Mark Dugdale 2012 Offseason Plan

[farrellzach]

You wrote paragraphs? All i see is sentences

I see you've moved on from my question. I'll assume that means you're done arguing.

And just to solidify my point, here's a few records for Natural powerlifting:

123lb weight class: 1,322lbs total
132lb weight class: 1,435lbs
148lb weight class: 1,466lbs

Now let's just average those 3 lifts for each class:

123lbs: 440lbs/lift
132lbs: 478lbs
148lbs: 488lbs

Last time I checked--in bodybuilding, 148lbs was pretty fucking small. I bet he reps a pretty have bench, squat, and dead without too much problem.

[Mountaindog1]

Only if you add in lots of drop sets on the leg extension on leg day. I hear thats way better than heavy squatting, Or heavy chain squatting

I have never done a set of chain squats in my life.....ok maybe a few...haha

JM

[lifepulse]

Why are people having such a hard time understanding this simple fact. Its pretty basic. Lift weights and you will grow stronger. Force the body to lift heavier and heavier to beat some stupid log book and you will get injured. Not rocket science

This^^^ we are bodybuilders not powerlifters.

This is great, unless you've actually spent any time in a gym setting and watched the VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE lifting weights. If you are naturally a bit self-driven and bodybuilding-oriented, then yes, chances are you will NATURALLY start to push yourself a little bit more, and as you just "lift weights", you will start to get stronger, leading you to "naturally" start increasing the load, and so on and so forth.

But take the "average" person that joins up at a gym. If they go in on Monday and curl, say, a 40lbs fixed barbell for 10 hard reps, and it's really hard by the end of the set; and they come back a week later and curl that 40lbs fixed barbell again, 10 reps is still going to be hard. If they continue this process for, say, 6 weeks straight, chances are the 40 will still be pretty hard, even though they might now do 11 or 12 reps. But they will NEVER be inclined to naturally pick up the 50lbs fixed bar.

If you watch most people in a commercial gym setting, this is how they train-- they never even ATTEMPT to progress their lifting load. So the best advice you can give them? "Train in a progressively heavier fashion, WITHIN a certain rep range (8-12), WITH a certain tempo (explosive contraction, slow and controlled negative), trying to increase the load whenever the reps get on the high end of that spectrum".

See, that's actual lifting SCIENCE, and it's a good guideline for how you are ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO TRAIN TO BUILD MUSCLE. Rather than, "if you lift, you'll get stronger". Well, um, that kinda' depends on HOW you lift, now doesn't it?

So on average, the "don't train progressively heavier" piece of advice (which is what bigrgc originally lead this debate with) is pretty terrible, when considered in context. That is advice you give to someone who already KNOWS the basics, the compounds, and has actually MADE SOME ATTEMPT at lifting progressively heavier. That advice comes DOWN THE LINE, once you know your body, how to manipulate intensity, etc.

-lifepulse

[lifepulse]

I see you've moved on from my question. I'll assume that means you're done arguing.

And just to solidify my point, here's a few records for Natural powerlifting:

123lb weight class: 1,322lbs total
132lb weight class: 1,435lbs
148lb weight class: 1,466lbs

Now let's just average those 3 lifts for each class:

123lbs: 440lbs/lift
132lbs: 478lbs
148lbs: 488lbs

Last time I checked--in bodybuilding, 148lbs was pretty fucking small. I bet he reps a pretty have bench, squat, and dead without too much problem.

Not to use anal retentive philosophy lingo, but you are confusing a "necessary cause" with a "sufficient cause" and reversing cause and effect. Nobody here is arguing that becoming strong, in and of itself, will make you big. What we ARE arguing is that intentionally trying to NOT get strong, will NOT get you big. If you just train progressively heavier with singles, you can get stronger without getting any bigger. There are multiple channels for strength increase, the main one of which (for powerlifters and other explosive athletes) is NEURAL ADAPTATION AND EFFICIENCY-- getting better are FIRING your muscles in concert (together), and training the TECHNIQUE of the lift. But once you train in a higher rep range (6-12), it is no longer primarily the NERVOUS system that breaks down upon failure, but the actual MUSCLE TISSUES. Hence our focus on rep range and tempo (time under tension), WITH increased weight (progressive overload), which is what ensures it is the MUSCLE FIBERS that are failing, NOT the joints, nervous system, etc. This is what Dorian promoted and, again, this is science. (Even here there will be exceptions to the rule-- people with freak-like genetics that can INTENTIONALLY train very light and still grow like a weed. Best example I can think of is Shawn Rhoden who, by all of his training videos and public statements, trains RETARDEDLY light for his size, yet still grows like a weed. But as has already been mentioned here, don't pick the one genetic anomaly as a good way to induce scientific generalizations-- it's the worst way possible to actually "learn" the "rules" of exercise science, if that makes sense.)

