The weights vs cardio experiment

[DukeDickson]

Ordinary_Chap said:

HonestIago said:

DukeDickson said:

HonestIago said:

I agree they are very genetically gifted but AAS can be the difference between a 9.7 and a 10sec 100m. People are very naive about how widespread drugs are in sport. The testing is a joke and can easily be subverted, this is why I have zero interest in the forthcoming Olympics. I wish they would just forget testing the athletes and stop feeding the public a pack of lies. Dwayne Chambers is a case in point; he has been vilified as a "cheat" by the press yet the only difference is he got caught. I do not believe for a nanosecond that Usain Bolt is natural but that's just my opinion of course.

Sorry to drag thread off topic OP!

Why? Out of interest, any real evidence?

Of course it is your opinion, but the genetic roulette is often very much under-played, possibly in this sub-fora more than others. The real world gives us some very odd examples for some even odder reasons.

Obviously I have no evidence that Bolt or any athlete uses gear and of course genetics are hugely important but equally "great genetics" are a handy way of passing off unnatural size/speed/strength. There are $$$$$ spent every year developing new anabolic compounds that are undetectable/clear the system far quicker. Drugs are prevalent in pretty much every remotely lucrative sport requiring absolutes of physical ability.

Another prime example in sport is rugby at both top club and international level. Yes professionalisation has made the sport more competitive and there is a greater incentive for players to be bigger/stronger/faster, but does anyone really believe its all down to them just adding more weight training to the players' schedules?! Notice all the much leaner/athletic forwards these days still coming in at 110kg+ ...and the backs who weigh 90-100kg or more even and still run 100m in 11s. Stats like these are not uncommon at the top level and and I have no idea why the general public don't question the supposed "testing" process more. Welsh winger George North (google him) is a particularly good example; 20 years old and physically looks like a freak of nature with just a couple of years of weight training...if people want to believe that's not drug-assisted then fair play to them, but its naive in the extreme.

Obviously rugby is just one other example, but its one I'm more interested in so have paid a bit more attention. Athletics is equally bad for it I have no doubt.

I completely agree with this.

Drugs are extraordinarily common among top athletes.

Want an extra 20-30% to win the competition you strive for? Or how about funding the career you have by winning or being in the top 5 and thus getting lucrative sponsorship deals?

Hopefully my opposite viewpoint didn't sound too arsey (late, grumpy & beer, same again ). However, I still disagree.
I wouldn't say that George bloke is particularly unusual for a 6' 4'' bloke being paid to hit the gym for a couple of years (or more) and being appropriately guided, resting, eating the right food etc. I'd also cling to my point that he was given the luck of the draw yet if he was big but useless, he'd be nowhere.

We all get given the ability to do something, quite what it is would be a lottery question, even on a purely physical basis. Why would it be any different to the person who drinks, smokes etc yet lives to a ripe old age. Or, engages in serious abuse but doesn't lunch with worms and doesn't fall in the 20's?

[HonestIago]

DukeDickson said:

Ordinary_Chap said:

HonestIago said:

DukeDickson said:

HonestIago said:

I agree they are very genetically gifted but AAS can be the difference between a 9.7 and a 10sec 100m. People are very naive about how widespread drugs are in sport. The testing is a joke and can easily be subverted, this is why I have zero interest in the forthcoming Olympics. I wish they would just forget testing the athletes and stop feeding the public a pack of lies. Dwayne Chambers is a case in point; he has been vilified as a "cheat" by the press yet the only difference is he got caught. I do not believe for a nanosecond that Usain Bolt is natural but that's just my opinion of course.

Sorry to drag thread off topic OP!

Why? Out of interest, any real evidence?

Of course it is your opinion, but the genetic roulette is often very much under-played, possibly in this sub-fora more than others. The real world gives us some very odd examples for some even odder reasons.

Obviously I have no evidence that Bolt or any athlete uses gear and of course genetics are hugely important but equally "great genetics" are a handy way of passing off unnatural size/speed/strength. There are $$$$$ spent every year developing new anabolic compounds that are undetectable/clear the system far quicker. Drugs are prevalent in pretty much every remotely lucrative sport requiring absolutes of physical ability.

