A 'MUST READ' article

E

EL_VIEJO

New Member
I normally hate the terms 'Must Read' or 'Must Watch", but I think this is an excellent article that offers some real food for thought (and it's from a website that I've been advised not to read, because it might contaminate my feeble mind and confuse me.)
cool.gif
: http://www.t-nation.com/readArt....1788475
 
Where is the science or evidence to back up this article???  It just sounds like 'fluff' to me.
Basically this article says
"Change is good, because I said so, and if you don't agree with me I will call you a dork."
Wow, the intelligence of this article is mind-blowing.  I am re-thinking my entire approach to training now that I have read this...he is so convincing.  And god forbid he call me a dork.
rock.gif
 
Wow! I didn't expect that kind of hostility. I honestly think it is one of the most honest bodybuilding 'how to' articles I've read. Apparently I've tweaked some dogmatic noses, and that was not my intention. I really thought that it would make a good topic for discussion.
 
I dunno, I've wondered for some time about radical change. Most of us just change positions a bit or adjust for better form, but I've always felt that any program stales out on you after a while. HST after MuscleNow, DC and shock training. 7 cycles of HST for me stagnated, then 5x5 blew me up.
Allready some of you will reverse reps and sets, like 3x10 to 10x3.
It does work IMO.
The temptation to resist is changing too soon, and/or just playing with things temporarily - like the guy who does kickbacks every 3rd workout...what's the point?
 
<div>
(EL_VIEJO @ Nov. 01 2007,18:14)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Wow! I didn't expect that kind of hostility. I honestly think it is one of the most honest bodybuilding 'how to' articles I've read. Apparently I've tweaked some dogmatic noses, and that was not my intention. I really thought that it would make a good topic for discussion.</div>
I repeat: Where is the science or evidence to back up this article???

Anyone can make claims. If I write an article saying that sniffing gym socks helps hypertrophy does that make it true? The same goes for this claim about changing routines.

Not once does he give any kind of explanation or real reasoning WHY this works.
 
Practice is boring. Change is exciting. Ergo, change produces results. Practice does not.

The mechanism and logic above is a known phenomenon founded on our learning mechanism and its relation to the pleasure centers in the brain. When we learn something new, we are stimulated, we are excited. The brain wakes up from a sort of intellectual slumber. Colors appear more bright. Sounds are more clear. Sensations are more acute. Anything we do, we see with a different eye. Sometimes, we even think that we've become better at whatever it is that we're doing right now.

This phenomenon is very obvious with golfers who try a new club, especially a new driver (the big club that players tee off with, otherwise called the 1 wood). After a while, the player will feel bored or will lose focus or will lose confidence or concentration because his clubs are known. So he tries something new and suddenly wakes up. All his senses are more acute, more accurate than before. Regardless of his real ability, he will come to believe that he's better than he was just a moment ago. When he was still playing with his old clubs. Even if the old clubs are in fact just as good if not better than the club he's using now. After a while, no worry, he'll go back to his old self and resume sucking like he always did.

After a while, we get bored. It is at this time that we can distinguish between the person with a will for it and somebody just along for the ride. The guy with the ride needs a change. The guy with a will knows otherwise.

The article is bullshit. But that's OK, there's a whole lot of people who want to read about that kind of bullshit so it's all good anyway.
 
I am really baffled by the negative responses to this article. I actually went back and re-read it to see if there was something that I missed, and I still don't get these reactions to an article that I think is one of the most enlightening bodybuilding articles I've read. An article that warns you not to be overly dogmatic and/or overly attached to a guru. An article that points out that the emperor is buck-ass naked. We've got Scientific demanding scientific proof for an article that is based on someone's personal observations and Martin dismissing the entire article as bullshit and implying that you should continue with a program with which you have stopped making progress. Apparently you are some kind of wimp if you don't persevere with a program even if you have stopped making gains with it. And, BTW, stagnation could be physical or psychological. It really doesn't make any difference.

