Bulking Question...

[H2O]

At the moment i'm trying to bulk i have been for the past month or so.. but i only gained like 3-5 pounds?, This is what i'm doin, I'm try to aim for foods with high calorie, Starch, and Protein, Not a very strict diet and the type of work out i'm doin is high weight low reps, 3 sets, i work out when ever i can.. due to a busy schedule i'm really trying to gain 10 pounds by summer and hopefully another 20 after that.

I"m 145-150 rite now
i want to be 155 by summer or earlier
and i want to be 175 at the end of it

so any1 got any advice on to how to fix this up for make my bulk'n more effective

[chicanerous]

Eat more, train harder.

[Fanya]

Use hypertrophy schemes instead of strength ones

[Swartz]

Get pregnant.

[Rahf]

Put on 5lbs a month, any faster than that and you'll have a good amount of fat coming along as well. Trust me.

[Gusch]

the amount you gained is quite reasonable. Any more and you will most likely gain significant amount of fats. Your body can only build so much muscle within a certain timeframe.

[rock_ten]

yea, tbh I'd be worried if I gained that much in a month. If you're very detrained, like a beginner to lifting, then apparently you can gain a lot of muscle quickly.. but even then, a lb a week is probably really pushing it.

[Rahf]

yea, tbh I'd be worried if I gained that much in a month. If you're very detrained, like a beginner to lifting, then apparently you can gain a lot of muscle quickly.. but even then, a lb a week is probably really pushing it.

Here's a thought for you, how the hell are you going to control your gains if you stay on say half a pound every week? Without counting your calories, that is bloody hard I'd say, and counting calories is something not everyone is prepared to do.

One pound per week is fine, the fatter you are, the more of that is going to be fat. On top of the usual affecting factors.

[rock_ten]

Here's a thought for you, how the hell are you going to control your gains if you stay on say half a pound every week? Without counting your calories, that is bloody hard I'd say, and counting calories is something not everyone is prepared to do.

One pound per week is fine, the fatter you are, the more of that is going to be fat. On top of the usual affecting factors.

yea, that's the trouble. My weight fluctates easily by a few lbs either way just depending on things like how carb depleted I might be. For people who never eat low-carbs, that effect won't present so strongly, but there's other things that must vary weight.

So if I appeared 1/2lb heavier, or even a lb heavier, one week, I couldn't take anything from it. If after a month the center of my fluctuating range seemed to have moved up then I might conclude "permanent" weight gain had occurred.

I do think its quite a hard thing to judge, which is why its easier to go for large increases in weight to see if you're increasing at all. That's when people prone to fat gain have problems because to get the weight gain up to a detectable rate it has to include a whole lot of fat.

My weight has remained constant for about 3 years now. I know how to get myself lean, very quickly and simply (but it isn't fun), so I think some time soon I will just do this kind of thing where I aim to gain about 1lb per week for a couple of months, then cut. I'd do it with some very high volume kind of thing. I only ever seem to gain fat with low volume-density power-training stuff, contrary to the current trend of advising size gains via strength training.

The End.

[Rahf]

Weigh yourself in the morning, freshly pissed and before any kind of meal. Problem solved, granted that there still are variables in glycogen, water retention yadda yadda. But the point is that the best time to check weight is in the morning after urinating. If you gain 1lbs per week you are guaranteed to see results within two weeks (number wise).

When you start eating more food you will also inevitably start glycogen loading which will further increase your weight. This is something you perhaps are missing rock_ten since you do not consume as much carbs. Granted that you use some of your proteins as glucose but still, carbs are different.

[rock_ten]

Weigh yourself in the morning, freshly pissed and before any kind of meal. Problem solved, granted that there still are variables in glycogen, water retention yadda yadda. But the point is that the best time to check weight is in the morning after urinating. If you gain 1lbs per week you are guaranteed to see results within two weeks (number wise).

When you start eating more food you will also inevitably start glycogen loading which will further increase your weight. This is something you perhaps are missing rock_ten since you do not consume as much carbs. Granted that you use some of your proteins as glucose but still, carbs are different.

Yea of course I weigh in the morning under as similar conditions as possible.

Werd, I need to sort out the role of carbs in my diet when I want to try gaining weight properly. Currently I eat 3-500g of carbs a few times per week, over a few hours after exercise. The rest of the time is meat/eggs/veg/sometimes fruit, so only probably ~50g carbs per day outside of p/w. This lets me recover just fine, with tons of carbs p/w, and also avoid gaining fat - but I think perhaps more constantly-elevated insulin is required for me to gain any muscle. Unfortunately, that neccessarily means gaining fat, too.. so some time I'll just have to bite the bullet and go for it.

I can eat about 4000cals/day of protein, fat, and some veg, and not gain any weight. If I add carbs outside of p/w times, worst of all at breakfast, I gain fat rapidly even at much lower calories... I'll have to think how I can use that anabolic effect more carefully so that fat gains are limited.

[Rigo]

Use hypertrophy schemes instead of strength ones

What?

[Rahf]

Yea of course I weigh in the morning under as similar conditions as possible.

Werd, I need to sort out the role of carbs in my diet when I want to try gaining weight properly. Currently I eat 3-500g of carbs a few times per week, over a few hours after exercise. The rest of the time is meat/eggs/veg/sometimes fruit, so only probably ~50g carbs per day outside of p/w. This lets me recover just fine, with tons of carbs p/w, and also avoid gaining fat - but I think perhaps more constantly-elevated insulin is required for me to gain any muscle. Unfortunately, that neccessarily means gaining fat, too.. so some time I'll just have to bite the bullet and go for it.

I can eat about 4000cals/day of protein, fat, and some veg, and not gain any weight. If I add carbs outside of p/w times, worst of all at breakfast, I gain fat rapidly even at much lower calories... I'll have to think how I can use that anabolic effect more carefully so that fat gains are limited.

I don't have enough first-hand knowledge to talk about insuline but I reckon you need at least enough carbs each day to refill your glycogen depots, that's the most important thing so if you can up the intake and then keep it PWO your performance might improve some. Say you take 1g/kg bodyweight in your PWO shake and then have a meal that also has a fair amount of them. Try to balance your intake accordingly with your workout, the harder the session, the more carbs.

Regarding muscle gain you could (if you use whey or similar) take whey (or some kind of amino acid concoction) before and after workout to stimulate the protein synthesis, fat should be kept on the low side PWO since it inhibits absorption of other nutrients. This is being overly "anal" and "optimal" though, don't you kids dare try to think of training in these ways.

