.gif "IP Gear")
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Messages
- 8,700
INTERESTING THEORY!!
yesterday i talked to a old friend who was a pretty successful bodybuilder in the late 80's and early 90's. he took many years off to start his own biz in the medical field. he is now hoping for an invite to the masters olympia since he is nearing the age of qualification. we were talking about bodybuilding in general and he had many interesting theorys as to why the guys are so much bigger now and how some of the old timers are suddenly make spectacular gains when they should be heading down hill.
he believes that most of the gains are because of insulin and how they guys are now able to manipulate their training to get the most out of the insulin. he stated that we are seeing more and more guys going back to the twice a week bodypart scheduling than the once a week type workout that have been so popular. he brings up newcomer artatwood, along with nasser, coleman, levrone, cormier, priest, dillet and many others that are hitting bodyparts more and more often.
his theory goes something like this. there is a common conception that the pros train very lazy and are not putting forth much effort. he claims there is a method to the madness. the volume of training is more important than the intensity for these guys since they do not want to over stress their central nervous system but, want a high amount of workload to stress the fibers and pump alot of blood into the muscle group , draining all glycogen. this , in turn , allows the insulin to work its magic by allowing it to supercompensate glycogen loading and jamming alot of protein into the trained muscle groups. now, the quicker we can recover and train it again the better. he claims that going to the failure stresses the nervous system to much. he believes that workload in a given time is more important.
his workouts are based around the 12 to 20 sets range and reps in the 8 to 15 range. he relys on continuous tension type sets and lower rest periods. he stops always a rep or two short of failure. he tries to always hit that muscle group again in a 96 hour window. he believes that insulin works best in this fashion and is the reason why we are seeing so many monsters these days. the more a muscle group can be ht the more insulin can work its wonders.
now, if that is true, which i have no reason to doubt him going by the monsters we are seeing, we still could do the same thing with phil's type workout barring that we do not strain the nervous system. phil's workouts are very intense and all sets are taken to failure..but, the duration is so short that the body is not being that harshly stressed. so in real world applications, one could follow a higher intensity type work out as long as duration is short and cns is not overly stressed AND glycogen is drained from the trained muscle.
when i brough that view point up to him , he disagreed saying the workload would be to small and that the muscle would not properly drained and pumped. he stated that anedotal evidence would all point to the opposite of what i mentioned. i told him i did not believe much in anectodal evidence and thought the above mentioned workout would work as well. (basically i am trying to stir up shit lol) anyway thought i would let ya know what was said and it is an interesting theory nonetheless.
yesterday i talked to a old friend who was a pretty successful bodybuilder in the late 80's and early 90's. he took many years off to start his own biz in the medical field. he is now hoping for an invite to the masters olympia since he is nearing the age of qualification. we were talking about bodybuilding in general and he had many interesting theorys as to why the guys are so much bigger now and how some of the old timers are suddenly make spectacular gains when they should be heading down hill.
he believes that most of the gains are because of insulin and how they guys are now able to manipulate their training to get the most out of the insulin. he stated that we are seeing more and more guys going back to the twice a week bodypart scheduling than the once a week type workout that have been so popular. he brings up newcomer artatwood, along with nasser, coleman, levrone, cormier, priest, dillet and many others that are hitting bodyparts more and more often.
his theory goes something like this. there is a common conception that the pros train very lazy and are not putting forth much effort. he claims there is a method to the madness. the volume of training is more important than the intensity for these guys since they do not want to over stress their central nervous system but, want a high amount of workload to stress the fibers and pump alot of blood into the muscle group , draining all glycogen. this , in turn , allows the insulin to work its magic by allowing it to supercompensate glycogen loading and jamming alot of protein into the trained muscle groups. now, the quicker we can recover and train it again the better. he claims that going to the failure stresses the nervous system to much. he believes that workload in a given time is more important.
his workouts are based around the 12 to 20 sets range and reps in the 8 to 15 range. he relys on continuous tension type sets and lower rest periods. he stops always a rep or two short of failure. he tries to always hit that muscle group again in a 96 hour window. he believes that insulin works best in this fashion and is the reason why we are seeing so many monsters these days. the more a muscle group can be ht the more insulin can work its wonders.
now, if that is true, which i have no reason to doubt him going by the monsters we are seeing, we still could do the same thing with phil's type workout barring that we do not strain the nervous system. phil's workouts are very intense and all sets are taken to failure..but, the duration is so short that the body is not being that harshly stressed. so in real world applications, one could follow a higher intensity type work out as long as duration is short and cns is not overly stressed AND glycogen is drained from the trained muscle.
when i brough that view point up to him , he disagreed saying the workload would be to small and that the muscle would not properly drained and pumped. he stated that anedotal evidence would all point to the opposite of what i mentioned. i told him i did not believe much in anectodal evidence and thought the above mentioned workout would work as well. (basically i am trying to stir up shit lol) anyway thought i would let ya know what was said and it is an interesting theory nonetheless.