Another prime example in sport is rugby at both top club and international level. Yes professionalisation has made the sport more competitive and there is a greater incentive for players to be bigger/stronger/faster, but does anyone really believe its all down to them just adding more weight training to the players' schedules?! Notice all the much leaner/athletic forwards these days still coming in at 110kg+ ...and the backs who weigh 90-100kg or more even and still run 100m in 11s. Stats like these are not uncommon at the top level and and I have no idea why the general public don't question the supposed "testing" process more. Welsh winger George North (google him) is a particularly good example; 20 years old and physically looks like a freak of nature with just a couple of years of weight training...if people want to believe that's not drug-assisted then fair play to them, but its naive in the extreme.

Obviously rugby is just one other example, but its one I'm more interested in so have paid a bit more attention. Athletics is equally bad for it I have no doubt.

I completely agree with this.

Drugs are extraordinarily common among top athletes.

Want an extra 20-30% to win the competition you strive for? Or how about funding the career you have by winning or being in the top 5 and thus getting lucrative sponsorship deals?

Hopefully my opposite viewpoint didn't sound too arsey (late, grumpy & beer, same again ). However, I still disagree.
I wouldn't say that George bloke is particularly unusual for a 6' 4'' bloke being paid to hit the gym for a couple of years (or more) and being appropriately guided, resting, eating the right food etc. I'd also cling to my point that he was given the luck of the draw yet if he was big but useless, he'd be nowhere.

We all get given the ability to do something, quite what it is would be a lottery question, even on a purely physical basis. Why would it be any different to the person who drinks, smokes etc yet lives to a ripe old age. Or, engages in serious abuse but doesn't lunch with worms and doesn't fall in the 20's?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I'd stake almost anything on George North (and scores of other young players at top level) not being natural. They are very contentious but the supposed general rules of "natural potential" for bodybuilders would suggest that at 6'4" (193cm) it would be almost impossible for a natural to step on stage at anything more than 90-92kg or so. I know he is not a bodybuilder but its an interesting point of comparison.

Whilst George North is not stage-condition (6%) he is almost definitely not more than 10-12% bodyfat...and weighs 109kg according to wikipedia with a COUPLE OF YEARS training. Doesn't prove anything but food for thought all the same. Right apologies (again) for going off on a ridiculous tangent!

[Halb]

I've seen a few rugby teams close up (Leigh, Warrington amongst others). I would bet (and I don't bet) that they are on something. It's too much to lose for them not to be.

[pilchardthecat]

So I'm now at about week 10.

176lbs/80kg - up 7lbs in the last 6 weeks.... still in the same trousers but down a notch on the belt!

I've been doing deadlifts once a week and really enjoying them - up to 150kg for 3 or 4 reps, then doing 130kg for a couple of sets of 5 or 6. This has pretty much doubled in 6 weeks and my 1-rep-max is now 2xbodyweight

I've also started a 20-rep squat routine. I'm finding the compound exercises much more rewarding than the myriad machines for isolation etc.

Help! - my main problem is the squats - i can't seem to stop myself from either leaning forward or lifting my heels as i reach the bottom position. Leaning forward is bad as it hurts my lower back and lifting my heels is bad as it makes me unstable coming back up. This has prevented me from increasing the weight and i'm squatting well under half what i'm deadlifting now - 60kg for the 20 reps, barely

I'm properly addicted now!

[LordGrover]

Where do you place the bar, high or low? I'm guessing quite high... try lowering it a little and sink as though sitting. May be worth trying box squats to get a feel for how it should go.
Have you seen the Rippetoe vid?

[LordGrover]

You may be able to access/download it here: click.

NB - it's 300 MB so may take a while.

[pilchardthecat]

LordGrover said:

Where do you place the bar, high or low? I'm guessing quite high... try lowering it a little and sink as though sitting. May be worth trying box squats to get a feel for how it should go.
Have you seen the Rippetoe vid?

I get it as low/far back as i can without hurting my shoulders holding it. I'm thinking the problem is actually that my hamstrings are too tight/short? I can't even get the form right with an empty bar!