It's worth a shot. If you're willing to increase the carbs that is.

[rock_ten]

I don't have enough first-hand knowledge to talk about insuline but I reckon you need at least enough carbs each day to refill your glycogen depots, that's the most important thing so if you can up the intake and then keep it PWO your performance might improve some. Say you take 1g/kg bodyweight in your PWO shake and then have a meal that also has a fair amount of them. Try to balance your intake accordingly with your workout, the harder the session, the more carbs.

Regarding muscle gain you could (if you use whey or similar) take whey (or some kind of amino acid concoction) before and after workout to stimulate the protein synthesis, fat should be kept on the low side PWO since it inhibits absorption of other nutrients. This is being overly "anal" and "optimal" though, don't you kids dare try to think of training in these ways.

It's worth a shot. If you're willing to increase the carbs that is.

yea - I think these days I underestimate my carb requirements, since I cycle everywhere instead of walking. While walking is less energy efficient, cycling uses more carbs proportionally. Since changing universities and the associated lifestyle changes (including the cycling) I can literally eat twice as much and not get fat, its pretty crazy.

I don't normally eat whey, but would probably get some again. Or perhaps some other protein source, there's many available now like rice extract. Lower quality perhaps, but I don't like the idea of conventionally-produced dairy.

I've got my eye on something with tremendous volume kind of in the area of GVT or Pavel's "Bear" routine. Both have you doing up to 100 reps per exercise a few times per week. Rather than weight progression, I'm having more success recently with gradually increasing volume/volume-density with a set weight until a planned point is reached when I progress to a higher weight with lower reps again - afaik this is something that Mr Popular likes too. Ladders are prooving a great way of getting a rapeload of volume in, too. I might do ~twice a week something like ladders of (1,3,5,7,9) with a set DL weight up to an eventual four repeats of it which would total 100 reps. I don't seem to get anything from low reps at all, so 5+ is probably where I need to be.

[mr popular]

To the OP: try to gain 5lbs every month. DO NOT try to gain "one pound a week" or less or more or whatever. Do not weigh yourself that often. Weigh yourself every 4 weeks. Why? The body doesn't change linearly.

As far as weight training goes, it is best to be lifting 4-6 times a week (obviously you wouldn't train every bodypart each workout this way...). It is good to lift heavy, as that is where the real progress will come from, but you should also do your best to cover all your bases. Aim to do about 20-25 sets total per workout, and you'll probably be alright...

If you have any other specific questions feel free to ask...

the rock_ten: as far as i can tell you are not nearly advanced enough to be thinking of things in that kind of detail. haha

Either get stronger and gain muscle, or don't. Shut up and stop talking about all that shit, and just do it. Maybe people will actually respect you if you can.

~Brian

[mr popular]

What?

That is exactly what I said when I read that. haha

[rock_ten]

To the OP: try to gain 5lbs every month. DO NOT try to gain "one pound a week" or less or more or whatever. Do not weigh yourself that often. Weigh yourself every 4 weeks. Why? The body doesn't change linearly.

yea - OP, judge your progress most of the time by your lifts increasing. Weight gain per month is a valid way to look at it. If your lifts are increasing and you don't gain weight, no worries, just eat more next month. If your lifts aren't increasing then you know somethings up right away. Almost certainly a big dietry problem, unless your routine is some ridiculous bullshit.



the rock_ten: as far as i can tell you are not nearly advanced enough to be thinking of things in that kind of detail. haha

Either get stronger and gain muscle, or don't. Shut up and stop talking about all that shit, and just do it. Maybe people will actually respect you if you can.

"the rock_ten".. I like that.

Yea dude, ideally I'd get more awesome. But it doesn't come easily for me. I enjoy talking about training and nutrition, even if its just repeating the same old shit over and over - I just get off on talking/reading about it. That's what the forum's for. I can't be training all the time, so I talk about it the rest of the time to keep me happy.

[Rahf]

I too enjoy talking about nutrition, but the tips I gave rock_ten were as I said, overly "anal" and "optimal". I reckoned it would work since he is on a low-carb diet (which I do not endorse.. The horror!).

The problem with weighing oneself once a month is that when starting out it can easily go overboard and whoop dee doo you're standing there with a 10lbs gain. Weighing oneself everyday is too much, once a week is fine, it has worked for me.

[rock_ten]

I too enjoy talking about nutrition, but the tips I gave rock_ten were as I said, overly "anal" and "optimal". I reckoned it would work since he is on a low-carb diet (which I do not endorse.. The horror!).

The problem with weighing oneself once a month is that when starting out it can easily go overboard and whoop dee doo you're standing there with a 10lbs gain. Weighing oneself everyday is too much, once a week is fine, it has worked for me.

Hardly low-carb, just very strongly cyclical of them. I eat about 1500g carbs per week.

I don't consider the kinds of things in this thread as overly anal. I want as much detail as possible, right down to a molecular level. Literally, I want to know everything about everything. Many people aren't very interested, though - even mention of something like "Insulin" scares them off. Personally, I'd like to know the exact mechanisms by which Insulin exerts its effects on the cell, every protein it (de)phosphorylates, all of their signalling pathways, every resultant gene whose transcription is upregulated by insulin, how it happens, how long effects last, just everything. I'm horny for that shit.

Weighing: Weighing every week is fine and certainly serves as protection from gaining too quickly, as you said, but we shouldn't take the readings as neccessarily meaning much. Only after a few weeks is it really sure which way your weight is moving.

[mr popular]

the rock_ten: Knowledge will not give you progress.

Rahf: for normal people that would be fine, but for the lean-bulking-compound-crusaders at TT, it is just best if they wait the 4 weeks. Haha.

[anfeyd]

Mr P, why not every two weeks or so? If you figure 5lbs per month, after two weeks you atleast have to have 2 lbs or so.

I say that because of what Rahf mentioned, as well as the other side of the spectrum where someone eats too little, which pisses away a month.

[mr popular]

Because you can gain or lose 2lbs if you eat a big meal or take a shit or sweat from a workout.

If you have the capability to weigh yourself every 2 weeks on a scale first thing in the morning after pissing and before breakfast.... Then go for it i guess. haha.

The take home point here, is to get the basics down, and stop worrying about all this tiny shit until you do.

