Pete Sisco told me to ask

[DonkeyKong]

Pft

Im actually reading Power Factor Training( Peter Sisco/John Little)right now
and am only on chapter five but I will say so far its been intresting.I have tried many diffrent types of routines(High Volume,HIT,HST,Powerbuilding)
and it all works pretty well but nothing works forever.
The way I see it the main problem with guys like Mentzer or Sisco seem to
dig to deep and OVERANALYZE the bodybuilding WAY to much and always seem to assume their way is the only true rational way to train wich is bullshit.Your body will adapt to almost anything.I may end up trying a Power Factor routine though the measuring of the reps,time,weight totals seems stupid to me.

 

[Madcow2]

A lot of them seem to work hard at coming up with neat analogies and interesting logic to support their programs. Of course, it would really help if there was a foundation of science or some correlation to how the body works. I see so much from the BBing community that is just pure unsupported rhetoric. It's like Joe Schmoe at the gym invents himself some baseless theory and spent a year coming up with enough cute quips, words, and analogies to support it.


Random New Theory: "Being dumb will make you huge"

-A stereotypical geeky smart guy is frequently portrayed as skinny guy with glasses. Being smart doesn't help him be big - it hurts him.

-Very developed bodybuilders are often refered to as muscleheads and this is generally equated with being dumb.

-The biggest guy at 24Hour Joe's in a remote suberb of Boise ID, tested out at an 85 IQ after drinking heavily one night.

-XYZ Mr. Olympia made the best gains of his life using 10g of test a week. He's told me that the biggest reason for his success was because he got even dumber this year. Lot's of other really dumb guys agree.

-If one carefully considers the logic of all of this, it is obvious that all of this exercise science and training is just so much crap. While all those scientists have toiled away years of their life working with elite athletes, performing studies, and educating themselves, in 2 hours over a 6 pack I've stumbled onto the holy gail and everything else is a waste or a hell of a lot more inefficient. The quickest way to getting big is to first get dumb. I've used this on all my clients over the years, just randomly slapping them upside the head with a 10 pounder every now and then when they aren't expecting it and it's the bomb and they all agree. Whoopee. Don't listen to what anyone else says, they might sound smart but the truth is, they aren't dumb enough yet and are just frustrated at their own progress. Follow my way and soon you'll be huge and dumb or at least too stupid to realize you aren't. Now go forth and spread the word of dumb training like the gospel and jihad to anyone who doesn't agree.

 

[CyniQ]

A lot of them seem to work hard at coming up with neat analogies and interesting logic to support their programs. Of course, it would really help if there was a foundation of science or some correlation to how the body works. I see so much from the BBing community that is just pure unsupported rhetoric. It's like Joe Schmoe at the gym invents himself some baseless theory and spent a year coming up with enough cute quips, words, and analogies to support it.


Random New Theory: "Being dumb will make you huge"

-A stereotypical geeky smart guy is frequently portrayed as skinny guy with glasses. Being smart doesn't help him be big - it hurts him.

-Very developed bodybuilders are often refered to as muscleheads and this is generally equated with being dumb.

-The biggest guy at 24Hour Joe's in a remote suberb of Boise ID, tested out at an 85 IQ after drinking heavily one night.

-XYZ Mr. Olympia made the best gains of his life using 10g of test a week. He's told me that the biggest reason for his success was because he got even dumber this year. Lot's of other really dumb guys agree.

-If one carefully considers the logic of all of this, it is obvious that all of this exercise science and training is just so much crap. While all those scientists have toiled away years of their life working with elite athletes, performing studies, and educating themselves, in 2 hours over a 6 pack I've stumbled onto the holy gail and everything else is a waste or a hell of a lot more inefficient. The quickest way to getting big is to first get dumb. I've used this on all my clients over the years, just randomly slapping them upside the head with a 10 pounder every now and then when they aren't expecting it and it's the bomb and they all agree. Whoopee. Don't listen to what anyone else says, they might sound smart but the truth is, they aren't dumb enough yet and are just frustrated at their own progress. Follow my way and soon you'll be huge and dumb or at least too stupid to realize you aren't. Now go forth and spread the word of dumb training like the gospel and jihad to anyone who doesn't agree.

LMAO. I think you're brilliant Madcow. That was supposed to be a compliment.

I think it's been suggested before that ectomorph's are generally smarter. Something about a larger cranium capacity.

New theories that fly in the face of mainstream wisdom are what sells books, videos, tapes, ab-lounges, and gazelles. Doesn't really matter if it's proven or not, only that it's different, and sounds easier than the traditional method. Magic beans.

