Branch Warren Interview | Overcome Podcast

[Ranchhand]

Great compatible interview to the Johnnie Jackson interview I posted up on Friday. The two most notorious hard-core training partners in bodybuilding history. Both explain how they got that Hard Grainy look.

 

[Siggy]

He said the reason the top guys today are not as hard is because they use too many machines and not enough free weights. ( I dont know if it was this interview though)

What do you guys think about this?

 

[MajinBoo]

He said the reason the top guys today are not as hard is because they use too many machines and not enough free weights. ( I dont know if it was this interview though)

What do you guys think about this?

Johnie Jackson said exactly the same last week in the same podcast. And he actually said what is undeniable: when you use free weights it requires stabilizers to work and the need to have a much better control of the load and the movement. It also allows you to find the right "setup" for your own body and target the desired muscle. When you use machines there is no need for stabilization and you are stuck to the load profile of the machine. Stabilization itself is working all muscles, requires a full body control during the movement.
I am a fan of machines and usually have few free weight movements in my workouts. But after listening to Johnie Jackson started to consider to use more free weight.

 

[massephase]

What do you guys think about this?

What do you think about it?

 

[Shelby]

Johnnie and Branch are actually great examples of how much genetics plays a role in bodybuilding
Training partners for years
JOJ had a great back, and lagging legs
Branch had great legs, and a lagging back.
Same workouts for years, one got grainy hard pretty much all the time, the other didn't.
What was different? It doesn't seem like it was the free weights or workouts.

 

[Siggy]

What do you think about it?

I dont think its the main reason why some of the top guys arent as hard or grainy. Its probably a multifactoral thing, genetics as stated above by Shelby, site enhancement oil, scar tissue etc.

 

[Ranchhand]

He said the reason the top guys today are not as hard is because they use too many machines and not enough free weights.

What do you guys think about this?

What do you think about it?

Johnie Jackson said exactly the same last week in the same podcast. And he actually said what is undeniable: when you use free weights it requires stabilizers to work and the need to have a much better control of the load and the movement.

this is the reason why I posted both Johnnie's and Branch's interviews with Overcome Cast. I personally prefer free weights and what they do to build the body. Even though a mix of free weights and machines are required for optimal development. I enjoy throwing heavy weights around, in the past I competed in powerlifting, Olympic lifting and strongman. My personal view is to have that connected flow through the different muscle groups, multi-joint movements are required. Maximum muscle recruitment. Perfect example is Ronnie and heavy walking lunges. Maybe we all can't do walking lunges, but we can all do compound movements that give that connected flow. Johnnie really goes into this in his interview and really attributes his hard full look to maximum muscle recruitment through compound movements.

Changing up rep range as well is very important. Johnnie goes into this more than Branch does between the two interviews. I posted up Branch's interview because he's a little more recognizable name and I knew more guys would be drawn to his interview, even though I thought Johnnie's interview was way more informative with how the two trained together. Nobody can dispute the intensity these two put out in their training sessions. They're clones of each other and they're both examples of what it takes to get that hard grainy look that is lacking these days.

There's something to be said for putting the work in as opposed to sitting around on machines doing high reps because you're afraid of hurting your manly self. Get off your phones and put the work in, if you want that full hard grainy look. We all know drugs alone aren't going to achieve this look, even though some may think so. Including SEO's.

 

[Shelby]

You can do an "easy workout" with free weights, and you can do a "brutally hard" workout with machines.
Guys that are inclined to train hard, are probably willing to diet hard, too (generally speaking)
Guys that are inclined to shy away from brutal workouts, are probably also inclined to not push the limits when dieting becomes uncomfortable.
Dorian Yates is considered one of the best conditioned Olympians of all time and he always advocated a mix of both free weights and machines.

23K views · 1K reactions | The age old question; free weights or machines - which reigns supreme?🤔 Here’s Dorian’s advice on the topic. In a nutshell.. use BOTH! When training in the gym, use both of these tools as a way to put stress on the targe

The age old question; free weights or machines - which reigns supreme?🤔 Here’s Dorian’s advice on the topic. In a nutshell.. use BOTH! When training in the gym, use both of these tools as a way to...

www.facebook.com

 

[FK86]

He said the reason the top guys today are not as hard is because they use too many machines and not enough free weights. ( I dont know if it was this interview though)

What do you guys think about this?