Will watch the vid later

[LordGrover]

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will be along shortly, but I'd expect issues with deads with short hams... deadlifts and stiff legged deads are the best exercise to stretch hamstrings IMO, and you seem to be doing really well with them.

[didelydoo]

Flexibility will most likely be the culprit for pulling you forward- tight glutes/hams/lowerback/hipflexors are generally the cause of most form problems.

Try staying upright and sink as low as you can squat with just the bar- sit between your legs, not on top of them (if that makes sense)- sit like that for 30 seconds the repeat a few times, going deeper each time. Should really be able to get down quite deep (well past parallel) and still keep the torso upright- if not something is too tight.

[Halb]

You need mobility.

article said:

• Lose ankle mobility, get knee pain.
• Lose hip mobility, get low back pain.

http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1618485

Drop that weight and see to your mobility and flexibility issues.

[HonestIago]

If you can't squat an empty bar to depth with correct form you have serious flexibility issues. Stretch your hams every day and practise pausing your squats at parallel then driving out the hole through your heels. Keep chest up and elbows down.

[pilchardthecat]

Part of my problem seems to have been resolved by not using the padded foam thingy that makes the bar more comfortable but also pushes it higher. Without the foam thing i had a much lower bar, and hence a straighter back. The only problem is that comfort is now the weight-limiting factor.

I definitely have stiff hamstrings/hip flexors though - it's been a while since i've tried this but straight-legged my finger tips are 6" short of the floor. Must be getting old .... there was a time i could put my palms flat

Several months of stretching ahead i reckon

[LordGrover]

That padding is the devil's work. Get used to the bar.

[pilchardthecat]

LordGrover said:

That padding is the devil's work. Get used to the bar.

I shall.... good advice, thanks. Despite the fact that the bar is uncomfortable, my lower back wasn't hurting half as much.... a bit of stretching and i'll nail it i reckon

[Halb]

pilchardthecat said:

I shall.... good advice, thanks. Despite the fact that the bar is uncomfortable, my lower back wasn't hurting half as much.... a bit of stretching and i'll nail it i reckon

Have you read the article I posted?

[pilchardthecat]

Halb said:

pilchardthecat said:

I shall.... good advice, thanks. Despite the fact that the bar is uncomfortable, my lower back wasn't hurting half as much.... a bit of stretching and i'll nail it i reckon

Have you read the article I posted?

Yes, very informative. I also watched a bunch of these http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/weight-training-...

I've done some overhead squats etc and concluded that I have severe ankle flexibility problems (calfs too short). Hence my determination to do various stretching exercises.

As the article suggests, hips are more complex but i think my hip problem (mobility+flexibility) is also a side effect if tight calfs/hamstrings - i can squat perfectly if i raise my heels 2" off the ground. If i keep my heels on the floor, i am forced to tip forward instead.

[Halb]

As the article said, heels can give you that stability, but won't correct the underlying issue.

Here are some mobility drills.
http://www.strengthcoach.com/public/1298.cfm


I myself have tight hams, but I can ATG squat as good as anyone with feet flat ion the floor.

[pilchardthecat]

Halb said:

As the article said, heels can give you that stability, but won't correct the underlying issue.

Here are some mobility drills.
http://www.strengthcoach.com/public/1298.cfm

I myself have tight hams, but I can ATG squat as good as anyone with feet flat ion the floor.

Yes, i merely mention the heel raise thing as it confirms a diagnosis of tight calfs (according to the article).

[Halb]

pilchardthecat said:

Yes, i merely mention the heel raise thing as it confirms a diagnosis of tight calfs (according to the article).

I have been doing calf raises and heel drops for months. Good for strengthening the ankle tendon as well.

[cat@10]

HonestIago said:

DukeDickson said:

Ordinary_Chap said:

HonestIago said:

DukeDickson said:

HonestIago said:

I agree they are very genetically gifted but AAS can be the difference between a 9.7 and a 10sec 100m. People are very naive about how widespread drugs are in sport. The testing is a joke and can easily be subverted, this is why I have zero interest in the forthcoming Olympics. I wish they would just forget testing the athletes and stop feeding the public a pack of lies. Dwayne Chambers is a case in point; he has been vilified as a "cheat" by the press yet the only difference is he got caught. I do not believe for a nanosecond that Usain Bolt is natural but that's just my opinion of course.