Excuse me. I have to go take my Cortislim and wheatgrass shot.

 

[DonkeyKong]

d

Finished the book let me just pick one part I strongly disagreed with.Actually I cant believe this guys not retarded.In the top 10 myth section towards the back of the book they(Sisco or Little)say something like...The reason why mosat pro's today are so huge is not thier training method.They also claim steroids are 10% of thier gains but its actually more like 90%...They go on about how roids are dangerous but make you huge when you severly overtrain like a pro.What an ass!90%!!???HA HA..Though I do like most of the book they also exxagerate and say some pretty stupid shit...

 

[CyniQ]

Finished the book let me just pick one part I strongly disagreed with.Actually I cant believe this guys not retarded.In the top 10 myth section towards the back of the book they(Sisco or Little)say something like...The reason why mosat pro's today are so huge is not thier training method.They also claim steroids are 10% of thier gains but its actually more like 90%...They go on about how roids are dangerous but make you huge when you severly overtrain like a pro.What an ass!90%!!???HA HA..Though I do like most of the book they also exxagerate and say some pretty stupid shit...

I'm confused. Did Sisco say that steroids are 90% or 10%? I would disagree with both personally. Although I don't have a statistic of my own, it can't be that drastic on either side.

What are his 10 myths?

 

[DonkeyKong]

cc

Yes he claimes that steroids result in about 90% of thier gains meaning he gives only 10% to thier genetics,diets,training.Thats just cuz hes trying to emphasize his point of how they are all grossly overtrained and grow only because of steroids.Well Im not on anything except protein powder right now and I train bodyparts 2xweek and have bad genetics and am gaining strenght like crazy.But I guess Im overtrained and just dont know it.
I dont have the book here right now but the 10 myths included things like
1.Muscle turns to fat when you quit lifting
2.You must train muscle from diff. angles
Things like that...Sorry cant remember all...
I like the idea of partial reps and have used them to great success before ever reading PFT and It would be nice to try a whole routine doing nothing but movements in wich you overload the muscles in thier strongest rom using sick amounts of weight though Sisco suggest using very high reps wich I disagree with.he claims ther is no set amount of reps for growth or endurance
that you get size from 20 reps just as much as 8 wich I believe is wrong.I like very low reps for size and strenght and high reps despite what many belive nowadays get me ripped up but do little for size and power.But then agin I also believe in spot reduction so I may be a little old school in my training beliefs

 

[CyniQ]

Yes he claimes that steroids result in about 90% of thier gains meaning he gives only 10% to thier genetics,diets,training.Thats just cuz hes trying to emphasize his point of how they are all grossly overtrained and grow only because of steroids.Well Im not on anything except protein powder right now and I train bodyparts 2xweek and have bad genetics and am gaining strenght like crazy.But I guess Im overtrained and just dont know it.
I dont have the book here right now but the 10 myths included things like
1.Muscle turns to fat when you quit lifting
2.You must train muscle from diff. angles
Things like that...Sorry cant remember all...
I like the idea of partial reps and have used them to great success before ever reading PFT and It would be nice to try a whole routine doing nothing but movements in wich you overload the muscles in thier strongest rom using sick amounts of weight though Sisco suggest using very high reps wich I disagree with.he claims ther is no set amount of reps for growth or endurance
that you get size from 20 reps just as much as 8 wich I believe is wrong.I like very low reps for size and strenght and high reps despite what many belive nowadays get me ripped up but do little for size and power.But then agin I also believe in spot reduction so I may be a little old school in my training beliefs

I agree that those 2 examples are "myths". I don't personally believe that anything above 15 reps in a set is beneficial for growth. I can grab a bar and throw it up 150 times. But I don't think it'll make my muscles do anything but hurt. I'd be interested to learn on what basis you believe in spot reduction.

 

[MANWHORE]

I agree that those 2 examples are "myths". I don't personally believe that anything above 15 reps in a set is beneficial for growth. I can grab a bar and throw it up 150 times. But I don't think it'll make my muscles do anything but hurt. I'd be interested to learn on what basis you believe in spot reduction.

I also believe in spot or site reduction and i'm sure many others do just haven't really thought about it. I think i saw somewhere that Arnold even used it. It's more about shifting Sub-Q fat so you look more cut rather than burning it off. same reason why forearms and calfs have very little sub-q fat. I have to go to bed now because i've been working alot. I'll be back thought. you better believe it. later ... hope all is well didn't get a chance to read much

 

[Madcow2]

I wouldn't rely too heavily on Arnold for training theory, exercise science, or basic physiology. Take a look around the sport today and it is very obvious one doesn't need to be remotely competent in any of these areas to be a very successful Pro BBer.

