I just reread a post you wrote about 3 years ago in response to a couple of questions I wrote in my previous life as Brass in the predecessor thread: http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...-gaining-muscle-and-losing-fat.224077/page-13 It's interesting to note that you initially went from a ~low volume 3x/week full body routine to a higher volume split, then to a different split and finally back to a fully body routine, however this time 4 times a week. Have you noticed any cumulative fatigue yet from the frequency? I ask because while some people seem to believe that they must increase volume over time to improve, others think that the more advanced you get, the more you can make inroads because of better intensity and, therefore, the lower the volume should be to ensure sufficient recovery. And so, I'm curious. As an aside, I note that Richard Winett, a lifelong fitness enthusiast who has conducted and reported on a number of meta-analyses on the subject of working out, had this to say after he reached a certain point: "The irony is that through all my training incarnations, I had about the same lean body mass. The only thing required to capitalize on my best assets was to just watch my diet a bit more." He is in his 60s if I'm not mistaken, and he's been at it since he was a teenager. I think he made this observation when he was in his mid-40s. So I imagine he has tried just about everything over the years. I suppose the upshot is that, as far as the workout is concerned, as long as it is of sufficient intensity and is not likely to result in overtraining (i.e., allowing for sufficient recovery), it's pretty much six of one and a half dozen of the other.
Looking good baron. Just to check, you are not taking any questionable supplements to get like this right?
i work out, and i don't look anything like that. Never could now matter how hard i tried. (probably didn't try all that hard enough lol) to look THAT, takes some serious work & discipline. and tad "good" genetics. baron, what possessed you to go to those lengths??? at your age, and marital status? to say, your not clubbing anymore right
Height: 5' 10" Weight: 182 Wrists: 7" Arms: 16" Chest: 42" Shoulders: 51" Waist: 31" Upper Legs: 24" Knee: 14.5" Calves: 15.5" Penis: Not sure. Tape measure ran out.
The most questionable supplement I take is Phosphatidic acid. Research from the University of Tampa on this can be found at http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/11/1/29 One person's "questionable" is another person's "whatever" so I will let you be the judge. Aside from that, I take an all-in-one product called Anabolic Halo, which combines a bunch of common supplements into one powdered product, which is extremely convenient. I drink this post workout with my first meal of the day. I take two scoops and you can see the breakdown on a two scoop serving can be found below:
I don't believe that age determines who you are or what you should be. What I believe is that no matter what your age is, you can improve yourself in some way. Sure, time catches up with everybody at some point, but from what I see in this world, most people throw in the towel and give up on themselves way too early. I view myself as a sculptor, and so I try to chisel away at myself from year-to-year to create a better version without any concern whatsoever about age. It's not about the final product. It's about the joy of the process. In regards to marriage, I don't view it as a ball and chain. My wife is hot and I love our relationship. She works out just like me so health and fitness is something that we have in common. I see a lot of shitty marriages out there though for sure. And in regards to not clubbing any more, hey... my wife and I still do that together on occasion. We always go to EDC when it comes Orlando, and even went to EDC las vegas two years ago. It's so much fun to just cut loose a couple times a year and go nuts with all the youngsters. What can I say. I love dubstep.
Thanks baron. The halo powder looks like only a fancy protein supplement - so that cant be the key. Do you think the phosphatidic helps much? The gym where i work out a couple of times a week- as a addition to my swimming regimen -has dozens of guys who are in a similar shape to you. And a few mr Olympia hopefuls. But they openly take steroids . So the fact that you are doing it naturally is fantastic.
Not sure yet. I've only been on it for a week but the research looked promising so I went for it. We'll see how it goes in the next month. Please tell me the Olympia hopeful guys are 70 - 90 lbs heavier than I am, because if they aren't, they can hang those dreams up!
While I was initially put off by the idea of a higher rep range, Carpinelli's Size Principle* notwithstanding, I just learned that there was some research conducted a few years ago suggesting that a higher rep range is better for building size than a lower rep range, provided that sets are taken to failure: http://www.cbass.com/LightWeights.htm The results of this study fly in the face of conventional wisdom (broscience) which calls for lower rep ranges for hypertrophy. I think a higher rep range is compelling for a few reasons, aside from its apparent efficacy. First, it increases exercise volume a bit to compensate for an otherwise low-volume workout. (Perhaps this point partly explains its value.) Second, a higher rep range is easier on the joints, all else being equal. And, finally, conventional wisdom (oh-oh) suggests that going to failure on a higher-rep set is less taxing on system resources than doing so on a lower-rep set. If true, then recovery would be better between workouts. Assuming that the test results are valid, reliable and accurate, it is a welcome bit of news. And so, whereas I long favored a range of 8 to 12 reps, it might be worth my while to at least consider 12 reps or so as the lower end of my range. (I'm not quite ready to accept a ~24-rep range just yet, as presented in the study.) * http://www.cbass.com/Carpinelli.htm