Aames' Bodybuilding and Fitness Resource Guide

[Aames]

Hey all, I was going to write a big how-to guide but I figured it was a waste of time since tons of people have written far better articles than I could ever manage. I would just be reciting what they already said somewhere. So, I thought I would point you guys to the best sites for bodybuilding knowledge. There's a lot of misinformation out there; all of these sites that I am posting are either hosted or backed by well-respected and intelligent people. Many of them are either directly involved in scientific research surrounding fitness, or incredibly well-versed and read in it. Without further ado:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ - I can't recommend this site enough. Lyle McDonald is an incredibly smart guy with a ton of free articles, even if you never buy one of his books. Everything is more-or-less spelled out in his articles.

http://alanaragon.com/

http://www.leangains.com/ - Martin Berkhan's site. Pioneered intermittent fasting.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=121703981 - The simple guide on nutrition if you're pressed for time. How to pinpoint your caloric and macro-nutrient needs.

https://www.youtube.com/user/LiftingForLife - Some hate Ian McCarthy, but all of his info is very sound and based in science.


These sites are pretty much all you need. You will learn all about how much and what types of food you should be eating. As far as routines go; consensus seems to be to use Starting Strength (if you have never lifted before) until you have good form and are comfortable in the gym, and then move on to a good intermediate routine such as Lyle McDonald's Generic Bulking Routine or Layne Norton's PHAT.

[Kayman]

https://www.muscleandstrength.com

And yes Ian is a twat I'd sooner listen to the hodgetwins.

[Aames]

Ian McCarthy is a shining beacon of hope in the shadowy darkness that is the fitness industry.

[Davey Jones]

Surprisingly sound advice from such a ridiculous person.

The Lyle McDonald thing is an Upper-Lower split, right? I'm all about those, though I've been trying out a Full-Body program for a few weeks.

Some people act like single body part splits are the end all be all of programs, or they're what you should do if you're "advanced" enough. No, they're what you should do if you're on steroids. Steroids allow you to put more stress on a muscle and still have it properly recover; and on top of that, with steroids there's no need to worry about the hormonal benefits of Full-Body and Upper-Lower splits, because you're controlling your hormones other ways. Not that you need to hear this. If you're recommending SS and Upper-Lower splits, you probably know what's up, but that's just my two-cents, in case anyone cares.

Another two of my cents:
If this guy McCarthy is really one of those "just get your macros right" guys, then he should start shutting his mouth decades ago. Different varieties of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates have different effects on the body, whether bros like it or not. For instance, saturated fat promotes testosterone much better than monosaturated fat does. Some carbs promote insulin spikes where as others hardly do at all. Again, these hormonal factors don't matter much if you're on steroids, but the difference can be massive if you're not.

It is not uncommon for me to eat nearly (or over) 300 grams of carbs a day because of all the fruit I eat. I get over 800 calories worth of fat a day just spooning it out of jars or drinking it out of bottles. That isn't even counting fat in the food I eat. And the worst sin against broscience, I couldn't even tell you how much protein I get, because I don't pay attention to that at all. But I've got nothing but leaner and stronger since I started eating this way.

You can get gains not paying attention, but if you wanna reach your potential, you're gonna have to start caring about how what you do, what you eat, and when you eat affects your hormones.

Not that anyone listens to me...but those are my cents!

[aim4hair]

Surprisingly sound advice from such a ridiculous person.

The Lyle McDonald thing is an Upper-Lower split, right? I'm all about those, though I've been trying out a Full-Body program for a few weeks.

Can you share your program ? Also what do you think of HST ?

[Kayman]

I'm currently trying a weights free calisthenic workout routine. It involves different varieties of push ups, pull ups, chin ups, dips, leg raises, hand stand push ups, a lot of core work, muscles ups etc. It has one workout routine devoted to nothing but different varieties of press ups on one day. So far I'm finding it very challenging, more challenging than free weights and the bench. I'll report my progress but I expect my core stability and strength to improve somewhat.
I workout for three days, then have a rest day then workout three days then have a rest day etc...

[Aames]

I'm currently trying a weights free calisthenic workout routine. It involves different varieties of push ups, pull ups, chin ups, dips, leg raises, hand stand push ups, a lot of core work, muscles ups etc. It has one workout routine devoted to nothing but different varieties of press ups on one day. So far I'm finding it very challenging, more challenging than free weights and the bench. I'll report my progress but I expect my core stability and strength to improve somewhat.
I workout for three days, then have a rest day then workout three days then have a rest day etc...

You can get good results with a calisthenics routine but there are a lot of muscles that are hard to hit and I think progression would get to be cumbersome. I guess that's why I would rather lift.

[Winston]

Also what do you think of HST ?

This section is dedicated to bodybuilding and fitness. Please keep the conversation on topic. Discussions related to cutting edge hair restoration treatments should be posted in that section of the forum.

