• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
haha yeah, 6 months of cycling.

Were you born slow or has smoking salvia concentrate damaged your brain? The participants engaged in resistance/strength training for at least 6 months prior - cycling was additional to the strength training. Perhaps it help if I typed it out in braille?

Fucking elite athletes.

I didn't realise this thread only applied to elite athletes. With your 20 years of lifting experience I expect you would be an "elite athlete" - but then again I can bench press almost as much as you after only 3 months of training so perhaps I am "elite" too :confused:

I'm going to rewrite my entire training philosophy around this amazing protocol right before turning into a Chinese jet pilot.

That would be drastic don't you think? Wouldn't you just, maybe, take it on board as an interesting study? Are you a female? Because your drama-queen responses remind of my bat-shit crazy ex girlfriend at "that time of the month"

Heavy set of 3-4 reps clearly doesn't work and it's all light weight and high reps for maximum tone now baby, haha

Where did you see that 3-4 reps of heavy weight is useless? You seem to have the reading and comprehension skills of a 3 year old - with behaviour to match.

And after 20 years of training I thought you would know that "tone" is dictated by body fat content which is a function of diet, not high rep training. But there you go, even elite athletes can learn something new!
 
You're being quite kunty and such

meh, he is only embarrassing himself with this know-it-all tough guy act.

I'm not even disagreeing with what he is saying. He is, after all just regurgitating what many elite strength trainers think. What I do have an issue with the way he presents opinions as gospel to try and impress us all - plus the personal insult fest when "his" ideas are challenged.

Its classic "small man" syndrome.

I would suggest b0ni spend less time posting on muscle forums and more time at under 18 discos to try and find a nice girlfriend.
 
Were you born slow or has smoking salvia concentrate damaged your brain? The participants engaged in resistance/strength training for at least 6 months prior - cycling was additional to the strength training. Perhaps it help if I typed it out in braille?



I didn't realise this thread only applied to elite athletes. With your 20 years of lifting experience I expect you would be an "elite athlete" - but then again I can bench press almost as much as you after only 3 months of training so perhaps I am "elite" too :confused:



That would be drastic don't you think? Wouldn't you just, maybe, take it on board as an interesting study? Are you a female? Because your drama-queen responses remind of my bat-shit crazy ex girlfriend at "that time of the month"



Where did you see that 3-4 reps of heavy weight is useless? You seem to have the reading and comprehension skills of a 3 year old - with behaviour to match.

And after 20 years of training I thought you would know that "tone" is dictated by body fat content which is a function of diet, not high rep training. But there you go, even elite athletes can learn something new!

Your playing right into his hands. Oni would be stroking his knob at your reaction.
 
I love that 30% vs 90% study.

It makes it sounds like doing 30% to failure is easy. I've done it on squats (during injury recovery). 60kg x 161 reps. Took 9mins. Near death haha. I'd rather do a few sets at 90% any day :)
 
I love that 30% vs 90% study.

It makes it sounds like doing 30% to failure is easy. I've done it on squats (during injury recovery). 60kg x 161 reps. Took 9mins. Near death haha. I'd rather do a few sets at 90% any day :)

I wonder why they chose 30%, why not 50, 60, 70 etc
And what about rest times between sets, cadence and a dozen other factors.
 
haha, actually believing that study is worth shit
I actually Googled it to see who else mocked the shit out of it and it turns out that Jamie Lewis also thinks you're an idiot. To wit:

"Next, bodybuilders need to drop their belief in the 1-5 reps for strength, 6-12 for hypertrophy, and 12+ for endurance. It’s fucking preposterous.
Clinical evidence supports that, but the vast majority of those studies are conducted on machines, with detrained fuckers who’ve never lifted before.
Of COURSE they’re not going to get results from singles. They’re fucking weak, they’re on machines, and they generally suck.

Hypertrophy can be induced from singles, in my experience, from reducing rest periods to 60-90 seconds, maximum. 90-95% 1RM singles with those rest periods will induce hypertrophy because they recruit so many muscle fibers.

It’s almost like a rest-pause set, if you’re going by Weider principles.

I don’t have my notes in front of me, but a decent part of Science and Practice of Strength Training will corroborate this, as will just about every strength athlete on earth – it’s not as if Olmypic lifters are bereft of muscle. And they primarily stick to 1-3 reps per set."

It's not as if I am deliberately trolling this guy or playing Devil's advocate- it's fucking stupid, everyone knows it's stupid and everyone is laughing
 
haha, actually believing that study is worth shit
I actually Googled it to see who else mocked the shit out of it and it turns out that Jamie Lewis also thinks you're an idiot. To wit:

"Next, bodybuilders need to drop their belief in the 1-5 reps for strength, 6-12 for hypertrophy, and 12+ for endurance. It’s fucking preposterous.
Clinical evidence supports that, but the vast majority of those studies are conducted on machines, with detrained fuckers who’ve never lifted before.
Of COURSE they’re not going to get results from singles. They’re fucking weak, they’re on machines, and they generally suck.

Hypertrophy can be induced from singles, in my experience, from reducing rest periods to 60-90 seconds, maximum. 90-95% 1RM singles with those rest periods will induce hypertrophy because they recruit so many muscle fibers.

It’s almost like a rest-pause set, if you’re going by Weider principles.

I don’t have my notes in front of me, but a decent part of Science and Practice of Strength Training will corroborate this, as will just about every strength athlete on earth – it’s not as if Olmypic lifters are bereft of muscle. And they primarily stick to 1-3 reps per set."