[Syn]

That is exactly what I said when I read that. haha

he's saying work on making your muscles work so hard that they work extra hard to repair them, which means that they will become bigger.... as opposed to just trying to do a 5x5 where your just trying to increase the amount of weight you can lift

[rock_ten]

the rock_ten: Knowledge will not give you progress.

I didn't say, nor do I think, that it will.

Not directly, at least. We can say that one needs knowledge to be able to act appropritately for their goals, in terms of training and lifestyle. But they do then need to act.

[Fanya]

What?

Uh well if he wants to get as big as possible, using rep ranges of 10-12 (with shorter rest and other adjusted stuff) will work better than 5. Nutrition is definitely the biggest factor, but training for size will help when your goal is size. Personally I like mixing it up and using haphazard/experimental training methods, but that's because lifting is my hobby, not my sport.

[rock_ten]

The take home point here, is to get the basics down, and stop worrying about all this tiny shit until you do.

Your idea of what constitutes "tiny shit" seems very odd - things like weighing yourself every week aren't exactly going to fuck with people's heads and make them quit. It is apparent from your other posts too, many of which are attempted [/thread]'s of "Shut up and train" kind of things.

I think a noob would do well to learn as much as he can about all this shit. The more vague the advice, the wider range of resultant trainee-behaviour can result from it. Taking the common "Just lift heavy weights and eat a lot" kind of thing, that you get on a lot of places... its completely meaningless. Theres endless ways that one could train/eat which would fit into that, most of which would be complete shit, and of course its subject to individual difference of interpretation as to what is "heavy" and what is "a lot", plus everything that isn't even alluded to in the phrase.

You can never give too much detail to a noob, I reckon... if they're afraid of it all then we can just emphasise clearly which are the most important considerations, and which are less so.

[Fanya]

You can give a n00b too much information and overwhelm him/her, but giving not enough is far worse. n00bs should learn basic training methods, proper nutrition, how to recover well, and correct form on all of the barbell compound exercises that are useful in any well-rounded lifter's regimen (deadlift, bench press, military press, squat, bent over row, etc...)

After they learn these things, they can then go forth and decide what their ultimate goal is, and the quickest way of achieving that. Compromises will have to be made most likely, but as long as you've got the basics down, the rest follows in suit.

[Rahf]

People new to training (such as myself) will be far better off just cleaning up their diet, training 3 days a week where 4 is pushing it, train properly and hard as well as making sure to get adequate rest.

That is all it takes for at least the first year, there is no need to get anal about it because the gains won't change that much. Over-consuming knowledge in this area will result in sitting around planning ones workouts and food intake when all you could do was just eat and train. I learned this the hard way as well.

Recap: Clean diet, hard training, adequate rest. For the first year, you'll be fine.

[rock_ten]

People new to training (such as myself) will be far better off just cleaning up their diet, training 3 days a week where 4 is pushing it, train properly and hard as well as making sure to get adequate rest.

That is all it takes for at least the first year, there is no need to get anal about it because the gains won't change that much. Over-consuming knowledge in this area will result in sitting around planning ones workouts and food intake when all you could do was just eat and train. I learned this the hard way as well.

I don't know if its what you're implying, but certainly others do... I really doubt that anyone ends up not eating properly and not training because of 'wasting' too much time planning how to do it properly. Seriously - can you imagine someone skipping workouts because they're too busy reading about it?


Recap: Clean diet, hard training, adequate rest. For the first year, you'll be fine.

We do need to give specific advice about how to train.. what lifts to do, when, how, etc. If they get on some pre-formed well known shit like Starting Strength, its probably all good.

The concept of training "hard" is a dangerous one to recommend, I think... to some people, workouts that they would call "hard" are about right for them to progress. For others, its completely over the top and they'll run themselves into the ground in a week. It has no relation to the actual objective content of the workout. Its like saying "eat loads"... one person might find 2000cals to be "loads", another would comfortably be eating 5000cals/day and get really fat...

[Rahf]

No, it is not like saying "eat loads", training hard means giving your all when you are doing your reps/sets/exercises. If I don't push/pull/jerk/wank/tap/gluteus/dip/press with all my power when I am doing my sets, I'll be disappointed in myself.

The training program is already there, chicanerous has a nice stickied thread for it you know. And concerning form and technique, there are better places to check for that than TT.

[Gusch]

training correct and hard as a beginner first and foremost means to leave the ego out of the gym.
That's #1 for progress and even more important than nutrition in my opinion.

[rock_ten]

No, it is not like saying "eat loads", training hard means giving your all when you are doing your reps/sets/exercises. If I don't push/pull/jerk/wank/tap/gluteus/dip/press with all my power when I am doing my sets, I'll be disappointed in myself.

lucky you. Personally, if my workouts are anything other than "easy" then I know I'm going to go backwards, fast.

Subjective measure of intensity and how hard your training, mean nothing. Different words at different times, from different people, meaning different things to other people... That's why we have %1rm kind of things or %max-reps at a certain weight.

[mr popular]

Fanya: training in the 10-12 rep ranges for all exercises isn't necessarily the most productive thing to do for muscle growth. I rarely go over 10 reps for most of my exercises, and I do this specifically to gain muscle. I also will rarely go under 4-5 reps, unless I am really trying to break through a strength barrier in one of my lifts.

And in fact, if you can hit functional failure on the last rep of each set, then the reps don't even matter. Which is why many bodybuilders, when asked about training certain bodyparts, might say "well for biceps I will typically do between 15 and 20 sets, for legs typically 25-30 sets", etc... The rep ranges a person grows the most from is entirely individual.

rock_ten: You're still talking too much.

And a persons "%1RM" doesn't mean a fucking thing if they are a beginner. Bodybuilders will rarely discuss or even care about their "1RM", because it's just meaningless unless you are actually a powerlifter...

And why everybody on this site jumps to recommending powerlifting training to a person wanting to gain muscle is far beyond me.........

Where are all these incredible physiques built exclusively with powerlifting? Why not show us what kind of progress you, yourselves, have gotten by using these powerlifting programs?

I have never seen an incredible before and after physique of a person doing the "Bill Starr 5x5" method. In fact, I've never even seen ANY photos of people that have done it and tout it's wonderful results....

[rock_ten]

And a persons "%1RM" doesn't mean a fucking thing if they are a beginner. Bodybuilders will rarely discuss or even care about their "1RM", because it's just meaningless unless you are actually a powerlifter...

I didn't say what you seem to be arguing against. My mention of "%1RM" was in a seperate issue about the ambiguity of phrases like "hard" and "easy" when describing training.