This entire debate, mind you, was sparked by bigrjc's inane comments as follows:

"Never heard of a bodybuilder making improvements as a direct result of lifting heavier, but I have heard of many injuring themselves as a direct result of lifting heavier. Strength is all relative anyways. In bodybuilding the main concern in the gym should be maximum stimulation of the muscle, not maximum poundages. Leave that to guys like yourself that are competitive powerlifters. The fact that an aging bodybuilder needed John Meadows program for him to realize this just goes to show that Mr.Dougdale has been skating by on drugs and genetics as an IFBB professional bodybuilder. So to anyone that says professional bodybuilding isn't all about drugs: Here is a perfect example for you".

Here, he EXPLICITLY SAYS that he "never head of a bodybuilding making improvements as a direct result of lifting heavier". Which, first of all, flies in the face of ALL of the evidence out there (Coleman, Branch, Dorian, and hundreds, if not thousands, of others). And second, he tries to to imply that training heavy is positively detrimental for muscle growth, and only those "skating by on drugs and genetics" are those who benefit from training heavy; REAL "progressive training", then, following this logic, has to be NOT training heavy.

He's right in that "heavy" is a relative term. But the key term we're aiming at here is PROGRESSION-- what DOES make for progression, and what does NOT make for progression. Keeping all other variables equal (form, tempo, rep range, range of motion, etc.), if you up the weight, with the rest in place, you WILL grow. You HAVE to. That's just how the body works, brother man. Bigrjc was the one who retarded-up this entire thread, thus requiring people who have ACTUALLY TRAINED NUMEROUS PEOPLE FOR CONTESTS, natty and otherwise, to come in and argue his point.

Everybody here believes in progression. Some of just know how it actually works, as evidenced by both our own and our clients' contest pics. Some of us, by contrast, are just throwing around a lot of verbal diarrhea.

-lifepulse

[Mountaindog1]

David - I clicked on your link. Very nice website!

JM

[lifepulse]

David - I clicked on your link. Very nice website!

JM

Thanks, John! Ironically enough, I was planning on contacting you soon (within the next month) to inquire about possibly hiring you, so thanks for the easy in! Enjoy your holidays, I'll be in touch.

-lifepulse

[BigPatt]

Not to use anal retentive philosophy lingo, but you are confusing a "necessary cause" with a "sufficient cause" and reversing cause and effect. Nobody here is arguing that becoming strong, in and of itself, will make you big. What we ARE arguing is that intentionally trying to NOT get strong, will NOT get you big. If you just train progressively heavier with singles, you can get stronger without getting any bigger. There are multiple channels for strength increase, the main one of which (for powerlifters and other explosive athletes) is NEURAL ADAPTATION AND EFFICIENCY-- getting better are FIRING your muscles in concert (together), and training the TECHNIQUE of the lift. But once you train in a higher rep range (6-12), it is no longer primarily the NERVOUS system that breaks down upon failure, but the actual MUSCLE TISSUES. Hence our focus on rep range and tempo (time under tension), WITH increased weight (progressive overload), which is what ensures it is the MUSCLE FIBERS that are failing, NOT the joints, nervous system, etc. This is what Dorian promoted and, again, this is science. (Even here there will be exceptions to the rule-- people with freak-like genetics that can INTENTIONALLY train very light and still grow like a weed. Best example I can think of is Shawn Rhoden who, by all of his training videos and public statements, trains RETARDEDLY light for his size, yet still grows like a weed. But as has already been mentioned here, don't pick the one genetic anomaly as a good way to induce scientific generalizations-- it's the worst way possible to actually "learn" the "rules" of exercise science, if that makes sense.)