I think it makes zero sense whatsoever. To suggest working stabilizer muscles makes your skin take on a different look when you're lean only highlights these guys don't know what they're talking about. It's similar to Lee Haney in the '80s saying there were mass and definition building exercises. That cable crossovers carved detail into the chest. No.

It's purely genetic. Paul Dillet had veins across his chest, other guys don't. Ronnie Coleman, Flex Lewis, and Phil Heath could get ridiculously dry from the back and have glutes that no one else did.

 

[qbkilla]

You can do an "easy workout" with free weights, and you can do a "brutally hard" workout with machines.
Guys that are inclined to train hard, are probably willing to diet hard, too (generally speaking)
Guys that are inclined to shy away from brutal workouts, are probably also inclined to not push the limits when dieting becomes uncomfortable.
Dorian Yates is considered one of the best conditioned Olympians of all time and he always advocated a mix of both free weights and machines.

23K views · 1K reactions | The age old question; free weights or machines - which reigns supreme?🤔 Here’s Dorian’s advice on the topic. In a nutshell.. use BOTH! When training in the gym, use both of these tools as a way to put stress on the targe

The age old question; free weights or machines - which reigns supreme?🤔 Here’s Dorian’s advice on the topic. In a nutshell.. use BOTH! When training in the gym, use both of these tools as a way to...

www.facebook.com

I agree with this. I think its more the mentality that guys who train hard to failure, and aim to progress in strength, also tend to diet harder and use free weights.

While guys who want more volume, not train to failure, have more variety "hit it from all angles " are more drawn to machines and the "meal with the family."

Its more correlation. That and what was discussed on the chase irons thread about guys who use a ton of drugs and food to grow and slack off training aren't developing the contractile tissue that comes with intense brutal training

 

[buck]

Branch epitomizes bodybuilding to me.
In general i would say that people that train on machines tend to not grow as much or be as dense as those the rely mostly on free weights. But that could be due to the mentality of what a person gravitates to. But while not a good comparison. In general guys that bench 3 plates for 10 seems to have better chests then guys that use the same weight/reps on a machine. But that is just my opinion or delusion.

 

[Swifto]

Johnie Jackson said exactly the same last week in the same podcast. And he actually said what is undeniable: when you use free weights it requires stabilizers to work and the need to have a much better control of the load and the movement. It also allows you to find the right "setup" for your own body and target the desired muscle. When you use machines there is no need for stabilization and you are stuck to the load profile of the machine. Stabilization itself is working all muscles, requires a full body control during the movement.
I am a fan of machines and usually have few free weight movements in my workouts. But after listening to Johnie Jackson started to consider to use more free weight.

No offence to either of them, but I'm not sure their "control of the load" was optimal.

 

[qbkilla]

Branch epitomizes bodybuilding to me.
In general i would say that people that train on machines tend to not grow as much or be as dense as those the rely mostly on free weights. But that could be due to the mentality of what a person gravitates to. But while not a good comparison. In general guys that bench 3 plates for 10 seems to have better chests then guys that use the same weight/reps on a machine. But that is just my opinion or delusion.

Maybe just my opinion, but chest is the easiest muscle to grow and maintain. I feel like unless someone has horrible genetics, chest will always look fine no matter what snd is incredibly easy to get a mm connection.its usually the limbs that are lagging. I will say, it seems like guys who can do chinups, do deads, and barbell rows have a better back than guys who use machines, lat pull down etc. Have you noticed this as well?

 

[Siggy]

Maybe just my opinion, but chest is the easiest muscle to grow and maintain. I feel like unless someone has horrible genetics, chest will always look fine no matter what snd is incredibly easy to get a mm connection.its usually the limbs that are lagging. I will say, it seems like guys who can do chinups, do deads, and barbell rows have a better back than guys who use machines, lat pull down etc. Have you noticed this as well?

I dunno about that. To me it seems that a thick meaty chest is genetically the most rare body part. I see plenty of guys with big arms and a lot of guys with big shoulders, big legs, big calves, big forearms, etc etc. But a guy with a big Arnold chest who isnt a fatass? Very rare.

