Nope. I never got anything material, save for Scooby's T-shirts, for any of my fitness-related work. And I actually prefer it that way, since I haven't paid anything to get all the knowledge and results I had gotten over the years. It's just nice to give back.


I reckon you haven't meant it that way, but I'd still like to point out that this isn't a "side change" or anything similar. It's more of a combination of facts that I'm busy over my head, grew tired of forum environment (in general, although AS has its problems) and my writings look prettier on EC. In the end, nothing fancy, usual reasons for people quitting forums. I appreciate the support, Scooby!

Do you find satisfaction in turning a thread into a hydra with half a dozen different questions, most of which are unrelated to the quoted post?

1) And it isn't, but nobody has, up till now (maybe I'm wrong, I don't feel like re-reading the entire thread) discussed hamstring involvement in squatting, either low or high bar.

2) Answered in the article.

3) Nobody claimed that more ROM is always better. You voted against the notion that a longer ROM would yield more work - it most definitely would. Again, I'm discussing specific issues here (which, again, are in the article).

4) Indeed, I might have falsely assumed this to be directed at me, it seemed logical since I was defending the more ROM benefit of high bar (in context of bodybuilding, which you don't do and seem to resent). It's kind of difficult to see what's directed at whom when you have two articles posted in a thread, and the discussions of the two getting intermixed.

More ROM is always more work - emphasis on the musculature changes, but all of it is still done by the lower body. It's not your pecs that will pull you out of the hole.

That being said, I mentioned this in the article because, similarly to the low rep - high rep issue, high bar has a potential for more ROM. I didn't say that all of it should be utilized regularly or that low bar lacks proper depth, just that if a trainee would want to go deeper, it would be much easier with high bar. (Geesh, is it really so hard to read the article before starting a general discussion on validity of some arguments?)

My concern isn't quad development - it was just a side note that posterior chain dominant people as I am will have a hell of a time trying to feel their quads working on low bar.

My primary grudge with low bar has to do with periodization and variety. I wrote all of this in the article, but let me be more clear:

1) Primary periodization scheme involves varying intensity, which (most of the time) reflects itself directly onto number of reps per set. Low bar is severely limited here because you can only keep the bar so long low on the back before it becomes a struggle. And, in my experience, if you never went above 10 reps on the squat, you're really missing out a lot.

2) Saying that high bar should be switched to front squats to leave the low bar in makes little sense, since high bar is a lot different an exercise than front squat. Also, the front squat is generally even worse than the low bar regarding the amount of time you can spend on a set - if the weight is sufficiently heavy (to overload the legs), you should have a hard time keeping the rack stabile due to quick fatigue in the upper back. The front squat is primary a weightlifting exercise, and, as such, wasn't really meant to be done above 3 reps. Again, people who never go above 5 reps probably find this odd, but moving up and down the intensity ladder really means a lot.

3) I can feel the difference when is switch from high bar to low bar. It isn't that different, but it's different enough to make me much less secure about performing the exercise - I just don't have that groove that you get when doing an exercise week in and week out, like I do with high bar squats. This makes me unable to utilize them fully when attempting to put more weight on than I can on high bar (actually, this entire sentence should've been in past, because I've outgrown the weight I can safely put on my bar so I only squat in the 25+ rep range - I had problems when switching from high bar to low bar...).

In my opinion, a main exercise is the one that also allows for a lot of variety and change - it allows you to experiment and find new ways that work without while still being secure about your form. Using low bar just for strength development, and then having to rely on other exercises to fill in the higher reps/more depth/more quad involvement gap just doesn't appeal to me.

I too have nothing against low bar squats, but see them misplaced and inferior to high bar for bodybuilding training.

Regarding the low bar transfer onto Oly lifts. The sentence was more in the sense that Rip's arguments are good, meaning they aren't bad nor to be discarded. I haven't said he was right, just that I can't obviously tell he's wrong or that his arguments for low bar in weightlifting training are ludicrous. This entire matter is quite complex, mostly due to the fact that weightlifters around the world tend to train quite differently, mostly regarding the number of exercises used.