And why everybody on this site jumps to recommending powerlifting training to a person wanting to gain muscle is far beyond me.........

Where are all these incredible physiques built exclusively with powerlifting? Why not show us what kind of progress you, yourselves, have gotten by using these powerlifting programs?

I have never seen an incredible before and after physique of a person doing the "Bill Starr 5x5" method. In fact, I've never even seen ANY photos of people that have done it and tout it's wonderful results....

Ask on BB.com for pics. There's shitloads of posts about 5x5 and Starting Strength, etc - presumably some are reporting their experiences with it. I'll search later if I can be bothered.

[rock_ten]

And I suppose the reason that things like 5x5 are good for noobs is that they have them training good lifts, frequently so that they can learn them fast, with planned progression, and it stops them wasting time dicking around with loads of tiny shit exercises that most noobs do at the gym.

[Rahf]

Newbie gains during the first year or so apparently don't differ that much between massive splits and full body workouts.

The main reason people should only start with, say 3 workouts per week is because they need to "get into the groove" and have their bodies adapt to the new stress that is being applied. I had several problems with overstraining (strain, not train) myself due to working out far too much in the beginning.

Brian, this is a tricking forum and if people want tips for bodybuilding then they can pack their questions to t-nation or bb.com because this forum should not specifically deal with that. I will keep giving advice with the mindset that the person is interested in tricking.

As long as you keep within 5-15 reps there will be muscle growth, if it is optimal or not does not matter because it will still be growth. Everyone grows differently and there is no optimal rep pattern, experience will give that number.

[rock_ten]

Mr. Popular:

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=375215

there's a few descriptions of results there.

[Lobo]

Ugh. If someone was starting out lifting, at a young age, with long term goals, then I'd probably suggest learning proper form for all the major lifts (getting a a few coaching lessons if possible), doing a full-body program, maybe geared towards strength a bit, etc. If someone just wanted to look as good as possible for six months time or something, then I'd probably agree with mr popular and tell them to do a three or four day split or something.

[rock_ten]

Lobo, Lobo, Lobo do you still not train much?

What is your life? (mine isn't much so I want to hear about other people's lives)

[Fanya]

Thanks for the correction, mrpop.

[Lobo]

I've done some running. Right now my life mainly consists of molesting 19 year old girls, until I start working on an oil rig in a few weeks time (if all goes to plan).

[rock_ten]

are you a geologist or something, or just a piece-of-shit labourer?

[Syn]

he's a true hero

[Karlnold]

Yes, Lobo is like Bruce Willis in Armageddon...


Edit: except he molests his own daughter...

[mr popular]

rock_ten: okay, that is nice, but i didn't see any physique pictures in your link.... people got stronger in the lifts they trained, and they ate lots and gained weight. That's... pretty typical of any program you will dedicate yourself to.

Where are all the incredible bodies coming from this type of training?

Is it good for gaining strength in those lifts? Absolutely. Would I recommend it to someone who wanted to gain strength in those lifts? Certainly.

Is it good for a person wanting even development with an impressive physique? Hell fucking no.

Rahf: What aspects of the advice I give are detrimental to tricking in any way?

[Swartz]

HEY ROCK TEN

[Rahf]

rock_ten: okay, that is nice, but i didn't see any physique pictures in your link.... people got stronger in the lifts they trained, and they ate lots and gained weight. That's... pretty typical of any program you will dedicate yourself to.

Where are all the incredible bodies coming from this type of training?

Is it good for gaining strength in those lifts? Absolutely. Would I recommend it to someone who wanted to gain strength in those lifts? Certainly.

Is it good for a person wanting even development with an impressive physique? Hell fucking no.

Rahf: What aspects of the advice I give are detrimental to tricking in any way?

I never said they were. What I'm saying though is that a bodybuilding program isn't necessarily analoptimal for tricking.

[rock_ten]

rock_ten: okay, that is nice, but i didn't see any physique pictures in your link.... people got stronger in the lifts they trained, and they ate lots and gained weight. That's... pretty typical of any program you will dedicate yourself to.

Where are all the incredible bodies coming from this type of training?

Is it good for gaining strength in those lifts? Absolutely. Would I recommend it to someone who wanted to gain strength in those lifts? Certainly.

Is it good for a person wanting even development with an impressive physique? Hell fucking no.

For a noob, gaining lots of overall muscle from a program like that, and getting really strong, surely that's the best thing they can aim for. If then they want to work on particular aspects of their physique, they can do so, with that specific aim in mind. Trying to do that when they're still unmuscled weak fags is a great waste of time.

I don't object to specific training for aesthetic purposes but for noobs,whatever their eventual target (BBing, PLing, stripping, whatever), I think that their first aim should be to gain a shitload of muscle everywhere and get really strong in basic lifts.

HEY ROCK TEN

hi

[mr popular]

Rahf: I have said before that if a persons only TRUE goal was tricking, then they should probably just cut fat and do power movements throughout the week.

and the rock_ten: "gain a shitload of muscle everywhere"? How does a 'fullbody routine' accomplish this better than, or even AS WELL AS a bodypart split routine?

And if a person wants to have a balanced physique, they should aim to get strong in ALL of their lifts, not just the ones "Strength coaches" have deemed to be "the important ones"....

Do you people understand that in order to have bigger arms, you must get stronger in your bicep, tricep, and shoulder movements? Just as you would have to increase your leg movements for bigger legs?

Do you understand that it takes time to build those muscles just like it does your other muscles?

Do you people honestly think a person would do a fullbody routine and they'll just swell up with huge steak slabs of muscles, and then be like WELP TIME TO "SCULPT" THESE DOWN INTO PROPORTION, SO I'LL JUST TAKE A FEW WEEKS AND DO SOME BODYPART SPLIT TRAINING TO BRING OUT MY SMALLER MUSCLES, BECAUSE THATS ALL IT IS GOOD FOR APPARENTLY

[Lobo]

and the rock_ten: "gain a shitload of muscle everywhere"? How does a 'fullbody routine' accomplish this better than, or even AS WELL AS a bodypart split routine?
Because you're causing microtearing to a larger number of fibres on a more frequent basis...

[Gusch]

I don't know, why you hate full body workouts that much, mrpopular. But programs like WKM, rippetoe starting strength, 5x5 (starr) prove that you can gain pretty damn well with full body workouts.

[mr popular]

Okay guys, so where exactly are all of the INCREDIBLE PHYSIQUES being built using fullbody programs?

