Stuart McRobert

[bwys61]

90% of my clients do total body workouts, twice a week. Its great for those who dont care to spend too much time in the gym and want the most bang for their buck

[BendtheBar]

If I were to train someone from the get-go who wanted muscle mass I would do a workout every third day, full body style, probably rotating exercises.

But, many people like to go to the gym the same day of the week...so a standard MWF or MT works well.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by glwanabe

Thanks MAB,

Sport specialization is a different animal unto itself. That said, I believe that a person could go very far performing in powerlifting events with the old heavy routines.

Wholebody does not have to mean repeating the same workout ad infinitum.
A, A/B, and A/B/C programs can be employed with a high degree of conjugate style program effect.
You still work your wholebody, but attack it a little differently, and you can target specific areas as needed, while keeping the systemic benefits of wholebody training.

A simple repeating program is good for beginners, and they can quickly move into, or just start with and A/B style. Specific movements are important, but utilizing the proper progression scheme is just as important.

Non linear progression has been written about as being the fastest way to gains, once linear progresson stops for novices. The question I have at this point is. According to Casey Butts article about the rate of muscle gain, gains slow down to nearly a stop as you near natural limits. At that point, does the progression scheme really matter anymore? Would then going back and slugging your way through a linear progression actually make more sense at that point?

Fullbody workouts twice a week worked for me, at least several months. For building the initial mass or the foundation, it propably the best way to train.
But some muscle groups tend to respond better than others. Training the whole body at once with the sole purpose of making it bigger is maybe not the best approach. It's not written in stone the a muscle needs to be trained 3/week or 2/week or 3/2weeks. Once a muscle group is big enough there is also the possibility to train it for maintenance, once a week. For the week muscle groups they can be trained twice a week with maybe a little bit more volume until the muscle is in balance with the rest. This is even possible with 3 days of training a week.

[BendtheBar]

Good post Ludovic.

BTW, post up some pics and maybe a log when you get a chance. One of the ways we handle training and advice on this forum is to be open about where we are at. This allows those reading, including numerous lurkers, to see the man behind the message. This isn't just aimed at you, but is actually a forum rule. The basic rule is that if you give training advice, you need to post pics, video or numbers.

It's not that you have to be big and strong to talk training...far from it. This is just to discourage a 130 pound guy with a 130 pound bench lecturing endlessly about training theory like he's Ronnie Coleman. Again, don't take this personal. It's just better for the overall community.

Originally Posted by Ludovic

Fullbody workouts twice a week worked for me, at least several months. For building the initial mass or the foundation, it propably the best way to train.

Also, a good way for a new trainee to focus on learning the major lifts. A beginner need not only worry about muscle mass, but also train to learn and concentrate on form.

Originally Posted by Ludovic

But some muscle groups tend to respond better than others. Training the whole body at once with the sole purpose of making it bigger is maybe not the best approach.

In my opinion, as long as the major lifts are in the formula, it's up to the lifter to find the formula for their body. My chest needs higher reps. My legs grow of low reps. My arms respond to only one exercise per week, if a lot of heavy compounds are in the mix.

Splits tend to encourage useless, unneeded work for newbs. If I ever walk into a gym again and see a 135 pound guy on the pec deck, I'll vomit on the spot.

While it is debatable just "what" a split should look like, there are knowns in the iron game. We know that steroid users get extra benefits from intense contractions, so high volume splits work better for them. We know that natural lifters place themselves in an anabolic deficit training over an hour.

So, with these knowns, it is possible to piece together how a natural beginner should train...generally it's 2-3 days per week. Intermediates, 3-4 days per weeks. I open the possibility of more training days for intermediates simply because they are learning their bodies, and may find that an extra day is needed for muscle...or simply for pleasure.

Looking at necessary exercises, it is simply wasting personal time for a beginner to train 5-6 days a week, blasting from "every angle". Personally, I can "blast" a muscle in about 20-25 minutes. I'm exhausted, pumped, and left drooling on the dungeon floor. This is with 2 exercises for a major muscle group.

The old school volume method recommends the use of a lot of exercises, and a loose rest between sets. I don't really care if a trainee uses a lot of exercises, but he needs to keep moving in the gym. Again, naturals don't have the benefit of unlimited daily gym time. Whatever you do...get in and do it.

Personally, until you're close to a 1,000 lift total, you shouldn't be training too far off from a 2-3 day, fullbody/near full body schedule. Honestly, if you can't bench 200, squat 350 and deadlift 400, a focus on those lifts is going to help you quite a bit. They are far better then hammer curls, incline flyes, side laterals, pec dec, etc.

To the OP's point...some muscle groups respond better. Yes, some do. Tis true for everyone. But I also will pull the card that heavy compounds are the best known way to pack on muscle, and should be used by a beginner in a simple routine because:

A) They have no idea how any muscle responds.
B) The body grows quickly the first two years of training, so this muscle that is growing rapidly, may slow down once you begin to approach your natural muscle mass limits.

Attacking lagging, or slow growing muscles too soon, may be misguided in many cases. Or assuming that your legs will always grow rapidly is misguided as well.

Much of the training "nonsense" of our generation isn't seen through the lens of natural muscle mass potential. It needs to be. We grow in phases.

Phase 1
Beginner. Rapid muscle growth in Year 1, assuming solid training. Gains average 16 pounds a year.

Phase 2
Beginner to Intermediate. Year 2, 8 pound gain. Muscles gains still strong, but are cut in half. This is generally the danger zone for most trainees...they start to believe that more is better, and that their bodies are slowing down because they "need to confuse" a muscle. Nonsense. They are dreaming..they're not steroids users. They're slowing down because naturals have limits.

The closer you are to your natural limits, the slower muscle gains become. End of story.

