6 Bodybuilding Lies Crippling Your Progress

DTB2 said:
The truth, not one of the lies, for hypertrophy is twofold. Light or heavy-doesn't matter, volume or not doesn't matter, specific number of reps doesn't matter.

What matters? The length of time a set takes-optimal 45 seconds and the set must go to absolute failure.
More...
I agree with most of what you have written, but I don't see why time under load at ~45 seconds should be optimal. Why would it be better than, say, 30 seconds or even 90, if failure is reached at the end of a set properly performed?

https://www.cbass.com/CarpinelliNoNonsense.htm

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nce_to_support_recommended_training_protocols

https://www.cbass.com/Carpinelli.htm
 
athleanX.com

This guy knows a ton about targeting muscles, safe exercises etc. He espouses it on one of his video, not as dogma but just matter of fact.
 
DTB2 said:
No link but his education and knowledge is vast. He knows his stuff, similarly to one of my early guys that has recently, Bob Gajda.

https://athleanx.com/articles/maximum-muscle-building-when-8-reps-becomes-the-new-12-reps
More...
Sounds reasonable, but I don't think there is sufficient evidence to support it. As it happens, my sets are at least 45 seconds to failure, so I know how arduous they can be. But the guy recommends explosive lifts? That's using momentum and is a form of cheating for someone who wishes to employ maximum intensity. You don't need to move explosively to activate fast twitch motor units.

In addition to the links I posted earlier in this thread, Carpinelli also concluded the following in his last paper:

Time under Tension Section Summary: The significant implication of this section is that there is no resistance training study to support the superiority or inferiority of any specific TUT for stimulating hypertrophy.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...OR_MUSCLE_HYPERTROPHY_IN_EXPERIENCED_TRAINEES

I have seen a number of the AthleanX guy's videos. Jeff Cavaliere produces A LOT of content for a subject that, in the end, should be relatively basic and straightforward. But business is business.

I'm reminded of something I read and posted a few years ago, written by Richard Winett, a lifelong fitness enthusiast and exercise researcher:

"The irony is that through all my training incarnations, I had about the same lean body mass. The only thing required to capitalize on my best assets was to just watch my diet a bit more."
 
Last edited:
Nobert said:
May be.
Remains unknown.
Fascinating if so. That was the best part. Way less effort. And still.
More...
In his own words:


But beware:
Frederick Foresight said:
Lie 6 – Advanced Bodybuilders are Good Sources of Info

The pros have great advice for other bodybuilders with stellar genetics and drug assistance. But for genetically normal, drug-free lifters, a different approach is needed. No champion bodybuilder can get in the shoes of a genetically typical natural lifter.

Someone who struggled for years without building much muscle – but then learned how to train effectively and built 25 pounds of muscle drug-free – knows more about training genetically normal, drug-free bodybuilders than a genetic stud on drugs who's built 100 pounds of muscle.
More...

So if Dorian Yates was training as a young man with superior genetics and with the aid of drugs 4 times a week, 45 minutes per workout, using HIT principles, then I would think that people with more average genetics and without chemical assistance would do well to train less often and with lower volume. That's my take, anyway.
 
Frederick Foresight said:
I'm naturally drawn to this lower frequency, even though the 2x/week occasionally beckons with a come hither.
More...
It beckoned again.
sisyphus.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top