When you get to a point of stagnation in your training you have 3 choices: 1) Continue stagnating; 2) Give up and go home; 3) Change some aspect of your current training routine. All Shugart is saying is that if you choose change, then choose a big-ass dramatic change. Go wild and crazy and do something that is contrary to what you believe and are accustomed to, and you might be pleasantly surprised with the results. After giving the change a reasonable amount of time to judge its effectiveness, you can go back to your traditional way of training. What have you got to loose? As I see it, you've got nothing to loose and everthing to gain.
 
am I missing some background? are you stagnating el v? I'm curious as to why this article/subject is a line in the sand.

my opinion is that plenty of people on this forum change up their routines quite often. folks here have just about sold me on a 5x5 routine...

as for the article, I remember reading it a while back. I don't think the author is off his rocker, but it's by no means any more enlightening or inspiring works found on sites like wannabebig.com Plenty of people will tell you that eating right and using a variety of routines will yield results.

....that's not intended as a hostile remark, but it is my take.
 
Actually, I think what he is doing is lending credence to all the varied training programs promoted on the T-Nation site. Isn't it really just another take on Weider's muscle confusion 'principle'?

If you aren't getting results from your training then you do need to change something but just switching to another program could be just as fruitless. You could easily end up just as frustrated and none the wiser.

I feel it is much better, if possible, to try to understand why something isn't working. It won't always be possible to fully figure out what the problem is because no one has a complete understanding of human physiology. However, it's likely to be in one or more of the following general areas:

Training program
Diet/calorie intake
Hormone levels
Psychological state

There's an abundance of good material on these topics on this site alone (and elsewhere too, of course) so a bit of study should help you to formulate a plan of attack that will meet with some success and keep you progressing. Then you can continue to build on what you know and fine-tune your plan as you learn more about your own body.
 
We know how to gain mass: Eat more food.
We know how to stimulate muscle growth: The 4 principles behind HST.

Those statements above are requirements for continued growth. Take one out and growth stops. It can't be more simple than that. So, when a lifter stagnates, he's not doing one or more of the requirements above.

El_Viejo, dogmatic you say? Do you know what dogmatic means? It certainly does not mean &quot;based on scientific evidence&quot;. So the article says to not be overly dogmatic. Well then, I'll stop reading right now because in my eyes, the article is a demonstration of dogmatic to the bone. The dogma being &quot;Stuck? Change up!&quot;
 
Shugsy needs a change from scrawny poser who looks skinner than starvin' marvin towards something resembling somebody who has actually seen the inside of a gym.
 
<div>
(fearfactory @ Nov. 02 2007,20:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">am I missing some background? are you stagnating el v?</div>
No, I'm actually making the best gains of my life with HST. Tomorrow I begin the last week of my first cycle. So I wasn't trying to dis HST. I just thought it was a good article and that maybe some of the people here would like it.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm curious as to why this article/subject is a line in the sand.</div>

Probably because I'm new to posting on Internet forums and I took some of the remarks as personal attacks since I'm the one that made the original post. I probably need to develop a little thicker skin. And I'll admit, after re-reading it, that my original post sounds a bit sarcastic when I was trying to be funny. Since you can't hear the person's voice or see their face on a forum I think remarks sometimes get misinterpreted.

Anyway, I won't post links to any T-Nation articles in the future.
blush.gif
 
<div>
(EL_VIEJO @ Nov. 03 2007,06:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Anyway, I won't post links to any T-Nation articles in the future.
blush.gif
</div>
Post whatever you want and I don't believe anyone was trying to tell you not too and if they were, screw em.

That said

THere are many reasons why a change does a body good but it's not that the principles of growth will or have changed,

1. Enough force/volume
2. Do it frequently enough
3. Do it long enough to see results

What does change is some variable within these principles, volume, force, target muscle activation, frequency, or something else. This makes it seem that this new change is wonderful but when you truly begin to analyze the changes the principles are all still there.
 
El_Viejo, only by considering opposing and different opinions can you validate or refute your own. It is one goal of open discussion.
 