 

[MANWHORE]

I wouldn't rely too heavily on Arnold for training theory, exercise science, or basic physiology. Take a look around the sport today and it is very obvious one doesn't need to be remotely competent in any of these areas to be a very successful Pro BBer.

well i actually don't like arnold but i thought others did so i mentioned him. It doesn't matter if he used spot reduction or not. it's been here for much longer then him

 

[DonkeyKong]

ss

Well basically I belive in spot reduction because your body can be fat in certain areas and muscular in others.Like for instance I am pretty ripped all over with strirated glutes(yes I check out my glutes in mirror)but carry a film of bodyfat over my abs.Im always on a bulking eat all you can diet but my metabolism is so high its hard to put on weight of any kind.Without a change in diet I can get visible abs with about 2-3weeks of traing abs 3xweek.
It only makes sense to me to think if some fat ass out there joined a gym and trained only bis and tris after maybe like a few months hed have muscular arms(compared to his former flabby arm)maybe a few vains even but the rest of his body would still be fat.

 

[Bob Smith]

well i actually don't like arnold but i thought others did so i mentioned him. It doesn't matter if he used spot reduction or not. it's been here for much longer then him

That doesnt make it true or a worthwhile endeavour. You cant shift your fat storage patterns simply by working out. Its simply not possible with diet and exercise. Its potentially possible with drugs, but thats it.

 

[Bob Smith]

Well basically I belive in spot reduction because your body can be fat in certain areas and muscular in others.

That has absolutely nothing to do with spot reduction or the possibility of it.

 

[CyniQ]

carry a film of bodyfat over my abs.Im always on a bulking eat all you can diet but my metabolism is so high its hard to put on weight of any kind.Without a change in diet I can get visible abs with about 2-3weeks of traing abs 3xweek.

What you've stated is more reasonably explained by the possibility that you have really weak abs that only show through when you train them.

 

[MANWHORE]

That doesnt make it true or a worthwhile endeavour. You cant shift your fat storage patterns simply by working out. Its simply not possible with diet and exercise. Its potentially possible with drugs, but thats it.

It has to do with bloodflow to the specific area ... Why are forearms and calfs leaner then other body parts? there's an almost constant bloodflow to those areas which keeps Sub-Q fat very low. If you notice fat people have very low fat on their calfs but that doesn't mean they have low fat in that area... it's just very low Sub-Q fat because of the constant bloodflow to that area ... try doing crunches throughout the day just for a few minutes at a time to get the blood moving in that area and your abs will show more. If it were just the muscle building ..which it can't be because we need heavy weight for that yeah ok ... if it were the muscle building and Sub-Q fat staying the same,wouldn't the tape go up? I think so.

 

[CyniQ]

It has to do with bloodflow to the specific area ... Why are forearms and calfs leaner then other body parts? there's an almost constant bloodflow to those areas which keeps Sub-Q fat very low. If you notice fat people have very low fat on their calfs but that doesn't mean they have low fat in that area... it's just very low Sub-Q fat because of the constant bloodflow to that area ... try doing crunches throughout the day just for a few minutes at a time to get the blood moving in that area and your abs will show more. If it were just the muscle building ..which it can't be because we need heavy weight for that yeah ok ... if it were the muscle building and Sub-Q fat staying the same,wouldn't the tape go up? I think so.

Well, at least you have an explanation... Good to have you back, BTW.

 

[Bob Smith]

Well, at least you have an explanation... Good to have you back, BTW.

I disagree entirely with his explanation, but at least he has one.

 

[DonkeyKong]

ss

What you've stated is more reasonably explained by the possibility that you have really weak abs that only show through when you train them.

Actually I do situps with yo' fat momma on my chest to build them up.BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[MANWHORE]

Actually I do situps with yo' fat momma on my chest to build them up.BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

real nice ... that's it your OUTTA HERE!

 

[CyniQ]

Actually I do situps with yo' fat momma on my chest to build them up.BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

How old are you?

I could lower myself to your level and say something like "your momma's like a shotgun. One cock and she blows." or, "your momma's so fat... she's on both sides of your family!" I could say, "your momma's so fat... when she had her portrait made... it had to be an aerial photograph." or maybe, "your momma's so fat... when she sits around the house. She sits AROUND the house."

But I wouldn't do that. Wouldn't be prudent. Not at this juncture.