[rock_ten]

Why are you asking us that? It isn't relevant at all. No one is saying that an advanced aesthetics-orientated trainee has likely only ever used full-body routines.

[Lobo]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that full body routines are inherently superior, all of the time, for every individual and in every circumstance - this isn't T-Nation.

[Rahf]

As far as I know, general consensus with experienced coaches and PTs is that a full body workout is good for beginners, since they don't have any muscles to sculpt or shape anyways. And since it takes a long time to build muscle, a year is a good way to go for starters. Having a split that spans over 3+ days is likely to end up with the person getting injuries or "overtraining" due to not being used to the load. I am drawing this from personal experience.

[compleks]

I'm seriously starting to think that Mr. P was molested by a full body program as a child.

[mr popular]

Actually compleks, i used to do fullbody programs myself. I think I mentioned this before.

I did them as a beginner, and I got slightly stronger, with slightly larger legs and upper back... but I also got many lagging bodyparts.

I don't see why anyone would think that just because a person is a beginner, that is somehow reason enough for them to do the least effective thing, and even something that will cause them to neglect certain parts of their training.

And what exactly is "advanced" about a bodypart split method of training? It is simply a method of building muscle.

Rahf: I think most people that have the dedication to train would do better, as beginners, with a higher frequency of training actually. Because their load won't be very high, they can do more volume than a typical trainee can. Obviously it's different for everybody though... But I would typically recommend a beginner be doing at least 4-5 workouts each week.

rock_ten: if a person wants to build muscle, it is completely relevent that it be shown that someone can actually achieve that goal using the way of training you're suggesting. Or else it really just holds no water... And yes, we all know you can build muscle on a fullbody routine, but I was asking if there is actually any proof that a person doing fullbody routines will build a better physique than a person doing a bodypart split--i would say "on average", but i have never even seen a very impressive physique of a person that only ever does fullbody routines.

[compleks]

I'm bored, so here I go.

Actually compleks, i used to do fullbody programs myself. I think I mentioned this before.
If you could go back in time, would you change this?

I did them as a beginner, and I got slightly stronger, with slightly larger legs and upper back... but I also got many lagging bodyparts.
Irrelevant. This doesn't prove a thing.
Maybe your program wasn't well structured. Maybe that's just the way your body grew, who knows?
In either case, to actually detect 'lagging' body parts, you must have made noticeable gains in other areas.

I don't see why anyone would think that just because a person is a beginner, that is somehow reason enough for them to do the least effective thing, and even something that will cause them to neglect certain parts of their training.
This is just ridiculous. This paragraph is riddled with lame assumptions.
Most beginners will develop just as well on a basic abbreviated full body program than they would on any split.

And what exactly is "advanced" about a bodypart split method of training? It is simply a method of building muscle.
Absolutely right. We cannot just make assumptions about a method of training based on what it's 'name' suggest... unlike yourself.

Rahf: I think most people that have the dedication to train would do better, as beginners, with a higher frequency of training actually. Because their load won't be very high, they can do more volume than a typical trainee can. Obviously it's different for everybody though... But I would typically recommend a beginner be doing at least 4-5 workouts each week.
There is no typically.

Actually, I take that back. I would typically make specific recommendations based on various details and information about a person.

rock_ten: if a person wants to build muscle, it is completely relevent that it be shown that someone can actually achieve that goal using the way of training you're suggesting. Or else it really just holds no water... And yes, we all know you can build muscle on a fullbody routine, but I was asking if there is actually any proof that a person doing fullbody routines will build a better physique than a person doing a bodypart split--i would say "on average", but i have never even seen a very impressive physique of a person that only ever does fullbody routines.
To be honest, I didn't read what rock_ten had to say, so this may not be relevant.
No one has ever said that full body programs should be done forever. What we have been saying, time and time again, is that they are often a good starting place.
Also, no one training purely for aesthetic reasons would stick to a full body program long term anyway. You seem to take alot of post well out of context.


I hate to sound like I'm some full body program fanatic, because in reality, I'm really not. The only reason they get mentioned around here so much, is because of the forum demographic.
I have explained this all before so I'm not going to enter into it again.

I don't know why you (Mr. P) are on a crusade to bash full body programs at every possible chance you get.
I think you have some preconceived negative ideas of what a full body program actually entails. When in reality, 'full body' is simply a generic term which could be used to categorise many different programs.

'Full Body' and 'Split Routine' are simply terms used for categorising various routines. They themselves don't actually hold enough information about the actual routine for anyone to pass judgment.
So any argument against these terms has to be based on assumptions.

[Rahf]

Compleks, did boredom really spawn that post? You're an anomaly in terms of bored posts.

[rock_ten]

Okay guys, so where exactly are all of the INCREDIBLE PHYSIQUES being built using fullbody programs?

Why are you asking us that? It isn't relevant at all. No one is saying that an advanced aesthetics-orientated trainee has likely only ever used full-body routines.

yes, we all know you can build muscle on a fullbody routine, but I was asking if there is actually any proof that a person doing fullbody routines will build a better physique than a person doing a bodypart split--i would say "on average", but i have never even seen a very impressive physique of a person that only ever does fullbody routines.

dude, as complek's noted, no one has claimed that using only whole-body routines during a lifting career is the best way to develop aesthetically.

[Gusch]

compleks ends this thread.

[mr popular]

compleks: Here is the problem with all of that.......

If you keep thinking a beginner will develop just as well on a split routine than on a fullbody routine, and that nobody has ever really built a good physique using fullbody routines for a long period of time, THEN WHY NOT JUST RECOMMEND SPLIT TRAINING FROM THE START?

It makes no goddamn sense that you would recommend that someone be training their entire body in every workout, just because they are new to weightlifting. What is the reasoning behind that?

It is no different than saying "oh you're new to training, you'd better do nothing but bench pressing and bicep curls for the first year, because you're a beginner and you're not ready for a complete routine yet."

DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING!?!?

GOD I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAAAAAZY PILLS OR SOMETHING

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


On a sidenote... compleks you must know I'm still patiently waiting to see your physique. By now it must be pretty impressive. I understand if you won't show it here and now! But know this......

sometime in the future, you and I need to reveal what we have done to ourselves.

That should give me enough time to buy a camera with which to take said physique photograps, as the only one I currently have is of my ass with googly eyes on it when I weighed about 160lbs..