Sorry to drag thread off topic OP!

Why? Out of interest, any real evidence?

Of course it is your opinion, but the genetic roulette is often very much under-played, possibly in this sub-fora more than others. The real world gives us some very odd examples for some even odder reasons.

Obviously I have no evidence that Bolt or any athlete uses gear and of course genetics are hugely important but equally "great genetics" are a handy way of passing off unnatural size/speed/strength. There are $$$$$ spent every year developing new anabolic compounds that are undetectable/clear the system far quicker. Drugs are prevalent in pretty much every remotely lucrative sport requiring absolutes of physical ability.

Another prime example in sport is rugby at both top club and international level. Yes professionalisation has made the sport more competitive and there is a greater incentive for players to be bigger/stronger/faster, but does anyone really believe its all down to them just adding more weight training to the players' schedules?! Notice all the much leaner/athletic forwards these days still coming in at 110kg+ ...and the backs who weigh 90-100kg or more even and still run 100m in 11s. Stats like these are not uncommon at the top level and and I have no idea why the general public don't question the supposed "testing" process more. Welsh winger George North (google him) is a particularly good example; 20 years old and physically looks like a freak of nature with just a couple of years of weight training...if people want to believe that's not drug-assisted then fair play to them, but its naive in the extreme.

Obviously rugby is just one other example, but its one I'm more interested in so have paid a bit more attention. Athletics is equally bad for it I have no doubt.

I completely agree with this.

Drugs are extraordinarily common among top athletes.

Want an extra 20-30% to win the competition you strive for? Or how about funding the career you have by winning or being in the top 5 and thus getting lucrative sponsorship deals?

Hopefully my opposite viewpoint didn't sound too arsey (late, grumpy & beer, same again ). However, I still disagree.
I wouldn't say that George bloke is particularly unusual for a 6' 4'' bloke being paid to hit the gym for a couple of years (or more) and being appropriately guided, resting, eating the right food etc. I'd also cling to my point that he was given the luck of the draw yet if he was big but useless, he'd be nowhere.

We all get given the ability to do something, quite what it is would be a lottery question, even on a purely physical basis. Why would it be any different to the person who drinks, smokes etc yet lives to a ripe old age. Or, engages in serious abuse but doesn't lunch with worms and doesn't fall in the 20's?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I'd stake almost anything on George North (and scores of other young players at top level) not being natural. They are very contentious but the supposed general rules of "natural potential" for bodybuilders would suggest that at 6'4" (193cm) it would be almost impossible for a natural to step on stage at anything more than 90-92kg or so. I know he is not a bodybuilder but its an interesting point of comparison.

Whilst George North is not stage-condition (6%) he is almost definitely not more than 10-12% bodyfat...and weighs 109kg according to wikipedia with a COUPLE OF YEARS training. Doesn't prove anything but food for thought all the same. Right apologies (again) for going off on a ridiculous tangent!

Sorry to disappoint you but George North is 100% natural, he’s a very clean cut guy. First off, he was born big (some 13+lbs at birth). He was into rugby from a relatively early age playing at Boded high school and Llangefni RFC. Llangefni have a good youth set up and promote weight training quite early (my little brother is there now). To say he's only been weight training for a couple of years is not true, he’s been training in the gym for years. The last couple of years (where he's bulked up the most) he's been a pro player with expert coaches and nutritionists managing his conditioning, add that to his good genetics it’s no surprise he’s so big.
Gatland mentioned in an interview not long ago that George just has to look at some weights and he puts on a kilo. The Welsh management are now trying to limit his size (to maintain his speed). He’s just one of those lucky guys that gets big very easily.
Here’s a link about how pro rugby players are getting bigger:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/4531...
Combination of genetics and improved training. Easy enough if it’s in your blood and all you do all day.