[BigThinker]

This section is dedicated to bodybuilding and fitness. Please keep the conversation on topic.Discussions related to cutting edge hair restoration treatments should be posted in that section of the forum.

[aim4hair]

This section is dedicated to bodybuilding and fitness. Please keep the conversation on topic. Discussions related to cutting edge hair restoration treatments should be posted in that section of the forum.

HST here is Hypertrophy-Specific Training, which is supposed to be a cutting edge workout routine not a cutting edge hair restoration treatment

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html

[Kayman]

You can get good results with a calisthenics routine but there are a lot of muscles that are hard to hit and I think progression would get to be cumbersome. I guess that's why I would rather lift.

In terms of progression your choices are either increase the amount of sets, or perform each rep slower so I agree that progression in lifting is less cumbersome because you can just add weight to your bar. As for muscles that are hard to hit I'd say this video has you covered if you start running out of ideas but for me that's a long way off yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POdzasJklxw

[Aames]

Surprisingly sound advice from such a ridiculous person.

The Lyle McDonald thing is an Upper-Lower split, right? I'm all about those, though I've been trying out a Full-Body program for a few weeks.

Some people act like single body part splits are the end all be all of programs, or they're what you should do if you're "advanced" enough. No, they're what you should do if you're on steroids. Steroids allow you to put more stress on a muscle and still have it properly recover; and on top of that, with steroids there's no need to worry about the hormonal benefits of Full-Body and Upper-Lower splits, because you're controlling your hormones other ways. Not that you need to hear this. If you're recommending SS and Upper-Lower splits, you probably know what's up, but that's just my two-cents, in case anyone cares.

Another two of my cents:
If this guy McCarthy is really one of those "just get your macros right" guys, then he should start shutting his mouth decades ago. Different varieties of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates have different effects on the body, whether bros like it or not. For instance, saturated fat promotes testosterone much better than monosaturated fat does. Some carbs promote insulin spikes where as others hardly do at all. Again, these hormonal factors don't matter much if you're on steroids, but the difference can be massive if you're not.

It is not uncommon for me to eat nearly (or over) 300 grams of carbs a day because of all the fruit I eat. I get over 800 calories worth of fat a day just spooning it out of jars or drinking it out of bottles. That isn't even counting fat in the food I eat. And the worst sin against broscience, I couldn't even tell you how much protein I get, because I don't pay attention to that at all. But I've got nothing but leaner and stronger since I started eating this way.

You can get gains not paying attention, but if you wanna reach your potential, you're gonna have to start caring about how what you do, what you eat, and when you eat affects your hormones.

Not that anyone listens to me...but those are my cents!

Ridiculous? =(

But anyway, I am in agreement with most of your post. You seem to be well-educated on the topic. And yeah, Lyle's program is an Upper/Lower split where each is done twice per week. He is a really smart guy, although he is a bit of an intellectual narcissist (I'm sure you'd see that if you ventured to his forum). He did help me once with a concern I had, so I am eternally thankful to him. I'm actually employing one of his diet protocols right now; his books are definitely worth buying.

Anyway, I don't know where I stand on the entire food quality debate though. While you're right on saturated vs monosaturated fat in terms of test production, I believe I read somewhere that hypertrophy is almost unchanged along the range of normal T levels. IE unless you have low T or are on gear, it shouldn't matter a whole lot. Consequently, until I see evidence to the contrary, I think just hitting your macro's matters far more than anything else.

In terms of progression your choices are either increase the amount of sets, or perform each rep slower so I agree that progression in lifting is less cumbersome because you can just add weight to your bar. As for muscles that are hard to hit I'd say this video has you covered if you start running out of ideas but for me that's a long way off yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POdzasJklxw

Yeah, definitely not for me. Anytime I use a routine that employs pull-ups, I always switch them for lat-pulldowns lol. I just hate doing body-weight stuff. Let us know how it goes; there is a guy that is HUGE on bodybuilding.com that claims to only use calisthenics. He said he squatted over 300 his first time in the weight-room. I'm not entirely sure how believable it is but he wrote out some info and has a youtube channel. Perhaps you would be interested in seeing it? http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...0521351&page=1

[Davey Jones]

I believe I read somewhere that hypertrophy is almost unchanged along the range of normal T levels. IE unless you have low T or are on gear, it shouldn't matter a whole lot.

I'd be interested to see that study, if you remember where it was. One thing I'd want to see is if they increased testosterone naturally in individuals, or if they compared separate individuals with varying baseline free test. If they compared separate individuals, I'd be unconvinced that the results mean anything. For example, if you took someone at the lower end of average, at baseline, and someone at the higher end of average, at baseline, I wouldn't necessarily suspect that the higher end (of average) would be more prone to hypertrophy. It's sort of like how some people have fairly low or fairly higher blood pressures, but as long as it's within a certain range, it's basically the same thing. Different bodies require slightly different levels of the same things to maintain what is essentially the same state.