[Gusch]

one thing is (and compleks pointed that out): not everyone is training purely for aesthetic reasons.
And why should someone with strength as a goal bother with dozens of exercises for each bodypart, while one or two are enough?

Science hasn't revealed the secrets behind muscular hypertrophy. Therefore there is absolutely no argumentative base to claim that split training is superior to other methods.
I've seen guys who packed on impressive amounts of weight by HST. I personally don't like HST and stopped it after the first cycle. But they had success and are living prove that it works perfectly fine. And HST is a full body program.

Then there is the problem to define what is a full body workout and what isn't. Is 5x5 after bill starr for example a full body workout even though the only exercise you actually do every workout are squats.
Are push pull workouts full body, even though they're switching push and pull movements. They still use squats and deads as a fundament.
The conclusion I'm coming to is that everyone has his own perception of what a "full body program" is.

and to simplify a bit:
This argument is like an argument between two people disputing whether olympic style squats or back squats(powerlifting) are better.
And the conslusion is the same: both have their uses, advantages as well as disadvantages.

There are too many variables to determine what's generally better. How much time per week does one have for working out? What are his goals and for what purpose does he go to the gym? etc etc

Edit: and I weight 181lbs, mrpopular. Nothing spectacular, I know. But not quite 167lbs. Just so you don't ignore me anymore.

[mr popular]

We all understand that if you are training for a PURELY athletic purpose, then your training would be oriented in that direction. My problem is when people would recommend "fullbody" training to a person that wants to achieve a good physique. It is just a shitty way of going about things, and I think people have fallen so far into this popular trend of fitness marketting horseshit that they've all lost sight of MERIT, and RESULTS.

And the argument FOR split training is simply that experience and time have shown that it builds better physiques than fullbody training. It is as simple as that! haha

And you're right with your analogy about squatting. But olympic squatting is better for olympic weightlifters, and powerlifting style squatting is better for powerlifting.

So why, then, do we not understand that bodybuilding style of training is best for bodybuilding? instead of recommending powerlifting or some kind of a hokey "fitness" type training to a person wanting to get bigger muscles?

And the people that think you do not get stronger with a split program, are simply incorrect.

Would you get stronger in the POWERLIFTS or OLYMPIC LIFTS as fast with a bodypart split where you don't train them as much? OF FUCKING COURSE NOT.

But the main component of building muscle is getting stronger, and that goes for all of your muscles, not just the "important ones" according to faggotly trainers. If you want to train with a 5x5 method, thats great, but if you're only training your powerlifts, don't expect to grow all over. This should be common sense.

[compleks]

If you keep thinking a beginner will develop just as well on a split routine than on a fullbody routine, and that nobody has ever really built a good physique using fullbody routines for a long period of time, THEN WHY NOT JUST RECOMMEND SPLIT TRAINING FROM THE START?
If it suits their goals, then fine.

Personally, there are a few reasons I generally start someone off with a 'full body routine'.
Firstly, I find that beginners generally don't have the initial dedication to actually get their asses to the gym enough to follow any decent split. Full body programs make it an easier transition, in my experience.

Secondly, I don't believe the first few months of training are really about aesthetic gains, or even strength gains. This is the time where technique needs to be drilled. Doing a full body program allows you the freedom to train the more 'important' lifts (important as in, if I do this wrong I could seriously injure myself).

Thirdly. Efficiency. Stealing your example, if you could train either 2-3 times a week for 45-60 minutes, or 4-5 times a week for 45-60 minutes, and make the same progress... which do you think most people would prefer? (Yes, I'm making assumptions about the routines, but I'm talking averages here)

Anyway, those are a few of my reasons.

As for the pictures. I don't personally train for aesthetics, but that's no excuse. I'm currently weighing in at just under 200lbs, which is the lightest I have been for a while.
I'm actually cutting weight at the moment for the first time in years. I forgot what hunger is like.

[chicanerous]

Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, which of these are full body?

1.

M-W-F

Squat
Deadlift
Bench
Row

2.

M -- Upper
T -- Lower
TH -- Upper
F -- Lower

3.

M -- Quads / Hams / Calves
W -- Chest / Triceps / Shoulders
F -- Back / Traps / Biceps

4.

M -- Hip-Dominant, Vertical Pull (i.e. snatch, clean, pull-up)
W -- Horizontal Push / Pull, Arms (i.e. bench, row, curl, extension)
F -- Quad-Dominant, Vertical Push (i.e. squat, jerk, push press)

[Rahf]

Secondly, I don't believe the first few months of training are really about aesthetic gains, or even strength gains. This is the time where technique needs to be drilled. Doing a full body program allows you the freedom to train the more 'important' lifts (important as in, if I do this wrong I could seriously injure myself).



Not to mention isolation exercises do not build as much mass as compound does. And sculpting or shaping mass that is not going to be present for a large number of months feels pretty unnecessary. Drilling technique is as you say essential and will definitely take months of practice before they can actually be classified as good. My deadlift technique is still horrible and a work in progress.

[compleks]

Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, which of these are full body?

1.

M-W-F

Squat
Deadlift
Bench
Row

2.

M -- Upper
T -- Lower
TH -- Upper
F -- Lower

3.

M -- Quads / Hams / Calves
W -- Chest / Triceps / Shoulders
F -- Back / Traps / Biceps

4.

M -- Hip-Dominant, Vertical Pull (i.e. snatch, clean, pull-up)
W -- Horizontal Push / Pull, Arms (i.e. bench, row, curl, extension)
F -- Quad-Dominant, Vertical Push (i.e. squat, jerk, push press)

Can I use my 50/50 please?

[chicanerous]

Can I use my 50/50 please?
You may phone a friend.

[Gusch]

I want to ask the audience.

[mr popular]

Rahf: it isn't really accurate to say that "compound" exercises build "more mass" than isolation exercises.

This is a misconception that I think a lot of people have when it comes to weightlifting.

Bench presses will build your chest better than doing exclusively dumbbell flies. But nothing will build your biceps, for example, like direct bicep work (as in, barbell and dumbbell curls, obviously "isolation" exercises).

I just think this whole "compound" and "isolation" BS terminology needs to GO AWAY. And stay gone.

I personally would rather go back to the old saying of "train big muscle groups first, smaller muscle groups later."

Compleks: if I was a personal trainer I might agree with your methods in order to make money. But since I don't have that obligation (My job instead consists of making people fat, by fixing them huge subs and dangling cookies and chips in their face so that their weak little reptilian raisin of a brain will lose all self control and end up gaining 10lbs... that day.), in general I think that if a person has the will to train, they don't need to be "tricked" into it, so to speak. They will get themselves to the gym many times a week, and they will train hard and make progress.