It's not as if I am deliberately trolling this guy or playing Devil's advocate- it's fucking stupid, everyone knows it's stupid and everyone is laughing
I do not see it that way at all. Bodybuilders look like bodybuilders for a reason, and Olympic weightlifters are powerful (and look the way they look) for a reason. In fact, for the amount of effort those Olympians/elite athletes you talk about put day in and day out, they pale into (muscle) insignificance when compared to the specialists in muscle building; the bodybuilders. Sure they have muscles; you can pin that to the high frequency of their training rather than specifically training for muscle hypertrophy.

It doesn't take an Einstein to realise that when athletes exert effort in their chosen sport, their main aim would be to get the maximum benefit that would correspond with that effort they're putting in. No one, (elite athletes or even non athletes) would want to get less for the effort they put in. Therefore, it makes no sense to me at all, for bodybuilders to pretend they are strength athletes, and for strength and power athletes to pretend they are bodybuilders. Let us not make the mistake of confusing what is straight forward, and let each athlete apply the appropriate method of training to get the maximum benefit (for their chosen sport and no one else's sport).
 
Plenty of weightlifters have legs that rival bodybuilders from lots of singles. Read my post again and apply some logic to it.
 
Plenty of weightlifters have legs that rival bodybuilders from lots of singles. Read my post again and apply some logic to it.
Wrong...., very wrong indeed. However if you want to believe it, then that's your prerogative.

Bodybuilders must be a sadist group then, who like nothing better than to inflict some serious punishment upon their bodies using higher reps than just a single one (rep) that would be sufficient to get the job done..., or perhaps they know damn well that it won't get the job done, hence they train differently than Olympic weightlifters, applying more repetitions in their sets. We should tell them that all they need to do is sets of high intensity singles! I don't think so. Perhaps I would have believed you had I myself not been a weightlifter.

Here are the legs of our own magnificent Lee Priest:

060212lee02[1].jpg

And here are the legs of one of the sport's biggest legs, belonging to Jacques Demers, a Canadian weightlifter from the 80s known amongst Olympic weightlifters for his huge legs.

0827devers7-v6[1].jpg

He was a 75kg lifter, whilst Lee is a 100kg muscle beast. Both are virtually the same height (my height at 5,4"), yet one weighs about 30kg more than the other. Personally, I've never met nor have I known a weightlifter my height weighing even close to 100kg. The most I ever weighed as a weightlifter was about 78kg, which meant I would have always had to lift as a middleweight weightlifter (75kg back then, or if I really pushed it, I may have gotten up to the light heavy weight at 82kg). I'm digressing, but the point here is simply this: there really is no comparison to be made between an Olympic weightlifter and a bodybuilder, period!

And the sooner some in (either sport) start to believe this solid fact, the less confused would be the average gym goer.
 
Last edited:
while i respect what both of you are saying, i think your both wrong to a certain degree... because you are skewed in "what you train"
 
haha, actually believing that study is worth shit
I actually Googled it to see who else mocked the shit out of it and it turns out that Jamie Lewis also thinks you're an idiot. To wit:

"Next, bodybuilders need to drop their belief in the 1-5 reps for strength, 6-12 for hypertrophy, and 12+ for endurance. It’s fucking preposterous.
Clinical evidence supports that, but the vast majority of those studies are conducted on machines, with detrained fuckers who’ve never lifted before.
Of COURSE they’re not going to get results from singles. They’re fucking weak, they’re on machines, and they generally suck.

Hypertrophy can be induced from singles, in my experience, from reducing rest periods to 60-90 seconds, maximum. 90-95% 1RM singles with those rest periods will induce hypertrophy because they recruit so many muscle fibers.

It’s almost like a rest-pause set, if you’re going by Weider principles.

I don’t have my notes in front of me, but a decent part of Science and Practice of Strength Training will corroborate this, as will just about every strength athlete on earth – it’s not as if Olmypic lifters are bereft of muscle. And they primarily stick to 1-3 reps per set."

It's not as if I am deliberately trolling this guy or playing Devil's advocate- it's fucking stupid, everyone knows it's stupid and everyone is laughing

in all my years of bodybuilding research, thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. whoever this dude is, he knows fuck all about how the body works. no way you get hypertrophy from 1-3 reps. what you do get is hitting different muscle fibers.

and 1-3 is a specific fiber
 
I think 0ni learnt the lesson. Remember this


XFTHjyW.jpg


:D
 
dang those quads are HUGE! not...

oni can for sure talk about building muscle, he's a beast!!!
 
Wrong...., very wrong indeed. However if you want to believe it, then that's your prerogative.

Bodybuilders must be a sadist group then, who like nothing better than to inflict some serious punishment upon their bodies using higher reps than just a single one (rep) that would be sufficient to get the job done..., or perhaps they know damn well that it won't get the job done, hence they train differently than Olympic weightlifters, applying more repetitions in their sets. We should tell them that all they need to do is sets of high intensity singles! I don't think so. Perhaps I would have believed you had I myself not been a weightlifter.

Here are the legs of our own magnificent Lee Priest:

View attachment 11733

And here are the legs of one of the sport's biggest legs, belonging to Jacques Demers, a Canadian weightlifter from the 80s known amongst Olympic weightlifters for his huge legs.

View attachment 11734

He was a 75kg lifter, whilst Lee is a 100kg muscle beast. Both are virtually the same height (my height at 5,4"), yet one weighs about 30kg more than the other. Personally, I've never met nor have I known a weightlifter my height weighing even close to 100kg. The most I ever weighed as a weightlifter was about 78kg, which meant I would have always had to lift as a middleweight weightlifter (75kg back then, or if I really pushed it, I may have gotten up to the light heavy weight at 82kg). I'm digressing, but the point here is simply this: there really is no comparison to be made between an Olympic weightlifter and a bodybuilder, period!

And the sooner some in (either sport) start to believe this solid fact, the less confused would be the average gym goer.

You're comparing a heavyweight bodybuilder with a middleweight weightlifer.
Compare people in the same class.
 
Top