Demolish Your Genetic Limits

[BendtheBar]

Posting for discussion...

Demolish Your Genetic Limits

T NATION | Demolish Your Genetic Limits

You lift weights to get bigger and stronger. And during the initial stages of training, this goal isn't all that hard to accomplish. Your ceiling for improvement is of Mount Kilimanjaro proportions and virtually any routine you perform will produce favorable results.

But nothing lasts forever, and over time gains that were once so impressive start to disappoint and underwhelm like a George Lucas film retrospective. Despite this, many lifters continue to train the same way for years on end without making substantial progress.

This is a mistake. Don't settle for mediocrity.

Continued gains in muscle and strength require that you adopt a scientific approach to training. The following five strategies are scientifically based, tried and true ways to reenergize your routine. Incorporate them into your workout and get on the fast track to a better body.

[BendtheBar]

Just framing this around muscle gains...

What say you? Demolish (implying big steps forward) genetic muscle limits with science and new approaches? Or understand that slowing gains are part of the natural equation, but continue to train hard to add that extra smaller percent each year?

Might sound like my questions are leading, but that's not my intention. Simply using the lingo presented by the author, compared to a reasonable alternative view.

[Off Road]

Slow and steady don't sell the magazines.

[big valsalva]

All part of the natural equation. In addition to genetics, age is also a limiting factor. On the other hand though, I'm able to keep going strong partly because I haven't been beating my body up for the last 30 or so years. Still, age and gravity will eventually win.

[Fazc]

I can see what the author was trying to do; offer some relatively novel way's of introducing variation for more gains into a routine. Which is fine.

Drop sets, negative training, deloads and visualisation is what the article is really about. It wasn't really about genetic potential, that was the selling point. But I agree, it was poorly worded to imply massive gains being possible.

[Off Road]

Once again a T Nation article who's introductory paragraphs don't match the rest of the content. I swear these authors turn in a good article and then some other guy punches up the introduction.

[Fazc]

Originally Posted by Off Road

Once again a T Nation article who's introductory paragraphs don't match the rest of the content. I swear these authors turn in a good article and then some other guy punches up the introduction.

Yep, although at least this one doesn't look like he has obese knees.

[Kuytrider]

The article was good if only the content had anything to do with the title! It's important to have 'catchy' headlines but damn, at least have the title and intro have something to do with the subject being discussed. I guess '5 tips to breaking plateaus' is too common a heading and doesn't quite have the same impact as a title that promises some never before heard tips on being a walking mountain of muscle.

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by Off Road

Once again a T Nation article who's introductory paragraphs don't match the rest of the content. I swear these authors turn in a good article and then some other guy punches up the introduction.

Could very well be.

Originally Posted by Kuyt

It's important to have 'catchy' headlines but damn, at least have the title and intro have something to do with the subject being discussed.

The great thing about this day and age is that we can make titles about the content, so people who search find the specific things they look for. This will land 100x more traffic than eye grabbing magazine headline titles.

If we create a "bicep workout" and title it "advanced bicep muscle building workout" we'll get an amazing amount of traffic without resorting to magazine headlines.