So basically... fuck lazy people. It is pointless to tell them what is right and what is wrong, because they will just end up doing what is most immediately pleasurable.

[chicanerous]

Rahf: it isn't really accurate to say that "compound" exercises build "more mass" than isolation exercises.

This is a misconception that I think a lot of people have when it comes to weightlifting.
Compound exercises work more muscle simultaneously than isolation exercises. Hence, they have the potential to build more mass.

Why does so little of what you say make sense?

[compleks]

Yeah, that's what I assumed Rahf meant.

Compleks: if I was a personal trainer I might agree with your methods in order to make money. But since I don't have that obligation (My job instead consists of making people fat, by fixing them huge subs and dangling cookies and chips in their face so that their weak little reptilian raisin of a brain will lose all self control and end up gaining 10lbs... that day.), in general I think that if a person has the will to train, they don't need to be "tricked" into it, so to speak. They will get themselves to the gym many times a week, and they will train hard and make progress.
I think you misunderstood my point here aswell. If I were after the money I would be pushing splits alot more than I do, I would be trying to get them into the gym daily.
I do what I do because I believe it is in their best interest, in the long run.

[mr popular]

You see I leave it up the individual to decide what their own best interests truly are. Haha

How would you feel if you asked a training question, and someone gave you advice that didn't directly correlate to your goals, but was instead trying to essentially "trick" you into doing what they thought was truly in your best interests?

[Rahf]

You see I leave it up the individual to decide what their own best interests truly are. Haha

How would you feel if you asked a training question, and someone gave you advice that didn't directly correlate to your goals, but was instead trying to essentially "trick" you into doing what they thought was truly in your best interests?

I would as a newbie probably have no idea what they were talking about but would think it sounded good and professional and fall for it. That is if I was a complete newbie and not intermediate beginner as I am now.

Compleks and Chicanerous understood my claim on compound exercises. And Brian also answered one part of it. When comparing bench press with dumbell flies the bench press is going to be the preferred method since it activates so much more than the flies do and hence has a better chance of increasing total mass.

When regarding to biceps work I can do another comparison, which one would you prefer; doing barbell/dumbell curls or doing single cable pulls for biceps activation? The barbell and dumbell is obviously going to win since it lets you handle that much more weight and also has a better carryover in terms of strength and overall mass. I am not saying neglect the single cable pulls (I know I do, they suck) but set the priorities straight. You don't start off a chest workout with doing cable flyes do you?

[compleks]

You see I leave it up the individual to decide what their own best interests truly are. Haha

How would you feel if you asked a training question, and someone gave you advice that didn't directly correlate to your goals, but was instead trying to essentially "trick" you into doing what they thought was truly in your best interests?

I don't even know where you pulled this from.

I said that I base my recommendations on what information I have available. I don't trick anyone, and never push my own agenda.
I simply provide an option (or options), which I believe will be the most effective method of reaching that persons particular goals. I always make sure they are happy with what I prescribe, because when it comes down to it, they are basically my boss.

[-Pat-]

Compleks is a good guy.

[mr popular]

Simply because a movement activates many muscles simultaneously, does not mean it gives each of those muscles an equal stimulus to GROW. In a bench press, the pectorals are usually the prime mover. For some people it may be the shoulders, or the triceps, depending on your form and structure... But whatever isn't getting the most stimulus from the bigger movement, needs to be trained with smaller more targetted movements, for you to have complete development in that area.

Will squats build more leg muscle on average than just doing leg extensions? Yes, probably. Will they build big calves? No, probably not. You will need to do calf raises.

What is shitty here, is that the term "isolation exercise" has been shitting out of everyone's mouth with such a negative connotation that is completely unnecessary, and usually just flat out incorrect.

Fuck that bullshit. Use common sense.

[chicanerous]

Simply because a movement activates many muscles simultaneously, does not mean it gives each of those muscles an equal stimulus to GROW. In a bench press, the pectorals are usually the prime mover. For some people it may be the shoulders, or the triceps, depending on your form and structure... But whatever isn't getting the most stimulus from the bigger movement, needs to be trained with smaller more targetted movements, for you to have complete development in that area.

Will squats build more leg muscle on average than just doing leg extensions? Yes, probably. Will they build big calves? No, probably not. You will need to do calf raises.
Whether or not squats build the calves is completely unrelated to the statement at hand. The statement is merely that compound exercise has a greater potential for growth.

What you're doing is pushing your own agenda here. I thought you didn't like that?

What is shitty here, is that the term "isolation exercise" has been shitting out of everyone's mouth with such a negative connotation that is completely unnecessary, and usually just flat out incorrect.

Fuck that bullshit. Use common sense.
Isolation means single-joint. Compound means multi-joint. I don't know where the negative connotation comes from.

[compleks]

It's all in his head. I'm starting to think that he just hears whatever he want, and responds accordingly.

[mr popular]

compound movements only provide the most growth potential for the PRIME MOVERS in that exercise.

Will barbell rows provide "more mass" for the biceps compared to barbell curls? No, most likely not in most people.

I just disagree with the mentality that an "isolation" exercise is somehow below a "compound" exercise.

[compleks]

There you go again.

The statement was, and I quote:

Compound exercises work more muscle simultaneously than isolation exercises. Hence, they have the potential to build more mass.

The statement is merely that compound exercise has a greater potential for growth.

Seriously man, are you just trying to be difficult? Or do you actually have a learning disability? Are your comprehension skills really this low?

You're continually having imaginary arguments with yourself against points that were never made.
Infact, you basically agree with what is being said, and then form an argumentative post disagreeing with everyone. All while simultaneously rewording and confirming what has already been established.

[rock_ten]

You're continually having imaginary arguments with yourself against points that were never made.
Infact, you basically agree with what is being said, and then form an argumentative post disagreeing with everyone. All while simultaneously rewording and confirming what has already been established.

:good:

[Steve]

There you go again.

The statement was, and I quote:





Seriously man, are you just trying to be difficult? Or do you actually have a learning disability? Are your comprehension skills really this low?

You're continually having imaginary arguments with yourself against points that were never made.
Infact, you basically agree with what is being said, and then form an argumentative post disagreeing with everyone. All while simultaneously rewording and confirming what has already been established.