If all you do is C&J, snatch, and front and back squats, I can see Rip's logic that the back squat should be done low bar because it more closely resembles a pull, thus fulfilling another role and decreasing the overlap with the front squat. If, however, a number of posterior chain dominant accessory exercises are also used, then I see no point in going low bar. Again, I'm not an expert on training for weightlifting, and haven't expressed my opinion on the matter - I merely stated that low bar transfers well onto powerlifting (for obvious reasons), and that Rip's ideas for pushing it for Oly training aren't to be discarded right away.

It's a typo. Regardless, given the fact that most people can't even complete a decent negative on GHR, it doesn't matter as much. If you're strong enough to bang out 3-4 sets of 5, add weight. Therefore, the set-rep prescription for that part should look something like 3-5x3-5.


How do you plan to pull that out? Doing ABA every week isn't how this routine's meant to work, and you can't just opt to move squats and deadlifts from routines to fit the 1x a week rule since, e.g., you have BORs on A days, which I don't like doing post deadlifts.


Necessary coordination and stabilization (notice how exercises go from ones that'll most likely trip you over from those that have you lying down), mental effort (most people can't do proper pistol squats, so it's better for those to be first in a routine to allow for sufficient freshness that'll lead to quality practice of the movement), grip dependence (spacing chins and rows apart gives you some time to recuperate your grip strength/endurance), agonist/antagonist pairing (especially if the workout isn't done as a circuit, but is divided into supersets)...

Perceived difficult of the exercise is a secondary factor here, because most people will have more issues performing chinups than pistol squats (if we take out the part where people lack flexibility and stability to do a free-standing PS). The same is with dips, chins will almost universally be harder than them.

What is important (not just here, generally with routine design) is minimizing fatigue interference. It's much better to do 3 sets of 12 on chinups and rows spaced a (few) minute(s) apart, then slack on rows because of fatigue, which doesn't necessarily come from primary mover fatigue - in this case, it'll, most often, originate from grip and elbow flexor fatigue (the amount of fatigue in this sentence is too damned h...).

Ctrl+E, select exercise, Ctrl+A. If sufficient amount of data is present, it will plot the progression graph.

My point is that, if you're claiming something that goes against something that's well established, and you don't have solid evidence in terms of studies or at least a sound biomechanical hypothesis, you can at least provide anecdotal evidence.

My point, expressed in more plain terms:

You talk of things which nobody will agree on, and you haven't tried them out yourself. Like BB bench press, pressing well over your bodyweight (which would teach you the value of leg drive and the fact that a strong BB BP requires a synergy of a lot of muscles, regardless if done by a bodybuilder or a powerlifter), and, I may assume so, you never went below 5-6 reps on anything, and don't squat. (Btw, are those presses below 90 deg? If yes, then it's quite an achievement for 8 months of lifting, given the rep range (and I honestly mean it, it's not a mockery of any sort)).

Also, why do you press 70 lbs DBs? This certainly wasn't the first weight you tried and were able to press. So, if weight doesn't matter in bodybuilding, why did you increase it?

I was well aware of those picture, that's why I decided to push you to find out how exactly can someone who has been training for 7-8 months (?) make statements like:


so I asked a very specific question:


Please, answer this question without generalizing.

Let's put this discussion on firmer ground (lifting to failure is discussed in the last part of the article):

http://evilcyber.com/fitness/review-mike-mentzers-heavy-duty/

Nope, I actually advise people against training to failure on each set (see my FAQ). Hitting failure has little to do with working hard per se, but these are complex topics which I examine in my next article, which should be published shortly. What I meant by "constant effort" is exactly this need to push yourself hard by following the POP.

Regarding rest - yes it does, but this example is extreme, and doesn't account for issues that lead to such long-lasting soreness. Again, a week is always too much.

I disagree with Scooby's programming, but that's rather known through the forum, therefore using the progression from his intermediate to adv int routine doesn't illustrate what I mean in the fullest sense, though some important traits are retained.

This increase in rest (which should almost never be a full week) is a need you acquire with getting more advanced with your training, but it's a direct consequence of your strength, for the weights (heavier both in absolute sense and relatively to your own bodyweight) take more and more toll on your recovery ability. We therefore redistribute the sessions in such a way to permit ourselves continuous progressive overload (which is, during the majority of one's training career, the primary driving force behind your muscular gains). So, it's not really about working harder - actually, the level of effort should be fairly constant to allow for progress - but more in line with the workout being harder on your body.

