From: wohlenbe@inter-tel.com (Greg Wohlenberg)
Subject: Re: Bodybuilding: Is three days enough?
Keywords: mass, weights
Reply-To: wohlenbe@inter-tel.com
Organization: Inter-tel, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:58:48 GMT


<Discussion regarding hardgainer routines deleted>

Me:

>   This just doesn't  sound  like  someone  who  has  actually  executed the
> program  for  a  sustained  amount  of  time.   It  is   not   possible  to
> continually...

Chuck:

>   Why not?  Have you tried it?  I did indeed execute this program for the 6
> week period I suggested  (What  did  you  mean by sustained amount of time?
> Isn't 6 weeks within the 4 to ten weeks  you  suggested?)   and  I  did add
> weight as described.  Of course, I  might  have  added  that  you shouldn't
> start  such  a program with your absolute, gut-wrenching highest weight for
> the first two or three workouts,  but  the principal *does* work if you put
> the effort in.  I worked  up  to  315  lbs  for  20  reps  in  that period,
> (actually I only got 19 on the first try at 315) and I felt  like it nearly
> killed me.  Actually, it  sounds  like  *you*  haven't  tried  it.   If you
> haven't tried it and failed yourself, don't pretend to be such an expert on
> its effectiveness or be so quick to  doubt  someone  else's experience with
> it.

     Of course I've tried  it.   I  said  in my posting that "I've personally
followed it for the last couple of years".  I'm  _not_  questioning  that you
can continually add weight for a six week  cycle.   But what do you do at the
end of the six weeks?  Do you keep adding weight?  Do you cycle back  down to
a lower weight?  Do you take  a  week  off?   Or  do  you  switch  to another
movement for a cycle?

     The main point I am trying to make is that  the prevailing literature on
hardgainer training doesn't discuss a  lot  of  factors  that I ran into when
actually training that way through multiple cycles over multiple years.  When
I hear someone talking hardgainer "philosophy" without  hardgainer "reality",
it makes  me  suspicious  as to whether that person has actually done it.  If
they haven't done it, they are in no position to give advice.

     What is some of this hardgainer "reality"?  My  previous  post described
some of it.  For example, you can't productively add  weight  every week on a
particular movement for more than 4-10  weeks.   The  amount  of  time varies
based on the movement and the  amount  you  are  adding  but  I believe it is
shorter than most people realize!  With my body, cycling back down to a lower
poundage helps but it doesn't compare to  switching  movements  for  a while.
When the hardgainers portray 20-rep squats  as  this  "magic"  exercise, they
often neglect that  there  are  other  extremely  productive  movements worth
rotating in.

     There also seems to be a prevailing viewpoint  that  sticking  to _only_
basic movements is the  way to go.  I'm sorry, but again this doesn't hold up
in my personal  experience.  My arms, for example, are always their best when
I am doing some arm isolation work.  The  hardgainers  seem  to  believe that
their biceps  get  grossly  overtrained  from  their back work alone.  If you
start to  focus  on  intensity,  reduce  total  work  volume, and incorporate
exercise selection properly, I  believe  the  body responds quite well to the
occasional isolation movement.

     In  summary,  the  hardgainer  concepts  have  proven  themselves  to be
effective for many different  bodytypes  (particularly the ectos).  But, that
is not to say that all the old school shown be thrown out the  window.  There
is a middle ground which can only be understood  by  people that actually try
these things out  on their own bodies, using traditional principles of trial,
error, and modification.  The net result, in my  opinion,  will be neither of
the extremes voiced by the opposing camps.

Greg Wohlenberg
wohlenbe@inter-tel.com