From: 6500ursa@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Disco Junkie)
Newsgroups: misc.fitness
Subject: Re: split routine question-TOO MANY SETS!
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:16:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucsbcsl.6085



Hello Ron,,

First, thanks to all of you who responded to me.  I was pleasantly suprised to
know that there are other lurkers out there, who also believe in short
abbreviated programs.  For those of you who are just reading this debate,
I, Disco Junkie, am claiming that most natural trainees are doing way too
many sets.  I'm not advocating a Mentzer-esque Heavy Duty go all out in one
set type of approach.  Just plain going back to the basics, and working hard
on each set.   Feel free to join in, critique, or whatsoever.

Here are my answers to some valid points Ron brought up:

>Hi all, this is Ron using a friend's account.

Hello Ron.  Nice to hear from you again.

>>[I, Disco Junkie sez:]
>>have no value).  Of course, I see gigantic musclemen doing megasets per 
>>bodypart, and my body, while fit and muscular, is nothing compared to them.  
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Who knows, I may be wrong...  :-)

>Well... first let me ask: How long have you been lifting? 
>If you're still a beginner (which I know you're not), then your body
>*should* be "nothing" compared to the "gigantic musclemen" who have been
>lifting for at least 10 years and did alot of drugs along the way.

True, and I agree with you.  Too many of us have been duped by the
muscle mags into believing that by we could actually look that huge,
vascular and ripped merely by following their programs, without
drugs.(At least I did.)  I think most of the unsuspecting public doesn't
know that almost all these pros are genetic freaks, and take steroids
and have no life outside of bodybuilding (I mean who has time for
double/triple split routines?)  For proof, just compare the natural
bodybuilding mags to the mainstream mags.  (My friends like to make
fun of my naivette of the past, when I actually believed that drugs were
not necessary to build a champion-thought Lee Haney was natural!)

>But, even if you're all natural, if you've been lifting for a while (read:
>at least a few years), your body shouldn't be nothing when compared to
>them.

Ah, my mistake.  Sarcasm gets lost over the computer.  I'm in very good
shape, and definitely muscular.  I'm just trying to make the point that
I don't look anywhere near the genetically gifted roidasaurus look.
Which brings up the point:  who is the average trainee more likely to
believe when it comes to programs, an above-average muscular me or a
super huge genetic wonder bodybuilder? 

This is my main criticism of the 8-12, more sets is better program.
This is the standard program of the drug-using pros (with some exceptions).
Genetics and roids allows one to do these incredibly taxing megaset programs.
These genetic wonders can have a totally wrong program and still GROW!
Wheras people like me cannot afford any mistakes.  And yet, your 
impressionable trainee is more likely to ape the program of the pros!  
Because someone is huge beyond belief, we tend to take his/her word as the 
truth.  But what works for the champs don't necessarily work for us!  (I 
could train scientifically for boxing, and George Foreman could eat all the 
burgers he wants, and not train, and he'd still kick my butt in the ring.  
Does it mean that his program is better?)  To me, this more-sets-is-better 
philosophy is one of the biggest, most misleading pieces of information that 
goes around the gym!  This is fine for the pros but not for average everyday
people!!  We CAN'T spend 2+ hours in the gym 5 days a week!  We don't have
time to eat 6+ fat-free meals a day!  We have a regular LIFE!!  (I"m not 
implying that you're like this Ron..  :-)  ) 

And so terrible training information is handed down to your average trainee 
from well-intentioned but misleading advice in the gym, AND ESPECIALLY THE
MUSCLE MAGAZINES!  I speak from experience!  When I first started
lifting, I bought every mag I could find.  I did every champ's program,
even their so-called "beginning programs"!  The standard consensus
was do many sets.  Where does this come from?  So-called personal
trainers also learned this info from the mags.  (How do I know?
I coached a friend to pass the test at a trendy health club with my
standard many-sets-per-bodypart dogma, even for older men, and they
hired him!  And he knew very little about lifting!  I was a bad boy...  :-) )

Now I may be dead wrong, and the mags may be right.  I'll always leave
that possibility open. It's up to the individual to decide what is right
for him/her.  I just want you to question where you got your training
info.  Did you get it from talking to some huge guy at the gym?  Did you
read it in a muscle magazine?  AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, does it work for you?
If it works for you, fine.  If not, I agree with Ron that you'd better 
change it.  But the biggest mistake to make is to automatically add on more
sets.  It's like raising taxes in a recession.  :-)  I'm just pointing
out that too many bodybuilders have been conditioned to think that more
sets is better, and that maybe it would be good to question this idea
instead of merely following it.  I did, and I cut my sets, and made my
best gains ever.  I wouldn't have done it if I followed the mags, though.

>So, let me ask: have you been making steady gains?  Are your
>poundages going up?  If your goal is mass, and you ain't getting it,
>wouldn't you say that you're doing something wrong?

Yes, I'm making good gains.  I'll leave open the possibility, though,
that what works for me might not necessarily work for others.

>5 *INTENSE* sets (after warmups) may sometimes be ok for smaller
>bodyparts - but I don't think it is for the larger bodyparts.

Ron, I respect your knowledge, and you may be right.  I too, was very
suspicious when a gym owner told me to cut my sets down to only 6.  I
experimented, though, with less sets, and  found, from personal experience, 
and from putting my friends on my programs, that one can grow on even less 
sets (and you don't necessarily need forced reps, just good-old-fashioned hard
work.)  Me and my friends got STRONGER, not weaker, when we cut our sets for 
our back, for example, from 12 sets to 4 sets!  Sometimes I even only did 2 
sets on my heavy cycle days, and still made gains.  And we are all genetic 
average, natural lifters.  I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong.
I'm just asking all you readers to cut your sets down by at least 1/3
try it for a month, and see how you progress.  Don't be suprised if your
body responds quickly.  (shrivel or gain?  :-)  )

Once again, I appreciate your constructive feedback,

Disco Junkie