I have scoliosis too, got it when I experienced a growth spur after my last surgery. Having no muscle mass and consequently horrendous posture gave me excessive spinal curvature that I have to this day. I minimized it, but, AFAIK, it'll never go away completely. I agree that you should be careful of what you do, but heavier weights will most likely do no harm. In fact, there are several lifters who had scoliosis and became quite strong, like Lamar Gant and Stuart McRobert.

How much progress would be seen by someone who can't squat properly, but turns it into a good morning? Or someone who protrudes his shoulder blades forward during bench pressing, thus not having a firm base to press from (and you can't press serious weights without it) and not being able to transfer force properly from the torso to the bar? Of course you're right, you can make progress with good form, but I think that, even if you somehow avoid injuries, you simply won't get as far as you could without learning good form, and the gains will always be inferior. So, short term, no, but bodybuilding isn't a short term activity on any part.


Totally.

If you take Azyth's posts out (who still hasn't come here to tell me a few things on his lifting career, so I'm forced to assume that he has little to no training experience - you can attempt to mask your ignorance, but you can't mask inexperience, especially if you're so keen to prove that you apparently have all the answers), the rest of the thread is pretty uniform in thoughts. The rest of the discussion was more on how things could get better, with no ideas opposing each other so much.



Good form is a pre-requisite for lifting. If you don't have your form down, you have no business lifting at all (beyond practicing form), because without good form you can't train either effectively nor safely. So, saying that form is the most important thing in lifting is like saying that food is the most important thing in nutrition. If you don't have it, you aren't really training.



Failure indicates the inability to complete another rep (either in good form, concentric, eccentric, static, therefore we differ various types of failure). Ideally, fatigue is the phenomenon of CNS becoming unable to fire motor units, which consequently makes reps harder (until, and if, failure is reached). Going above 20 reps (this is a generalization, of course, but it serves its purpose) brings in other factors, such as cardiopulmonary fatigue (breathing so heavy that you can't stand on your feet), lactic acid build-up in muscles, and so on, all of which take back from lifting, but don't benefit it per se (like muscular fatigue does, to a degree).



I don't know if it was you. If you're doing Scooby's Adv Int routine, then it's you, if not, then it's not you. It's nothing personal nor specific, I happened to see that example while running through threads a few days ago. I see these examples all the time, this was the freshest. If anything, it shows how messed up Scooby's system of leveling up is.

The first thing you need to recognize that you aren't an Adv Int trainee. There is simply no way in hell that you've reaped all the gains you could've in previous phases (novice, beginner, early Int, real Int, and so on) by not going past 8 kg. I know this is hard for people to comprehend if they've never experienced the power of progressive overload, but you have tons of gains waiting for you, and all you have to do is pick heavier and heavier weights up. Unlike a real Adv Int, who has to periodize his training and make decisions on what he wants to (try) to boost in a specific training period. About what would a good weight be - no idea, of course. I consider myself an Advanced Intermediate (though not the way Scooby views it, of course), and I rowed 46 kg DBs for 2 sets of 10 four days ago (and it was the last exercise of a leg-back day, I can go over 50 if fresh). Just to put things in perspective.

As I noted in my FAQ many times, the best option if you don't have extra weights is to focus on bodyweight exercises with added resistance, especially the hard variants. It's infinitely better than being on an isolation-filled split.



Unum et idem. No difference at all. If you're a bodybuilder, the only mass gains you're interested in are muscle gains, and there's where the story ends. When watching these videos, remember that both Kai and all the people he trains (except for maybe that teenage guy) are steroid users, and those that are Pros do indeed have to fight water retention since they want to be as dry as possible on the stage. None of that is of interest to us.



He meant increasing volume to breach the needed volume limit for hypertrophy, which the trainee, so far, didn't have. This doesn't relate to lifting to failure. Again, read this article for more info on what makes muscles grow. I also have another article coming out today or tomorrow that will deal with the need of training to failure in more detail.



For a natural trainee, hugeness won't come before 5-10 years of proper lifting. This gives you plenty of time and stages between not being muscular and being overly muscular to decide when you're happy with the way you look and want to stop.

If those are your lifts, you're definitely not a novice anymore.