Now, taking an individual, raising his test, and comparing that to hypertrophy at his own baseline, that is more akin to what I'm referring to (raising test above what is 'average' for the individual, not what is 'average' for the species). If the study compared that (or compared that to individuals whose free test had not been raised naturally), I'd be interested to see it.

I'm also curious about the time frame. Steroids can raise your testosterone dramatically, so there are dramatic results. So when people hear "raise your testosterone", they expect dramatic results. A slight raise in test is probably not something you'd notice in a 6-week study, but it might become apparent after a year of training. Admittedly, I don't have a study on hand to back up that claim, but it seems like it would mirror results people get from very minor HGH supplementation. There are those who supplement their HGH to just high average. Results take months and months and months, but they do become apparent.

Speaking of HGH, what are your thoughts on eating or exercising with a goal of increasing HGH, Aames?

[Davey Jones]

Can you share your program ? Also what do you think of HST ?

I'm just messing around with it, to see what's up, but it's something like this.

Day 1
DB Bench Press - 4x8 (SetsxReps)
Squat- 3x8
Deadlift - 4x5
Olympic Press - 3x8
Accessory work

Day 2
Squat - 5x5
Barbell rows - 3x8
BB Bench - 4x5
Single-arm DB OH Press - 3x5
Accessory work

Day 3
Light Cleans - 2-3x5
Deadlift - 3x8
Incline Bench - 3x8
Front Squat - 3x8
Accessory work

And that's it. It doesn't look like a ton, but it'll hit you good if you let it. It has varied a bit, week-by-week; but the main idea I'm getting at is to do three or four big, full-body lifts every day, three days a week. No consecutive days. The first lift gets done with the greatest intensity (besides Day 3, where the cleans are mostly just a deadlift warm-up). At very least, the last set should be to failure (that's the "hitting you good, if you let it"). If the last rep isn't to failure, I usually go up in weight by whatever seems appropriate for that lift. If it is to failure, but still successful, I go up by a little less. If I don't get all the reps, I'll usually stay at that weight (maybe add 5lbs, tops).

I do about two minutes between sets, no more than four or five minutes between exercises. By "Accessory work", I mean I just do whatever else I'm feelin'. Usually that's some biceps, triceps, or side delts. I'll do some abs on Day 3 with something that hits the hips a little bit too, like leg lifts and what not.

That's pretty much it. I can't technically vouch for it like I could Upper-Lower splits. I haven't been doing it very long. But as far as my knowledge goes, it's a sound idea.

Oh, and I don't know a ton about HST. It looks good though. I saw a sample program that I was thinking about starting so I'd have a tried-and-true full-body program that someone had actually thought about, instead of mine that I pulled out of my ass. I'm more into strength than hypertrophy though.

[Aames]

I'd be interested to see that study, if you remember where it was. One thing I'd want to see is if they increased testosterone naturally in individuals, or if they compared separate individuals with varying baseline free test. If they compared separate individuals, I'd be unconvinced that the results mean anything. For example, if you took someone at the lower end of average, at baseline, and someone at the higher end of average, at baseline, I wouldn't necessarily suspect that the higher end (of average) would be more prone to hypertrophy. It's sort of like how some people have fairly low or fairly higher blood pressures, but as long as it's within a certain range, it's basically the same thing. Different bodies require slightly different levels of the same things to maintain what is essentially the same state.

Now, taking an individual, raising his test, and comparing that to hypertrophy at his own baseline, that is more akin to what I'm referring to (raising test above what is 'average' for the individual, not what is 'average' for the species). If the study compared that (or compared that to individuals whose free test had not been raised naturally), I'd be interested to see it.

I'm also curious about the time frame. Steroids can raise your testosterone dramatically, so there are dramatic results. So when people hear "raise your testosterone", they expect dramatic results. A slight raise in test is probably not something you'd notice in a 6-week study, but it might become apparent after a year of training. Admittedly, I don't have a study on hand to back up that claim, but it seems like it would mirror results people get from very minor HGH supplementation. There are those who supplement their HGH to just high average. Results take months and months and months, but they do become apparent.

Speaking of HGH, what are your thoughts on eating or exercising with a goal of increasing HGH, Aames?

I should have clarified; I never had a study, but rather some well-educated individuals discussing it on a forum somewhere. I think the topic of natty test-boosters was being discussed and a lot of them were saying it's pointless. So, pure speculation. But here's something you might find interesting:

http://thinkmuscle.com/forum/showthread.php?41351-Testosterone-and-muscle-hypertrophy-differing-takes-on-same-study

It discusses some hard numbers as to how much test you need to inject to raise fat-free mass. Perhaps you could extrapolate something useful from that.

In any case, I'm very skeptical that there would be a noticeable difference between 400 ng/dl and 800 ng/dl individuals assigned to the same diet and training program. I'll look harder for that thread when I have some time; maybe someone in it linked to a relevant study.

And I'm afraid I'm fairly ignorant on HGH, so I don't think my opinion would be worth much.

I like your routine, BTW.