I disagree Compleks, maybe you should look at the facts: bulking can in fact be a healthy activity.

[rock_ten]

I disagree Compleks, maybe you should look at the facts: bulking can in fact be a healthy activity.

Steve, you're as bad as Mr Popular. Compleks never even mentioned whether or not bulking was healthy. In future, be sure to read posts carefully before you reply.

[mr popular]

compleks: I am agreeing that compound exercises use more muscles at once, and that they have a greater muscle growth potential... but only for the prime movers of that exercise. That is my point and I'm not sure why you're getting confused here and thinking I am just making something up. haha

Saying that "compound movements have the potential to build more mass" just isn't a complete statement, because compound movements would NOT build more mass of the smaller muscle groups, or muscle groups not used primarily in those compound movements.

And as for your second quote: No, it is not entirely true either, for the same reason. "Compound" movements do not have a greater potential for growth for all muscle groups. THAT is why it is NOT an appropriate statement to make.

How about this?

Using BOTH compound AND isolation movements will build more mass than using either one, or the other. Does that make things more clear to you?

[Lobo]

ffs.

[Scott]

Steve, you're as bad as Mr Popular. Compleks never even mentioned whether or not bulking was healthy. In future, be sure to read posts carefully before you reply.

EAHHH
I don't come to this part of the forum enough to tell if that was sarcasm or not.

[compleks]

Fuck it.

[Steve]

Steve, you're as bad as Mr Popular. Compleks never even mentioned whether or not bulking was healthy. In future, be sure to read posts carefully before you reply.

Wrong rock_ten, it's better not to read posts before you reply

[chicanerous]

Saying that "compound movements have the potential to build more mass" just isn't a complete statement, because compound movements would NOT build more mass of the smaller muscle groups, or muscle groups not used primarily in those compound movements.
But they build more mass??? :eh:

[compleks]

That's true, Chicanerous. But it's obvious that tricycles do infact have three wheels. I don't understand why you people can grasp this simple concept. You see, the word 'tri' originates from a Greek background, and is a numerical prefix meaning three (3). Therefor, a tricycle is obviously a a thee wheeled cycle, as opposed to a bicycle, which has two wheels.

[Scott]

That's true, Chicanerous. But it's obvious that tricycles do infact have three wheels. I don't understand why you people can grasp this simple concept. You see, the word 'tri' originates from a Greek background, and is a numerical prefix meaning three (3). Therefor, a tricycle is obviously a a thee wheeled cycle, as opposed to a bicycle, which has two wheels.

Tricycles clearly add less mass than bicycles, compleks. You shouldn't be saying such things.

[Pale Nimbus]

Tricycles clearly add less mass than bicycles, compleks. You shouldn't be saying such things.

WRONG. Yea tricycles add less mass than bicycles, but only to the prime movers.

[-Pat-]

That's true, Chicanerous. But it's obvious that tricycles do infact have three wheels. I don't understand why you people can grasp this simple concept. You see, the word 'tri' originates from a Greek background, and is a numerical prefix meaning three (3). Therefor, a tricycle is obviously a a thee wheeled cycle, as opposed to a bicycle, which has two wheels.

No they have three wheels you dumbcunt.

[rock_ten]

erm, guys. Why are you talking about tricycles and bicycles? Compleks, I think you got a bit confused there.

[mr popular]

Yeah that would be funny except there aren't actually any inconsistencies in my responses, so you can all suck my cock with your fullbodies

[rock_ten]

Yeah that would be funny except there aren't actually any inconsistencies in my responses, so you can all suck my cock with your fullbodies

what are you on about? We're talking about bikes.

[Rahf]

Quad wheels guys.. It's the new thing.

[Pale Nimbus]

There you go again.
You're continually having imaginary arguments with yourself against points that were never made.
Infact, you basically agree with what is being said, and then form an argumentative post disagreeing with everyone. All while simultaneously rewording and confirming what has already been established.

There ya go, mr. popular. :good:

[ry-guy]

if you want to gain bulk lift high weight with low reps, it will make more mass then tone. sorry if someone alreay said this i didnt feel like reading all 10 pages haha.

[anfeyd]

No, ry-guy no one has said it because you are assuming high reps will give somebody tone which is completly false; therefore your whole claim is false.

[ry-guy]

No, ry-guy no one has said it because you are assuming high reps will give somebody tone which is completly false; therefore your whole claim is false.


i use to be a body builder and yes low weight and high reps cause tone and low reps with high weight cause bulk, dont belive me, try it.

[mattt]

Hahaha

[anfeyd]

I've decided not to respond because ry-guys hard head-ness will only create a waste of my time. Rahf is probably a nice enough guy to take over from here.

[mattt]

I dunno Anfeyd, he makes a good argument:

i use to be a body builder

[Rahf]

I'm annoyed.. The only reason I'm posting here now is because I was asked to.

ry-guy, you better post some goddamn proof of your bodybuilding if you want me to seriously believe your tales of "toning".

Here's a thought for you guys:

When training low reps and high weight you normally do compound exercises no? I doubt you'll see many who are concentration curling with 3x5 reps/sets with a swine-heavy 70lb dumbell. Granted that higher reps provide more muscle volume but they won't give you more definition than low reps will, not if you compare two guys with the same muscle volume working on two different variations, one low rep and one high rep (High rep in this case being above 5).

Muscle definition comes from a combination of things: Muscle volume, low bodyfat, balanced physique. That is all there is to it.

Satisfied? Your turn.

[Karlnold]

"swine-heavy"? ha ha... nice...

[Rahf]

"swine-heavy"? ha ha... nice...

Lovely direct translation.

[Karlnold]

We need more of that...

[chicanerous]

"I USED TO BE A BODYBUILDER."

[anfeyd]

"I USED TO BE A BODYBUILDER."

[Pale Nimbus]

GUYS I USED TO BE A BODYBUILDER AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT R2D2GUY IS WRONG.

[Karlnold]

"WHEN I WAS LIKE TWELVE."

[Pale Nimbus]

"NO REALLY GUYS, AT THE RIPE OLD AGE OF 18, I DECIDED IT WAS TIME TO HANG UP THE SPEEDO AND CALL IT A CAREER."

[Scott]

OH YOU WAITED LONG TO RETIRE! I CALLED IT QUITS AFTER MY SECOND ARNOLD CLASSIC AT AGE 15. MAN I PWND THAT JAY CUTLER GUY.

[compleks]

Haha, this thread is great.