 

[Aikman56]

So many guys here are saying what I’m thinking… There’s so much that comes down to the genetic hand that you’re dealt, so making a statement like Branch & Johnnie seems more than a little asinine.

It’s like watching sports and seeing how runners are built… some people will say “sprinting built his huge legs” or “long distance running makes him rail thin”.

While I will not deny that the activity does have some impact on how the body looks, I feel like it’s more likely that the sprinter having the genetic propensity for dense, thick muscle, and the long distance runner having the genetic propensity to weigh less and have a more energy efficient physique probably is really going on.

Doing gymnastics at an elite level does not make girls short and thick… Short thick girls have a better genetic propensity to be world-class gymnasts.

 

[buck]

Maybe just my opinion, but chest is the easiest muscle to grow and maintain. I feel like unless someone has horrible genetics, chest will always look fine no matter what snd is incredibly easy to get a mm connection.its usually the limbs that are lagging. I will say, it seems like guys who can do chinups, do deads, and barbell rows have a better back than guys who use machines, lat pull down etc. Have you noticed this as well?

Speaking for myself the chest and even biceps were by far the toughest things for me to grow. BP didn't do much even though i could move some decent weight. DB and dips built most of my chest. Still have a sucky connection with my pecs. Back, quads were the easiest with shoulders and calves being not to hard.

I think rows build thicker wider back then pulldowns. A lot of guys end up pulling with their arms and upper back when doing chins/pulldowns. I find it rare to see a guy that actually has lats these days. They are all upper back. I find guys that use their torso well have lagging. And those with good arms have to learn to use their chests/back.

The muscles we learn to use when we are young tend to be the ones that grow the best in my opinion. Playing catch up later sucks.

 

[qbkilla]

I dunno about that. To me it seems that a thick meaty chest is genetically the most rare body part. I see plenty of guys with big arms and a lot of guys with big shoulders, big legs, big calves, big forearms, etc etc. But a guy with a big Arnold chest who isnt a fatass? Very rare.

I agree on big legs...arms hit or miss i definitely feel like delts are the most common lagging part. For chest...kinda hard to tell...I think most guys with size had to force feed the whole abdomen is large and stomach usually sticks out past the chest. For guys who have the genetics and keep tight...hmmm maybe you have a point. Hard to tell because a tight waist makes arms delts and chest all look bigger lol

 

[Siggy]

So many guys here are saying what I’m thinking… There’s so much that comes down to the genetic hand that you’re dealt, so making a statement like Branch & Johnnie seems more than a little asinine.

It’s like watching sports and seeing how runners are built… some people will say “sprinting built his huge legs” or “long distance running makes him rail thin”.

While I will not deny that the activity does have some impact on how the body looks, I feel like it’s more likely that the sprinter having the genetic propensity for dense, thick muscle, and the long distance runner having the genetic propensity to weigh less and have a more energy efficient physique probably is really going on.

Doing gymnastics at an elite level does not make girls short and thick… Short thick girls have a better genetic propensity to be world-class gymnasts.

I think you just wanted to talk about short thick girls. I completely understand.

 

[qbkilla]

Speaking for myself the chest and even biceps were by far the toughest things for me to grow. BP didn't do much even though i could move some decent weight. DB and dips built most of my chest. Still have a sucky connection with my pecs. Back, quads were the easiest with shoulders and calves being not to hard.

I think rows build thicker wider back then pulldowns. A lot of guys end up pulling with their arms and upper back when doing chins/pulldowns. I find it rare to see a guy that actually has lats these days. They are all upper back. I find guys that use their torso well have lagging. And those with good arms have to learn to use their chests/back.

The muscles we learn to use when we are young tend to be the ones that grow the best in my opinion. Playing catch up later sucks.

Good points. I know I've never had trouble with chest and bis...its my tris and caps that suck lol. Quads grow easy but no glutes. I do feel like chest compounds are the easiest to progress..seems like you can add weight for a long ass time to any chest compounds and injury happens before a stall lol

 

[Siggy]

Good points. I know I've never had trouble with chest and bis...its my tris and caps that suck lol. Quads grow easy but no glutes. I do feel like chest compounds are the easiest to progress..seems like you can add weight for a long ass time to any chest compounds and injury happens before a stall lol

Yea, glutes is another rare one, especially if you are a man, although outside of bodybuilders, no men really want glutes