TexasRanger
Caneguru
A little here, a little there...
Posts: 2,223
|
Post by TexasRanger on Oct 13, 2017 2:50:13 GMT
Of course it all depends on your background. If you've always adhered to a progressive routine, chances are you maxed out a long time ago. On the other hand, if you were to pull out all the stops, pile on the exercises, take a deep breath, and stick with some sort of HIIT routine for awhile, as I did a few years ago, you could make some additional gains. If you've always done a moderate to very little amount of exercise, even just solely isometrics, I believe you can build size by following a program geared towards that end. It is performing full range reps utilizing resistance that pumps the muscles. I remember when President Reagan was shot, his doctor advised him to start exercising. So he got a bunch of Nautilus equipment. And then Nancy started complaining that he was outgrowing his shirts. Bruce this is a good point of view. Question, You mean HIT right? HIT is one thing I never tried. By the way, I looked at Your routine You did before. That's a pretty impressive routine. HIIT = High Intensity Interval Training. The current name for what were called intervals or sprints whether you're on the track, a bike, sprinting, etc. My $.25? Don't waste your time...researchers have shown the risk vs. reward makes their use questionable at best. There's a nominal burst in GH release (it could be because people are consuming protein drinks after performing their HIIT session) and the fat loss is nill. An HIIT session typically goes anywhere from 10 - 20 min. A simple 30 min walk would burn around 300 calories...around 150 more than HIIT without the risk of injury. (A Japanese MD showed in a multi-year study, an easy slow walk...think Mark Sisson...or 10 min/mile slow jog...produces far better results with fat burning, more safely.)
|
|
Michael
Caneguru
He cuts down trees. He wears high heels, suspendies, and a bra?!
Winner of Twatformetrics Spartan Challenge
Posts: 5,288
|
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2017 3:03:05 GMT
Texas I think Bruce is talking about HIT but I could be wrong. Look at his workout in the link on the first page. I think he wrote HIIT by accident.
|
|
TexasRanger
Caneguru
A little here, a little there...
Posts: 2,223
|
Post by TexasRanger on Oct 13, 2017 3:42:58 GMT
Agree with the HIT for some temporary gains. I've committed to it several times...the first was after five or six training sessions with Mike Mentzer and later coaching via phone. Added strength and muscle, helped me hit my final PRs.
The craziest results were when I Superslow. Over a 4 - 5 week period:
1. I worked out twice a week. 2. I did five exercises total. 3. I was not allowed to run or do any extended endurance like cycling, etc. Walks were ok, but, at an easy pace. 4. He did not want me to change anything with my diet. 5. Each exercise would be performed SuperSlow style as recommended (eg on machines for control and safety).
The trainer kept track of my progress at the beginning, mid-point and end of my experiment. Bodyfat, amount of weight used, etc. The results -- for someone who'd been training for over 20 years at that point -- were impressive. I dropped 3 points in bodyfat, added ~18% overall to my lifts and he estimated I put on two pounds of muscle. My clothes definitely fit differently.
He wanted me to take a week off and then return to the program again. My bad, I didn't stick with it and I wonder what the results would have been. (The other problem was his facility is located in Austin and my travels there were complete for the time being.)
He did have two people he introduced me to including a woman who looked incredible...48 or 49 at the time, she'd been training with him for three years and was down to (yes, down to) two exercises once every five days: weighted chins and leg presses. She was clearly on a good diet so her efforts showed. The other was a former football player/powerlifter who the gym owner said was one of his best students. Again, around three years at the time and he was doing three exercises every five - six days. Dips (weighted), chins (weighted) and leg presses. Looked fantastic...not big like a juicer, but, had that "V" look and a solid pair of guns. Believe he'd had knee issues and the SuperSlow approach had helped him in this area as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 7:12:30 GMT
I haven't read all the thread as I'm about to go to work.
I've said many times: I gain zero size. I haven't gained size past my first few years training. Sure I can get heavier. I just eat more. And countless times I have thought I must have gained more muscle along with the fat. But every time I get lean again the truth is clear: zero lean size gains.
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Oct 13, 2017 7:22:54 GMT
I haven't read all the thread as I'm about to go to work. I've said many times: I gain zero size. I haven't gained size past my first few years training. Sure I can get heavier. I just eat more. And countless times I have thought I must have gained more muscle along with the fat. But every time I get lean again the truth is clear: zero lean size gains. What about strength gains? Any of that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 7:36:40 GMT
Oh yes -- loads of strength gains! I can continue to make those. I think that's why a lot of people kid themselves into thinking they must be gaining lots of lean size. They overeat, gain loads of strength, and think they must have gained a load of muscle. But whenever I diet down I'm always just the same.
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Oct 13, 2017 10:27:07 GMT
Oh good! So, you're not saying that an older guy can't build muscle! Excellent! I was becoming depressed.
|
|
|
Post by fatjake on Oct 13, 2017 12:14:26 GMT
my guess is that everyone has a "max size" determined largely by genetics, if you reach that early on in life, then you are pretty much done at that point (without chemical help). But if you have not reached that point already, then I don't see why you could not do it in your 40's or even 50's, assuming good health.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Tackett on Oct 13, 2017 12:23:52 GMT
my guess is that everyone has a "max size" determined largely by genetics, if you reach that early on in life, then you are pretty much done at that point (without chemical help). But if you have not reached that point already, then I don't see why you could not do it in your 40's or even 50's, assuming good health. That pretty much sums it up in most simple terms.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Tackett on Oct 13, 2017 12:28:18 GMT
I haven't read all the thread as I'm about to go to work. I've said many times: I gain zero size. I haven't gained size past my first few years training. Sure I can get heavier. I just eat more. And countless times I have thought I must have gained more muscle along with the fat. But every time I get lean again the truth is clear: zero lean size gains. Sounds right to me. Especially if you are always doing basically the same workout.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Tackett on Oct 13, 2017 12:29:05 GMT
Texas I think Bruce is talking about HIT but I could be wrong. Look at his workout in the link on the first page. I think he wrote HIIT by accident. Yeah, I meant HIT. Silly me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 12:47:02 GMT
my guess is that everyone has a "max size" determined largely by genetics, if you reach that early on in life, then you are pretty much done at that point (without chemical help). But if you have not reached that point already, then I don't see why you could not do it in your 40's or even 50's, assuming good health. That sounds right to me. Bruce -- I've worked out in many different ways. High volume, low volume, HIT, high frequency, full body, splits. None of it makes any difference to my lean size. But that is how it always was before drugs. The guys in the pre 1940s era didn't keep getting bigger. They built a physique and that was essentially it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 12:54:05 GMT
The positive thing is I'm 40 next month and my body looks better (because I'm leaner) than when I worked out in my teens. I've noticed no muscle loss.
|
|
Michael
Caneguru
He cuts down trees. He wears high heels, suspendies, and a bra?!
Winner of Twatformetrics Spartan Challenge
Posts: 5,288
|
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2017 12:54:43 GMT
my guess is that everyone has a "max size" determined largely by genetics, if you reach that early on in life, then you are pretty much done at that point (without chemical help). But if you have not reached that point already, then I don't see why you could not do it in your 40's or even 50's, assuming good health. That sounds right to me. Bruce -- I've worked out in many different ways. High volume, low volume, HIT, high frequency, full body, splits. None of it makes any difference to my lean size. But that is how it always was before drugs. The guys in the pre 1940s era didn't keep getting bigger. They built a physique and that was essentially it. These two post makes sense to me. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Tackett on Oct 13, 2017 13:01:49 GMT
And what great physiques they had. I mean, really...........
|
|