Iso's ARE necessary

[soflsun]

Well, this is going to piss a lot of people off, but it's how I feel so please don't be offended.

After reading how against iso's everone is here, and the theory behind compounds working those muscles as good if not better than the corresponding iso's, I was expecting to see some mammoth's here at HST forum.  Then to my dismay, many of the proponents of these compound only routines, while they are strong, have bodies that almost look as though they don't lift weights at all.  Seriously, look at the pictures thread, the guys at my gym that don't know squat about lifting look better than many of the guys on this forum.  What's up with that?  Is this forum about strength or hypertrophy??

 

[mikeynov]

As a counterpoint to this, go to a powerlifting forum with reasonably strong members and ask them how many bicep curls and the like they're doing, then demand pictures.

Particularly when dieted down, you will find a lot of big motherfuckers, and most of them are not bothering with the isolation type stuff most bodybuilders habitually use.

Which is why I think it's a pretty safe statement to suggest that isolation type work is NOT necessary to build a large base of muscle. However, I think it's also fair to say that, if one has bodybuilding ambitions and/or wants to maximize the size of all his/her muscles, then isolation work will be used at some point.

 

[lcars]

<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 11 2007,14:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, this is going to piss a lot of people off, but it's how I feel so please don't be offended.

After reading how against iso's everone is here, and the theory behind compounds working those muscles as good if not better than the corresponding iso's, I was expecting to see some mammoth's here at HST forum.  Then to my dismay, many of the proponents of these compound only routines, while they are strong, have bodies that almost look as though they don't lift weights at all.  Seriously, look at the pictures thread, the guys at my gym that don't know squat about lifting look better than many of the guys on this forum.  What's up with that?  Is this forum about strength or hypertrophy??</div>
i do iso's

actually i think youve been a little harsh here. many of the members are newbs to training and have plucked up the courage to post their results.

there are plenty of members on here that have great physiques. however i feel that compounds alone are not enough to fine tune a good physique.

 

[soflsun]

Good point mikey, but those are powerlifters. This is not a powerlifting forum, its a place that emphasizes hypertrophy or larger muscles. Shouldn't based on these principles we be able to achieve muscular physiques without powerlifting core exercises only?

 

[soflsun]

lcars,

I know you do iso's, and that why you look better than most here IMHO.  I'm not talking about newbie pics either...not mentioning names, but the biggest proponents on core only exercise tend to be vets here, and it just doesn't seem to be cutting the cake on the auxillary muscles.

 

[lcars]

okay, i here ya.

however i dont think iso's make you &quot;big&quot; i just think they put on the finishing touches.

many of the guys dont come on while later, so theres enough time to put your flame suit on.

 

[RUSS]

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This is not a powerlifting forum, its a place that emphasizes hypertrophy or larger muscles. Shouldn't based on these principles we be able to achieve muscular physiques without powerlifting core exercises only? </div>


Well that's the crazy thing about HST IMHO, we give lip service to &quot;the&quot; official template but then we all basically do and promote a hardgainer/load cycling hybrid - although I've noticed more people pointing out the emperors lack of clothing lately.

MikeyNov pretty much summed up anything elseI might have said beyond that- except ... those smaller guys you alluded to - would adding iso's have changed that ?

 

[bluejacket]

everyone should make up there own mind about the iso's. experience is the best indicator.....if youve tried them with success then you should certainly keep them but if others have found as much success (regardless of how much/little it appears to us) doing just compounds then who am i (or you) to say...no, youre not big enough, your doing it wrong.

pics can be a misleading yardstick. this and other forums are full of folks with avg &quot;building&quot; genetics who have to contend with life as well (family, jobs, stress, etc etc) in their pursuit of a better body. like many hobbies/pusuits in this world your gifts (things your good at) are taken for granted and your limitations are what you work hardest at.........why are there so many 3-4-5hr marathoners in the world, dont they know they suck at running and should stop now...... this is why he pics section a broad range of abilities as well as results.

im familiar with a lifter from back east who won the local &quot;state&quot; title with an amazing physique (natural) but appalling w/o and diet habits and less dedication then 90% of the posters here. from my days of running yrs ago the local high school state champ didnt run a step until the 1st day of the season (he was terrible) and within 60 days no one in the state could touch him.........are these examples of which lifting or running program i should chose based on pics or appearences.

your point about iso's may be valid (im assuming you talking in conjunction with compounds) for you personally in which case youd be fool not to incorporate them. i dont feel the idea of pointing out others shortcomings based only on a picture is an ideal way to evaluate the pros and cons of program for everyone. if hitting the compounds (and only the compounds) for cycle after cycle has produced a bunch &quot;do you lift?&quot; type of physiques do you really think adding in some iso's is the cure?.......really?

good luck

 

[Martin Levac]

Define &quot;look better&quot;. Also, you must compare photos to photos or real persons to real persons, not photos to real persons. A camera lies, eyes do not. This forum is about HST but all members may not train exclusively for hypertrophy all the time. Furthermore, not all photos may be current.