This entire debate, mind you, was sparked by bigrjc's inane comments as follows:

"Never heard of a bodybuilder making improvements as a direct result of lifting heavier, but I have heard of many injuring themselves as a direct result of lifting heavier. Strength is all relative anyways. In bodybuilding the main concern in the gym should be maximum stimulation of the muscle, not maximum poundages. Leave that to guys like yourself that are competitive powerlifters. The fact that an aging bodybuilder needed John Meadows program for him to realize this just goes to show that Mr.Dougdale has been skating by on drugs and genetics as an IFBB professional bodybuilder. So to anyone that says professional bodybuilding isn't all about drugs: Here is a perfect example for you".

Here, he EXPLICITLY SAYS that he "never head of a bodybuilding making improvements as a direct result of lifting heavier". Which, first of all, flies in the face of ALL of the evidence out there (Coleman, Branch, Dorian, and hundreds, if not thousands, of others). And second, he tries to to imply that training heavy is positively detrimental for muscle growth, and only those "skating by on drugs and genetics" are those who benefit from training heavy; REAL "progressive training", then, following this logic, has to be NOT training heavy.

He's right in that "heavy" is a relative term. But the key term we're aiming at here is PROGRESSION-- what DOES make for progression, and what does NOT make for progression. Keeping all other variables equal (form, tempo, rep range, range of motion, etc.), if you up the weight, with the rest in place, you WILL grow. You HAVE to. That's just how the body works, brother man. Bigrjc was the one who retarded-up this entire thread, thus requiring people who have ACTUALLY TRAINED NUMEROUS PEOPLE FOR CONTESTS, natty and otherwise, to come in and argue his point.

Everybody here believes in progression. Some of just know how it actually works, as evidenced by both our own and our clients' contest pics. Some of us, by contrast, are just throwing around a lot of verbal diarrhea.

-lifepulse

Could not have said it better!

[lilarnold]

YEP, IM WITH DAVE ON THIS ONE TOO

Farrellzach and d-nutz.....keep on keepin on kiddos...Everybody with an appreciable amount of size knows what it takes to get it...... maybe someday you guys will learn...untill then keep pumpin

[farrellzach]

YEP, IM WITH DAVE ON THIS ONE TOO

Farrellzach and d-nutz.....keep on keepin on kiddos...Everybody with an appreciable amount of size knows what it takes to get it...... maybe someday you guys will learn...untill then keep pumpin

Nevermind. Won't bother with you anymore, "Little Arnold." Keep staying little, my man.

[lilarnold]

Nevermind. Won't bother with you anymore, "Little Arnold." Keep staying little, my man.

Far from little kiddo..... You keep being stubborn and lazy and in 5 years we will compare notes.

[lifepulse]

Nevermind. Won't bother with you anymore, "Little Arnold." Keep staying little, my man.

Lol, get past the name-calling crap, your posts are smarter than that, and address the last thing I wrote above.

-lifepulse

[farrellzach]

Not to use anal retentive philosophy lingo, but you are confusing a "necessary cause" with a "sufficient cause" and reversing cause and effect. Nobody here is arguing that becoming strong, in and of itself, will make you big. What we ARE arguing is that intentionally trying to NOT get strong, will NOT get you big.--Now I never said that. I never said the goal was to not get stronger. But going into your workout saying "Gotta be last weeks workout." Is not necessarily the best mindset to have. If you just train progressively heavier with singles, you can get stronger without getting any bigger. There are multiple channels for strength increase, the main one of which (for powerlifters and other explosive athletes) is NEURAL ADAPTATION AND EFFICIENCY-- getting better are FIRING your muscles in concert (together), and training the TECHNIQUE of the lift. But once you train in a higher rep range (6-12), it is no longer primarily the NERVOUS system that breaks down upon failure, but the actual MUSCLE TISSUES.--If someone can pull 600 for 1, can you assume they rep 405? I would think so. Same goes for all other lifts. Hence our focus on rep range and tempo (time under tension), WITH increased weight (progressive overload), which is what ensures it is the MUSCLE FIBERS that are failing, NOT the joints, nervous system, etc. This is what Dorian promoted and, again, this is science. (Even here there will be exceptions to the rule-- people with freak-like genetics that can INTENTIONALLY train very light and still grow like a weed. Best example I can think of is Shawn Rhoden who, by all of his training videos and public statements, trains RETARDEDLY light for his size, yet still grows like a weed. But as has already been mentioned here, don't pick the one genetic anomaly as a good way to induce scientific generalizations-- it's the worst way possible to actually "learn" the "rules" of exercise science, if that makes sense.) I agree with you. Like I've said before, I never said you HAVE to train "light" in order to grow. Training lighter, focusing on the range of motion, focusing on the contraction is what matters for us. If I got into every workout with the beating the logbook mentality, I will absolutely get stronger, but my muscles may not be growing in the most effective manner.