Phase 3
Intermediate. Years 3, 4 and 5. Muscle gains average only 2-3 pounds a year, tops. Strength is still increasing. At this time, you know what your weak bodyparts are, and your strong. It is acceptable to focus on lagging parts, but with the understanding that it's going to be a grind, because muscle gains are slim to none.

Phase 4
Advanced. Gains, at most, are a pound a year. Strength still increasing with hard work.

These numbers are provided via Casey Butt's work on natural bodybuilding. They are solid estimates. Training needs to be viewed through their lens, and not just through the lens of training splits.

Why? You can maximize your potential gains by doing all the right things the first several years. Or, you can fart around and take 5-10 years to accrue the gains you should have picked up in year 1.

Originally Posted by Ludovic

Once a muscle group is big enough there is also the possibility to train it for maintenance, once a week.

True. I would add that once a muscle is big, you're advanced and loading heavy weight on the bar. Weight weight general requires more care, so even maintenance is hard work.

Originally Posted by Ludovic

For the week muscle groups they can be trained twice a week with maybe a little bit more volume until the muscle is in balance with the rest. This is even possible with 3 days of training a week.

I'll up you one with progression of weight. I don't believe volume is the key for a natural.

[glwanabe]

Originally Posted by MuscleandBrawn

Splits tend to encourage useless, unneeded work for newbs.
I'll up you one with progression of weight. I don't believe volume is the key for a natural.

Strong post MAB!

If more people would even just employ this basic concept, they would be better off in the long run. IMO

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by glwanabe

Strong post MAB!

If more people would even just employ this basic concept, they would be better off in the long run. IMO

Thanks GL. I don't know what got into me this morning. I typed that BEFORE coffee.

The ultimate irony in all this is that many naturals grow leap and bounds doing whatever, and by the time they figure out their body, they don't have much muscle left to gain...so they believe that "their" routine is the Holy Grail.

Everything pretty much works for a beginner as long as progression and heavy compounds are int eh mix. But that doesn't mean all routines all equal.

[Arnold Schwarzenegger]

Yah!

Why do da powalifters of dis era use those girly routines ven all dey need is da old school approach? Reg Park didn't need to complicate things. He just lifted da heavy iron, yah!

[glwanabe]

As long as were talking Reg Park.


The complete story:

BEYOND STRONG: RIP Reg Park

An excerpt:


IM: When did you make most of your records and what were they?

Reg: All of my top lifts were made in the 1950's as follows:
- Behind the Neck Press - 300 Lbs. For one rep.
- Behind the Neck Press - 260 Lbs. For four reps.
- Behind the Neck Press - 240 Lbs. For eight reps.
- One Arm Dumbbell Press - 165 Lbs. For two reps.
- Front Squat - 405 for a single.
- Lying Triceps Extension - 300 Lbs. For three reps. This was done at Muscle Beach in 1957.
- Standing Dumbbell Press - Two 120 Lb. Dumbbells for five reps.
- Standing Dumbbell Press - Two 140 Lb. Dumbbells for one rep.
- Dumbbell Bench Press - Two 185 Lb. Dumbbells for five reps.
- Squat - 605 for two reps at Buster McShane and Ivan Dunbar's Gym in Belfast.
- Strict Barbell Curl - 200 Lbs. For one rep.
- Incline Dumbbell Press - Two 185 Lb. Dumbbells for five reps.

I also bench pressed 500 Lbs., April 23, 1954, at around 225 bodyweight at a Health and Strength show in Bristol. I was the first in the UK and second in the world to bench over five hundred. [6. Ed Note - Doug Hepburn was the first person in the world to bench 500 pounds on May 28, 1953 at around 285 bodyweight.] I never cleaned my heavy barbell presses; they were taken off a squat stand. My only regret is that I never attempted a pair of 200 pound dumbbells in the incline or flat bench press. I believe I could have easily done both feats, since I was doing reps with 185. Also, when I made the 258 dumbbell press - A British Professional Heavyweight Record - I had to keep a strict military position, not the looser Olympic style, and I was forced to hold the dumbbells at my shoulders for almost half a minute before I pressed them to satisfy the referee's demand for a low enough position. The lift was made August 29, 1953, which beat the old record of 235 which was also held by me.

IM: At the Viking Club (10/26/49), I understand that you also tried to repeat Thomas Inch's three feats of strength.

Reg: I tried lifting Inch's "Challenge Dumbbell" (172 lbs. With a 2.47" diameter handle). It was impossible to move off the ground. In my mind, it is impossible to lift by anyone. [7. The Inch Dumbbell today is owned by David Prowse and is on display at his gym.] I made mince meat of his cable expanders. They were very easy. I was unable to close his grip machine, which supposedly took 580 pounds of force to close. I did; however, register 525 pounds on it, which was fairly close to Inch's record of 556 pounds; this was the second best attempt done to that time.

[BendtheBar]

Just finished Stuart McRobert's book, Insider's Tell-All Handbook on Weight-Training Technique.

It was about a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10.

It is worth reading, and has enough good info where it's worthy of your $$$. But there is also a lot of info on lifts you'll never do, like leverage forearm swings, ball squats and the Tru squat. Stuart's meandering into sometimes bizarre realms was a bit distracting. Stuart also tends to provide some advice that I don't agree with, like his recommendation that you deadlift with an overhand grip if possible. Stuart also recommends benching with a flat back for "spine safety" which I find a little off key.

His weakness is that it doesn't appear that Stuart has mingled with modern powerlifting knowledge, and his wisdom lacks that extra dimension that comes from dipping your toes in the powerlifting pool. Some of his advice on the big lifts butts heads with other respectable lifting gurus.

With that said, worth reading.

[chess315]

you are really missing out by not reading the first 2 brawns but ya know most of the stuff from other sources anyways