-edit- The alternative is that comparing photos to real persons is valid and gives an accurate result. All members train exclusively for size all the time and train properly all the time. And all photos are current. - edit-

 

[soflsun]

Look, I'm really not trying to put anyone down here...that is honestly not my intention.  I would agree that the individuals who hit core exercises very hard and still have limited size would probably not have done much different with the addition of iso's, but not necessarily.  Maybe some of those lagging bodyparts do in fact need some specific attention to bring them up to speed with the larger/stronger groups.  I just don't like the negative and condescending attitude towards people, especially newbies, who want to incorporate more exercises in their routine.  &quot;Simplify and Win,&quot; doesn't APPEAR to be the winning combo for everyone here.

Yes, pictures are pictures, not real life.  But, if your a gorilla your not going to look like a chimp in a picture!

 

[soflsun]

Look at Bryan's routine in FAQ:

Here's my AM/PM split.

AM
Squat
Incline Bench
T-bar row (supported)
Calf (straight leg)
Lateral raises
Bent over laterals
EZ curls
Tri extensions

PM
Leg curl
Leg extension
Millitary press (lowering no further than top of head)
Chins
Dips
Lateral raises
lying rear delt raises (lie on bench on your side)
DB curl
Tri extension
calf raise

Then everytime a newbie asks for a critique of their routine, they get the standard too many exercises and move to core only.  In additon they are told to read the FAQ's as if they are asking something which has been implied as universal.  This can be confusing for everybody.  Then they look at the pics...now we're really confused.

 

[bluejacket]

<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 11 2007,17:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> &quot;Simplify and Win,&quot; doesn't APPEAR to be the winning combo for everyone here.</div>
i think thats all anyone who is disagreeing is saying as well. simplify and win might not be for you, but that doesnt mean its not for anyone else, whatever their goals. and vise-versa of course.

i think your orig. statement might hold the real key to the situation. you mentioned all the folks who &quot;compound only&quot; being strong (for their size im sure) but not possesing a lifting physique. that probably has less to do with which w/o incorporated and more to do with diet.

even the hardest gainer could grow some muscle with a steady cal suplus as well as a steady diet of deads, squats, bench, press etc.

just my thoughts

 

[Lol]

soflsun, I don't think anyone here is against isos per se, it's just that you don't need them to build a great foundation and you certainly need to make compounds your mainstays.

As Blue pointed out, most of us have limited time to hit the weights so we want to make the very most of that time. Throwing around a few pounds for arms and delts takes just as long as squatting with several hundred. I know which I would rather do and which would have the greatest effect on my overall gains.

Most of the guys at my previous gym (I train at home now) who looked anything like jacked were all on AS. The only guy around here who looked really jacked but who was completely natural was Steve Jones and he was a long way from the typical pro bb look.

One of the things I benefited from the most, having read articles here and over on Dan's site, was getting an understanding that it just isn't possible to look like the guys in the bb mags unless you take drugs - no matter how you train.

Great genetics obviously help a great deal; your genetics look pretty good so I hope you will give HST a good shot and see how much you improve during your time here.

 

[soflsun]

Lol,

You make valid points, especially regarding time limitations.  I also don't think it's fair to say that anyone who has a good physique or even &quot;jacked&quot; is on AS.  Believe me, I'm not talking about looking like the guys in BB mags either, but after years of HST no matter what your genetics, you should look like you are in pretty good darn shape and at least look like you lift weights more than the average person, especially if you can DL 1.5x your body weight or you ARE doing something wrong IMO.  I am keeping a detailed log of my HST activity and will definitely give it 100%.  

 

[Martin Levac]

Then perhaps you assume that everybody who's picture you saw on this forum has been training with HST for years. Hence the perceived deception.

The title of this thread is &quot;iso's are necessary&quot;.

For whom?

 

[RUSS]

<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 11 2007,16:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Look at Bryan's routine in FAQ:

Here's my AM/PM split.

AM
Squat
Incline Bench
T-bar row (supported)
Calf (straight leg)
Lateral raises
Bent over laterals
EZ curls
Tri extensions

PM
Leg curl
Leg extension
Millitary press (lowering no further than top of head)
Chins
Dips
Lateral raises
lying rear delt raises (lie on bench on your side)
DB curl
Tri extension
calf raise

Then everytime a newbie asks for a critique of their routine, they get the standard too many exercises and move to core only.  In additon they are told to read the FAQ's as if they are asking something which has been implied as universal.  This can be confusing for everybody.  Then they look at the pics...now we're really confused.</div>
And you are under the impression that bryan is natural of course? Google his myriad writings on chemical assistance and that impression may change...