This entire debate, mind you, was sparked by bigrjc's inane comments as follows:

"Never heard of a bodybuilder making improvements as a direct result of lifting heavier, but I have heard of many injuring themselves as a direct result of lifting heavier. Strength is all relative anyways. In bodybuilding the main concern in the gym should be maximum stimulation of the muscle, not maximum poundages. Leave that to guys like yourself that are competitive powerlifters. The fact that an aging bodybuilder needed John Meadows program for him to realize this just goes to show that Mr.Dougdale has been skating by on drugs and genetics as an IFBB professional bodybuilder. So to anyone that says professional bodybuilding isn't all about drugs: Here is a perfect example for you".

Here, he EXPLICITLY SAYS that he "never head of a bodybuilding making improvements as a direct result of lifting heavier". Which, first of all, flies in the face of ALL of the evidence out there (Coleman, Branch, Dorian, and hundreds, if not thousands, of others). And second, he tries to to imply that training heavy is positively detrimental for muscle growth, and only those "skating by on drugs and genetics" are those who benefit from training heavy; REAL "progressive training", then, following this logic, has to be NOT training heavy. I have no arguments here with this. Pushing yourself and focusing on strength gains in order to progress in size are two different things.

He's right in that "heavy" is a relative term. But the key term we're aiming at here is PROGRESSION-- what DOES make for progression, and what does NOT make for progression. Keeping all other variables equal (form, tempo, rep range, range of motion, etc.), if you up the weight, with the rest in place, you WILL grow. You HAVE to. That's just how the body works, brother man. Bigrjc was the one who retarded-up this entire thread, thus requiring people who have ACTUALLY TRAINED NUMEROUS PEOPLE FOR CONTESTS, natty and otherwise, to come in and argue his point.

Everybody here believes in progression. Some of just know how it actually works, as evidenced by both our own and our clients' contest pics. Some of us, by contrast, are just throwing around a lot of verbal diarrhea.

Again, I feel we're essentially on the same page. At least you and I (maybe not LilArnold) seem to be. I have never argued against progressing (that's just a requirement of time in the gym and eating), weights get lighter over time from using them, even if you aren't getting huge gains.

The only thing I'm disagreeing with (which seems you aren't really advocating either) is focusing solely on strength gains to base your muscular gains off of. There's no need to do that. Some dudes love pushing huge weights, some guys don't. Some guys joints hold up under insane weights, some guys don't.

Progress=gains. Period.

-lifepulse

In red, my dude. Glad we could go back and forth cordially.

[D-NUTZ]

Its....its beautiful.

[lilarnold]

You can contract, squeeze and drop set all you want.

If this time next year your using the same amount of weight on key exercises, you'll be the same size. That's MY point. This is from anecdotal evidence of myself and hundreds of clients over the last several years.

If you PROGRESS IN STENGTH, in rep ranges that promote hyper trophy, and combine that with ball busting intensity taking you to failure and beyond.....coupled with strategic periodization, you will get as big as fast as your particular genetics will allow.

All this other stuff is fluff. Will it work? Possibly but your taking the scenic route IMO and I prefer to get from point a to point b in the shortest amount of time

[bigrgc]

I got a show coming up in April. After my show I will post pics of my "small" physique from high volume training to shut you idiots up about that powerlifting crap. Leave that to the powerlifters

[bigrgc]

The body will push heavier weights when it is ready and able to do so. No need to force it. Thats all I'm saying. The body is like a car. Yes a car is capable of going faster at 5,000 rpm than it is at 2,000rpm, but it will also break much faster too. And just like our bodies, some cars are meant to be pushed harder. Others are not. Treat your body like a car. If you own a drag racer then take it to the drag races (Ronnie Coleman genetics) If your car is your regular daily driver (average genetics) then you must preserve it

[Hardly Krishna]

I got a show coming up in April. After my show I will post pics of my "small" physique from high volume training to shut you idiots up about that powerlifting crap. Leave that to the powerlifters

You're proud of being weak?? what a weird.