Thread: Return to gold
View Single Post
Old 11-24-2009, 06:36 AM   #9
Senior Member
Max Brawn
Points: 15,106, Level: 79 Points: 15,106, Level: 79 Points: 15,106, Level: 79
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,268
Reputation: 150539
glwanabe is a master memberglwanabe is a master memberglwanabe is a master memberglwanabe is a master memberglwanabe is a master memberglwanabe is a master memberglwanabe is a master memberglwanabe is a master memberglwanabe is a master memberglwanabe is a master memberglwanabe is a master member

Originally Posted by Fcat611 View Post
I still don't understand why you guys prefer it to the routines used by the modern bodybuilders??? isn't it evolution and we know more now? i cant understand why people use that old method when the new one might be better???


Why do some people sail, when they could have power? Why do people still bowhunt when we have rifles? Why do some people still navigate with a map, and compass when we have GPS? Choice. Some people want a challenge, and to experience things through a more viseral experience.

I prefer the look of the golden era BB's. They had a natural, raw, powerful, athletic look to them. I much prefer this type of look as compared to todays style of training.

Building your body with mainly compounds gives the appearence of a body that flows gracefully. Highly trained bodies that have been built using lots of isolation movements seem more like a collection of parts, as opposed to a whole system.

Is the new large split system better? Not as far as I'm concerned. Thats my opinion, and your free to disagree with it. A lot of what drove these routines was something new to sell magazines. Publishing a magazine requires content. Without something to give to the people you have nothing to sell to generate revanue.

There was a big publishing war between Hoffman of York, and Joe Weider. Weider won the publishing war, and his ideology was allowed to flourish. He's been both good, and bad for the sport in my opinion.

Has there been advancements in weightlifting science? The answer is of course yes. However, those advancements are less revolutionary, and more evolutionary. How much equipment do you really need to build your body? Not much as it turns out. I prefer to challenge myself by keeping it simple, and overcoming the supposed obstacle of not having all of the machines.

I read all the time about people saying wholebody is to hard, and that they could never keep up with the workload. That the volume per session is to high, that you will overtrain. They continue, and say you should not squat and deadlift in the same session, or that they could never do that. Then these same people lament there lack of progress while continuing with there 10 set of low intensity squats. You think they would get a clue right about there. It's called conditioning. Train your body to handle the workload, and you can, and will be able to do it.

It's not as if nobody ever trained this way. Everybody used to train this way, and it flat out works. We of course know a lot more today about muscle gains, and dimishing returns, and natural limits. All of this can be used to our advantage. Again, this would be evolution not revolution in it's nature. Sometimes change is not for the better.

Put me down for a sailboat, a bow, and a map. I think you know where I stand on my training.
glwanabe is offline   Reply With Quote