 

[soflsun]

Russ,

I'm not assuming anyone is natural or not, just the discrepancy between the FAQ's and the general consesus now that a simplified, core only routine is better.  I don't know anything about Bryan other than he started this forum.

Martin,

You can get a general idea when HST was started by the users joined date...no misperception there I don't think.  Iso's are necessary, IMO, for anyone who wants a well-rounded muscular physique where many angles and parts of a specific muscle shows signs of development.

 

[RUSS]

<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 11 2007,18:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">the discrepancy between the FAQ's and the general consesus now that a simplified, core only routine is better.</div>
I can only speak for myself , I personally don't think of HST as anything other than &quot;another intensity cycling program&quot; and believe it has been (and is in the process of being) improved , optimized , and synthesized (with concepts and principals from &quot;other&quot; strength training systems) by the experience , observations and conclusions of it's practitioners . I mean what is HST REALLY? Tell me what is original or unique Other than calling your unloading &quot;sd&quot;?

IMHO HST by itself (without it's participants &quot;tweaking&quot is average , perhaps above average for older or joint issue lifters. It's the &quot;outside the box&quot; tinkering that it's members have undertaken that makes it so effective IMHO.

And thats just me , I find myself biting my tongue quite often as I don't think it's my job to burst anyones bubble. My only impetus is to optimize not to &quot;dogma-tize&quot;

 

[imported_domineaux]

<div>
(soflsun @ Sep. 11 2007,14:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, this is going to piss a lot of people off, but it's how I feel so please don't be offended.

After reading how against iso's everone is here, and the theory behind compounds working those muscles as good if not better than the corresponding iso's, I was expecting to see some mammoth's here at HST forum.  Then to my dismay, many of the proponents of these compound only routines, while they are strong, have bodies that almost look as though they don't lift weights at all.  Seriously, look at the pictures thread, the guys at my gym that don't know squat about lifting look better than many of the guys on this forum.  What's up with that?  Is this forum about strength or hypertrophy??</div>
Going to the gym with a BB is the best way to evaluate.

There are plenty of people that have aspirations of being a BB and they are pretty vocal on the forums.  I'm not knocking them, everyone has to start someplace.  So, who cares about their pictures.  

If you don't buy the HST, then you don't.  There are plenty of us that are sold on it, and we ain't little fellers either.

Read the articles and FAQ, make sure you understand HST well enough to tell a dumb butt about it.  Then you'll be educated enough to do HST.

----------------------------

A point on isolations exercises. There are ways to do so-called isolations that easily make them compounds..

When you do cable pushdowns for tricps and load heavy it is very easy to involve your shoulders and abs, if you're heavy enough.

If you think about the exercise and how it affects what muscle, you can usually just change it up a bit and turn it into a compound exercises.

----------------------------

Another point that should be made.

There are plenty of guys at the gym where I workout that have made little or no progress in the past two years I've observed them.  

Some don't push themselves, so don't lift heavy enough and most of them probably don't eat right.  They don't want your input or they'd ask.   They keep on doing whatever it is they are doing or not doing.  

Forrest Gump said it, &quot;Stupid is as Stupid does&quot;

 

[Martin Levac]

So if I say iso's are not necessary, does that imply I don't want a &quot;well rounded muscular physique&quot;?

Isolation exercises, by nature, explicitly forbid a well rounded physique. Compound exercises, by nature, produce a well rounded physique. Isolation exercises hinder motor functions. Compound movements enhance motor functions. Iso's don't represent actual activities. Compound movements represent actual activities. Iso's load fewer muscle per rep thus take more time to load the whole body. Compounds load more muscle per rep thus take less time to load the whole body. Iso's use lighter weights therefore don't load the connective tissue and skeletal structure enough to stimulate a corresponding adaptation response. Compound movements use heavier weight therefore load the connective tissue and skeletal structure sufficiently to stimulate a corresponding adaptation response.

There is a pseudo advantage to iso's apparently. It is said that we can use iso's to target individual muscles to bring them up to speed with other muscles. This advantage is an illusion since compound movements load all muscles in the chain thus the weakest link will get the most stimulation which in turn will bring it up to speed anyway. Even then, balance problems are exceptions, not the norm. We are talking about the norm, yes?

I see no use to iso's except perhaps exceptional circumstances such as a medical condition and the like. Also, I'm a big proponent of &quot;do what you want&quot;. So, do what you want.