You guys are going to make this waaaay too easy. Not sure I have time to shoot fish in a barrel, but I will briefly fire off some feedback to a few inane quotes that deserve to be crushed.
First, Shenandoah... I have bothered to read many things, unfortunately among which was your site. Key point you seem to leave out for people is that you lifted weights for years. I haven't seen photos of you, but if you are a 200 behomoth of ripped, manly muscle as you describe, there are two factors to consider. One is that YOU LIFTED WEIGHTS FOR YEARS. I have gone for an entire year of not lifting and maintained just fine. For one thing I have established a base which I will not vary much from. For another thing, I have good genetics for maintaining my size, which brings me to the second thing... Genetics. Results do indeed vary. You are not an expert. Most bodybuilders I know think that because some crazy method "works for them" then they are experts in what will work for others. You may have succeeded, even in spite of your glaring lack of exericise science knowledge, but that does not qualify you to tell others how they can accomplish the same kind of results.
You stated that the methods of Charles Atlas have been completely debunked. I haven't heard this before, and would like to hear why you think this is true.
The most modern techniques in building strength and muscle mass are using the old "dynamic-tension" methods. See .
The site is put out by one of the most prominent experts in bodybuilding today - Pete Sisco. He is a long time author of many articles in bodybuilding magazines.
For the record, I have made phenomenal strength gains using this "outdated" method of gaining power. See my website for details.
Yochanan
This one is full of good stuff. First, I don't know how anyone not living in a cave can NOT know about the Atlas scandal. Have you not seen his biography? He basically attained mass the traditional way, but lied to the public about it, telling people that if they lifted weights that they would experience "muscle binding" which would turn them into bunched up, inflexible balls of functionless muscle. Complete ****! I will come back on this thread later with some links, but I am in a hurry and have a few other points to make.
Pete Sisco is not a credible source in my book. Selling books does not a credible expert make. He is a co-creator of "Power factor training" which only has limited benefit, if any. Bodybuilders loved his stuff because it allowed them to do partials holding ridiculous amounts of weight, which gives them what they are all so desperate for... Attention. The method is pretty much crap (in most cases). First of all, it relies heavily on machines, like the leg press. I would refer you to some of the McGill studies on the leg press to learn why it is one of the worst exercises you can do. Caution... He's a REAL scientist who conducts legitimate studies that are published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Not some hack who claims to have some new "Eastern Bloc Secret for Explosive Growth" or other such nonsense.
You should also note that I did not say dynamic tension is a bad thing in some cases, just as isometric tension. There are times when it is necessary in a routine, and I use those methods frequently, integrated into a real program. Most of these attempts to find a fad method that promises great results should activate your bullsh*t alarms. There are no "secret methods you've never been told" that will turn you into Charles Atlas. As Alwyn Cosgrove says, "everything works, nothing works forever." And even if you get some results from trying a method, that does not in any way mean that it is optimal.
Lastly, AdamU1:
that's what happens when you start lifting weights too young
and yes, he's small heightwise
This is a very weak logical argument. It is the logical syllogism called "fallacious appeal to statistics." For example: I bought a Ford and it was a lemon, therefore ALL Fords are lemons. See the faulty logic here?
That poor boy is not even a valid comparison because he is the failed sick experiment of two uber-narcissists who have no right to have children. If you want to look at what happens when children start lifting at a very young age under proper coaching, look at the Russian athletes, especially the olympic lifters. These kids are started at sometimes as young as 5 or 6 years old. They weren't lifting anything particularly heavy, but they were learning proper technique which would come in handy when they became young adults. Olympic lifters in general are the least injured of ALL the olympic athletes, and in many cases the most flexible.
Another problem with your argument is that you claim that all you have to do is start too early and you will stunt your growth, which again shows that you too have done no actual reading on the topic. There is a difference between a scientific theory and a belief. You believe what you posted with no validation other than your faulty "evidence" because you want to believe that to be true.
Forums are great places to come for support, but that support should be qualified. I hope many of you newbies in here are reading this. Do not simply go with advice from someone because they took the time to post it. Use your critical thinking skills, or go do some actual research instead of coming in here hoping someone will do it for you because you are too lazy to put any time and thought into your program. You will get what you deserve if you can't even do that. Forums should be a place where we can discuss our programs and report progress, and yes, even get some good guidance from some knowledgeable people on how you can tweak your routine. But in the case of most of the advice I read in here on a frequent basis, it is quite simply the blind leading the blind.
/rant over
