending calories and then when I cut I can start lifting and will benefit from the newbie effect of losing fat and gaining muscle!

Have I hit upon the 'one true way'?!

If so do you think I should start a website, write a book or make a dvd first?!
cool.gif
</div>
Actually the 50/50 rule can be swayed and in no way fits every one. For instance in a study were non-obese ate 1000Kcals/day in excess for 8 weeks they found that on average, 432 kcal/day of the excess energy ingested was stored and 531 kcal/day was dissipated through increased energy expenditure, thereby accounting for 97% of the additional 1000 kcal/day
But fat gain varied 10-fold, ranging from a gain of only 0.36 kg to a gain of 4.23 kg among the subjects.

Of the total mass gained (1.4 –7.2 Kg) this would have been from 25% to 60% increase in fat mass. So obviously their is some interindividual differences.

Now if you add in the cost of exercise and lean tissue deposition the amount that is going to storage is going to be considerably less.

As I've said before, exercise is one of the most powerful partitioners we have available to us.

So my point is a 50:50 is welcomed but naturally a higher lean ratio is even more welcome and in many they will acheive a higher than 50:50 ratio.

Now if Kelly was a little misleading in his statement it would be that the 35% is all muscle tissue as this isn't the case and in most studies looking at P ratios they look at total lean mass not muscle mass speciifcally but he may have a study that I'm not familiar with.</div>
I was hoping I could find that study.

Can you help me?
 
I think I found the scientific article.

But what Kelly states in his unreferenced article was a secondary finding in a study that has nothing to do with the finding.

So I hope by &quot;Results have been repeated&quot;, you dont mean the primary study has been repeated.

Maybe this is the wrong article. I think people should read it.

Right now I agree with quadlancer that the article by Kelly is crap. Mainly because its unreferenced. Why should I take his word for it?

Dan, I was on your website, I like that you reference your articles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top