<div>
(EL_VIEJO @ Nov. 03 2007,06:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(fearfactory @ Nov. 02 2007,20:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">am I missing some background?  are you stagnating el v?</div>
No, I'm actually making the best gains of my life with HST. Tomorrow I begin the last week of my first cycle. So I wasn't trying to dis HST. I just thought it was a good article and that maybe some of the people here would like it.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm curious as to why this article/subject is a line in the sand.</div>

Probably because I'm new to posting on Internet forums and I took some of the remarks as personal attacks since I'm the one that made the original post. I probably need to develop a little thicker skin.  And I'll admit, after re-reading it, that my original post sounds a bit sarcastic when I was trying to be funny. Since you can't hear the person's voice or see their face on a forum I think remarks sometimes get misinterpreted.

Anyway, I won't post links to any T-Nation articles in the future.
blush.gif
</div>
Post whatever you want, speak your mind! I have read some interesting articles at T-nation.
Just be prepared when making a statement about how great an article is, that differing opinions may chime in!
wink.gif
 
The problem with radical change is that changing heaps of variables at once makes it hard to see what work's or does not work.

Since your HST cycle is bringing very good results, keep going with it. When finished, if each microcycle brought good results, then just SD for 2 weeks and repeat the program (with heavier weights).

If you think something needs changing then adjust slightly and see how it goes.
 
E.V.

I liked the article. It stimulated my thinking. More specifically it got me out of some thinking that was leading me nowhere. Thank you for posting it.

Many bodybuilders are near religious about their views. Some bodybuilders worship ego, or intensity, or drugs. On the HST forum the bodybuilding god is science. I cannot speak for everyone that frequents here but I am admittedly jaded after being sold so many bogus ideas. T-nation, like Musce &amp; Fitness, is an enterprise that exists on its readership and part of how it attracts that readership is through sensationalism, which is probably why you were advised not to read it. Don't take personal offense at some of the replies. Most of it is directed at the claims made in the article.

As for the content. I agree with Dan Moore: the principles are all there just in a different configuration. Philosophically speaking, one indicator of an ultimate truth is that it can explain what smaller, partial truths expound upon. Scientific knowledge of muscle and exercise is still expanding but once it is complete we will be able to explain any workout regimen and accompanying response in terms of scientific findings. Until such a time self-educated lifters should remain aware that the claims of less sophisticated authors, while often bombastic, have the possibility to be valid.

If anything, making immense changes in your regimen may teach you a thing or two. I have tried four systems thus far and been pleasantly surprised a few times.

And it can be fun.
 
Eeeexcellent.
I reiterate: changing things too often is like the &quot;muscle confusion&quot; idea (that did NOT originate with Weider!) and does not work because muscles don't get &quot;confused&quot;, so staying with a program falls under the category of &quot;training&quot;, which as we know, yields results.
As for this: <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The guy with the ride needs a change. The guy with a will knows otherwise.</div> ...I'd say we're ALL on a &quot;ride&quot; of sorts, and most of us have basically an iron will, or else we wouldn't be still lifting. But don't tell me that you can hit the gym year after year with the same old program and be enthused. It's just not gonna happen. I think we all need a new 'toy' now and then, but for me, I've bought and built all the gym equipment I need, (and getting rid of some), tried the better programs out there (and some lesser), gave every one at least a year except DC (which only made me stronger), and I made gains on each. Had I stayed on MuscleNow I'd have quit due to joint pains, same for 3x8, same for DC, and on HST I didn't change ANY parameters, but stalled out on gains in the 7th cycle.
I also start liking the &quot;ride&quot; less when I stop seeing tangible results (expecting them to be slow, mind you) at all, and it becomes more of a chore and duty to self rather than joy.
I suppose I'm a wimp for not staying with any program for five years or something but I'll say this: hitting something new always re-invigorated me and gave me new hope. And that lends to strength and better consistency. Without your mind into it, it's hard to keep the body into it.
The question I see that remains (for me) is:
a.) can you make radical change and keep within principles of growth, and
b.) Is radical change actually better than minor change?
I'm comparing here, say, doing leg extensions and curls to squats as opposed to simply changing depth or position in a squat. Some things like arm curls are...heck, they're really all about the same, unless you do Spider or Zercher curls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top