Originally Posted by Fazc
Perhaps, I read back over my last post there and it was harsher than I intended.
After many years of being a Hardgainer apologist, the overwhelming feedback is that many people drop out of those methods as they get stronger. You may point out that additional methods are covered, but realistically they are given barely any emphasis and are essentially at odds with the rest of the book. There is a good reason why people don't identify Brawn with higher volume work, we could say that it's because almost everyone misunderstood Stuart but I think a more realistic stance is that the book is at odds with anything higher volume or perceived as higher risk. The basic premise is wrong, that you need less exercise as you get stronger. Like most blanket prescriptions I think that's too simplistic, and varying levels of volume are needed throughout your training time.
I think these types of debates have been happening for years and nothing really has changed in terms of his content, so you and I could easily go 12 rounds here if we wanted to. (I don't by the way
) But what has changed is the time elapsed. And as I said originally what we see is a gradual phasing out of this type of training because for the most part it doesn't provide any longevity and nothing more than a very straight forward path into a dead end where inevitably variation is needed. Time and experience has shown this to me to be true over and over and that is what I base my comments on.
What B. Brawn lacks is the ability to plan long-term, the basic premise being that the lifts over and over and over will get you to where you need to be. This just isn't true for most people. In fact it's ironic. I wish
I was a hardgainer and could progress on merely 3 sets of Benches done once per week. Instead to kick start my
progress I had to do more than 15 sets of benches and 10 sets of overhead presses per week across 3 training sessions to see any improvement. How I wish I had the advantages of a hardgainer
Obviously I'm being candid here, but you see my point. I, and many others, progress because of higher volume work and not despite it as Stuart asserts. For many people higher volume and frequency is a necessity for most of the year and not just a little variation that they may do to break through a plateau.
The problem with Stuart his approach is that is is overly concerned about injury and overtraining.
With 3 sets per exercise, you can improve, but you can't improve forever. Even switching exercises, using different rep ranges doesn't do much after a few months.
Also, he is against explosive lifting. That's a big problem.
After studying some of Chad Waterbury's stuff, I started lifting with an explosive concentric and with much more sets (8x3, 10x3, 5x5, or 25 as rep goal with 6RM) than the usual 2 sets at most 3 sets. Results came fast.
But his books Brawn and Beyond Brawn are good books. He doesn't cover periodization but tell you to sometime back off on the weight and slowly building it back up with some momentum. His nutrition advice is sound and he covers also how to handle injuries.
Full body workouts works, but so do bro splits. They always tell naturals to work out on full body routines because in the pre-steroid era everybody was doing that. That's true, but there where only a few people like Reg Park, Steve Reeves, Clancy Ross.... who really excelled at it. I gues it was their genetic recovery abillity that made them champions. I you look today at some life time naturals who build their physiques on bro-splits, you can't argue with the results. It's like Steve said, after a few years of consistent training and nutrition, eventually every routine or split will flat out after 4 years or more with somehow the same results.